Bruno of Cologne

ON ST. BRUNO OF COLOGNE, ARCHBISHOP,

IN THE YEAR 965.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Bruno, archbishop of Cologne. (S.)

BHL Number: 1469

BY C. B.

§ I. The cult of the Saint at Cologne, and especially at Tournai; his memory in the sacred Fasti; the Life, written by a contemporary author, and to be edited here.

Those whom the Church has not yet inscribed in the canon of the Blessed or the Saints [The Saint who, although not yet inscribed by the Church in the canon of the Blessed or the Saints,] we are not accustomed to bring into our Work, even if they have sometimes been inserted as Saints or Blessed in the more recent sacred Fasti, unless perhaps they are known to have obtained somewhere the honours proper to the Saints, and to have enjoyed them without interruption, from a time immemorial, or exceeding the limit of a hundred years, before the year 1634, in which Urban VIII, supreme Pontiff, forbade that venerable Servants of God of this kind, not already continuously honoured with ecclesiastical cult for an equal space of time before, should thereafter be so honoured. Wherefore, lest perhaps it presently to someone, when here concerning Bruno, hitherto not inscribed by the Church in the canon of the Blessed or the Saints,

and not even brought into the present Roman Martyrology, we undertake to treat, we should seem to depart from that custom, rightly usual with us, it will be helpful, immediately here at the beginning of this Commentary, to have proved that that Prelate of Cologne, illustrious for sanctity as well as for the splendour of his birth, who is also sometimes called Brunus, enjoyed somewhere ecclesiastical cult already from a time more than a hundred years before the said year 1634, and that uninterrupted up to the same year.

[2] But in what manner shall we accomplish this? Although indeed inscription in the sacred Fasti of the Saints usually distinguished by the name of classic, [yet at Tournai with an ecclesiastical Office from a time immemorial before the year 1634, as is proved,] and composed by their authors before the 10th century, is usually held for ecclesiastical cult, everyone sees that recourse certainly cannot be had to this in order to prove that Bruno — snatched from the living only in the year 965, as I shall show below, and therefore not inscribed in sacred Fasti so ancient — obtained the honours proper to the Saints already from a time immemorial before the year 1634. But two ancient Missals of the church of Tournai extant in our possession opportunely come to our aid here, of which one is noted as printed in the year 1498 and the other in the year 1509; for in these a Mass of St. Bruno, bishop and confessor, is prescribed at the 18th day of July; and that it treats of no other Bruno than ours is clearly shown by the ancient Breviary of the same church, which likewise exists in our possession and was printed, as is marked at the end, in the year 1508. For it proposes the ecclesiastical Office, to be recited at the 18th day of July, which comprises nine Lessons presenting in compendium the Life of St. Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, to be subjoined to this Commentary; so that Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, who, as follows from this, enjoyed ecclesiastical cult at Tournai already from the 15th century, and therefore from more than a hundred years, or from a time immemorial before the year 1634, is certainly no other than our Bruno; and that he was honoured there with this honour already from the 13th century is suggested by the Auctarium of Usuard, which exists at the 18th day of July in Sollerius, and which then mentions Bruno, bishop and confessor, drawn from the Usuardine codex of the church of Tournai.

[3] [and indeed, as is likewise proved, without interruption, he was honoured on the 18th day of July,] For the Saint who, as I have just shown, enjoyed ecclesiastical cult at Tournai from a very long time at the 18th day of July, and yet did not die on this day, but, as we shall see below, on the 11th of October, was without doubt marked at the said 18th day of July in the codex just mentioned for no other reason than that at the time when it was written there he was accustomed to be venerated at Tournai, or in the church of Tournai, on this day too, assumed, namely, at will; and since that codex, as the praised Sollerius teaches in his preliminary Preface to Usuard, number 215, was probably written between the years 1219 and 1252, it follows that St. Bruno probably obtained at Tournai the honours customarily paid to the Saints from a time midway between these two years, and therefore already at least, if not even somewhat earlier, from the thirteenth century. Further, that the Saint's cult there, which held for so long a space of time before the year 1634, was also not interrupted up to the same year may be gathered from two editions of the proper Offices of the diocese of Tournai extant in our possession, of which one came out in the year 1591 and the other in the year 1712; for in both an ecclesiastical Office of St. Bruno of nine Lessons, of which the three middle ones present a certain Compendium of his Life, is prescribed to be recited at the 18th day of July.

[4] with the cult proper to the Saints, at Cologne also. Wherefore, since he enjoyed at Tournai the ecclesiastical cult which he obtained there, as I have shown above, from a time immemorial before the year 1634, without interruption also, as is drawn out from what has just been said, up to the same year, nothing at all ought to prevent us from granting a place in our Work to him who is without doubt venerated there even today; but why we do this only today, although from what has been said he is venerated at Tournai on the 18th day of July, I shall set out below, when I have first spoken of the sacred Fasti in which he stands inserted, and at the same time of the cult which he also enjoys at Cologne. That the Saint is honoured there, although not with an ecclesiastical Office as at Tournai, yet with a true cult such as is accustomed to be shown to the Saints, appears beyond doubt. Gelenius indeed seems to indicate the contrary in the sacred and pious Fasti of Cologne, as Col. 069A marking Bruno today thus: At Cologne, in the basilica of St. Pantaleon, of blessed Bruno I, archbishop, whom the church of Tournai venerates with an Office of nine Lessons, but on account of reverence for the Holy Roman See, which has not yet judged him among the Saints, the church of Cologne itself does not yet honour him; but that Gelenius, if, as it appears, he would perhaps wish it to be so also in fact — that Bruno is honoured at Cologne with no kind at all of cult proper to the Saints or customarily paid to them — is not to be assented to in this matter is suggested by what Ghinius and Molanus, or, if perhaps (see here what was already said above at St. Nuntius, numbers 1 and 2) someone should prefer, Pieter Louwius, write, the latter indeed in the Natales of the Saints of Belgium, the former in those of the Canons.

[5] For every year at Cologne, on the recurring 11th day of October, as the things adduced here show, he enjoys on this 11th day of October on which, from what is to be said, St. Bruno died, in the church of St. Pantaleon, where our Saint, from what is to be said, was laid, the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass of the eternal Wisdom is celebrated in his honour — so both those hagiologists expressly relate in their sacred Fasti just praised, and especially Louwius, who affirms that the thing is done with all the colleges of the canons of Cologne also coming together to the solemnity; nor is there any reason why indubitable credence should not be given them in this matter; and since the celebration of a Mass of this kind, as Benedict XIV teaches in On the Beatification of the Servants of God and the Canonization of the Blessed, book 2, chapter 9, number 4, on the anniversary day of the death of Servants of God, is reckoned among the acts of public cult forbidden to be shown to Servants of God not yet beatified or canonized, and therefore proper to the Saints or Blessed, there is surely reason why we should judge that St. Bruno enjoys at Cologne also an ecclesiastical cult of whatever kind proper to the Saints or the Blessed, and that (for its beginning is nowhere found) from a time immemorial before the year 1634; and therefore that Gelenius, who, as has already been said, seems to indicate the contrary, is not to be assented to, on account of what, as I have said, Ghinius and Molanus, or rather Pieter Louwius, write. Meanwhile Castellanus, as also the author of the Usuardine Auctarium which, taken from the Brussels codex, exists today in Sollerius, seem not to have thought so, or at least not to have held Bruno for a Saint or blessed; for the former, who marks Bruno today in his Universal Martyrology at Reims, because he died there, as we shall see below, on the 11th day of October, calls him only Venerable, while the latter does not even attribute this title to him.

[6] But Greven, with whom Canisius in the German Martyrology agrees exactly, [and is acknowledged as a Saint by most of the hagiologists by whom he is then celebrated;] announces Bruno today in these following words: Likewise of Bruno of holy memory, archbishop of Agrippina Colonia and confessor, brother german of Otto the first emperor; and thus Bruno, although he is honoured with the title neither of Saint nor of Blessed, is nevertheless clearly held as a Saint by that martyrologist, as will become plain to one who considers; and this very thing is to be judged to be done not only by Ghinius and Louwius, just praised, who, from what has been said, insinuate by what they write that Bruno is venerated at Cologne too, but also by Gelenius, likewise just praised, nay, by Molanus himself; for although the latter, in his edition of Usuard which he published in the year 1568, nowhere distinguishes Bruno with the title of Saint or Blessed, nor insinuates that he is venerated either at Tournai or at Cologne, yet in the other later edition of that ancient, or, as they say, Classic martyrologist, which came out in the year 1573, he distinguishes him with the appellation of Blessed, and at the same time, in the Annotations appended to the announcement by which he does this, teaches plainly that he enjoys ecclesiastical cult at Cologne as well as at Tournai. And as for Gelenius, although he seems, from what has been said above, to indicate that Bruno is not venerated at Cologne, he nevertheless expressly says, in the words transcribed here at number 4, that that honour is paid at Tournai, and indeed with an Office of nine Lessons, to him whom he also adorns with the title of Blessed; so that truly both he and Molanus, as well as Greven and Canisius, and Louwius likewise and Ghinius — to whom also Miraeus, Ferrarius, and the author of our manuscript Florarium are to be joined — acknowledge Bruno with unanimous consent as a Saint and Blessed.

[7] but although he is put off to the 20th day of October by our Florarium, But the last of these does so not on the 11th, as the others, but on the 20th day of October: so namely the announcement which he employs, and which he received, as I think, from elsewhere, seemed to him to require, conceived in these words: At Agrippina Colonia, in the convent of St. Pantaleon, martyr, the deposition of blessed Bruno, archbishop of Cologne; for since he most probably believed that St. Bruno — who, as his Acts, to be subjoined to this Commentary, teach at number 69, died at Reims on the 11th day of October and was brought to Agrippina Colonia on the eighth day thence after — was laid, or committed to the earth, there in the convent of St. Pantaleon not on the 11th but on the 20th day of the same month, he brought himself to think that the announcement just given, because he judged that this was indicated by it, was to be referred not to the 11th but to the 20th day of October; but since those Acts expressly note at number 73 that Bruno was laid in the church of St. Pantaleon on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of November, or the 19th day of October, they included within the eight days of October, the last of which, or the eighth from his death, they relate at number 69 the Saint was brought to Cologne, the very day of his death, or the 11th of October. Besides, since, even if it were otherwise, the word Depositio, as may be seen in Du Cange's Glossary and in our Work at the 29th day of June in the Commentary on SS. Peter and Paul, number 46, is taken to signify both the day on which someone died, or laid down his life, and the day on which he was committed to the earth, there was surely no reason why he should refer the said announcement, because the deposition of St. Bruno is recorded in it, not to the 11th but to the 20th day of October.

[8] yet today he is given here by us. He has obtained Ruotger as biographer; However that may be, all the other hagiologists adduced here, if one alone of the

anonymous author of the Tournai Auctarium to Usuard, celebrate Bruno today; and since this our holy Prelate of Cologne is also today honoured with the cult proper to the Saints by the church of Cologne, as I have already shown, and exchanged this mortal life for immortal, as we shall see afterwards, it has seemed good to me — him whom, moreover, our predecessors sent on from the 18th day of July, on which he is mentioned in the Additions of the Charterhouse of Brussels to Greven, and then again from the 6th of October, on which he is announced by Ferrarius, to the present day, on which he is repeated by the same Ferrarius — not to put him off to the 20th of this month with our Florarium, but, even to redeem the pledge given by them, to bring him into our Work on this day, on which Surius also presents his Life. This, as the Prologue which it bears makes credible, Rotger, or Roger, or also (for this name is written variously by various people) Rutger wrote, and indeed, as will become plain from what is to be said below, not long after the death of St. Bruno, nay, perhaps when four years had not yet elapsed after it. But who was this biographer of our Saint?

[9] Trithemius, who flourished about the beginning of the sixteenth century, [He, who by some is called a monk of St. Pantaleon, and of Corvey by Schaten, perhaps with them] having said some things beforehand of St. Bruno in the chronicle of Hirsau at the year 953, writes thus: He presided over the church of Cologne vigorously and usefully for twelve years, whose Life and deeds Rutger, a monk of St. Pantaleon, described; and although that writer alleges neither an ancient writer nor a monument from which he drew the monkhood of Rotger in the convent of St. Pantaleon at Cologne which he here builds up, yet Miraeus today in the Belgian Fasti and the writers of the Literary History of France, volume VI, page 307, assent to him, nor would I dare to assert that they certainly strayed from the truth in doing so. Schaten indeed, in the Annals of Paderborn published in the year 1693, calls Rotger, who wrote the Life of Bruno, a monk of Corvey; but he likewise brings forward for himself neither an ancient writer nor a monument, nor do I know whether he cannot be brought into agreement with the writers just praised who, following Trithemius, make Rotger a monk of St. Pantaleon. For what if Rotger was at once a monk of New Corvey and of St. Pantaleon? In what manner this could have come about I set out. St. Bruno, as Rotger teaches in his Life, number 42, built the monastery of St. Pantaleon at Cologne and granted it to monks who should religiously serve the Lord there; and Mabillon, in the Benedictine Annals, book 45, number 96, declares that it would seem more likely to him that these were brought from there, if what the Annals of New Corvey teach — that Bruno had been a monk in that place — were true.

[10] But although indeed Bruno probably did not profess as a monk of New Corvey, by bringing into agreement, he is called a monk, yet perhaps he was not a monk, as I shall show below, the truth of the Annals of this monastery remaining intact, yet, from the quite singular affection which the things narrated in the same Annals of Corvey at the year 942 and some following plainly prove the Saint had towards it, it can not without reason appear not unlike the truth that regular discipline then flourished most greatly in that sacred house, and that the first monks of St. Pantaleon were summoned from it; and since it is so, it would also in fact appear to me not unlike the truth that Rotger, as he could, so also in fact was of their number, and therefore was at once a monk of New Corvey and of St. Pantaleon, as having professed the monastic life first in the former and then in the latter of those two monasteries — if only it could be solidly proved that he was a monk at all. But I find nothing at all by which the monkhood of Rotger can be rendered certain even in any way. Surius indeed calls this biographer of our Saint a Benedictine; but he supplies nothing at all in the whole Life of St. Bruno which, as I have said, he wrote, from which it may be understood that he was either a monk or a Benedictine. Nor does anything of this kind occur either in Sigebert or in Giles, monk of Orval, who are older than all the writers who have spoken of Rotger; for the former supplies only these following words bearing on this, Rotger wrote the Life of Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, who was duke and brother of the emperor Otto, in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 130; nor does he teach us more either here or in the chronicle at the year 953, where he speaks again of Rotger, nor does Giles in chapter 34 of the deeds of the bishops of Liège, in which he begins to speak of Rotger.

[11] he was a contemporary of Bruno, or at least, as here But Rotger, whether or not he was a monk, was indeed either wholly or at least nearly contemporary with Bruno, nay, even to a certain extent familiar with him. Both will become plain from what is now to be said. Rotger begins his composition thus: To the lord most blessed in the grace of Christ and most perfect in every splendour of wisdom, Archbishop Folemar, Rotger, the least of his servants, the everlasting glory of true brightness. The reverence of your sanctity has laid upon my head a heavy burden indeed, but, for the capacity of my littleness, sweet and pleasant, namely that I should describe, with what faculty of speech I could, the Life of the wonderful and magnificent archbishop Bruno. At the bidding, therefore, of Folemar — or, as it is written by others, Folcmar or also Volmar — archbishop of Cologne, Rotger committed the Life of St. Bruno to writing, as he himself teaches in these words; wherefore it is necessary that he did so when four years had not yet elapsed after the death of our Saint, if Folcmar, who, as all agree, immediately succeeded St. Bruno in the see of Cologne, departed from the living, as they would have it, after four years passed in the episcopate. But since it is not certain on every side that Folcmar sat for no longer a space of time, it will be helpful to have proved otherwise as well that Rotger comprised the Life of St. Bruno in writing not long after his death. He writes thus of our Saint at number 8: At that time the noble offspring of kings, being about four years old, to be imbued with the liberal studies of letters, was sent to Utrecht to the venerable bishop Baldric, who still survives.

[12] as the things adduced prove, nearly contemporary, Baldric, bishop of Traiectum, mentioned here, was still surviving in life, as these words declare, while Rotger was writing the Life of our Saint, and when the latter had therefore already died; and since Baldric, bishop of Traiectum on the Meuse, or of Liège, departed from the living long before the death of St. Bruno, or, from what is to be said, the year 965, as may be seen in the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, volume 3, column 843, it follows that not he, but Baldric, bishop of Traiectum on the Rhine, or of Utrecht — who, as Johannes de Beka teaches, almost all the other writers who speak of the matter agreeing with him, in the Chronicles inserted in the History of Utrecht published in the year 1643, page 34, migrated to those above in the year 977 after a very long government of that church of more than fifty years — is designated by Rotger in the text just transcribed here; and that therefore the Life of our Saint, as one which he put into writing before the death of that prelate of Utrecht, as everyone will conclude from what has been said, was written before the year 978, and so within the space of about twelve years which intervened between the death of Bruno himself and that of Baldric, the bishop of Utrecht just mentioned. The matter appears wholly certain; and hence it follows, first, since the biographer of our Saint does not seem to have reached even the beginning of the eleventh century, that without doubt both Surius, who says he flourished in the year 1040, and Vossius, who in his Work On the Latin Historians obtrudes him as not different from Rotger, abbot of the monastery of the Holy Cross or of St. Leutfred in Normandy, who was taken from the living easily a whole century after St. Bruno, stray from the truth; and then, that Rotger, his biographer, was contemporary with Bruno.

[13] Now it is to be shown that he was likewise familiar with him. nay, even familiar. Hence he deserves entire credence, and his composition here To accomplish this, it will suffice to have presented how he speaks of our holy Prelate of Cologne at numbers 8 and 44. In the former of these two places he has thus: Then, when he had received the first rudiments of the art of Grammar, as we have learned from him often ruminating on this to the glory of almighty God, he began, his master teaching, to read the poet Prudentius; but in the latter he uses these following words: Young as he was, and surrounded with every pomp, I dare to say, he would wish to be dissolved, only that he might be with Christ. Hence assiduous tears, almost continuous sighs, stolen prayers and sobs, sounding more clearly even in his very bed, as those testify from whom he could less conceal this, even while he wished to be hidden. How often did he set the day of death before the sight of his heart? How often did he burst out to this also with the office of the voice, which he had pondered in his heart? How often have we heard him with vehement groaning prefer that which he hoped would come to pass, yet not without grave trepidation, that, safe in the sole mercy of God, he might have escaped the stormy shipwreck of this world, and might have stood at length on the shore of inmost security? Let the studious reader now diligently weigh these two texts of Rotger, and I do not doubt that he will acknowledge that the latter was not only either contemporary or nearly contemporary with Bruno, but also familiar with him, and that therefore what he writes of him is to be made of no small account. These things indeed he seldom fortifies with chronological notes, nor sets out so lucidly as Sigebert, in the Chronicle at the year cited above, would have it, nor in a style which can deservedly be judged elegant everywhere; but since he indicates also in more than one place that the things which he commits to writing and did not himself either see or hear he received from others by whom they had been either seen or heard, nor is he to be believed on any head to have wished to deceive, there is indeed reason why, these and the other things which I have discussed above concerning the age in which he flourished and the familiarity with which he adhered to Bruno being considered, his composition should be judged to deserve entire credence; and it is therefore to be edited here.

[14] But in what manner shall we accomplish this? That composition, or the Life of our Saint, not indeed from the Surian, which a lengthy narration by Rotger has already twice been published by the benefit of printing, first indeed by Surius, in whom, as I hinted above, it exists today, and then by Leibniz, by whom it is presented among the Writers serving for the illustration of the Affairs of Brunswick, volume 1, from page 273. He drew it from a manuscript codex of the august Library of Wolfenbüttel — whence it was received by Surius I find noted neither by him nor by anyone else — and followed this faithfully, preserving even the style in which it presents the matters expressed, and employing no other change of any kind. Further, of these editions the one sometimes differs from the other. The difference indeed, which

intervenes between them, is for the most part not of great moment; but it is very worthy of note that they disagree with each other when they speak of the relics of SS. Evergislus and Patroclus, either drawn or brought to Agrippina Colonia by Bruno. For in the Leibnizian it is indicated only in a few words that they were carried to this city by the Saint, or at least at his care; but in the Surian it is explained, in a very lengthy narration which occupies chapter XXVII and the three following, how the thing was done and what circumstances accompanied it; but Leibniz rightly contends, in the Annotations subjoined to it, that this did not proceed from Rotger, but is a work separate from the Life of our Saint.

[15] not proceeding from Rotger, has woven into it, For it does not cohere aptly enough with the rest of the narration, as will become plain to one weighing this and that in Surius; while on the contrary the things which are read in the Leibnizian edition, that lengthy narration being omitted, cohere most aptly with one another. Surius, at the 24th day of this month, sacred to St. Evergislus, records the life of this bishop of Cologne from manuscript codices, and then subjoins at its end: At this place there follows in the manuscript codices the account of the translation of his sacred body; but the reader will find it above in the Life of St. Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, chapter 27, on the 11th day of October. I think, therefore, that the translation of the same was likewise written by him who wrote the Life or History of St. Evergislus, in the 10th century, as I reckon, already growing old, or in the 11th, and that this was then introduced by a later hand, together with the translation of St. Patroclus, received from elsewhere, into the Life of St. Bruno composed by Rotger. What makes this view sit with me is not only what has already been said above and what is further to be said below at number 26 and the three following, but also, and most of all, the manuscript codex of the Wolfenbüttel library from which Leibniz, as I have already said, published the Life of our Saint composed by Rotger, and another, formerly of the Vallicella and now extant in our possession, which comprises the same life and is marked PMS. 159, likewise a manuscript codex. For as, on the witness of Leibniz in his Introduction to the first volume of his Work, that Life does not have woven into it, in the former of these two codices, that lengthy narration of the translation of SS. Evergislus and Patroclus which is found in the Surian edition of it, so neither, as I find, does it in the latter of them.

[16] [edition, but will be edited from our manuscript codex, for the reason set out here.] Now, since it is so, and it is fitting that the Life of our Saint be edited by us as it was originally written by Rotger, and not as it was afterwards augmented by additions not proceeding from him, it would surely be better that it be edited here not from the Surian but from the Leibnizian edition; however, since that composition of Rotger, as it is presented in the latter, agrees almost exactly with the same composition as it stands in our codex just mentioned, I shall append it to this Commentary — so that the studious reader may discern from a comparison of both how true this is — not from the Leibnizian edition, which he can have at hand if he wishes, but from our said manuscript codex, from which it has not yet come out into the light, collated with the editions of Surius and Leibniz, divided according to our custom into chapters and numbers, Annotations also being added where it has seemed either necessary or expedient. Thus indeed the studious reader will not obtain, together with the Life of our Saint — to which, however, as is done in our codex and in the Leibnizian edition, I shall subjoin his Testament — the two Translations set out in the lengthy narration which I mentioned above; but he will lose nothing thereby. For besides that he can easily consult both, if need be, in Surius, in whom, from what has been said, they exist in the Life of our Saint, of these the one which pertains to St. Patroclus has already been brought into our Work at the 21st day of January, on which this Saint is inscribed in the most ancient Martyrologies, while the other, which is of St. Evergislus, will without doubt be brought into it at the 24th day of this month, which is sacred to this Saint. And if those translations require that anything be recorded of Bruno here, these things too will find a place either in this Commentary or in the Annotations which I shall subjoin to the Life to be edited.

§ II. The noble family of the Saint, the time of his birth, his education, entrusted to Baldric, bishop of Utrecht, his great progress in letters.

The Saint, who, of a most noble race Henry, surnamed the Fowler, duke of Saxony and afterwards king of Germany, three years, as the Saxon annalist teaches at the year 911, before the death of his father Otto, likewise duke of Saxony, which, as Thietmar witnesses, occurred in the year 916, contracted marriage with Matilda, a most choice and most noble woman. Her, who for a life led most holily has deservedly obtained among posterity the honours of the Saints, we have already brought into our Work at the 14th day of March, sacred to her: and since what was alleged there in the Commentary preceding the Acts of that most illustrious queen, number 1, sufficiently informs us of the noble lineage both of her and of her husband Henry, I send there, for the sake of brevity and at the same time that I may not here do what has been done, the reader who desires to know from how illustrious a race Bruno, having obtained those parents, was sprung. Further, St. Bruno, as the things adduced at number 2 of the Commentary just praised show, and as Widukind — who is said to have flourished from the year 946 to the year 975 — teaches not obscurely in book 1 of the Annals inscribed to Matilda, abbess of Quedlinburg, granddaughter, through her son Otto, of blessed Matilda just mentioned, had two brothers and likewise two sisters.

[18] Of these the one who, as the Saxon annalist praised above says at the year 929, after his brothers and sisters mentioned here was married first to Gislebert, duke of Lotharingia, and then, after his murder, to Louis d'Outremer, king of the Gauls, as Flodoard relates in the Chronicle at the year 939, was called Gerberga, or, as it is written by others, Girbir; while the other, who, as Raoul Glaber, a writer of the 11th century, testifies in book 1 of the Histories, chapter 4, was taken to wife by Hugh the Great, duke of the Franks, or, as others speak, count of Paris, and indeed in the year 938, as Flodoard reveals in the Chronicle, obtained the name of Hathuidis, or Hadvidis, or also Hadwig; and as for Bruno's two brothers, of these the one, who was born when his father was not yet king, and was created first king of Germany and then emperor, was called Otto, having obtained also the surname of Great from the greatness of his deeds; while the other, who was born when his father was already king, and therefore after the year 918, received the duchy of Bavaria in the year 947 from his brother Otto, was named Henry. St. Bruno — who perhaps obtained his name from Bruno, the brother of his grandfather Otto, first among the Martyrs of Ebstorf killed in the year 880 and already brought into our Work at the 2nd day of February, sacred to them — was younger than both this one and that, as Widukind expressly teaches at the place cited above. Nor do the marriages, contracted by the former of his two sisters in the year 929, and by the latter, or Hadwig, in the year 938, as I have already shown, allow it to be doubted that Bruno was likewise younger than his two sisters. For they would seem to have been unfit for contracting these at that time, for want of a sufficiently mature age, if they had been younger than Bruno, who was born only in the year 925, as we are now about to see.

[19] in the year, as here from Rotger. Rotger, in the Life of our Saint, supplies at number 6 these following words concerning this: Born at that time at which his father Henry, the glorious king, having tamed the savagery of the barbarians and having also repressed the danger of intestine disaster, was rebuilding with great zeal what had been destroyed, and was governing a people willing in justice in a most safe and at length most desired peace. Our Saint, therefore, as Rotger indicates by these words, was born at the time when the kingdom, which had been disturbed as much by its own inhabitants, by no means peace-loving, as by external enemies, had now been wholly pacified through the care of King Henry; and since this fits very well with the year 925, as anyone who unrolls either the continuator of Regino or the Saxon annalist at this and the immediately preceding years will without difficulty, unless I am mistaken, acknowledge, there is surely reason why our Saint should be believed to have been born in the year 925 on account of the text of Rotger just transcribed here. However, since those two writers, from whom the matter becomes plain, are not at everyone's hand, it will be helpful to have shown this in yet another way. Rotger, at number 62, having said beforehand some things of the emperor Otto, returned from Italy into Germany, and of our Saint going forth to meet him, then proceeds thus: When therefore, in most holy zeal, the emperor was passing the thirtieth year of his reign, and his Brother the twelfth of his pontificate, being scarcely yet past the fortieth year of his age, celebrating together at Cologne the holy Pentecost, than which no greater glory has been granted to mortals, they were present with one another amid the holy Offices of the solemn days, together with the divine mother, the queen sister, nephews, and sons who were kings, and that whole family beloved of God, and all the senators of the kingdom.

[20] who did not reckon the beginning of the Ottonian reign from the year 937, What Roger narrates here without doubt happened in the year 965. This biographer of our Saint himself indeed — who, as he exists in Surius, affirms in chapters 6 and 17 that Otto began to reign in the year 937 — here joins the matter with the thirtieth year of the reign of this prince, and so insinuates plainly that it happened not in the year 965 but in the following year, since the year which was the thirtieth from the year 937 could occupy no part at all of the year 965, as will become plain to one who computes; but in place of the words by which Otto is asserted by Rotger in Surius at the place cited to have begun to reign in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord nine hundred and thirty-seven, these following words concerning Otto, He began to reign in the 188th lustrum, in the 63rd cycle of Indictions, from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, are read both in the edition of Rotger by Leibniz and in our manuscript codex, from which, as I have said, the Life of our Saint is to be subjoined to this Commentary; and these, as will become plain to one who considers, by no means require that Rotger be believed to have reckoned the beginning of the Ottonian reign from the year 937. And indeed I am persuaded that this biographer of our Saint began to count the years of the Ottonian reign not from the year 937 but from the one immediately preceding it, first because all the other writers do so with unanimous consent, if you except Sigebert alone and, on account of what has been said, the anonymous man who interpolated the Life of our Saint written by Rotger; and then because by this biographer, in the words transcribed above, there is joined with the thirtieth year of the Ottonian reign the twelfth

year of Bruno's episcopate, advanced as far as Pentecost, which it included; which year, since Bruno began to occupy the see of Cologne already from the year 953, advanced to about the beginning of July, as we shall see below, without doubt designates the year of Christ 965, as will become plain to one who considers.

[21] However that may be, Rotger indeed binds the meeting related above of Otto, Bruno, and other illustrious persons to the twelfth year of Bruno's episcopate, is proved, his birth advanced as far as Pentecost, and therefore, as follows from what has been said, to the year of Christ 965. Nor does he alone do this last, but also Flodoard and the continuator of Regino. For the former, in the Chronicle at the year 965, writes thus: The emperor Otto, returning from the city of Rome, came to Cologne, and there received queen Gerberga his sister coming to him with her sons, king Lothar and the boy Charles, and held a great assembly with them and other great nobles; while the latter at the same year supplies these following words: The emperor, when, that is, he had now returned from Italy for some time … having proceeded to Worms, had his brother archbishop Bruno meet him on the Purification of the most holy virgin Mary, and so, staying in France the whole of Lent, he celebrated Easter at Ingelheim with great joy. Thence reaching Cologne by ship, he treated there with fitting love and honour his mother the lady Matilda and his sister queen Gerberga and her son king Lothar, who came to meet him.

[22] Now, since it is so, and therefore the meeting of Otto with Bruno and others happened in the year 965, obtained in the year 925, a little before the 14th of May; only four years old and indeed, as is understood from the words of Rotger given above, advanced as far as Pentecost, and Bruno then, as these words also reveal, was scarcely yet past the fortieth year of his age — or, as is without doubt signified by this phrase, had not yet long passed the fortieth year of his age — then truly, since forty years, subtracted from 965 years, lead down to the year 925, and in the year 965 Easter fell on the 26th of March and therefore Pentecost on the 14th of May, it follows from all that has been said that our Saint was born in the year 925, a little before the 14th day of the latter month. From the Saint's birth and its time, now fairly closely determined, I proceed to his education. The noble offspring of kings, says Rotger at number 8 of Bruno while still a little boy, being about four years old, to be imbued with the liberal studies of letters, was sent to Utrecht to the venerable bishop Baldric, who still survives.

[23] to be imbued with letters, to Baldric, That here is designated Baldric, not the bishop of Liège, or of Traiectum on the Meuse, but the bishop of Traiectum on the Rhine, or of Utrecht, I have already shown above; and that he was already bishop at the time when Bruno was sent to him to be educated in letters the very words of Rotger just recited plainly enough reveal; and this, even if it were otherwise, would be established also from what I now subjoin. That Baldric, bishop of Utrecht, was substituted in the see of Utrecht for Radbod, who died in the year 917, and held it until the year 977, is asserted by almost all the writers, both ancient and more recent, who treat of the bishops of Utrecht, nor does anything occur on account of which it appears to be doubted whether he truly presided over the church of Utrecht for that whole time; wherefore, since Bruno — who, as I have shown above, was born in the year 925 a little before the 14th day of May — being about four years old, as Rotger testifies in the words just recited, and therefore about the year 929, was sent to Utrecht to Baldric to be educated in letters, it follows from what has just been said that the latter was certainly bishop of Utrecht not only afterwards but already at the time when this was done.

[24] who was already then bishop of Utrecht, Meanwhile Sigismund Calles, when he was writing volume IV of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Germany, published at Vienna in Austria in the year 1758, does not seem to have noticed that the sending of Bruno to Utrecht, to be imbued there with the liberal studies of letters by Baldric the bishop, is to be bound to about the said year of Christ. For there, in book 8, number 57, he writes thus: At Utrecht in Frisia, on the 6th of January of the year 977, Baldric the bishop migrated to the Lord, after he had, by a rare example, governed his church most holily for 59 years until his extreme old age… This is the Baldric who first instructed the boyhood of Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, in Greek and Latin letters; and since, in the cited volume of the same Annals, book 6, number 144, he clearly insinuates that Baldric, whom he here says taught Bruno letters, was bishop of Utrecht not at the time when he did this, but only afterwards — which he would without doubt not have done if he had noticed that, at the time when Bruno was sent to Baldric to be imbued with letters, it was about the year of Christ 929 in course — there is surely reason why that writer should be judged not to have noticed this in fact. However that may be, Baldric indeed, as the very words of Rotger just recited also clearly indicate, was already bishop of Utrecht at the time when he received Bruno to be educated in letters; and Bruno was given to him to be imbued with letters about the year 929, as is clear from what has been said.

[25] handed over, with great progress in these with him Further, Bruno under such a master — who is extolled with the very greatest praises by the unanimous pen of all writers, and certainly would not have been taken by Henry the Fowler to educate the royal boy unless he had excelled in virtue as well as learning — made such progress in studies that, when, having been taught the first rudiments of the art of Grammar, he had read Prudentius, his master permitting it, nay, had drunk in not only the outward sense of the words of that poet but also their inmost marrow, like the sweetest nectar, with greater avidity than could be told, there was utterly no kind of liberal studies in all Greek or Latin eloquence which, as Rotger speaks at number 9, escaped the vivacity of his genius. Nor indeed, as that biographer of our Saint adds in the same place, did either affluence of riches, or the continual presence of the crowds clamouring around, or any distaste creeping in from anywhere, ever move Bruno to desist from cultivating letters and the sciences; the singular love with which he embraced them even bringing it about that he bore most ill it if the books which he used were carelessly broken or creased or in any way handled less diligently. Thus our Saint, continually applying himself to the studies of letters, to which he had also added the exercise of piety and virtue, had already stayed with Baldric about seven years when his father Henry departed from the living.

[26] That this happened in the year 936, on the second day of July, the continuator of Regino relates at that year; until the year in which, contrary to what Sigebert says, and Hermann the Lame and Marianus Scotus also bind the death of that prince to the same year; and since Flodoard, who lived at that time, likewise notes in the Chronicle that Henry was taken from the living in the said year, and Thietmar, who was not far distant from the same time and marks the death of Henry in the year 936 on the second day of July, is also to be joined to him, no prudent man will judge that Sigebert, who died about the beginning of the 12th century and defers that event to the year 937, is to be stood by in this matter. Openly indeed the words support that writer by which, as we have already seen above, the beginning of the Ottonian reign is expressly bound to the year nine hundred and thirty-seven — no numerical notes at all, either Roman or Arabic, being employed — in the Surian edition of Rotger, chapter 6, and again afterwards, where the translation of St. Evergislus is treated, chapter 17; but that these did not proceed from Rotger himself, but were intruded into it by a later writer who interpolated the Life of our Saint written by him, is clearly proved even by two copies of that life, from which those words are absent, of which one the Leibnizian edition of Rotger presents, the other our codex P MS. 159.

[27] Besides, the thirtieth year of the Ottonian reign is joined with the twelfth year of Bruno's episcopate not only in the Leibnizian edition of Rotger, Henry the Fowler on the second but also — which is an argument that this is not to be attributed to interpolation — in our manuscript codex and in the very edition of the same Rotger by Surius; and from this it can likewise be concluded that what I have just now said is true. For if Otto began to reign only in the year 937, the thirtieth year of his reign will run from the year 966 into the year 967; and on the contrary, if he began to reign already from the year 936, from the year 965 into the year 966. Wherefore, since the year running from 965 into 966, and not from this latter year into 967, can very well be fitted, as will become plain to one who considers, with the twelfth year of Bruno's episcopate, which, since this our Saint began to sit, from what is to be said below, in the year 953, ends in the year 965, this is truly also an argument that Rotger — who, as has been said, joins the thirtieth year of Otto's reign with the twelfth year of Bruno's episcopate — began to count the years of the Ottonian reign not from the year 937 but from the year 936, and therefore that the words mentioned above, which occur in the edition of Rotger by Surius and support Sigebert, who binds the death of Henry the Fowler to the year 937, did not proceed from Rotger himself, but from a later writer who interpolated his composition concerning our Saint.

[28] day of July died, But, you will say, the thirtieth year of the Ottonian reign is not rightly joined with the twelfth year of Bruno's episcopate, advanced as far as Pentecost, if one looks to what the Continuator of Regino and Thietmar write. For both, from what has been said, mark the death of Henry the Fowler in the year 936, on the second day of July; wherefore, since according to them the thirtieth year of the Ottonian reign must have run from this very day of the year 965 to the same day of the year 966, as will become plain to one who computes, it certainly had not been running already from the fourteenth day of May of the year 965, on which, from what has been said above, the twelfth year of Bruno's episcopate was being counted, and therefore cannot rightly be joined with it, if the continuator of Regino and Thietmar, who mark the death of Henry the Fowler on the second day of July, are to be stood by. I admit it is so, if Rotger counted the years of Otto's reign from the very day and month on which his father Henry the Fowler died. But the years during which Otto reigned are accustomed to be counted in the Diplomas of this prince sometimes from the month and day of the year 936 on which his father died, sometimes from the very beginning of the year 936, in which that day and month fell, even though they were not truly begun then.

[29] stayed in 936, How true this is, everyone will easily discover who has weighed the chronological notes with which some diplomas of Otto, extant in Meibom, volume 3 of the German Affairs, from page 730, and in others, are fortified; and since it is so, and the year of the Ottonian reign

thirtieth, unless its years are computed from the very beginning of the year 936, cannot be joined with the twelfth year of Bruno's episcopate, advanced only as far as the 14th day of May, Rotger — who nevertheless joins this year, advanced only so far, with the thirtieth year of the Ottonian reign, as has already been said — is to be judged to compute the years of Otto's reign not from the second day of July of the year 936, on which his father Henry died, but from the very beginning of the year 936, in which that day and month fell. Now, since it is so, and therefore Rotger by no means conflicts with Thietmar and the continuator of Regino, it follows, first, that, since he indeed counted the years of the Ottonian reign not from the year 937 but, from what has been said, from the year 936, nothing surely prevents the words by which the beginning of the Ottonian reign is reckoned from the year 937 in the Surian edition of Rotger from being believed to have been intruded into it by an interpolator; and then, that, since the writers who write that Henry the Fowler died in the year 936 on the second day of July are wholly to be stood by, from what has been said, our Saint, who applied himself to letters under Baldric until the death of Henry the Fowler, stayed with that prelate at least until the second day of July of the year 936.

§ III. The Saint is called from the schools into the palace, cultivates there also the sciences and piety, receives some monasteries to administer, and yet does not seem to have been a monk.

Rotger writes thus at number 10 of Otto, having now begun to reign: Bruno is called to court by his brother; there He summoned his brother german Bruno, dedicated to God, still a youth, honourably, as was fitting, from the schools into the palace; and since Otto probably accomplished what Rotger here narrates at the time when he had not long begun to reign, it follows from this, and at the same time from the year 936, in which, as I have shown in the preceding §, Otto began to reign, that Bruno was called from the schools into the palace by his brother Otto either in the same year or at least in the one immediately following. And truly the Saint was then still a youth, as he is called by Rotger in the words just recited, inasmuch as he had been born no earlier than the year 925, as I have shown above; but although it was so, by no means allowing himself to be ensnared by the delights of the court and drawn away elsewhere, he gave himself wholly, as before, to the studies of piety and letters. Then, says Rotger at number XI, whatever new and great things historians, orators, poets, and philosophers resound with, he searched out most diligently with teachers of every tongue; and where the master excelled in swiftness of genius, there he showed himself a Disciple in humility. That our Saint then used various Masters, both Greek and Latin, Rotger reveals not obscurely at the number just mentioned and the following; but he has commended to the memory of posterity only one, whom he calls Israel, a Scot-born bishop; nor are others known from elsewhere, if you except the bishop Ratherius, concerning whom Folcuin, abbot of Lobbes, contemporary with our Saint, left not a few things committed by him to writing, as we shall see afterwards.

[31] Israel, under whose mastership Bruno himself, as Rotger says at number 12, testified that he had profited very greatly, first with a master, who seems to have been an Irishman, being questioned by certain persons about the morals of his most illustrious Disciple, answered to those inquiring, as the same Rotger witnesses in the same place, that he was a Man holy in the highest degree. Concerning him who, before the others, or at least before Ratherius, seems to have fallen to Bruno as preceptor when already staying at court, Leibniz, in his introduction to the Collection of the Writers of Brunswick, prefixed to the first volume of them, speaks in the following manner: I do not know whether mention is made elsewhere than in Rotger of Israel, a Scot-born bishop, that is, Erigena, as I think, or Irish… For it is established that in the ancient signification the appellation of Scots pertained to the Irish; and John Erigena Scotus, as they commonly say, is nothing else than John Erigena or Scotus, as Rabanus Maurus is a duplication of the same name and means nothing else than Rabanus or Maurus, that is, Raven or Black. Eris was the ancient name of Ierne, and is said to have signified the west. Afterwards the Scots of Ireland, colonies having been led out, gave the name of Scotland to the region of the Caledonians. Further, learned men from Ireland, long before and after the Carolingian times, sent famous men into the continent of Europe; whereas afterwards, by a wonderful change of things, scarcely any part of Europe fell away from culture more than that island. So the praised Leibniz, not without reason suspecting that Israel the Scot-born, the master of Bruno, was among the men famous for learning whom Ireland from time to time sent into the continent of Europe before and after the age of Charlemagne; but does he likewise with reason suspect, by the words which he presently subjoins to those already given, that he is the same as St. Silaus, an Irish bishop, already brought into our Work at the 21st day of May and venerated at Lucca in Tuscany?

[32] [and had the Saint under his discipline even when grown to a more advanced age, Israel the Scot-born,] To omit other things on account of which this suspicion displeases me, even the great difference alone which intervenes between the names of Silaus and Israel makes it seem to me foreign to almost all appearance of truth. I add no more; and leaving to the reader's judgment that suspicion, as also the other by which someone may perhaps conjecture that Israel the Scot-born is one and the same with Israel, a British bishop, who is recorded by Flodoard in the Chronicle at the year 947 to have taken part in the synod of Verdun then held, with the other bishops enumerated there, Bruno the abbot, brother of King Otto, being present, the place of his see not being expressed, I proceed to another thing which seems safely to be believed concerning Israel, the Scot-born bishop, Bruno's master. He, who before the others, or at least before Ratherius, presently to be mentioned, fell, from what has been said, as preceptor to Bruno when called to court, seems to have still had this our Saint under his discipline when he had already grown to a more advanced age; for since, as we saw above, when questioned about his disciple Bruno, he answered that he was a Man holy in the highest degree, it must be that he whom on that occasion Israel called a Man was then of more advanced age, and that therefore, since without doubt he was one of the disciples of this bishop at the time when he was graced with that honourable testimony by Israel, the latter had him still under him when he had already grown to a more advanced age.

[33] and then, who had before been bishop of Verona, But to him then succeeded, or at least was added, Ratherius, twice already ejected from the see of Verona to which he had been raised. Rotger indeed nowhere relates that Ratherius was Bruno's preceptor; but Folcuin does so in the Deeds of the abbots of Lobbes, and since he was contemporary with Bruno just as Rotger was, there is no reason why we should not give him credence in that matter. Ratherius, who, in the manner which Mabillon sets out in the 5th Benedictine Century, part 1, from a monk of Lobbes had been made bishop of Verona in Italy about the year 931, having suffered many things there and at length being compelled to leave Italy, first withdrew into Provence and then returned to the abbey of Lobbes about the year 943, as the Writers of the Literary History of France contend, volume 6, page 343; and then the fame of that bishop — who, when he formerly still professed the monastic life at Lobbes, is understood from Folcuin to have been the most perspicacious of all the monks who were then giving their labour there to learning letters — spread far and wide, was carried to the ears of the emperor Otto. Hence it came about that he, who desired that his brother Bruno should be instructed by the very best masters in Philosophy as well as in all the other sciences, and most of all in the knowledge of ecclesiastical matters, summoned Ratherius, that he might more certainly obtain this, to the court about the year 944, as it appears. Otto, says Folcuin, chapter 22, Then most powerful, was ruling over the Austrasians and subjugated Italy; whose brother Bruno, destined to be a unique and singular ornament in the church of Christ, was being polished like a most precious stone with the manifold arguments of the philosophers. Ratherius is summoned and is held first among the Palatine philosophers. What more? He did not cease until he rendered that royal and wonderful disposition most perspicacious and perfect in all disciplines.

[34] Mabillon, who likewise recites this text of Folcuin at the place cited above, having used Ratherius with the greatest progress in the sciences, presently subjoins to it: These things happened some years before the episcopal dignity of Bruno — or the year, from what is to be said below, 953 — and therefore before Otto ruled over subjugated Italy; which, however, Folcuin attributes to him by anticipation in this place. So indeed it is; but that Bruno, under Ratherius — who, as Rotger says at number 58, flourished among the wisest of his age by abundant learning and copious eloquence — profited very greatly in all disciplines, and especially in the studies of sacred Philosophy, is to be believed of Folcuin, who relates it in the words already given. Far be it, however, that anyone should think that so great a progress of the Saint in studies is therefore to be ascribed especially to Ratherius or to the other masters whom he used; for the Saint's very disposition, and the rare propensity for letters and the sciences conferred on him by the Author of nature, seem to have contributed more to it than the labour and industry of the masters. By this he had conceived such ardour for studying and reading that, as Rotger testifies at number 13, wherever the royal tents and camps were moved about, he too carried his library around with him; and the time which others gave to sleep, feasts, or conversations, he spent in reading, studying, and commenting.

[35] Hence especially, the masters contributing their labour, the rest, of his age, in these it came about that Bruno, although he also followed his brother's camps, as everyone will gather from those words of Rotger, and the muses, as they say, are silent among arms, nevertheless penetrated into the inmost secrets of sacred and profane Philosophy, and, continually unrolling historians, orators, and poets, easily snatched the palm from all both in the knowledge of things which can be drawn from these and in the other sciences of a higher order. That this is in the highest degree consonant with truth is suggested both by Hrotsvitha the Poetess, learned in Greek as well as Latin, who flourished in the 10th century, and by the writer who in the same century committed to writing the Life of blessed John, abbot of Gorze. For the former, in the Metrical Panegyric of Otto I, concerning St. Bruno, after she has praised his brother Henry in some verses, presently sings thus, with others following here, all of which I transcribe here because they will still be of use afterwards:

After him is born Brun, pastor of the kindly Church, Whom the supreme grace of the eternal pontiff led To bear the worthy care of the catholic little people. Hence too, by divine nod, the pious care of his father, Drawn away from the bosom of his dear loving nurse, Caused him to be bound to the service of Christ, That, the pomps of the kingdom left behind, he might stand A soldier in the star-bearing court of Him who ever reigns.

But the true and eternal wisdom of Christ the Father, By cherishing this recruit of His more mercifully, Gave him the illustrious gifts of so great Wisdom, That there is wholly none wiser than he Among the mortal wise of the frail world.

[36] he surpasses the learned, and also in virtue So the praised poetess, declaring surely clearly that Bruno was eminent in the highest degree by the knowledge of many things, or, if you prefer, also by the sciences of a higher order, among those who in his age were celebrated as learned and wise. Nor less clearly does the writer do so who, as I have said, committed to writing in the tenth century the Life of blessed John, abbot of Gorze. Hear how he too — who perhaps, as it seemed to our Bolland, was John, abbot of St. Arnulf at Metz — speaks in our Work in the said Life of that Blessed man, number 116. Bruno …, he says, the brother german of the king (namely Otto I), so excellently learned in wisdom and doctrine, both in the learning of public affairs and of all the liberal disciplines, that he surpassed all of his time and almost equalled the ancients; to whom moreover much instruction in Greek reading had been added; he was the sharer and the most prudent counsellor of all things to be done at that time, publicly and privately. To this writer and to Hrotsvitha may be joined the abbot Folcuin and Thietmar, already praised above, of whom the one was, from what has been said, contemporary with St. Bruno, and the other flourished about the end of the 10th century and the beginning of the following. For the former, in the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbes cited above, chapters 20 and 22, calls Bruno most learned in philosophical studies and a unique and singular ornament in the Church of Christ; while the latter, although, as we shall see afterwards, deceived by sinister and light rumours of the common people, he wrongly sprinkles on the Saint the stain of perfidy, nevertheless honours him with the title of Most Wise. But the Saint, who was so greatly praised for learning as well as manifold knowledge by the writers just mentioned and by almost all the others who flourished in his age, or the 10th century, merited no less to be praised for virtue and singular probity of morals.

[37] [excelling, he receives, while still a youth, some monasteries to govern. Among these.] However he devoted himself to studies, he did not on that account omit to protect the afflicted, to counsel the distressed, to bring help to the wretched, as often as an opportune occasion of doing so, which scarcely ever was lacking, presented itself. So far was he from being puffed up by knowledge that, on the contrary, the more he excelled in it, the humbler he was rendered thereby. He did indeed put on something more of gravity; but this was both always foreign to haughtiness and joined with courtesy, as our biographer, who teaches us these and other things bearing on this at number 12, affirms. Hence it came about that, although Bruno had not yet been distinguished with the episcopal character, he was nevertheless taken into counsel, as the biographer adds at the place cited, by bishops and by all other most excellent men, who attempted nothing great or illustrious in the cause of religion except with him as helper. Hence too it most probably came about that King Otto, a fair estimator of merits if anyone was, judging his brother — whose illustrious endowments of mind, virtue, and learning he heard proclaimed by the mouth of all — fit for duly governing religious families, committed to him, though still only a youth, some monasteries to administer. The first stewardship, says Rotger at number 15, was entrusted to him while still a youth in certain monasteries, in which he constrained those living there, with suitable testimony of the Church, partly by will, partly by force, to the regular life, knowing that good things are bestowed even on the unwilling. And a little after, he reformed those very places consecrated to God, the royal liberality assenting, with their former privileges and immunities, reserving to himself or his people nothing thence by right of benefice, except as much as the fathers of the convents had of their own accord offered for the sake of charity. Among these stands Lorsch, a place ennobled by the munificence of kings, still retaining in memory of so great a Man both the prerogative of liberty and the monuments of religion.

[38] So he; but when were the things which he narrates here done? to which, as is related in the Annals of Lorsch, after Ebergisus, When was St. Bruno set over the monastery of Lorsch by Otto? In the newest edition of the Annals of Lorsch, made in the year 1766 under the title of the diplomatic codex of Lorsch, these following words occur at the year 944: After Ebergisus (abbot of Lorsch), Otto, the most serene king, set over the same monastery his brother german Bruno, archbishop of the see of Cologne and adorned with the flowers of all virtues. He, among the other works of piety which he faithfully and happily carried out not only in the church committed to him but also through the whole kingdom of his brother, built three monasteries at the metropolis of his see: one at St. Pantaleon, where he rests buried, another at St. Andrew the Apostle, the third at St. Martin. To the monastery of Lorsch also, among very many gifts of his liberality, he conferred a great silver thurible and two silver hoops of bells, and requested from his brother Otto that 30 hides at Brumath be given to St. Nazarius (that is, to the monastery of Lorsch, which venerates St. Nazarius as its patron).

[39] Since Bruno is insinuated not obscurely by Rotger, in the words recited at number 37, to have been set over the monastery of Lorsch before he was archbishop of Cologne, and indeed, contrary to what seemed to Gelenius, he is to be judged to be honoured in the Annals of Lorsch, in these words just transcribed here, with the title of Archbishop of Cologne by anticipation, not because already at the time when he was set over the monastery of Lorsch by his brother Otto he was governing that archiepiscopal church, but because he afterwards received it to govern; and since up to the time at which this was done, or, from what is to be said below, the year 953, six years are counted from the year 947, in which Bruno the abbot, the brother of Otto, is asserted by Flodoard in the Chronicle at that year to have taken part in the council of Verdun, Gelenius, in the Pretiosa Hierotheca, page 54, judges hence that Bruno presided over the monastery of Lorsch at least for six years, and that therefore an error lies in the Annals of Lorsch, which in the words recited above attribute only four years to Bruno's prefecture of Lorsch. But since the Saint received from Otto to govern not only Lorsch but also (see the words of Rotger recited at number 37) several other monasteries, he may have received one or another of these different from Lorsch, and probably indeed, on account of what is to be said below, that of New Corvey, even before the year 947; and so he may both have taken part as abbot in the council of Verdun at that time and have been abbot for more than six years before he was created archbishop of Cologne, even though in the meantime he had received the convent of Lorsch to govern no earlier than the year 950, and had governed it for no longer than four years.

[40] only in the year 950 was set over Lorsch, And indeed that Bruno was set over the monastery of Lorsch not before the year 947, nay not before the year 950, and that therefore an error lies in the Annals of Lorsch, which in the words recited above mark this as done at the year 944, appears beyond doubt from the diploma of Otto I, which is adduced in the newest edition of the Annals of Lorsch praised above, volume 1, page 120 and following, as also from the Necrology of Fulda, which is cited there at page 123; for in the latter Ebergisus, who presided over the monastery of Lorsch immediately before Bruno, is related to have died only in the year 950; while in the diploma, which is noted as given in the year 948, the same Ebergisus is cited as then still living and governing the monastery of Lorsch. Although, therefore, Bruno received from his brother Otto one or another, or perhaps even several, monasteries different from Lorsch — of which one was that of Corvey — to administer before the year 947, or the synod of Verdun then held, yet he was set over the latter no earlier than the year 950, and governed it from this year until the time when he was made bishop of Cologne, or the year 953, and therefore not for six years, as Gelenius praised above would have it, but for four years, as the Annals of Lorsch hold. But although it be so, you would not on that account, as it appears, rightly infer that within those four years the prerogative of liberty, of which our biographer speaks in the words recited at number 37, was granted or restored to the monastery of Lorsch through the agency of Bruno. For probably by that prerogative is understood the free election of the abbot, which had been taken away from that sacred house; and the continuator of Regino teaches that this was restored to the monastery of Lorsch only in the year 956. But let what has now been said of this sacred house suffice. I now turn my discourse to the one which is called New Corvey, and which I have already indicated above is probably to be numbered among the monasteries either handed over or committed to Bruno by Otto before he became archbishop of Cologne.

[41] and the one which is called New Corvey must be numbered. Yet of this The Annals of Corvey have this at the year 953: Bruno, our fellow-monk, brother of King Otto, is made archbishop of Cologne; and then at the year 954: Having discharged the office of a diligent steward and good prelate, ours in all things, he increased the library of the monastery and the furniture of the brethren, a notable benefactor of the poor; and by these words the anonymous monk of Corvey who wrote those Annals seems to me to indicate that Bruno was the prelate or abbot of his monastery, nor do I think it will easily happen that anyone will not agree with me in this matter. But did the Saint, whom moreover the praised anonymous monk of Corvey calls his Fellow-monk in the words just given, truly also profess as a monk in the monastery of Corvey? The same anonymous Annalist of Corvey writes thus at the year 942: King Otto, at the request of Bruno, his brother, then a monk of Corvey, confers many things on our monastery; and by these words he surely relates most plainly that Bruno was a monk of Corvey; but Rotger, in the whole Life of our Saint, long as it is, nowhere supplies even a word from which you could gather that he was, I do not say a monk of Corvey, but even a monk. Rotger indeed, having stated at number 42 that Christian, the provost, was appointed by Bruno abbot of the monastery of St. Pantaleon near Cologne, presently adds that a short admonition was written to him by our Saint from the parts of the West, conceived in these following words: Take care that you be what you are called; do not degenerate from your race; triumph seriously in this, that it be not made antiquated, as before, but strive that there be a going from virtue to virtue; but I do not see that it is to be gathered from these words that he from whom they proceeded was a monk.

[42] Mabillon indeed — who wrongly attributes these words to Rotger himself in the 5th Benedictine Century, part 1, page 335 — nor a monk at all, as the reasons pronounces that it is permissible to conclude from them the monkhood of Rotger; but this, the matter having been diligently weighed, I find to be most certainly foreign to the truth not only as regards Rotger but also as regards Bruno, to whom the said words truly pertain; nor do I doubt that all who weigh these things with attentive mind will likewise find it so. But, you will say, Rotger, speaking at number 10 of Bruno while still a youth, called from the schools into the palace by his brother Otto, already king,

relates plainly that he was already then dedicated to God. Nay, the verses of Hrotsvitha the poetess, transcribed here at number 35 from the Panegyric of Otto, make credible that the Saint from his earliest age, drawn away from his nurse's bosom, was given over to the service of Christ at the will of his father Henry. I admit it is so; and what Hrotsvitha says probably happened at the time when Bruno was handed over to the bishop Baldric to be imbued with letters; but what then? From this it cannot be concluded that the Saint was destined for the monastic life by his father, much less that he was at some time a monk. For the assertions of Rotger and Hrotsvitha will be wholly consonant with the truth if the Saint was from his tender nails either enrolled in or destined for even the canonical order, or the clergy living under a bishop according to the canons. The matter appears wholly certain; but you will perhaps now ask: in what manner then is Bruno, if he was not a monk, called Monk and fellow-monk at the years cited above, and then again at the year 965, at which his death is related, our former fellow-monk, by the Annalist of Corvey?

[43] Although this man flourished only in the 15th century, brought forward here and it cannot be asserted with certainty that he drew all and each of the things which he writes from documents of approved credit, yet I would not call into doubt what he records of our Saint; but I would believe that Bruno is distinguished by this annalist with the appellations which I have already mentioned because he frequently stayed in the monastery of Corvey, and then lived there no otherwise than as a monk among monks, observing also the monastic institutes, although in the meantime he was not bound to the monastic life by vow. Mabillon, in the Benedictine Annals at the year 942, number 49, likewise transcribes the words of the Annals of Corvey, which I have transcribed above, by which King Otto is said to have conferred many things on the monastery of Corvey at the request of his brother Bruno, then a monk of Corvey, and yet does not pronounce that Bruno was a monk. Nay, on the contrary, since he presently subjoins to the said words of those Annals, But Rotger, the writer of his Life, does not say that Bruno was a monk, he does not seem to have believed that Bruno was a monk. He adds indeed that the Saint is called abbot by Flodoard, and that this matter will be treated by him in book 45, number 95; but when afterwards in that place he speaks of the appellation of abbot attributed to Bruno by Flodoard, he adduces nothing at all which is of a nature to prove the monkhood of Bruno; nor can this be inferred from that appellation alone, since sometimes even in the 10th century persons who were not monks are known to have presided over convents of monks.

[44] brought forward, suggest, Bruno was, Nor indeed among the very many more recent writers who have spoken of Bruno do I find even one who either inferred this from it or distinguished our Saint even with the appellation of monk. All of them, namely, or at least most of them, judged that he was not a monk, and surely not without reason; for since almost all the writers who flourished in the tenth century extol Bruno with the highest praises when an occasion of speaking of him presented itself, and yet nowhere distinguish him with the title of monk — nay, even the writer of the Life of St. John, abbot of Gorze, and Folcuin, the historiographer of the abbots of Lobbes, who were both themselves monks and praise Bruno greatly, do not do so — this is truly a very strong argument that Bruno was not in fact a monk, since it does not appear likely that, had Bruno been a monk, none of all these would have indicated it even by a word; and hence, and most of all from the fact that Rotger himself, who diligently comprised in writing what pertains to our Saint, nowhere supplies anything from which you could elicit that Bruno was a monk, I judge that this our Saint was not in fact a monk, and therefore that the Annals of Corvey, which seem to make the Saint a monk of Corvey, are to be understood in the manner assigned just above.

[45] [although meanwhile, dedicated to God from tender years, he was a deacon while still very young.] But although our Saint was not a monk, as appears from what has been said, yet that he — who, if one looks to what Hrotsvitha and Rotger write, was, from what has been said, given over to the service of God already when he was only a youth, nay, when he had scarcely been drawn away from his nurse's bosom — was distinguished already from the year 942, and therefore, as follows from the year 925, which, as we have seen, he obtained as his natal year, already when he was only about seventeen years old, with the order of the diaconate, which may surely seem wonderful, is made credible by the diploma of Otto I, which is recited entire by Schaten in the Annals of Paderborn, page 286 and following, and is noted as given in the year 942; for in it, by which Otto grants many goods to the monastery of Corvey, as from what has been said he is asserted in the Annals of Corvey at the year 942 to have done, St. Bruno, at whose prayers he says he does this, is expressly honoured with the title of Deacon; and although I nowhere find expressly noted how long afterwards it befell Bruno to be initiated also into the priesthood, yet that he was already a priest before he was elected bishop of Cologne in the year 953, as we shall soon see, may be gathered, as it appears, even from the fact that, if not earlier, at least already from the year 952 he was archchaplain of Otto, as is made credible even by the latter's Diploma extant in Meibom at the place cited above, and also mentioned by Mabillon, volume 3 of the Annals, page 517, which is noted as given in the year 952 and has subjoined to it these following words: I, Ludolf, chancellor, in place of Bruno the archchaplain, have recognized it.

§ IV. He is elected bishop of Cologne, and a little after is set over Lotharingia; when these things were done.

In the year 953 he is elected bishop of Cologne. That, Wicfrid, bishop of the people of Cologne, having been taken from the living, Bruno, the brother of King Otto, was substituted, the biographer of our Saint teaches us at number 17 and following; and that this was done in the year 953, which he does not express, Flodoard in the Chronicle, the continuator of Regino, the Saxon annalist and chronographer, Hugh of Flavigny, and others relate with unanimous consent; so that it is surely not to be doubted that our Saint was created prelate of the people of Cologne in that year, although meanwhile the Chronicle of Liège in Labbe, volume 1 of the Manuscript Library, page 336, refers the matter to the year 952. But in what month of that year, or on what day, did this happen? Denis de Sainte-Marthe, in volume 3 of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, column 645, affirms that the death of Wicfrid, bishop of Cologne, whom Bruno immediately succeeded, is assigned by Flodoard in the Chronicle to the year 953, on the 7th day of July; but Flodoard in the Chronicle supplies at that year only these following words bearing on this: Wicfred, prelate of Cologne, dies, and Bruno, the brother of King Otto, is ordained pontiff there, to whom Otto also commits the Lotharingian kingdom. Nor does Hugh of Flavigny have more, so that I wonder that the abbot of Flavigny is cited in the lower margin of the page by Sigismund Calles, who in volume IV of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Germany, page 321, assigns the death of Wicfred, bishop of Cologne, to the year 953, on the seventh day of July. He adds indeed also the Necrology of Fulda; but this, in Leibniz, volume 3 of the Affairs of Brunswick, page 764, commemorating the death of Wigfrid at the year 953, uses only these two words: Wigfrid, archbishop. Considering these things, I cannot but remain doubtful whether Wigfrid truly died on the 7th day of July, on which Calles marks his death; but although it be so, I bring myself to believe, on account of what our biographer writes, that Wicfrid indeed died in the said year about the month of July, and that Bruno presently succeeded him in the see of Cologne. Whether rightly or wrongly will become plain from what is now to be said.

[47] Having said some things beforehand at number 16 of the storm, or great perturbation of affairs, suddenly arisen, This, a most grave conspiracy having arisen in the kingdom in which, he says, it came about that certain persons tried to kill the emperor himself, he first subjoins: Then Wicfrid, pastor of the holy church of Cologne, long very infirm, yet faithful enough to the royal majesty and to the homeland, his wearied limbs being at length left to the earth, was joined to the heavenly spirits; and the people, destitute of a pastor, attempting nothing doubtful, nothing wavering in that very confusion, chose for themselves in the lord Bruno, a magnificent and most approved man, the one solace uniquely desired, following the counsel of the magnates and of the whole clergy; and then, some things in praise of Bruno being interposed, he proceeds thus at number 18: All therefore conspiring together and thinking the same in Christ, while they were looking upon the body of his predecessor of good memory, still unburied and placed before their eyes according to the custom of the place, there were chosen by the most holy senate four of the highest men, and laymen in the same number, all eminently learned, to carry all these things to the palace, and, the unanimity of the election being disclosed after the lamented destitution, to demand the solace mentioned for the desolate. What more? It pleased (thanks be to God) the imperial authority so to provide both for the time and for the place as to send in haste the visitor sought with such constancy to the guardianship of the destitute flock. Sent at length from the camps of the earthly empire, he entered the tents of the heavenly King, to fight against spiritual wickedness.

[48] against Otto, was done. Wicfrid, therefore, as is understood from these words of our biographer, exchanged life for death at the time when the most grave perturbation in the kingdom — nay, the conspiracy or plot against King Otto, in which, as the same biographer afterwards relates at number 25, his own son Liudolf had a part — had arisen; and immediately afterwards Bruno, elected bishop of Cologne in place of the deceased by the unanimous vote of all, came to Cologne from the royal camps — which, on account of what is to be said below, is to be well noted — sent there from there by his brother; and when afterwards, all acclaiming, he had been raised without delay to the episcopal chair there, not long afterwards, as the things which Rotger narrates at number 22 and the five following make manifest, summoned by Otto, who was then besieging Mainz, occupied by Liudolf and other rebels, he tried with most grave speech to lead back into the way his nephew, who had come into the camp having received a pledge of safety through hostages, taking him with himself apart from the crowd. That it may therefore be ascertained about what time Wicfrid died and Bruno succeeded him, the studious reader need only be taught here, as will become plain to one who considers, when that conspiracy against Otto arose, when that prince led out the army to suppress it, when he besieged Mainz with it, and when Liudolf, having received a pledge of safety through hostages, came from there into his father's camp; and this I am now about to accomplish here, taking the narration a little higher, from the things which preceded the said conspiracy, so that both what our biographer writes and what is to be said from time to time in this Commentary may thus receive light from it.

[49] [This, which, an expedition into Italy having been undertaken by Otto, and Adelaide having been married there,] Towards the end of the year 950, Lothar, king of Italy, who from boyhood into partnership of the kingdom by his father

Hugh had been called, and had borne the royal name for some years, had departed from the living, leaving after him his widow Adelaide, who was the daughter of Rudolf, formerly king of Burgundy. Berengar, grandson by a daughter of Berengar Augustus, who, while Lothar was still living, was almost king, on learning of it, took up the helm of the kingdom at Pavia on the 14th day of December, and, choosing his son Adalbert into partnership of the kingdom, demands Adelaide as wife for him, that he might strengthen the kingdom for himself; but, having suffered a refusal from the woman, who had found him hostile to her husband and to his father Hugh, he thereafter held her not as a queen but as a vile slave, going so far as to thrust her into prison, bruised with the fists and heels of Willa, his quarrelsome wife; but King Otto — who, having already lost about four years before his wife Edith, by whom he had begotten Liudolf, heir of the kingdom, and a daughter Liutgard, knew all these things, and desired to add the kingdom of Italy to his other kingdoms — resolved to set out with an army into Italy, to take to himself as wife Adelaide, rescued from the custody of Berengar, and with her Italy as dowry; he prepares everything for the expedition, and hastens by great marches into Italy, where his son Liudolf, who had gone before his father, had done nothing worthy of record, his uncle Henry, duke of Bavaria, opposing the young man in all things out of envy, as the continuator of Regino says; having arrived there about the beginning of September in the year 951, he in a short time subdues the whole of upper Italy, and, Berengar having been compelled to withdraw from the siege of the fortress of Canossa — into which Adelaide, having slipped out of the custody into which she had been thrust, had betaken herself — he joins to himself in marriage the queen, summoned to him and honourably received.

[50] But Liudolf, suspecting, either of his own accord or at the suggestion of others, that these new nuptials would turn to his detriment, by Liudolf and Conrad against the king, for the causes mentioned here and angry with his uncle Henry, whom he had felt to be opposed to him, returns into his homeland, together with Frederick, archbishop of Mainz, without his father's knowledge, and there agitates secret counsels against him. The king, having first celebrated the feast of the Lord's Nativity at Pavia, returns into Germany in the year 952 about the beginning of spring, together with his new wife, leaving in Italy, to subdue entirely Berengar, whose strength had not yet been wholly worn down, Conrad, duke of Lotharingia. He, who was joined in marriage with Liutgard, Otto's daughter, and judged that Berengar was to be subdued by counsel rather than by arms, having sought a conference with the man, gives him firm hope that, if he submitted himself to Otto, he would obtain by his benevolence the kingdom of Italy, which he could not hold against the will of this prince; and when he had pledged that he would bring this about by the authority and favour in which he stood with his father-in-law, Berengar commits himself to his good faith, and betakes himself with him to Otto in Germany, the year 952 not yet having advanced to May. But since he, contrary to what Conrad wished, was admitted to the king's conference not immediately but only after three days, and received nothing but words by which what he desired was deferred to the month of August, hence Conrad and Liudolf, who ascribed the whole of this to the arts of Henry, duke of Bavaria, most suspect and hateful to them, being most greatly incensed, both, a very close friendship having been contracted between them, withdraw from Otto, the former into Lotharingia, of which he was duke, the latter into Swabia, or, as it was then called, Alemannia, which he had obtained when Hermann, the father of his wife Ida, who was its duke, had died about three years before.

[51] Otto, on the appointed day of the month of August, at a public assembly of the kingdom at Augsburg of the Vindelici, permits Berengar and his son Adalbert, the conspirators, was stirred up; in the year 953 who give themselves over into his clientship, to rule Italy, the marches of Aquileia and Verona only being excepted, which he commits to his brother Henry, duke of Bavaria; and things being thus arranged, Otto returns into Saxony, Berengar and his son Adalbert returning into Italy, and from there not so long afterwards betakes himself to Frankfurt on the Main, to celebrate there the day of the Lord's birth. And all these things, which I have now set out here and in the two numbers immediately preceding in compendium from Widukind, Thietmar, Flodoard, the continuator of Regino, and the Saxon Annalist, were done in Italy and Germany in the year 951 and the following, as I have already sufficiently indicated in their places; now the things which happened in the year 953, in which the most wicked conspiracy, already formed before by Conrad and Liudolf against Otto, broke out, are also to be placed before the reader's eyes, and that especially because they conduce most of all to determining the month and day about which Wicfrid died and Bruno was substituted for him in the see of Cologne. The continuator of Regino, who, according to the custom used in many places in his age, begins the years from the feast of the Lord's Nativity, supplies not a few things which it will be helpful to have transcribed here in his very words. In the year, he says, of the Lord's incarnation 953 the king (Otto) celebrated the Lord's Nativity at Frankfurt, and proceeding from there into Alsace, gave to his mother-in-law Bertha, namely the mother of the lady queen Adelaide, the abbey of Erstein.

[52] [detected, the king, not received at Mainz as was fitting, at Cologne after Easter the Lotharingians,] Then already the animosities and counsels secretly made against him had begun to appear openly, and each of them to disclose what they had woven in their heart. For, as he was returning from Alsace to celebrate Easter at Ingelheim, Liudolf his son and Conrad, the worthless duke, having united to themselves partisans, and chiefly young men, from France, Saxony, and Bavaria, had conspired, and were fortifying wherever they could fortifications or castles for the future sedition. For now it was no longer done secretly whither they were tending, but they showed open signs of rebellion. The king, therefore, arriving at Ingelheim, having few of his faithful men with him, judging that Easter was not safely to be celebrated in the midst of enemies, withdrew thence to Mainz. Where, waiting rather long before the gates, otherwise than befitted a king, Archbishop Frederick already conspiring with them, he scarcely obtained entrance to the city. Then Liudolf and Conrad, coming to him there with feigned humility, as afterwards became clear, said that they had done nothing of such things in opposition to him. But they did not deny that, if Henry his brother came to Ingelheim at Easter, they would seize him; which the king receiving calmly and modestly, reached Cologne by ship, and proceeding from there celebrated Easter at the village of Dortmund. After Easter, a multitude of his faithful men having been gathered, he returned again to Cologne, and there had come to meet him the bishop of Metz, in whom the greatest hope and confidence of Liudolf and Conrad seemed to lie, and all the Lotharingians, except a few to whom plunder and rapine were dear; and he received with kindly charity those who, falling away from his friends, came to him, and united them firm and stable in their fidelity to him.

[53] [by whom Conrad is expelled, received into fealty, he betakes himself into Saxony, and thence] So far the continuator of Regino whom I have praised; and Otto, having received into fealty at Cologne the bishop of Metz, who was called Adalbero, and the rest of the Lotharingians, as he narrates in the words already given, returning thence into Saxony, severely enjoined his son and son-in-law to hand over the authors of the crime to be punished, unless they wished to be held public enemies. The Lotharingians meanwhile, or, as they are called by others, the Lotharii, who had done what we have already said, take up arms against Conrad, their duke. The Lotharii …, when they perceived that the king was offended with Duke Conrad, since they had long been hostile to him because he administered the duchy over them against their will, take up arms against him, says Widukind, book 3, presently adding that the battle was fought most fiercely between the parties, yet that victory fell to neither, night breaking off the fight. But afterwards — which, that Widukind and Flodoard, both contemporary writers, may be brought into agreement, appears to be said — Raginar, count of the Hainaulters, and Conrad having engaged, of whom the former had come to besiege a certain castle of the latter and the latter to raise the siege, Conrad, as Flodoard relates in the Chronicle at the year 953, is put to flight, and is compelled to betake himself to Mainz. Here he joins his remaining forces with the forces of Liudolf, to whom meanwhile Archbishop Frederick, having heard of the movement of the parties, had handed over that city, and had betaken himself to Breisach, to await there the outcome of events. The king, hearing that Mainz had been surrendered to his enemies, approaches with the greatest speed to besiege it with a huge army, to which also Henry, Otto's brother, joins himself with forces brought from his duchy of Bavaria or Bajoaria. About what day of the year 953 the thing was done, and at the same time how the siege of that city was carried out, as also how long it lasted, Widukind sets out in book 3. All his words, because they bear especially on our matter here, I transcribe here.

[54] They run thus: The king … about the Kalends of July, [afterwards, moving, besieges Mainz about the beginning of July. Hence the Saint, who at about the same time as] the army having been moved, attempted to seek out his son and son-in-law with arms; the cities of the adverse party that met him he either took by arms or received in surrender, until he came to Mainz, which his son entered with the army and, armed — miserable to say — awaited his father. There a war more than civil and bitterer than every calamity was begun: many engines were moved up to the walls, but destroyed or burned by the townsmen; frequent fights before the gates; the stations outside were seldom routed; for by delaying all things varied, while they feared the ruler of the kingdom outside and his successor inside. When therefore the siege almost exceeded sixty days, there is talk of peace; whence the king's cousin Ecbert was given as hostage into the city, so that a free way might lie open to anyone into the camp to clear himself of a charge, to treat of peace and concord. What is narrated by Rotger, as we saw above, at number 26, of St. Bruno trying to recall into the way his nephew Liudolf, when hostages had been given so that one might pass without fear from the besieged city of Mainz to the camp of Otto, happened without doubt at the same time at which what Widukind here relates of Ekbert, given as hostage to the besieged so that free access might lie open from the city of Mainz to the camp of Otto, took place; and since this latter must have taken place when the siege of the city of Mainz by Otto, begun not very long after the first day of July, had lasted about sixty days, or almost two months, as may be drawn out from the words of Widukind already given and from Flodoard in the Chronicle at the year 953, and therefore about the beginning of the month of September, it follows that what Rotger narrates of Bruno trying to recall Liudolf into the way at the time of the siege of Mainz also happened then.

[55] [this was done, at the time he was elected bishop of Cologne, to that see about the beginning of July,] Now, since Bruno, when he did this, had only recently been designated bishop of Cologne, as Rotger indicates in the same place, this truly, if not for the first time when the siege of Mainz by Otto began — which, from what has been said, was done not very long after the 1st of July — certainly

is an argument that he was created prelate of Cologne not long before. Besides, Rotger writes at numbers 16 and 17 that Wicfrid departed from the living at the time when the contagion of rebellion against Otto had already spread far and wide through the whole kingdom — which did not obtain before the Easter of the year 953 — and then, after he has narrated at numbers 18 and 19 that Bruno, immediately elected in place of the deceased and sent by the emperor from the camp to Cologne, was received there with the highest honour as bishop, he clearly reveals, by what he relates at numbers 22 and 24, that that new guardian, as he speaks, of the city of Agrippina and designated prelate was summoned into the camp by the emperor, who was already besieging Mainz. Wherefore, since Bruno, as may be gathered hence if one looks to the order of the narration which Rotger follows, was elected bishop of Cologne at the time when Mainz was indeed not yet besieged but was shortly afterwards to be besieged, and was then sent by the emperor from the camp to Cologne, and not long afterwards, when he had already entered upon the possession of the bishopric to which he had been elected, was recalled from there to the camp by the emperor, it follows that most probably at the time when the emperor was already standing in readiness with his army to besiege Mainz, and therefore, as everyone will draw out from what has been said above, about the beginning of the month of July, both Wicfrid closed his last day and Bruno was substituted for him in the bishopric.

[56] but from the fact that afterwards, after the things which Further, the Saint had not yet long been set over the church of Cologne when he was at the same time created duke of Lotharingia by his brother — or, what comes to the same (for under the Ottos the duchies in the empire were not hereditary, but were administered by dukes, as by governors and legates who could be removed at pleasure), received the kingdom of Lothar to govern, as our biographer teaches at number 30. In what manner this came about I set out. Conrad and Liudolf, as we saw above, had come to Otto's camp, having come out from there to treat of the conditions of peace, his cousin Ecbert having been sent by him into the city of Mainz as hostage of good faith; and there was the highest hope that an end would be put to the war without delay. But the matter fell out far otherwise, and our Saint obtained no fruit from the labour by which, as has been said, he tried to recall his nephew Liudolf to his duty. Hear how Widukind speaks after the words recited above from him, a few others being interposed. Great gladness, he says, meanwhile arises in the camp, and from the camp the report is spread round about that they (Liudolf and Conrad) would never go out of the city unless they were about to obey all things commanded by the king. These hopes were conceived in vain; for, though they would obey the edicts of the king, Henry (the king's brother), moved against the young man (namely Liudolf, the king's son), said: You boast that you have done nothing against my lord the king, and behold, the whole army knows you as a usurper and invader of the kingdom. If then I am accused as guilty of a crime, if I am culpable, why do you not lead your legions against me? Move your standards against me; and, taking up a straw from the ground, he said: You will not be able to snatch the price of this from me and my power. What has seemed good to you, to vex your father with things of this kind? You act against the supreme Divinity when you oppose your lord and father. If you know or can do anything, vomit forth your fury upon me; for I do not fear your anger.

[57] To these things the young man answered nothing, but, having heard the king, are placed here before the reader's eyes, entered the city with his men; and the king's cousin Ecbert, having been given as hostage into the city, corrupted by persuasive words, becomes averse to the king, since he had also before been angry with him … While these things were being done, on the next night the Bavarian counts of the king's brother, having left him, joined Liudolf; who, proceeding with them, took the royal city which is called Regensburg, with the other most strongly fortified places in that region, and divided all the money of the duke among his soldiers; he compels the wife of his uncle, with her children and friends, to leave not only the city but also the region … And it was the younger Arnulf with his brothers who devised such counsel against Henry, because he had been substituted in the paternal kingdom, while he himself had been deprived of his father's honour. The army, wearied by long labour, asks for and receives its discharge, the king following his son into Bavaria with very few. Arnulf the younger, whom Widukind mentions in the text just transcribed here, was the son of Arnulf or Arnold, surnamed the bad, duke of Bavaria; who having died in the year 938, Otto bestowed the duchy of the deceased not on his sons but on his brother Berthold, and when afterwards the latter had died in the year 947, on his own brother german Henry. Hence it came about that that Arnold, although his sister Judith was joined in marriage with Henry, nevertheless easily joined himself with his brothers to the conspirators against Otto, on account of the duchy taken away from his family, and devised against Henry, Otto's brother, the things which Widukind here records.

[58] But that the thing was done a little otherwise than Widukind makes it in the words just transcribed here having happened, appointed duke of the Lotharingians the anonymous writer in the Life of St. Ulrich, in our Work at the 4th day of July, chapter 6, number 39, narrates. Duke Henry, he says, having entrusted the city of Regensburg and the whole region of the Norici to Arnulf, the Count Palatine, and to the rest of his faithful men besides, went to the king. And while he was making a stay there, the aforesaid Arnulf with a multitude of people fraudulently subjected Regensburg, with the other cities and with the concourse of the peoples and with all whom he could, to the power of Liudolf. So he; and this narration of his, which does not seem to allow that the siege of Mainz be believed to have been raised in the manner in which it is related by Widukind, agrees better with the narration of Rotger. For this, as soon as it has set out at number 26 and the two following the vain attempt of Bruno to lead Liudolf back into the way, comprises these following words bearing on this: Meanwhile, however, they contended in every way, no less by wiles than by force; they rested neither day nor night; they sometimes made their adversaries suspect; they left nothing untried, nor did they hold anything of any account, provided they brought it about that they should gain possession, by whatever device, of the greatest and most opulent cities within the kingdom, thinking that from there they would easily command all the bounds of the kingdom.

[59] was appointed, to this dignity And that nothing at all might be done without fraud, with Arnold, an especially vigorous man, to whom the supreme direction of affairs in the land of the Bavarians had been committed at the same time, by secret and infinite promises, and by recalling besides an old hatred, they brought it about that, a perjurer, he renounced Duke Henry, first himself, then the illustrious city of Regensburg, finally that whole kingdom; so much strength did envy and hatred claim for themselves among them. At the same time they solicited the Hungarians, the ancient pest of the homeland, to invade the divided kingdom itself; thinking that in this way the anxiety by which they were pressed could be either wholly taken away or in some measure lessened. Moved by this matter, as you may suppose so sudden and unforeseen, and grieving more at their misery than at his own loss, the emperor, having at length accepted the agreement which was asked for, raised the siege of Mainz. So our biographer, surely differing not a little from Widukind; but although it be so, both the one and the other write that Otto was compelled to raise the siege of Mainz; and since Otto immediately after it, as both relate, the continuator of Regino and others agreeing, moved into Bavaria, to oppose himself to his son Liudolf, who either had already raged there through Arnold, as appears more probable, or was shortly to rage, and before he did so, conferred on his brother Bruno, as our biographer adds, the duchy of Lotharingia, taken from Conrad — whether then for the first time, or even before what I narrated at number 53 happened — certainly in the year 953, as is established from Flodoard in the Chronicle at this year, it will be helpful now here, that it may be determined as nearly as possible when Otto did this, to have added these following things to those already said above which serve for defining the time at which the siege of Mainz was raised.

[60] [it is concluded that he was raised about the beginning of September in the year 953.] Otto, having arrived in Bavaria after the siege of Mainz, besieged Regensburg, as the continuator of Regino teaches at this year; and since, after he had spent three whole months there, he returned, the business unaccomplished, into Saxony about the Kalends of January, as Widukind relates, and spent certainly not fewer than about fifteen days in completing the journey from the territory of Mainz into Bavaria, it follows that he desisted from the siege of Mainz about the beginning of September, and therefore that Bruno then received from him the kingdom of Lotharingia to govern, or, as our Biographer speaks at number 30, was appointed tutor and provider of that kingdom, nay, archduke or supreme governor. Flodoard indeed, the continuator of Regino, and the Saxon Annalist, who likewise relate that the helm of the Lotharingian kingdom was committed to Bruno by Otto, supply nothing at all from which you could elicit the day or month at which the thing was done; but they refer it with unanimous consent to the year 953; and since the biographer of our Saint likewise does so, as everyone will draw out from what has been said, the Great Belgian Chronicle without doubt strays from the truth, which, although, no otherwise than we and all those writers, it notes that Bruno was created bishop of the church of Cologne in the year 953, nevertheless affirms that he obtained the duchy of the Lotharingians only in the fifth year of his prelacy.

§ V. Whether Bruno is deservedly to be reproved because he received the kingdom of Lotharingia to govern.

[The Saint, who, because he received Lotharingia to govern, is here reproved by Meibom,] Meibom, in volume 1 of the German Affairs, in his Annotations on Widukind, page 680, having first said some things of our Saint, presently writes thus of him: He obtained the archbishopric of Cologne in the year 953, as the same Flodoard and the continuator of Regino. Not content with this dignity, after five years (nay rather, as I have already shown, in the same year 953 in which he was created bishop) he allowed the duchy of Lotharingia to be committed to him by his august brother. This was insolent and never before heard of in Germany. For its first bishops, like the Italian and Gallic ones, aspired neither to any lordships nor to empires, either pure or mixed, mindful indeed of the teaching of Christ, by which He separated His kingdom, at least in this part, from secular empire and the sword. But, admonishing themselves of their lot and office, they strove to be that very thing which they were called. Following the example of Bruno, others of the prelates afterwards, religion being neglected and deserted, turned themselves to lordship and empire, made more like satraps than priests. Hence the passage about the bishop of Würzburg in Adam of Bremen, book 4, chapter 5. Hence the zeal of Adalbert, archbishop of Bremen, to exterminate the jurisdiction of the counts. Paulus Aemilius of Verona, History of the Franks, book 9, writes that Bruno insolently assumed the appellation of archduke; from whom the monk of Neuss in the Great Belgian Chronicle does not depart.

But it is inept that Widukind strives to excuse Bruno by the example of Samuel. For the reason of the calling of Samuel was far other than that of Bruno, whom both the express and plain command of the Son of God and the salutary decrees of synods and the salutary sanctions of emperors, and finally the pious examples of the bishops of the former age, called away from all political government. Aventinus noted that this bishop, relying on the authority of his august brother, was among the first who discharged the functions of the commonwealth, whereas up to then the zeal of bishops had been to teach sacred letters.

[62] Thus the praised Meibom arraigns a bishop of the Catholic Church, who, as everyone admits, shone forth no less in virtue and who nevertheless did this neither out of ambition than in learning, as guilty of ambition, pride, and vainglory; but are all and each of the things tending to this which the man, carried away by excessive partisan zeal, hurls here against our Saint exactly consonant with the truth? He allowed, he says at the beginning of the words which I have just recited, the duchy of Lotharingia to be committed to him by his august brother. I admit it is so; but who would conclude from this with Meibom that Bruno did it not content with the episcopal dignity to which he had been raised? The latter indicates ambition, the former not so. And that the Saint did not seek, or, as Meibom presently hints, aspire to, the dignity or office of duke, Rotger, the biographer of our Saint, to whom certainly greater credence is due than to Meibom, reveals not obscurely at number 36, writing thus of Bruno: Compelled therefore by imperial authority, he undertook, as has already been said, to handle the affairs of the kingdom among the Lotharingians. Further, as the Saint is to be believed by no means to have undertaken the office of duke of Lotharingia out of ambition, so neither to have insolently assumed for himself the appellation of archduke. Meibom indeed seems to indicate that he judged the contrary, or at least wished it to be believed, by these following words, presently recited again: Paulus Aemilius of Verona, History of the Franks, book 9, writes that Bruno insolently assumed the appellation of archduke; from whom the monk of Neuss in the Great Belgian Chronicle does not depart.

[63] nor did it by assuming the title of archduke. But in the Great Belgian Chronicle mention of Bruno occurs, as I find, in only four places, namely pages 2, 75, 80, and 81; and since the first two of these and the last comprise in themselves nothing at all from which Meibom could have seized the occasion of saying what he says here of that Chronicle, as anyone who unrolls the things mentioned there will find, it must be that those things which are read on the third of the four pages which I have just cited supplied this to that writer; but although indeed the man of Neuss — not a monk, as he calls him, but a Regular Canon — attributes to Bruno there the title of Archduke, he by no means declares that the Saint insolently assumed it for himself, and therefore Meibom, who reports the contrary, without doubt strays from the truth; wherefore, to answer now regarding the History of Aemilius of Verona, which is not at my hand, I think it may not without reason be called at least into doubt whether what Meibom affirms is written in it by Aemilius about our Saint is in fact written, or whether that writer, affirming it, does not likewise stray from the truth. Meibom indeed, when he affirms that it is related by the two writers just praised that Bruno insolently assumed for himself the appellation of archduke, perhaps only means that, on their testimony, this was done, or was accustomed to be done, by Bruno, not arrogantly but contrary to the custom used before; but the Regular Canon of Neuss does not say that the title of Archduke was assumed by Bruno for any reason, and it is therefore, on account of what has been said, uncertain and doubtful whether this is said even by Aemilius. And indeed that Bruno in no wise assumed for himself the appellation of Archduke may be gathered even from the fact that the biographer of our Saint, at number 30, speaks of Otto in the following manner: He sent Bruno to the West as tutor and provider, and, so to speak, archduke; for if Bruno had been accustomed to ascribe to himself the title of Archduke, Rotger would most probably have simply written there that he was appointed archduke by Otto, the formula of speech which he employs, so to speak, being omitted.

[64] [by his example, brought about the things which Adam of Bremen records of the bishops of Würzburg and Bremen] I think, therefore, that together with the title of Archbishop not the appellation of archduke, but only that of duke, was used by Bruno; but was it, as perhaps it had not been done before by another bishop, so also insolent and never heard of in Germany before it was done by Bruno — as Meibom says immediately at the beginning of the words which I recited above — that a bishop allowed a duchy, or the office of a political prince, to be committed to him? Was what is narrated in Adam of Bremen, book 4, chapter 5, of the bishop of Würzburg, and of the immoderate zeal of Adalbert, archbishop of Bremen in the 11th century, to exterminate the whole jurisdiction of the counts, done by the example of Bruno? Before I bring forward my view on this matter, I present to the reader the words of Adam of Bremen bearing on this. They run thus: Our church (namely of Bremen) could have been rich; our archbishop (Adalbert) could have not envied him of Cologne or of Mainz in all the glory of affairs. The bishop of Würzburg alone is said to have no partner in his bishopric. For he himself, since he holds all the counties of his diocese, also governs the duchy of the province. In emulation of whom our prelate resolved to bring into the power of the Church all the counties which seemed to have any jurisdiction in his diocese. So the praised writer. Let us now consider whether the things which he narrates in these words happened by the example of Bruno, who allowed the duchy of Lotharingia to be committed to him, as Meibom would have it.

[65] St. Burchard, bishop of Herbipolis or Würzburg — by no means, as the things brought forward here to be brought into our Work at the 14th day of October, on which he stands inserted in the present Roman Martyrology — received the government of the duchy of Franconia and judicial power; nay, he was both bishop and governor of the duchy of Franconia, and left the ducal dignity to his successors, as the things which Johann Georg von Eckhart alleges in his Commentaries on the Affairs of East Francia and of the bishopric of Würzburg, published in the year 1729, volume 1, from page 393 to page 400, clearly show; and since St. Burchard, as the same Eckhart teaches in the said Commentaries, volume 1, page 522, died not long after the year 750, and therefore the bishops of Würzburg already from the 8th century possessed the things which Adam of Bremen speaks of in the words just recited, how can it have come about that these were received by those bishops by the example of Bruno, who flourished only two centuries later and allowed the duchy of Lotharingia to be committed to him? Surely everyone sees that it neither happened nor could have happened from that; and since it is so, it follows, first, that, since the immoderate zeal with which Adalbert, archbishop of Bremen, was inflamed, to exterminate the whole jurisdiction of the counts of his diocese, drew its origin solely from the emulation by which Adalbert wished to be equal to the bishop of Würzburg, as Adam of Bremen reveals not obscurely in the words just recited, this likewise is not to be ascribed to the example which Bruno gave by accepting the duchy of Lotharingia; and then, that it had been heard of in Germany even before the age of Bruno, contrary to what Meibom says, that a bishop allowed a duchy, or the office of a political prince, to be committed to him.

[66] But, you will say, Leibniz, in his Introduction to volume 1 of the Writers of Brunswick, are brought forward, plainly. Leibniz also having stated that dukes formerly both commanded military affairs and at home administered supreme jurisdiction with the right of the sword through the province, and that the bishops left this to the royal judges, or the dukes and counts, even in their own territories, until at length the bishops themselves received duchies and counties, presently adds: It is credible that the example of Bruno, a man most praised for morals and learning, availed very much, so that princes did not fear to give, nor prelates to receive, what so great a man had held. So, I admit, and not wholly without reason, the praised Leibniz opined; but although perhaps there were some bishops of Germany who were impelled by the example of Bruno to accept the duchies and counties of their dioceses when they were offered to them, yet Leibniz did not think this as regards all, and by name as regards the one of Würzburg. For to the words just recited he presently adds these following, by which he insinuates that it is recorded by Adam of Bremen that the right of duke belonged to the bishop of Herbipolis or Würzburg in Franconia even before the age of Bruno, contrary to what Meibom indicates at number 61: Some, carried further than is just, deny to bishops and abbots under the Carolingian kings all secular power, as though Otto the Great were the first of all to confer it. But the churches had long had very ample estates by right of allodium, and in them vassals, to whom they had given lands in benefice, or from whom, the direct dominion having been surrendered, they had received the useful, which we call a fief offered. Some also sometimes had several thousand peasants or tenants under their authority, whom I do not doubt they were able to coerce by right of mixed jurisdiction.

[67] supporting, show, is to be judged; But it does not appear that they had jurisdiction over free men (who were then the lowest nobility), or pure jurisdiction over anyone whatever, until they themselves each received in his own domain counties and a duchy or a power equivalent to them. This the Roman bishop perhaps first obtained in the West by the liberality of Pippin I and Charlemagne. The right of duke too, says Adam of Bremen, belonged anciently to the prelate of Herbipolis in East Francia; and Thietmar narrates that Worms was exempted from the power of the duke and assigned to the bishop. Let the studious reader now weigh these things, and he will see that Leibniz does not oppose, nay, on the contrary, even supports the assertion by which I contend that the things which Adam of Bremen writes in the words recited at number 64 are not to be ascribed to the example of Bruno. Besides, although Leibniz judged that the example of Bruno availed very much, so that neither princes feared to give duchies and counties to bishops, nor these to receive them, yet that writer — though, no otherwise than Meibom, heterodox — was far fairer than Meibom both towards our Saint, who received the duchy of Lotharingia, and towards Otto, who conferred it on him, and, carping at neither on that account, immediately before the words recited above even excuses Otto for having conferred the duchy of Lotharingia on Bruno, writing thus of the biographer of our Saint: The same does not conceal that there were those who reproved that a bishop handled the affairs of the people and wars; but in whom should the emperor his brother trust more, in that difficulty of the times, in which his son, seduced, had risen against his father; in which the Hungarians, Slavs, and Gauls were feared?

[68] not ineptly, contrary to what Meibom contends, So he, rightly also nowhere charging Widukind with ineptitude, as Meibom does in the words recited above, for striving to excuse Bruno by the example of Samuel, who governed the people of God by political as well as sacred power. Meibom indeed adds here reasons why he judges that Bruno is wrongly excused by Widukind by the example of Samuel; but these by no means prove what he wishes

to prove, the studious reader will easily perceive. Nor indeed does Widukind alone, but our biographer also excuses Bruno by the example of Samuel. Hear how he speaks at number 36: Some perhaps, he says, ignorant of the divine dispensation, complain why a bishop handled the affairs of the people and the dangers of war, when he had undertaken only the care of souls. To these the thing itself easily gives satisfaction, if they have any wisdom, when they behold so great and so unwonted a good of peace, especially in those parts, propagated far and wide through this Tutor and Teacher of the faithful people; lest for this matter, as though further into darkness, they stumble where there is the presence of light. Nor indeed was government of this kind new, or before unused by the rulers of the holy Church of God; examples of which, if anyone should seek them, are at hand. Let no one therefore call him culpable on this matter, since we read that holy Samuel and many other priests were likewise also judges, and we read that the prophet Daniel condemned two elders to death.

[69] But, says Meibom, to show that Bruno is not aptly excused by the example of Samuel, he is excused by the example of Samuel, The reason of the calling of Samuel … was far other than that of Bruno, whom both the express and plain command of the Son and the salutary decrees of synods and the salutary sanctions of emperors, and finally the pious examples of the bishops of the former age, called away from all political government. Our Saint would surely have sinned in more than one way by taking upon himself the government of the Lotharingian kingdom which Otto committed to him, if the things which Meibom says here are to be admitted nakedly and simply; but if the things which he alleges must necessarily have called Bruno away from all political government, how did it come about that those very things did not call St. Burchard, bishop of Würzburg, away in the 8th century from undertaking the political government of the diocese of Würzburg? Was St. Bruno bound by the express precept of the Son of God and the decrees of synods, but not likewise St. Burchard? No one certainly would say so; and even the example of Burchard alone could have brought it about that, although Bruno by no means sought the political government of the Lotharingian kingdom, he nevertheless judged that it was not to be declined when offered to him by his brother. Burchard undertook to govern Franconia with the office at once of bishop and of duke, because its greater good required it; and an equal reason, and moreover the example of Burchard, may have impelled Bruno not to fear to join the office of duke, or political governor of Lotharingia, to the episcopal dignity.

[70] Schaten, in the Annals of Paderborn printed in the year 1693, at the year 953, first narrates how our Saint, already created archbishop of Cologne, and since not a few other things, in the words of Schaten received the duchy of Lotharingia from his brother Otto, and then adds to those already adduced above not a few things which conduce to excusing both Otto, for having conferred the office of duke on Bruno, and Bruno, for having received it. It pleases me therefore to transcribe here all these things, which at the same time prove that the dignity of bishops in Germany was well joined with the power of a prince. There, therefore, that writer speaks in the following manner: I know indeed that King Otto is reproved by the heterodox of our times for having joined these two (namely the offices of bishop and duke) in his brother, and that Bruno is censured for having been the first (the contrary is clear from what has been said above) to admit both dignities, namely of bishop and of political prince, otherwise than the institution of a priest allows. But Widukind and Rotger in the deeds of Bruno, and other old writers of those times, have already sufficiently answered these empty complaints, who teach that Bruno, after the example of Samuel, bore princely rule together with the priesthood; which it is established that Melchisedech the priest and Moses the Pontiff, and the leaders and kings of the Maccabees, also did; and examples of this kind abound from every state of the law. As also from the beginning of the Frankish kingdom bishops sat together with kings in public assemblies as princes, ministers, judges, and governors of the commonwealth.

[71] proposed here, for defending the Saint, By which institution Charlemagne, and after him the other emperors and kings, deeming them worthy of the same honour and office, placed bishops before their dukes, marquises, and counts in the assemblies of the empire; and by it also the bishops administered their dioceses, and the men and goods subject to them, with the power of a prince, before any Hereditary princes were seen in Saxony or Germany. Hence bishops appointed by Charlemagne are read in the Annals as ordinary envoys and legates through the provinces; hence as judges also of civil causes, and arbiters of the gravest controversies against kings and the sons of kings. Wherefore those are greatly mistaken who derive this political power first from Bruno. They may think indeed that it would have been much better provided for the bishops if they had been left within their pontifical offices; but such times fell out that it was necessary to join princely rule with the priesthood for the common good of the church. Surely Sigebert praises Bruno as a glorious Man in both offices; the Abbot of Ursberg testifies that he acted as bishop and duke with great religion and to the good of the empire; to whom Otto of Freising and others also come; which those writers judged much more fairly and far better than things of this kind are published through envy in this century, in which heresy has stirred up writers against pontiffs and priests. So many most wise and most religious emperors and kings from Charlemagne conferred these things on bishops, and the bishops who admitted them were no less wise and also holy men; which things are now at length, late, disparaged.

[72] which serve, because he joined political power to episcopal, Surely in our fatal age, had not the bishops opposed themselves with the authority and power of princes, the other political princes throughout Saxony and Germany falling away from religion, heresy would have swallowed up the whole of Germany; which is the judgment of Bellarmine and other wise men. So far the praised Schaten, surely defending Bruno validly against those who disparage him for having allowed political power to be joined with episcopal power in himself. Bruno would indeed have to be carped at for that reason if, as Meibom speaks, made more like satraps than priests, he had turned himself wholly to lordship and empire, all care of religion being cast away; but although the Saint had undertaken to administer the commonwealth with political power, he did not on that account neglect religion, but, teaching the people also the things which pertained to religion and faith, he vigorously discharged the office both of bishop and of duke. Nor does Meibom himself deny it. Hear how he speaks of Bruno immediately after the words transcribed here at number 61. In administration, he says, both ecclesiastical and political, he was exceedingly diligent and industrious; for he increased, amplified, and established the liberty of his diocese, its possessions, and its sacred buildings, in whatever ways he could (and he could in many).

[73] So he, without doubt convicted by the too evident truth of the matter; he is therefore certainly wrongly blamed by Meibom. and even if he asserted the contrary, it would not on that account be less certain and indubitable that all the parts both of bishop and of duke were vigorously fulfilled by our Saint. For, besides the writers expressly mentioned by Schaten in the text just transcribed here, this is also most expressly attested by one who likewise deserves on that account to be listed here by name, the Saxon annalist, writing thus towards the end at the year 953: Bruno, the glorious brother of the king, undertook the duchy and government of the whole Lotharingian kingdom together with the bishopric. He used the office of a priest with great religion, and, necessity requiring, discharged the virtue of a magnanimous duke. Since therefore our Saint discharged the office both of bishop and of duke as excellently as possible, as is understood even from this testimony of the praised Annalist, hence, and at the same time on account of the other things already alleged above, it turns out beyond doubt that Bruno is surely wrongly reproved by Meibom for the conjunction in himself alone of political and episcopal power, which not a few writers testify turned to the most evident good of the commonwealth. Wherefore, adding nothing more on this argument to what has been said, I now turn my discourse to the things which the Saint first did when Otto had first increased his episcopal dignity by adding the ducal, to be examined in the following §.

§ VI. What he chiefly did about the beginning of his episcopate, and whether he did not send a synodical letter to Pope Agapetus before the year 955.

[Conrad breaking into Lotharingia, Bruno, to oppose the enemy's attempts, betakes himself to Aachen,] The siege of Mainz having been raised in the year 953 about the beginning of September, as we saw above, Duke Conrad presently, breaking into Lotharingia — most probably both to exercise his hatred against Bruno, on whom King Otto had conferred the duchy of Lotharingia taken from him, and to take vengeance on Adalbero, bishop of Metz, and the Lotharingians adhering to him, who not so long before, as I have shown above, had joined themselves to Otto — attacks the city of Metz. King Otto, says Flodoard in the Chronicle at the year 953, besieges the city of Mainz, where Conrad had betaken himself, and at length, after almost two months, having spoken with Conrad, who came out to him, and having received hostages from him, returns across the Rhine. Without delay Conrad, having dismissed the garrison of soldiers at Mainz, makes for the city of Metz, which he presently occupies by a sudden incursion. King Otto, called by his brother Henry, makes for Bavaria, which his son Liudolf, certain cities having been taken, was laying waste. Conrad also left the city of Metz after no moderate plundering of it, at the exhortation, as it is said, of the abbot Agenold. Nor did Conrad then do only what Flodoard says here; but he also tried by threats, terrors, promises, and every other way to draw the Lotharingians away from fidelity to Otto. It is permissible to gather this from the biographer of our Saint. For he, having spoken at number 38 of the irruption of the Hungarians into Lotharingia made in the year 954 a little after Easter, as we are about to see below, presently adds concerning Conrad: Before, he attempted fraudulently every harsh thing against him (namely St. Bruno), because his strength had failed, so that he invaded by guile the most opulent city of Metz, made himself suspect to Cologne itself and the other fortifications of the kingdom, flung reproaches, poured out threats. Bruno, therefore, to oppose himself without doubt to the wicked machinations of Conrad, and so to satisfy the office of duke imposed on him, betook himself to Aachen as soon as Otto had moved into Bavaria.

[75] and at Cologne, in the year 953, before the 11th of October, ordained bishop. The biographer of our Saint teaches this at number 33, presently also setting out what the Saint did there in these following words, which also confirm that the matter was conducted by threats and promises on the part of Conrad, as I have just asserted: He met the princes of the kingdom (namely the Lotharingian), whom it concerned, and instructed them in various and many ways; and he dealt with them chiefly on this, that they should not believe the seducers or their vain promises, that they should not fear threats; that they should set no promises before the royal majesty and their own good faith, pledging that he would always be ready, before the time and in the time, to restore the violated peace of the Church, if it were so necessary, even at the peril of his life. Further, the Saint, having thus begun to fulfil the office at once of duke and archbishop, and having exhorted the chief men of the Lotharingian kingdom to keep faith towards the king his brother, went from Aachen to Agrippina Colonia, there, as from the things which

Rotger writes at number 34, everyone will gather, departed to be ordained bishop. Rotger indeed insinuates, at the place just cited, that he was not ordained immediately upon his arrival there; but that this was done in the year 953 before the 11th day of October, and therefore, on account of what has been said above, in that space of time which lay between this day and the beginning of September in that year, may be concluded from Thietmar. For he writes, in book 2, that Bruno — who, as all agree, ended his life in the year 965 — died in the thirteenth year of his ordination; and since, if Bruno had not been ordained bishop in the year 953 before the 11th day of October, the thirteenth year of his ordination would not yet have been in course when he died on the said 11th day of October in the year 965, as will become evident to anyone who computes, it is necessary — lest otherwise Thietmar, by whom, as has been said, he is related to have died in the thirteenth year of his ordination, should have to be said to have strayed from the truth — that the Saint be believed to have been ordained bishop in the year 953 before the 11th day of October, and therefore, on account of what has been said above, in that space of time which lay between this day and the beginning of September in that year.

[76] a synodical letter in the same year, contrary to what Pagi Not long, as it appears, after his ordination Bruno sent his synodical letter to Agapetus, the Roman Pontiff, by which he signified to him that he had been elected to the see of Cologne, through Hadamar, abbot of Fulda, to Rome. Since therefore, says the biographer of our Saint at number 40, this humble lover of Christ and ardent emulator of the better gifts, the servant of the Lord Bruno, according to the dignity of his see, ought to be distinguished also with the privilege of the Roman see and of the apostolic blessing, and to be united, in the integrity of the Catholic faith, in true confession and the inviolable truth of preaching, with those who have preserved the sound doctrine handed down by the blessed apostle Peter, he directed his synodical letter through Hadamar, the venerable abbot of the monastery of Fulda, to Rome, to Agapetus, a Pope of wonderful sanctity. Agapetus, having received that letter, sent to Bruno — who then at Rome was called, as Rotger says, the concordant fellow-citizen of the Apostles, the prince and propagator of the Lord's precepts — the sacred pallium, with the faculty, which was rarely accustomed to be granted, of using it as often as he wished, through the same abbot Hadamar who had brought the synodical letter of our Saint. This Baronius refers to the year 953, and indeed, as it appears to me, most rightly; but, says Pagi in the Critica at that year, number 4, What Baronius narrates here of the pallium sent by Pope Agapetus to St. Bruno pertains to the year nine hundred and fifty-five. For Rotger the monk, in the Life of St. Bruno, before he relates that Bruno directed Hadamar, abbot of Fulda, to Pope Agapetus at Rome, who brought him the pallium, speaks in chapter XXI of the devastation of the Gauls by the Hungarians, and in the preceding chapter of the peace reconciled through Bruno; but the Hungarians burst into the Gauls in the following year, and in the same year, on the seventeenth day of the month of December, peace was ratified between Otto and his son Liudolf, as we shall see at the following year.

[77] From the fact, therefore, that Rotger speaks of the pallium sent by Agapetus to Bruno not before he has treated of the irruption of the Hungarians into the Gauls made in the year 954 from Rotger and of the peace ratified towards the end of the same year between Otto and his son Liudolf, Pagi contends that this was done not in the year 953 or the following, but only in the year 955. But Rotger either does not speak, at the place cited by Pagi, of the peace composed between Otto and Liudolf towards the end of the year 954, or, if he does, does not narrate things in the order in which they happened; for the irruption of the Hungarians into the Gauls in the year 954 happened not long after Easter, as we shall see below, and therefore certainly before the peace entered into towards the end of the same year 954; and yet Rotger, if Pagi is to be stood by, speaks of the latter before the former; and since it is so, and he therefore does not narrate things in the order in which they happened, truly Pagi did not rightly conclude from this — even if one looks to what he himself writes — that the pallium was sent by Agapetus to Bruno only in the year 955. But Rotger, at the place cited by Pagi, speaks not of the peace which was composed between Otto and Liudolf towards the end of the year 954, but of the peace which obtained at the time when he was writing the Life of Bruno, and was owed to the assiduous cares of the Saint, who, while he lived, discharged vigorously the office of duke.

[78] That it may become plain how true this is, I transcribe here his words concerning Bruno bearing on this. contends. They run thus: Some perhaps, ignorant of the divine dispensation, complain why a bishop handled the affairs of the people and the dangers of war, when he had undertaken only the care of souls. To these the thing itself easily gives satisfaction, if they have any sound wisdom, when they behold so great and so unwonted a good of peace, especially in those parts, propagated far and wide through this tutor and teacher of the faithful people. Now, since it is so, and therefore Rotger speaks of the peace procured everywhere by Bruno, not towards the end of the year 954, but through the whole time during which he administered the duchy of Lotharingia, it surely cannot be inferred, from the fact that he speaks of this before the pallium sent by Agapetus, that the latter was sent by that pontiff to our Saint only in the year 955. But, you will say, Rotger indeed does not speak of the pallium sent to Bruno by Agapetus before he speaks of the irruption of the Hungarians into the Gauls made in the year 954. I admit it is so; but what then? Will you perhaps say that things are narrated by Rotger in the order in which they were done, and therefore that the pallium — as being one of which Rotger does not speak before he has spoken of the irruption of the Hungarians into the Gauls made in the year 954 — was not sent by Agapetus to Bruno already from the year 953?

[79] But if it be so, it will follow that neither was the pallium sent to Bruno by Agapetus only in the year 955, he sent to Pope Agapetus, contrary to what Pagi would have. For Rotger, in the Life of our Saint, as it will be subjoined to this Commentary divided into chapters and numbers, speaks first at number 38 of the irruption of the Hungarians into the Gauls already mentioned, which, as has been said, happened in the year 954 a little after Easter, then at number 41 of the pallium sent by Agapetus to Bruno, and finally, contrary to what Pagi says above, at number 52 of the peace established between Otto and his son Liudolf towards the end of the year 954, or on the seventeenth day of December, at Arnstadt, as we shall see afterwards; wherefore, if he sets out things in the order in which they were done, it is necessary that the pallium be believed to have been sent by Agapetus to Bruno in that space of time which lay between the Easter of the year 954 and the seventeenth day of December. The matter appears evident; but that things are not everywhere narrated by Rotger in the order in which they were done appears even from the fact that, before the plainly notable victory obtained by Otto over the Hungarians, which he relates at number 52 and following, he sets at number 48 and the three following very many things, of which certainly not a few did not precede that glorious event of the year 955; and since it is so, and therefore the time at which things were done cannot be determined from the order in which Rotger narrates them, I think that the synodical letter to Agapetus — although he does not speak of it before he has spoken of the irruption of the Hungarians into the Gauls made in the year 954 — was nevertheless sent already from the year 953 by Bruno, who also then, or at least at the beginning of the following year, received the pallium; because it appears likely that he took care to inform the Pontiff of his election as archbishop of Cologne as quickly as possible.

[80] and since also Farabert, bishop of Liège, had then died, Further, as Bruno at the beginning of his episcopate sent a synodical letter to the pontiff by which to inform him of his election, so also, in order to provide the church of Liège — whose bishop Farabert had died in the year 953 on the 28th day of August, as Giles, monk of Orval, testifies — with the best pastor, he took care that Ratherius, formerly, as I have shown above, his master, whom he esteemed most highly, should be set over that vacant church. Folcuin, in the deeds of the abbots of Lobbes, having narrated in chapter 22 the promotion of our Saint to the see of Cologne, then proceeds thus in the following chapter: It happened at that time that the chair of Liège was vacant, Farabert dying; to which, in recompense for his mastership, Ratherius was incardinated by the great industry of Bruno: which indeed was thought, on account of the abundant learning and copious eloquence by which he seemed to flourish among the wisest, likely to be very profitable not only to the same church over which he presided, but also to many others round about; at the same time, because in those parts, through zeal and contention, whence inconstancy and every evil work is wont to arise, certain even priests of the Lord, mostly — which is impious to say — trusting more than was just in earthly power, were scandalizing the unskilled people, the oft-mentioned and oft-to-be-mentioned lord Bruno, upon whom the care of administering the whole kingdom was now pressing, thinking — what was true — that this man, formerly ejected and neglected, would by so great a benefit be brought to that covenant of faith and truth so that he could be seduced by no one, believed that thus at length he could stop the mouth of those speaking hostile things, if no occasion of scandal could be found in their bishop.

[81] Almost the same things are also read in the biographer of our Saint at number 88, Ratherius to him in that see and hence Mabillon, by whom they are also recited, together with some others likewise occurring in those two writers, in the 5th Benedictine Century, part 1, page 481 and following, pronounces that it is uncertain whether they proceeded originally from the latter or, on the contrary, from Folcuin; but however this matter stands — of which there will be occasion to speak again in the Annotations to be subjoined to the Life of our Saint — that Bruno indeed took pains to provide the church of Liège with the best pastor after the death of Farabert, which, from what has been said, happened in the year 953, becomes manifest from the words of Folcuin already recited. And Folcuin seems to indicate that what Folcuin calls In recompense for his mastership — and Rotger says was done according to the statutes of the canons — happened at the time at which Bruno was raised to the see of Cologne; but since under the formula of speech by which he does this two years may also be comprehended, he leaves it doubtful whether Bruno caused Ratherius to be created bishop of Liège in the year 953 or the following. Nor does the biographer of our Saint make it certain. Although

for, being about to speak of the promotion of Ratherius to the see of Liège at number 57, he prefixes these following words, It pleases me to recall a certain pious and praiseworthy deed of this pious Father, which he is known to have brought about in the very beginnings of his priesthood, that in place of grief and a spirit of mourning he might rouse in the hearts of the oppressed the hope of salvation, and thus reveals that the promotion of Ratherius to the see of Liège, which he here designates and presently subjoins, was procured by him in the very beginnings of St. Bruno's episcopate, he nevertheless adds nothing by which these words — by which, as everyone will admit, both the end of the year 953 and the beginning of the following can be signified — may be determined to signify only one or the other.

[82] But can it not be determined from elsewhere, or, which comes to the same, he took care that he be substituted about the beginning of the year 954. be defined with sufficient certainty, whether Bruno caused Ratherius to be promoted to the see of Liège in the year 953 or in the following? Since Farabert, whom Ratherius succeeded in the see of Liège, died in the year 953, and indeed, as Giles, monk of Orval, testifies, on the 28th of August, and therefore about four months before the end of the year 953, nothing prevents Ratherius from being believed to have been promoted to the see of Liège by the care of St. Bruno while that year was still running; and hence it has come about that he is held by some more recent writers to have in fact been raised to that see then. But the Saxon chronographer, sent forth into the light by Leibniz in print at Leipzig in the year 1698, has this at the year 954: Ratherius, twice driven from the bishopric of Verona, is ordained bishop of the people of Liège by archbishop Bruno, after Farabert; wherefore, since there is no one older than this chronographer who, contrary to what he does in these words, assigns the ordination of Ratherius as bishop of Liège to the year 953, it truly seems that it must be believed, on the authority and credit of that writer — with whom the Great Belgian Chronicle, page 81, also agrees in this matter — that Ratherius, who, twice before expelled from the see of Verona, had certainly already been ordained bishop, was in fact created bishop of the people of Liège, Bruno taking care of it, in the year 954, but, on account of what has been said above, not far advanced.

§ VII. What the Saint did besides in the year 954 is explained.

The Hungarians; who, summoned against Bruno and Raginar, in the year 954 As above, in order that light might be shed on the things which were to be said in § IV and the two following, I presented to the reader in compendium what happened chiefly in Germany and Italy in the year 951 and the two following, so now here, in order that some things which are to be said hereafter may turn out clearer, it has seemed good likewise to present in compendium what was chiefly done in the year 954. Otto, who, as we have seen, after the vain siege of Regensburg of about three months, had betaken himself from Bavaria into Saxony in the year 954 about the Kalends of January, spent the winter there. Liudolf was then lord both of Regensburg and of the whole of Bavaria far and wide; Conrad — who is called indiscriminately Cunrad, nay also Cono or Cuno, by Rotger, Folcuin, and many other writers, as Pagi observes in the Critica at the year 954, number 3 — had rendered the Lotharingians as hostile to himself as possible through the recent devastation of the city of Metz which I have related above; and since he could not by his own strength drive them and Bruno, increased, as we have seen, with the vicarious power of the king through the whole kingdom of Lotharingia, he summoned the Hungarians, as is known, then still pagans, to the destruction above all of the Lotharingian kingdom. These, therefore, summoned by him chiefly against Raginar and Bruno, as was the opinion of very many, enter Bavaria, the year 954 not yet long begun, to cross thence to the Rhine and the Meuse. A sad message concerning this is carried very swiftly into Saxony. King Otto, says Widukind, book 3, page 655, meanwhile hears that the Avars (so he calls the Hungarians), entering Bavaria, were joining his adversaries and arranging to attack him in public war.

[84] into Lotharingia, Conrad being their guide. But he, sufficiently undaunted by such necessity, by the grace of God by no means forgot that he was Lord and king, but, a strong force having been gathered, proceeds to meet the most fierce enemies; they, however, turned aside from him, and, having received guides from Liudolf, roamed through the whole of Francia (so was then accustomed to be called the region which comprised Franconia, Hesse, Frankfurt on the Main, Worms, Mainz, and not a few other cities situated on either bank of the Rhine). They came to Worms on Palm Sunday; there, lest they should destroy or carry off everything, they were publicly supplied, as the praised Widukind says in the cited book, page 654, and presented with very many gifts of gold and silver. From there they passed into the kingdom of Lothar. Conrad, says Flodoard in the Chronicle at the year 954, a pact having been entered into with the Hungarians, leads them through the Lotharingian kingdom as far as the land of Raginar, namely his rival, and of Bruno the bishop. How and why this excursion of the Hungarians was made Folcuin sets out more fully in the Deeds of the abbots of Lobbes, chapter 25. It will be helpful to have transcribed here some words with which he does this, taken by him in part, as it appears, from our biographer. Under Otto .., he says, there arose a storm of contention, Jesus sleeping, I think, in the breasts of the watchmen keeping guard before the doors of the house of the Lord, so that certain companions of satan tried to slay the king. This counsel, conceived by serpentine hissing, having been brought to nothing by the mercy of God, they poured the venom of their wickedness through the bowels of his whole kingdom. The leader in that conspiracy was the king's own son Liudolf, a youth remarkable and uniquely famous, had he not believed the seducers and had he preferred to be heir rather than traitor; and with him, as a kind of goad, Duke Cono, a little before most brave …

[85] These solicited the Hungarians, the ancient pest, as we said before, burst in, to invade the kingdom divided against itself; thinking that in this way the anxiety by which they were pressed could be either wholly taken away from them or in some measure lessened. On this account the savage nation of the Hungarians, and a barbarism such as our land never felt, enticed by perverse citizens, having crossed Germany and most of the provinces of Gaul, where that noble people of the Franks has long since settled, poured itself wholly in to lay everything waste with sword and fire. In this battle-line the aforesaid Cono served with his followers; but when they came to Maastricht, which the Meuse washes, he fell away from them, for what cause is uncertain; the Hungarians, having attacked Hesbaye with fires and plunder, make for the Charcoal Forest. Thus, while the Hungarians — who, as Flodoard teaches at the place cited above, many places of the Gauls having been laid waste, and no small band of their men having been lost both in battles and by diseases, returned through Italy to their homeland — were threatening the kingdom of Lotharingia, King Otto, Lent approaching, returns with an army from Saxony into Bavaria, when the Hungarians had scarcely gone out from there. Liudolf brings himself with an army to meet him, and when it was near that he would even join battle with his father, St. Ulrich of Augsburg and Hartbert of Chur, bishops, intervening, a truce is made, and, a meeting having been proclaimed for the 15th day of June at Zenn or Einn, where each could give an account of what he had done and render an answer, the armies of father and son are separated from each other.

[86] But before the meeting took place at the place agreed, it lacked little that Conrad, who, as Flodoard speaks in the Chronicle at the year 954, was lacerating the Lotharingians with hostilities, and Bruno, the forces which they had being gathered into one, [having departed from there, Bruno and Conrad were near to engaging; but the latter, having changed his counsel,] joined battle in the district of Bliesgau. In the same year (namely 954), says the continuator of Regino, Duke Conrad was about to engage with the Lotharingians, archbishop Brun being their leader, in the district of Bliesgau at the village of Rimlingen; but at the last, because he was against the king, it remained (God willing) that it should not take place. How it came about that Bruno and Conrad, when they were already standing ready to engage, did not engage, the praised writer does not declare; but, the Hungarians — who, as Folcuin relates at the place cited above, having attacked the abbey of Lobbes on the second day of April, had been prodigiously repulsed with great disgrace and loss, Ursmar and the other holy patrons of the place acting — having departed from Lotharingia, Conrad, who had already fallen away from them when they were at Maastricht before the said second day of April, had begun to look to himself and to return to sounder counsels; and, understanding that the meeting had been proclaimed by the king for the 15th day of June, in which each could render an account of what he had done and obtain pardon for what he had committed, he had resolved to betake himself to it and return into favour with the king. Hence most probably it came about that, when the forces which Bruno and Conrad were leading stood ready for battle in the district of Bliesgau, yet no fight followed. However that may be, it is certain indeed from Widukind that both Conrad and Frederick, archbishop of Mainz, came to the place of the proclaimed meeting out of zeal for the common peace, and did not thereafter fall away, though Liudolf kicked against it.

[87] [betaking himself to the meeting proclaimed by the emperor, he is received into favour.] And Frederick indeed, archbishop of Mainz, when he had come to that meeting, and had openly professed that he was ready to show by any judgment whatever that he had done nothing against the king either by counsel or by will, and had withdrawn from him only compelled by fear, namely because, oppressed by most grievous accusations, and although innocent, he had nevertheless been brought into hatred with him, was received into favour by the king, having promised that for the rest he would never depart from the sacrament of fealty; and although nothing similar is related in express words of Conrad or Cuno the duke, it may yet be gathered that he likewise returned there into favour with the king even from the fact that, no otherwise than the archbishop, he diligently, though in vain, tried to recall Liudolf to his duty. The pontiff, says Widukind at the place cited above, with Duke Conrad, when they could not incline the young man to submit himself to his father and, following his judgment, to bear it, departed from him, joining themselves to God and the king. Thus Liudolf was now left to himself; but although it was so, he did not withdraw from his contumacy, but on the next night, says Widukind, departing from the king with his men, he entered the city of Regensburg with the army.

[88] [Liudolf still remains in contumacy; but afterwards, broken by adverse fortune, he submits himself to his father;] Then the king, seeing that the matter could not be accomplished except by arms, pursues his son, hastens to Regensburg, moves the army up to the city; but the siege was heavier and longer than expected. However, since the spirits of the besieged were broken even by its very length, to which other inconveniences were also added, Liudolf, as Widukind narrates, having gone out of the city, asks for peace; and although, this not being obtained because he denied obedience to his father, he entered the city again, yet not long afterwards, when a battle not fortunate enough, in which Arnold the Palatine had perished, had been fought at the eastern gate of the city, going out of the city again with his companions, through the intervention of the princes, while it had been besieged for a whole month and a half, he obtained peace (these are Widukind's very words) until

the day agreed, while judgment was being given on these causes, and the place of the council was appointed at Fritzlar. But Liudolf, not thinking that the assembly of the kingdom should be awaited, brings himself to meet his father Otto, who was diverting himself with hunting, and, prostrate on his knees, with a tearful speech by which he wrings tears from all present and from his father, is received into favour out of the affection of fatherly love by him, whom he pledges that he will obey and to whose wishes he will assent. Meanwhile Frederick, archbishop of Mainz, dies, and, he having died, the assembly of the kingdom, which, from what has been said, had been proclaimed at Fritzlar, was celebrated on the 17th day of December, not there, but at Arnstadt.

[89] So I am made to believe by William, son of King Otto, and makes peace with him and Rotger, the biographer of our Saint. For the former, in the Chronicle written by him and cited by Trithemius in the Chronicle of Hirsau, writes thus in Marianus Scotus at the year 954: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation 954, Indiction 12, the lord Frederick of blessed memory, archbishop of the holy church of Mainz, died on the 8th day before the Kalends of November. And in the same year I, William, unworthy of so great a succession, was elected in his place with the consent of the clergy and people of the same holy see, on the 16th day before the Kalends of January (and on that very day peace was made between King Otto and his son Liudolf), in the place Arnstadt, and on the 9th day before the Kalends of January was ordained at Mainz; while the latter, speaking of the renewed irruption of the Hungarians into Bavaria, which happened in the year 955, supplies at number 52 the following words: This pressure, impending over the Church, was forestalled by the peace, agreed afresh in the royal palace which was held at Arnstadt, and already in great part confirmed through the wisdom of our emperor and his brothers. In that assembly William, son of King Otto — not by Queen Edith, as Pagi and other more recent writers say, but, as Thietmar testifies in book 2 somewhat past the middle, by a mother who, though a captive, was yet noble and Slavonic — was substituted in the see of Mainz for Frederick, recently deceased, as is understood from his very words just given and from the continuator of Regino at the year 954.

[90] Further, the same assembly, about the time of which Mainz, to the strengthening of which Bruno devoted himself. occupied by enemies for a year and a half, was at length restored to King Otto, was general, or, as Widukind speaks at the place just cited, universal; wherefore, since it was without doubt celebrated by all both the bishops and the nobles of the kingdom, our Saint certainly presented himself at it also. And indeed Rotger seems to indicate that Bruno in fact took part in that assembly, when he relates, in the words just recited, that the peace entered into at Arnstadt was confirmed by the wisdom of Otto and his brothers, of whom, from what has been said, our Saint was the youngest by birth. Surely it appears beyond doubt that our Saint — who, as Flodoard testifies in the Chronicle at the year 954, contributed his labour in that year that Lothar, son of his sister Gerberga and of Louis d'Outremer, then deceased, might be consecrated king of the Franks — laboured diligently as well as actively, either then or afterwards, that the peace entered into at Arnstadt in the same year 954, from what has been said, might remain firm and stable, from those words, and most of all from the fact that, as we shall see afterwards, he strove as much as possible to keep Liudolf, the king's son, to his duty when the Hungarians burst again into Bavaria in the year 955. But before we proceed to that, it is to be investigated in the following §, in this place, where we are treating of the things done by our Saint in 954, whether he rendered himself guilty of perfidy towards his brother Otto — which, as it appears, would have to be said to have happened then, if it ever took place.

§ VIII. Whether Bruno ever rendered himself guilty of perfidy towards his brother Otto.

Bruno, unfaithful to his brother, the crown of Lotharingia to Hugh, his kinsman, Thietmar — all of whose words bearing on this are to be presented here in advance to the reader — having spoken in book 2 of Bruno raised by Otto to the dignity of bishop and duke, presently writes thus of him in the same place: He afterwards, though he was most wise, depraved by the counsel of wicked men, meditated to return evil for good to the king, his own brother german. For he called to himself Hugh, his kinsman, too unfaithful to the king, as we have recorded above, to a banquet, and resolved, unmindful of kinship and oath, to commit the kingdom to him with a crown artfully jewelled. And when on the holy day of solemn Easter, all the royal instruments being prepared, he wished to crown his kinsman, who was seeking the promised things with womanish desire, the rein of hatred being a little slackened by the grace of divine mercy and of the wisdom which turns all things over, he was ashamed of the undertaking and repented; and, having secretly summoned his own secretary, whom we have mentioned before, Volckmar, he disclosed the wound which lay hidden in his mind, and sought with diligent counsel how it might be cured. But the Lord, ready for all things to those who are converted, sent into his mind from heaven that by which, in answering, he soothed the care of his lord in such matters. "The Holy Spirit," he said, "has suggested to you, dearest lord, that the enemy, the author of so great a crime, should prevail no further against us; whom I think can thus be confounded and you honoured. The crown which you have promised you will give your kinsman tomorrow I will present as you sit together, that your good faith may shine forth in the sight of all; and, falling as though unwillingly, I will break it, that fraternal love, now cold, may grow warm again hereafter."

[92] is narrated by Thietmar to have wished to confer; This pleased the archbishop, and so, that it might be fulfilled for exulting vows, he knocked simply at the divine ears. And when morning came, these words were fulfilled as deeds; the archbishop feigned great sorrow. But Hugh and his men, cheated of so great a hope, endured an inconsolable grief, and, the festive days being completed, he returned honoured with other gifts than he had supposed. After these things the brothers, the king, I say, and the bishop, reconciled and persevering in mutual zeal of piety, took care thereafter to remove every scruple of enmity. That I may proceed by method and path in examining this narration of Thietmar, by which the mark of perfidy is branded on our Saint, it is necessary that I define who is the Hugh to whom, as this holds, our Saint wished to give the crown. He was without doubt no other than the Hugh whom Thietmar had above recorded (see his words just transcribed here) as too unfaithful to the king. But who was the Hugh whom Thietmar had above recorded as too unfaithful to the king? About the beginning of the second book, in which he supplies the narration already given here, having related the nuptials of Otto with Queen Adelaide in Italy, he presently adds: On which account Liudolf, his son, made very sad, hastened to our people, and concealed an ambush in hidden places suitable for guile which pertain to Saalfeld.

[93] After these things, Pavia having been fortified with a garrison and the necessary things arranged there, but, as the things here brought forward he returns, whom Berengar * follows with Duke Conrad (see here what has already been said above at number 50 and following), and in the city of Augsburg earned the king's favour by the surrender of himself and his son, and at the same time appeased the queen's anger by suppliant pardon, and revisited his homeland in good peace. But the king, passing through Francia on his return (so, as I have already noted above, was accustomed to be called by Thietmar and other writers of the 10th and 11th centuries the part of Germany which comprises Franconia, Hesse, Frankfurt, Worms, Mainz, and other cities situated on either bank of the Rhine), discovered the hidden snares which were being prepared by his son and his son-in-law Hugh, and presently, anger dictating, commanded them through messengers that they should either send him the authors of so great a crime, or know for certain that they were enemies of the royal power. Behold the Hugh who, since he laid snares for Otto, as Thietmar here narrates, was certainly beyond measure unfaithful to him; and Thietmar is therefore to be judged to speak of him in the words transcribed here at number 91 and following, since he had nowhere before spoken of another Hugh who showed himself unfaithful to Otto. But who is the Hugh who is asserted by Thietmar in the words just recited to have laid snares for Otto? He is no other than Conrad, duke of Lotharingia, who, although he is called indiscriminately now Conrad, now Cuno, by Thietmar and other writers, and by name, as I have already noted above, by the biographer of our Saint, is here nevertheless named Hugh, an error having slipped into the text of Thietmar through the drowsiness of a copyist or through some other reason.

[94] This view sits with me, first, because what is narrated in those words are brought forward, that writer not concerning Hugh, count of Paris, of the snares laid or prepared for Otto by his son and son-in-law Hugh fits Cuno, but not likewise Hugh, count of Paris — contrary to what someone may perhaps think because the latter, from what has been said above, was married to Hadwig, Otto's sister — as becomes plain even from the fact that the Hugh who is related by Thietmar in the said words to have laid snares, together with Otto's son Liudolf, for Otto, returned from Italy and passing through German Francia, at the same time conspired against him with the same Liudolf, as we have seen above; and Hugh, count of Paris, though he had before waged war against Otto, is nowhere read to have done this; and then, because the Hugh by whom Thietmar relates snares were laid for Otto is said by that writer to have been too unfaithful towards him; and this again does not fit Hugh, count of Paris, as one who was not a subject of Otto. Besides, among the various readings and emendations of Thietmar which Leibniz records at the end of volume 1 of the Writers of Brunswick, and says were noted later, it is noted that in Thietmar, book 2, page 330, line 5, and therefore in the text just transcribed here, perhaps Cuno is to be read in place of Hugh; and what Leibniz there pronounces, employing the particle "perhaps", which is that of those who doubt, appears to me, if not wholly certain, at least most like the truth, not only on account of what has been said, but also and indeed chiefly from the fact that the things which Widukind about the beginning of the third book, Flodoard in the Chronicle at the year 953, and likewise at the same year the continuator of Regino, the Saxon chronographer and annalist record concerning him, or Conrad, make it most manifest that the things which are said in the said text, and immediately after it, of Hugh, Otto's son-in-law, fit Cuno alone.

[95] but concerning Conrad, or Cuno, the duke, Wherefore, since for Hugh — who is asserted in the latter of the two texts of Thietmar just recited to have prepared snares together with Liudolf for Otto, returned from Italy into German Francia, and therefore to have been unfaithful to him — Conrad, or Cuno, which latter name comes nearer to the name of Hugh, must be substituted, and the Hugh to whom St. Bruno is narrated by Thietmar in the former of the same texts to have wished to confer the crown of the kingdom of Lotharingia is not, from what has been said, different from that Hugh, it follows that in the former too Cuno must be substituted for Hugh, and that therefore Thietmar is to be judged to speak there too not of Hugh, count of Paris, but of Conrad, or Cuno, duke of Lotharingia. But, you will say, Hugh, of

whom Thietmar speaks in the former of the two said texts, is called there the gener of St. Bruno; and since Hugh, count of Paris, was, from what has been said above, married to Hadwig, the sister of Bruno and Otto, and the husbands both of sisters and of daughters are accustomed to be called the generi of those whose these are, he certainly was the gener of St. Bruno; and although the husbands of a granddaughter and great-granddaughter too can be called the generi of those whose these are, Cuno could not on that account be called the gener of St. Bruno; for Liutgard, the daughter of Otto, to whom, as I have shown above, Cuno was joined in marriage, could not be called the neptis of Bruno, even though he was her paternal uncle, since this word, if one looks to the signification which it has among the more approved authors of the Latin tongue, signifies the daughter of a daughter or of a son.

[96] who in a sound sense too was Bruno's kinsman, suggest, wished to speak, I admit it is so, and the matter is also confirmed from Ulpian, who writes thus in the Digest, book 5, title 16, number 136: It is manifest that under the appellation of gener are contained the husbands both of a granddaughter and of a great-granddaughter, born as well of a son as of a daughter, and of the rest. But although this be so, gener nevertheless among the writers of the middle age sometimes also, as may be seen in Du Cange's Glossary of middle and low Latinity, signifies only the very same thing as agnate or kinsman by marriage; and since it is so, I think that Hugh — or rather Cuno, who, from what has been said, is to be substituted for him, and who, being married, from what has been said, to Liutgard, the daughter of Otto and therefore a blood-relative of St. Bruno, was certainly joined with him by affinity — is called by Thietmar in this signification, in the former of the two texts transcribed above, the gener of Bruno. And indeed either this must be admitted, or it must be said that Hugh, count of Paris, is treated of by Thietmar, and that therefore the words by which Thietmar insinuates that he had spoken before of the same Hugh of whom he speaks there are to be erased from that text. The matter will become evident to anyone who weighs attentively what has been said; and since it appears very little likely that those words are to be erased from the text, as not having originally proceeded from Thietmar, it is to be believed that, through the drowsiness of copyists, the name of Hugh crept into the same text in place of the name of Cuno, and that therefore Cuno, to whom the things fit which Thietmar insinuates he had said before of his Hugh, is to be substituted for him, and therefore that this writer speaks there not of Hugh but of Cuno. The Saxon Annalist, having spoken of Conrad or Cuno the duke at the year 954, presently records Thietmar's narration of the crown of the kingdom destined by Bruno for his gener, and nowhere calls him Hugh. But whether Thietmar wished to speak of Cuno or of Hugh, count of Paris, the narration indeed by which he relates that Bruno wished to confer on him the crown of the kingdom of Lotharingia seems to be held a mere and pure fiction.

[97] For if he wished to speak of Hugh, count of Paris, neither to Hugh of Paris, nor to his namesake son, it is necessary that Bruno — who, from what has been said, was created archbishop of Cologne in the year 953 no earlier than when some space of time had already elapsed after Easter, and who is narrated by Thietmar to have wished, when he was already archbishop, to confer the crown of Lotharingia on Hugh, invited to him at the time of Easter and coming to Cologne — certainly did not wish to do so in the year 953. Nor is it credible that he wished to do so likewise in the year 954 or 955 or finally 956, in which Hugh, count of Paris, died. For in the year 954, the affairs of Germany being disturbed by the parricidal war of Liudolf against his father Otto, Hugh, count of Paris, did not come to Cologne, but without doubt remained in the Gauls, where, as Flodoard teaches in the Chronicle at that year, he obtained Aquitaine and Burgundy for himself from the boy Lothar. In the year 955 Hugh received at Paris at Easter queen Gerberga with king Lothar her son; and since it is so, he was certainly not then at Cologne, where he could have received the crown of the Lotharingian kingdom from Bruno; and as for the year 956, or the last, in which perhaps someone may think the crown could have been conferred on Hugh of Paris by Bruno — in that year after Easter Hugh died; the emperor Otto proclaimed an assembly of the Lotharingians at Cologne, as Flodoard again teaches in the Chronicle at that year; and who would believe that in that very year the crown of the kingdom was destined by Bruno for Hugh, who was even then about to die, his brother the king being soon to be present as avenger of the injury thus done to himself? That this is surely scarcely credible Georg Fabricius saw; and hence he referred what Thietmar narrates of the crown destined by Bruno for Hugh, in book 3 of the Saxon Origins, not to the Hugh who, from what has been said, died in the year 956, but to his namesake son; but to him, who moreover was in none of the ways related above the gener of St. Bruno, the things which Thietmar wrote before about the infidelity of the Hugh mentioned by him fit no more than to his father.

[98] Let us now consider whether, if Thietmar is to be judged to speak of Cuno, in place of whom Hugh is wrongly read in Thietmar's text, his narration deserves greater credence. nor to Conrad, or Cuno, the duke, the crown of the Lotharingian kingdom Since Cuno, as I shall show below, was slain in the year 955 in the battle against the Hungarians fought on the day sacred to St. Laurence, and Bruno, from what has been said, was created archbishop of Cologne no earlier than when Easter of the year 953 had already passed by some space of time, it follows that, if he truly wished to confer the crown of Lotharingia on Cuno at Easter, this must necessarily have happened either in the year 954 or in the following. But that in neither of those years did it come about that Bruno wished to confer the crown of the Lotharingian kingdom on Cuno will become plain from what is now to be said. Widukind, book 3, page 655, having spoken of the death of Frederick, archbishop of Mainz, whom he sometimes calls the Supreme Pontiff, and at the same time of the universal assembly of the people in which, as we saw above, peace was established between king Otto and his son Liudolf towards the end of the year 954, presently adds: Mainz was handed over to the king after a year and a half, with all Francia: the son and the son-in-law were received into favour, which they also used faithfully to the end. In that year (namely 954) the Slavs who are called Uchri were conquered by Gero with great glory, Duke Conrad being sent by the king to his aid. Since therefore Conrad, or Cuno, who it is certain took part in the said assembly, set out after it by Otto's command to bring help to Gero, who was waging war against the Slavs, that war was most probably carried on in the very winter which ran out into the year 955 and in the spring following it; and since it is so, no one surely would easily believe that Cuno was at Cologne at the Easter time of the year 955 and that Bruno then wished to confer on him there the crown of Lotharingia.

[99] the crown to confer Besides, Conrad, or Cuno, used faithfully to the end, as Widukind testifies in the words just recited, the favour of Otto, into which, from what has been said, he had been received in the assembly of Arnstadt, held towards the end of the year 954; and since, if at the Easter time of the year 955 he had betaken himself to Cologne to receive there from Bruno the crown of the Lotharingian kingdom against the faith given to Otto, it could not be said, truth being preserved, that he used faithfully to the end the favour of Otto into which he had been received as the year 954 went out, Widukind by no means permits us to believe that he did so in the said year 955. There remains, therefore, only the year 954, at whose Easter time, if our Saint ever truly wished to confer the crown of Lotharingia on Cuno, he will have to be said to have wished to do so. But did St. Bruno in very truth wish to do so in that year, to which it is also referred by the Saxon annalist? Conrad, or Cuno, as we saw above, summoned the Hungarians into Lotharingia in the year 954, and offered himself as guide of the way to them, in whose battle-line he was with his followers; and since Folcuin expressly relates, in the words transcribed here at number 85, that when they had come to Maastricht on the Meuse he fell away from them, and that the cause for which he did this is uncertain, there will perhaps be someone who suspects that Cuno then, a little before Easter, betook himself from there to Agrippina Colonia, whither he had been invited by Bruno to be presented with the crown of the Lotharingian kingdom.

[100] St. Bruno wished, But since the Hungarians, before they burst into Lotharingia in the year 954, stopped at Worms, as we saw above, on Palm Sunday, and must have spent at least five or even six days in completing the journey from there to Maastricht on the Meuse, where Cuno departed from them, it follows that they certainly arrived at Maastricht on the Meuse no earlier than either on the very feast of Easter or on the day immediately preceding it, and that therefore Cuno could not then be present at Agrippina Colonia, contrary to what the narration of Thietmar, if it were true and to be understood of Cuno, would require, to receive the crown of Lotharingia from Bruno. Besides, while the Hungarians were on the road from Worms to Maastricht on the Meuse, laying waste everything that met them, who would believe either that Bruno thought of summoning Cuno to himself from the army of the most ferocious enemies, or, if the Saint did in fact then summon that duke, a rebel to his brother, to Cologne, and he hence departed from the Hungarians when they had come to Maastricht on the Meuse, that Folcuin, who lived in that very place and time at which the thing was done, would have been ignorant of it — but not likewise Thietmar, who lived only about fifty years later and far from Lotharingia? No one surely who has considered that what Thietmar records in the words recited above, of the crown destined for Hugh and broken by Volcmar, who fell to the ground feigning a stumble of the feet, must have been done before many thousands of men, and therefore, if it had truly taken place, could not have escaped Folcuin. I think, therefore, that the narration of Thietmar — if, as it appears, it does in fact hold that Bruno at some time wished to confer the crown of Lotharingia on his gener Hugh or Cuno — is foreign to the truth, and further that that writer put it into writing, though even considered in itself it manifestly smacks of fable, drawn not from authentic documents but only from the untrustworthy rumours of the common people.

[101] Nor is there any reason why this should appear to anyone either strange or difficult to believe. nor of Thietmar, who relates the contrary, who sometimes also For Thietmar in more than one place records other things too, which either seem fictitious, or, because they conflict with authors older than Thietmar and more worthy of credence, can deservedly be charged with falsity by the learned. Concerning the battle against the Hungarians fought by Otto near Augsburg of the Vindelici in the year 955, on the day sacred to St. Laurence,

book 2, page 332, wrongly asserts that on the day before that feast there had already been fighting with the Hungarians, and with ill success, yet that the captives were once more rescued from servitude by Duke Conrad, and that so at length on the following day the battle was renewed by the king and the victory won; for Widukind, who is older than Dithmar, Rotger the biographer of our Saint, and all the others record that everything was accomplished on the one feast of St. Lawrence. Besides this, to pass over other matters in which Dithmar could without difficulty be convicted of falsehood, concerning Liudolf, after he has related on page 332 that he submitted himself to Otto his father, against whom, as we saw above, he had borne arms in the year 953 and following, he writes thus on page 333: Liudolf the king's son, corrupted by the counsel of evil men, again resisted, and, leaving his fatherland, went on to Italy, and there, when he had been about one year, he died of grief on the eighth day before the Ides of September; but this most manifestly conflicts with Widukind and with Rotger the biographer of our Saint, to both of whom, as being older than Dithmar, greater credence is certainly owed than to Dithmar.

[102] For the former affirms that Liudolf, received back into favour by his Father after his rebellion against him, contrary to the truth, indeed even most like fables, made faithful use of it right to the end, as I have already shown above; the latter, however, plainly declares that Liudolf, already reconciled with his father, sought Italy not at all against his will, but, contrary to what Dithmar hints in the words just recited, with his father's ready consent, and indeed with his father supplying the forces by which he might subject it to himself; nor do other writers, likewise ancient, dissent from those two older writers; so that there can surely be no doubt that Dithmar, who by the words just recited hands down the contrary, strays from the truth in this matter. And let this now suffice to have been said concerning those things in which Dithmar seems able to be convicted of falsehood; as for those things which seem even most like fables and plainly invented, he writes thus in book 2, page 334: The emperor sent many bodies of Saints from Italy to Magdeburg by Dedo his chaplain. But this, which I heard concerning his cleric, by name Poppo, brother of Count William, is not to be passed over, being worthy of memory. When he had long served the emperor faithfully, he fell gravely ill, and being brought into ecstasy, he was led onto a lofty mountain, where he beheld a great city and its beautiful buildings.

[103] or plainly invented, Coming from there to a steep tower, he climbed its laborious ascents. At its summit he was found worthy to see Christ seated in majesty with all the Saints. There Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, accused by the supreme Judge for the vain pursuit of Philosophy, and defended by Bl. Paul, was enthroned again. Then this man, being summoned, was reproved for a similar cause, and, supported by the suppliant intercession of the Saints, he heard such a voice: "Coming to me after three days, you shall possess this chair, which I now show you." All these things the priest, when he awoke, explained to Caesar, whom he had summoned to him, and declared that it was not a dream but a true vision; he gave him thanks for all the good things which he had ever done for him, and so it was made known to him. Having made his confession and received remission from those present, he left what was another's, seeking again what was his own in good peace, having consoled his lord, who wept at so happy a death. This, whether a vision or a delusion of the demon or of sleep, Gelenius in the Hierotheca Pretiosa, page 54, sets out more neatly and at the same time more clearly than is done here by Dithmar in these words, and then he adds: Thus Dithm., book 2. In vain therefore and without foundation do Meibom., in his notes on Witich., Annals book 1, and Fabric., in Orig. Saxon., explode this story. That story, or if you prefer, vision, by which you might judge Bruno's study of Philosophy to have been approved rather than disapproved, I too would without hesitation bring myself to think was wrongly exploded by Fabricius and Meibom as a vain and ridiculous fiction, if I had ascertained that it was drawn by Dithmar from ancient and trustworthy records.

[104] as is proved, he records, But I find nothing at all that persuades this, or that has arisen in any way at all; on the contrary, this writer himself, at the very beginning of the words which I have just transcribed here, clearly declares that he received his account of the vision which was granted to Poppo, Otto's chaplain, only by hearing from others; and those things which are known not from authentic documents but only by hearsay have for the most part, indeed almost always, arisen only from rumours and the untrustworthy talk of the common people, which, since it grows as it goes, it very often happens that, although the matters with which it is concerned may perhaps at the beginning not be wholly incredible, yet little by little, while the circumstances with which they were at first clothed are either changed or new ones are added to the former by one and another of those by whom they are related, they degenerate into narratives that surpass all belief; and since this is so, and credence is not readily to be given to visions, revelations and miracles, or to any deeds whatever which exceed the powers of nature or its accustomed course, unless they are known to be founded in records of tested credit on every side, and therefore by no means drawn from uncertain rumours, there is surely reason why the vision of the chaplain Poppo, related above in Dithmar's words, since records of this kind certainly do not stand in its favour, should be held, if not for certain invented and false, at least doubtful and very much suspect. Moreover, it can without difficulty be proved by the fact itself that it not infrequently happens, as I have just hinted, that narratives born of the untrustworthy talk of the common people, even if at the beginning perhaps not wholly incredible, little by little degenerate into fables surpassing all belief; nor, to do this, need one wander outside the very argument with which we are dealing here.

[105] For what Dithmar relates in the words recited above concerning the crown of the kingdom promised by Bruno to his brother-in-law Hugh, and broken by Volcmar, [to the narrative, perhaps also in the manner of other narratives, no differently than the latter itself.] the Saint's deacon, when it was to have been conferred upon him on the solemn day of Easter, who fell to the ground with a feigned stumble of the feet, is, in the abridged manuscript Life of St. Bruno which is cited by Gelenius in the Hierotheca sacra, page 59, with the circumstances in which Dithmar clothes it changed, augmented besides with so many other circumstances, either invented by a later writer or received from rumour accustomed to deceive, that the matter, which as related by Dithmar has hitherto been believed by some, will certainly find credence with no one of sound mind as it stands in that abridged Life. That the studious reader may gather how true this is, and at the same time how much fables grow with the lapse of time, it will be useful to transcribe here from that writer all the words of that abridged Life which bear on this and are presented by Gelenius in the place cited. They run thus: While the glorious Otto ruled the Roman empire, through his favour his brother was set over the people of Cologne as pontiff, a man of excellent disposition toward the world, of wonderful religion toward God, whose life or deeds, crowned with the little flowers of many virtues, will delight the curious reader among us. And indeed the greatest part of the man's wonderful efficacy the writer's undigested account has passed over, since his more celebrated fame had filled the remote corners of the world. In the times of this man's priesthood an occasion arose that moved the king with his army into the Italian regions, to treat of the business of the kingdom with the Lombards, and he delegated the administration of the Gauls to the same brother and bishop, and enjoined him to do judgment and justice, knowing that under such a patron provision was made for the church, for people as well as clergy, for civil as well as plebeian.

[106] But St. Bruno, bearing the charge of what had been committed to him, having visited the churches, as from the abridged Life of the Saint villages, castles and cities, encouraged everyone everywhere to do their duties, reconciled those at variance with one another, restored peace, and confirmed the restored peace with the sacrament of an oath together with the chief men of the provinces. So, as the feast of Bl. Peter came round, the same prelate, being at Cologne, sent an embassy and invited the king of Paris for the sake of the celebration. And the king, joined to him by affection of kinship as well as of love, did not delay to go; he was received with fitting and suitable veneration of the occasion, and entertained with the fullest joy. Yet with I know not what rashness he had ordered that he should go in procession crowned on the sacred day. The Prelate, resisting this, that he might not by consenting to unaccustomed things guard against an offence to his brother, the keeper of the royal crown, by whom in some way he is said to have had this persuaded, so that, being about to carry it forth on the sacred day, he should take occasion from the press of the people, and with a voluntary fall, as though pushed, stumble with his feet, and with a feigned fall let the diadem slip. So it was done, and, hemmed in by the press of the people, he falls as the crown falls, and it is trampled by the feet of the clamouring people. Nor could the deed lie hidden from the king, who, frustrated in his hope, went in procession indeed, but only wearing a circlet, and when the Masses were completed, having tasted rather than taken food, he would not recline at table any longer, but, hastening his preparations, set out to go. Meanwhile the matter is covered in silence. The Parisian, however, grieving that he had been wronged, contrives a similar requital for the Prelate.

[107] the Life of the Saint is brought forward, Hence on the sacred day of Bl. Denis, apostle of the Parisians, the king invited the bishop, that he might celebrate the solemn Mass with all the clergy and receive favour for favour. The Prelate obeyed, and on the sacred day, going in procession adorned with pontifical glory, he found some other bishop of that nation, I know not whom, standing at the altar. His learned mind understood the revenge of the old anger, but since he had already begun the sacred rites of the Mass, he turned aside to another altar, and with his followers completed the Mass he had undertaken, and without bidding farewell to the king, without dining, accompanied by his men, he went out of the city, wishing it to be made known both to the king and to the city that judgment would come upon them for the injury inflicted. Delaying no longer, he revisited his fellow provincials, prepared supplies and necessaries, drew up camps of soldiers, and, returning, he attacked the king with all his men, drove him off and routed him, consumed the city with flames and laid it waste, and returned a victor. These things Gelenius gives from the cited abridged Life of our Saint, adding immediately that these very things are also hinted at in the Chronicles of Cologne. Certainly I am not in a position to declare which or of what kind those Chronicles cited here by Gelenius are; but in the Great Belgian Chronicle, page 80, the chronicles of the bishops are cited by an anonymous Canon Regular of Neuss, in which, as he says in that same place, the following words are read: While the emperor Otto, brother of Archbishop Bruno, was tarrying in Italy, Bruno, having received from the emperor the administration of the Cisalpine Gauls, made war vigorously on the Franks, who were committing robberies, and, having gained the victory, took the renowned city of Paris and despoiled it of abundant treasures.

[108] arose in the manner of narratives, What then if the Cologne chronicles cited by Gelenius are not altogether different from the chronicles of the bishops which the anonymous writer of Neuss cites? These indeed, in what they relate here concerning the city of Cologne, disagree not a little from what is narrated concerning the same city in the abridged Life of our Saint toward the end of the words just transcribed here from it; but Gelenius indicates that these things are not contained in the Cologne chronicles cited by him, but only hinted at.

However that may be, what is recorded concerning the city of Paris, whether burned by Bruno or even only despoiled of its treasures, deserves no more credence in the chronicles cited by the canon of Neuss than in the chronicles cited by Gelenius. For this is found recorded anywhere neither by Dithmar, nor by Widukind, nor by the continuator of Regino, nor finally by Flodoard, with whom the Saxon annalist and chronographer can also be joined, who would certainly have known the matter, had it happened, and would by no means have kept silent about it; nor does it appear in any way probable that Bruno would have done what he is related in those chronicles to have done. King Otto entered Gaul in the year 946, as the continuator of Regino reports at this year, with a strong army, to bring help to Louis d'Outremer against Hugh the Great, and, having laid waste the territory of Paris, which obeyed Hugh, he also besieged him in Paris, as Widukind relates in book 3, page 651. Those Chronicles may probably have transferred this deed, with the various circumstances with which it is clothed either changed or omitted, from Otto to his brother Bruno. As for what concerns specifically the narrative transcribed here just above from the abridged Life of our Saint, or from Gelenius, this certainly disagrees not a little in its circumstances from the narrative by which Dithmar relates that Bruno wished to confer the crown of the kingdom upon his brother-in-law Hugh; indeed the one most manifestly conflicts with the other, as anyone who has compared the two will without difficulty discover.

[109] And the latter indeed, furnished with some circumstances which are found in the former, undoubted credence is to be given. and augmented with others which are absent from it, nowhere distinguishes the king of Paris, who it relates wished to have the diadem placed upon himself by Bruno, either by the name of Hugh or by any other name; but although this is so, yet from this very fact, that it declares that then, while Otto was absent in Italy, the vicarious power in the empire had been committed to Bruno by the emperor (which, from what is to be said, if it ever happened, certainly did not happen before the year 961), it becomes evident that the talk in it is not of Hugh the Great, count of the Parisians, who was never king and had already been taken from among the living in the year 956, but of Hugh Capet, his son, who afterwards became king of the Franks. Nor indeed do there occur in the narrative given above from Gelenius those things which, as I have already shown before, do not fit Hugh Capet and are related by Dithmar; but even from this it is permissible to gather that not a few things in this writer's narrative were changed by a later writer, namely the anonymous monk of St. Pantaleon at Cologne who wrote the abridged Life of St. Bruno; and since this is established also from other things already said, it may be doubted whether in Dithmar's own text, both where the discourse is of the vision which was granted to the chaplain Poppo, and where it is of the crown which was destined for Hugh by Bruno, certain changes were not made in the lapse of time by a later writer, by which there was ascribed to Bruno what should not have been ascribed to him; and since from what has been said there are still other things which do not commend the credibility of either of those narratives, so far is it from the case that even the former, which reports that Bruno wished to give the crown to Hugh, either the count of the Parisians who died in the year 956 or his namesake son, or to Cuno of Lotharingia, deserves undoubted credence, that on the contrary it seems, as I have already asserted above, that it must be held for a mere and pure fiction.

* read Berengarius

§ IX. The care undertaken to raise the troubled spirit of his nephew; the building of the monastery of St. Pantaleon and other things done in the year 956.

He raises the dejected spirit of his nephew Although in the year 954 Liudolf and Conrad had been received back into favour by Otto, yet, even when peace had been made between these and the king toward the end of the same year at Arnstadt, Conrad by no means recovered the duchy which he had lost, and Liudolf, on the contrary, was also punished with the loss of his. It is permissible to gather this from the continuator of Regino, who, having narrated at the year 954 the election of William, the king's son, as archbishop of Mainz, which had been made at Arnstadt by the unanimous vote of people and clergy, immediately adds: At that time Liudolf, recalled into the king's favour, gave back to his father the vassals whom he had, and the duchy (namely of Alemannia or Swabia); in which Burchard succeeded him in the duchy. Conrad too, stripped of all the riches that he had, having given up the duchy of Lotharingia, is admitted into the king's favour, content with life and fatherland and estate. This penalty, to which Liudolf had been condemned by his father and by the assembly of the kingdom, as appears from this text of the writer who continued Regino, could certainly seem not very heavy, account being taken of the most grievous crime which he had committed in taking up arms against his father and in confounding the kingdom with slaughter and blood, even calling in the Hungarians for its destruction; but it weighed most grievously upon the young prince, and it was to be feared that, the state of his affairs being desperate, he would allow himself to be carried away once more into counsels that would be ruinous to quiet and peace, should any occasion perhaps present itself of stirring up new disturbances.

[111] and Italy This did not escape Bruno, and when he had learned of the new irruption of the Hungarians into Bavaria, which happened when the summer of the year 955 was advanced, fearing lest Liudolf should perhaps attempt something new on this occasion, he strove with the greatest zeal especially then, although he is to be thought to have done this also before, to soothe his troubled spirit and to raise it with the hope of better things. It is permissible to gather this from the biographer of our Saint, who, having first said something in num. 52 and following about the irruption of the Hungarians into Bavaria which I have just mentioned, about the battle fought with them near Augsburg of the Vindelici, about Duke Conrad slain in it, and about the signal victory over the enemies won by Otto, then sets out thus in num. 54 what St. Bruno did in the meantime: When he (namely St. Bruno) saw that he could not meet his lord and brother the great emperor with auxiliary forces on the appointed day, and at the same time was anxious lest perhaps the barbarians, avoiding battle, should turn aside into Gaul, the province committed to his jurisdiction, thinking that thus he would provide for the kingdom and thus serve the emperor's wishes more fully, he met Liudolf, the royal offspring, his nephew, soothed his troubled spirit with blandishments sweeter than honey, and promised him his former state, if he would attend more carefully to what was his own. After he perceived that the medicinal antidotes of his words and exhortations were not, as before, turned aside by him with oblique evasions, but were tasted with more than usual eagerness and received into the inmost parts of his breast, he soon invited him very pleasantly to the venerable place of his bishopric, namely Bonn, received him more pleasantly still, and, not unmindful of the royal dignity, regaled him with every pleasure worthy and suitable for both and most agreeable to all who were present. While they were still together, they received messages concerning the things which were done in the warlike expedition, or rather by divine power.

[112] The uncle pressed on to console his nephew more fully. That the meeting of St. Bruno with Liudolf here mentioned, by which, the expedition against Berengar also, not unwillingly, in which he strove to console him, was held at Bonn in the year 955 in the month of August, becomes evident from this, that, while uncle and nephew were still together, they received there, as is understood from these words of our biographer just transcribed here, the news of the battle fought with the Hungarians on the day sacred to St. Lawrence, that is, the tenth of August, and of the victory won over them by Otto. Nor did Bruno soothe his nephew with an empty consolation of words only; but by the authority which he had with his brother Otto he also brought it about that not long afterwards the whole of Italy was delegated to him. It came to pass, says Rotger immediately after the words just recited, in a short time, at the prompting of this counsellor, that the emperor delegated the whole of Italy to his son, who had been lost and was found. But since Otto had given Italy to Berengar to rule in the year 954, as we saw above, how did it come about that not long after the battle fought against the Hungarians near Augsburg of the Vindelici in the year 955 he delegated the whole of it to Liudolf? Neither the continuator of Regino, nor Widukind, nor any other writers of German History who flourished in the 10th century explain this. Hence perhaps it came about that Dithmar, not knowing that Italy had been delegated to Liudolf by Otto, and yet having it ascertained from elsewhere that he had invaded that region in the year 956, supposed that this had been done by him in renewed rebellion against his father, and further also committed it to writing, as I have shown above; but Arnulf, an Italian writer, in book 4, chapter 5 of the History of Milan, affirms that the fear felt by Walpert, archbishop of Milan, of Berengar, with whom Otto had tried in vain to reconcile Walpert, was the reason why the latter sent his son Liudolf with an army into Italy in the year 956.

[113] However that may be, it is altogether certain, which is to be well observed here lest anyone think that everything Dithmar writes is to be blindly believed, [but with his father even helping, he sets out, he takes care that it be delegated,] that Liudolf did not seek Italy against his father's will, but was sent there by him himself, even if perhaps with no other design than to occupy the restless disposition of his still young son with a foreign rather than a domestic war; this is certain from the continuator of Regino, from Arnulf just cited, and from the Saxon chronographer and annalist, to all of whom, asserting it with unanimous consent, greater credence is owed than to Dithmar alone. Liudolf, says the continuator of Regino at the year 956, is directed into Italy to put down the tyranny of Berengar, and in a short time, Berengar having been expelled, he becomes possessor of almost the whole of Italy. The Saxon annalist and chronographer have the same; and Hermann Contractus expressly affirms that Berengar with his son Adalbert was put to flight and that Pavia, both the city and the province, was occupied by Liudolf; and since this could only have been done with very great difficulty if that prince had undertaken so great an enterprise with his own forces only and not also with his father's, this too is indeed an argument that he undertook the expedition against Berengar, mentioned by the continuator of Regino in the words just recited, not only not against Otto's will, but even with his help; and this is confirmed by the fact that Otto, as our biographer testifies in num. 55, through Bruno's intervention not only delegated Italy to his son, but also, which was greater, bestowed upon him most firmly, as he puts it, his paternal affection.

[114] he takes part in two placita or assemblies held in the year 956, Furthermore, the continuator of Regino, who in the words just recited says that Liudolf was sent into Italy in the year 956 to restrain the tyranny of Berengar, records also that in the same year a placitum was held by Otto at Cologne Agrippina after Easter, and the Saxon chronologer and annalist agree with him at that year. And indeed all these three mention only one placitum, which Otto held at Cologne Agrippina after Easter. But Flodoard in his chronicle at the same year makes mention not only of one, which was held at Cologne Agrippina, but also of another, which was held by Otto at Ingelheim, in these words:

King Otto held a placitum at Ingelheim with the Lotharingians, from whom he also received hostages from almost all their towns. Likewise another placitum was held by him after Easter at Cologne, where he received not a few treasures from the Lotharingians. What was done in those two placita I find nowhere expressly recorded by anyone; but that St. Bruno had no small part both in the one and in the other appears most probable even from this, that the Lotharingians, whose duke or governor he was, were present at both. And the first indeed, since in it the king received hostages from almost all the towns of the Lotharingians, I think was held either on account of the fear that was felt lest these should perhaps attempt something new, or on account of a certain sum of money to be demanded from them, which they then also paid in the other placitum, hostages having been given in the former as security for the payment.

[115] in the former of these, for fear lest disturbances And indeed that at that time the fear lest the Lotharingians should attempt something new was not wholly absent, is suggested by the following words of Folcuin, abbot of Lobbes, which are read also almost without any difference in our biographer at num. 59, concerning Ratherius, who, as we have seen, had been raised to the see of Liège about the beginning of the year 954 through the action of Archbishop Bruno, and was cast out from it by the tumultuous clergy and people of Liège in the year, as Sigebert notes, 956, and therefore, since he begins the years from the 25th day of March preceding the Nativity of the Lord, and the matter was done on this feast, as is understood from the writer now to be cited, toward the end of the year 955. While he was celebrating the Nativity of the Lord with us festively and sumptuously, a most grievous conspiracy was made against him at Liège, which it seemed could not be appeased unless he were both entirely removed from there and Baldric, who was sprung from the lineage of the magnates of that land, were substituted in the same place. Innumerable tempests flowed together into this bilge; the ship of the church tossed, the oarsman labouring; the helmsman himself was not able to bear the onset of the stormy tempest. He yielded therefore, he yielded, lest he should be overcome by evil, but that he might overcome evil with good: he yielded to the will of his adversaries, that he might slay them with their own sword for himself: they bound themselves of their own accord by the faith of oaths that, if they deserved to receive the bishop whom they were asking for, they would thenceforth defend with unconquered firmness the authority of the church and the imperial right.

[116] Thus the people of Liège, with the very greatest contention, scarcely or not even scarcely abstaining from threats, [should be stirred up, he does not seek to restore Ratherius, cast down from the see of Liège, to it.] a tumult having been raised, demanded that Ratherius be cast out of the see of Liège and Baldric substituted in it in his place; and since, as it is permissible to gather from these words of Sigebert at the year 956, Ratherius having been cast out of the bishopric of the people of Liège, Baldric, through the efforts of his uncle Count Reginar of Mons, is substituted as bishop, they did this at the instigation of Reginar, count of Mons, who had very great influence not only among the people of Liège but also among the other Lotharingians, very probably every fear lest these should attempt something new was not absent from Otto and his brother Bruno while the two assemblies already mentioned above, the one at Ingelheim, the other at Cologne Agrippina, were being held in the year 956. Hence, unless I am mistaken, it came about that in the former of these Bruno, lest new disturbances should be stirred up in the kingdom which would perhaps bring it utter ruin, did not undertake to defend Ratherius, very recently cast out from the see of Liège against right and justice, or to restore him to it, although otherwise he would meanwhile have been ready to do this with all his strength, as it is permissible to gather even from this, that afterwards, with his brother Otto labouring together with him, he took care that the see of Verona, from which, as I showed above, he had been driven, should be restored to him, as our biographer teaches at num. 59, adding immediately after the words with which he narrates there the expulsion of Ratherius from the see of Liège the following about Bruno: But lest anything should remain unfinished in business of this kind which might stir a scruple in the curious investigations of others' affairs, he brought it about with the emperor his brother that the ancient see of the church of Verona should be restored to Bishop Ratherius, who had now twice been deprived.

[117] As for what concerns the second of the two said assemblies, held at Cologne after Easter, he diligently fulfils the part of a political prince, Flodoard only teaches, in the words adduced above, that Otto received in it not a few treasures from the Lotharingians, or, as appears, no small sum of money; but what besides was done there at that time, not only by Otto but also by his brother Bruno, is clearly understood from our biographer. For he, having spoken in num. 55 of Italy delegated to Liudolf, which from what was said above was done in the year 956, immediately adds these following words, in which it is plain that that assembly is treated: But his father, the emperor and ever magnificent conqueror, having received consolation after mourning, joined his old intimacy with his brother by a new familiarity. He came to Cologne. There he delighted himself not so much in fraternal delicacies as in mutual sight of him, in conversations, and in all the most pleasant intercourse altogether. Nor was there lacking there the stern censure of judgment against the wicked and troublesome citizens of the kingdom, and likewise the gentle liberality of a pious lordship toward the good and mild. Concerning the state of the kingdom and concerning its affairs, to be defended and extended, counsel was taken in common diligently and vigorously; it was provided with the greatest counsel that matters to be sanctioned should be dealt with, and others cut away, most cautiously. Nor did our Saint do only the things that are mentioned here with his brother in that assembly; but also, as the same biographer of ours presently adds, He sought out … with the greatest diligence …, active and industrious men, who should each in his own place defend the commonwealth with fidelity and strength, and he diligently took care that neither counsel nor resources should be lacking to them. As many also of the princes and regional chief men, and of the others whom the ordering of the kingdom concerned, as had with full faith consented through his most wholesome admonitions to a covenant for the common advantage of all good men, these he himself held among his chief and intimate friends, and reconciled them especially to the emperor his brother, weighing what was said not rashly by a certain wise man: "The good man, where you neglect him, becomes more sluggish, or the bad man more wicked."

[118] and, not neglecting the office of bishop, the monastery of St. Pantaleon, Thus the Saint diligently and vigorously fulfilled the things that pertained to the part of a political prince. Nor yet on that account is he to be thought in any way to have neglected what either religion or the office of a bishop required of him. But what he did, says Rotger at num. 34 of Bruno when already ordained bishop, how he taught, how he spent himself for the peace of the churches of God, is wonderful in act, difficult in the telling. For his daily works so surpassed the distinctions of his predecessors that everything he had done in enlarging or restoring churches, in translating relics and bodies of Saints into his diocese, in constructing private or public buildings, in ordering households and the affairs of the family of the holy Church of God, seemed almost beyond comparison with the work of others. Among the buildings which Rotger here indicates were constructed or erected by the Saint, there comes to be mentioned by us in this place, where we are treating of the things done by the Saint in the year 956, the monastery of St. Pantaleon, which Bruno built, or, as others will have it, restored, not far from the city of Cologne. Hadamar, abbot of Fulda, by whom, as we saw above, Bruno sent a synodal letter to Pope Agapetus in the year 953, brought with him from Rome, together with the pallium sent to our Saint by Agapetus, relics of St. Pantaleon, concerning whom the preliminary Commentary with us at the 27th day of July, num. 43 and following, can be consulted; and St. Bruno received these together with that sacred vestment in the ancient church of St. Pantaleon near Cologne, which was close to ruin, where Hadamar had deposited them. He therefore, in order to prepare a fitting seat for those sacred pledges, Not long afterwards, as our biographer teaches in Surius and Leibniz, chapter 24 (those three words and the five others following being omitted in our codex by a yawning copyist), established there, as being in a more secluded place and one more removed from the trouble of the city's unrest, brothers watchful and solicitous in the divine praise to serve the Lord under the rule of monastic discipline; over whom he set an abbot named Christian.

[119] whose foundation Gelenius defers to the year 964. Gelenius, On the Greatness of Cologne Agrippina, book 3, syntagma 12, has first thus: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation, as the tablets (namely of the foundation of the said monastery) say, 964, Bruno, twelfth archbishop of the church of Cologne and brother of the emperor Otto the First, founded the monastery of St. Pantaleon outside the walls of the city, and established brothers watchful in the divine praise under the rule of the Benedictine monastic life, over whom he set an abbot named Christian; and then, some things being interposed, he continues thus: The same Archbishop Bruno in the diploma of foundation of the monastery grants it very many liberties, prohibits the taking of spoils at the death of deceased abbots, and commands that no one at all should obtain the place of the deceased except him whom the votive election of the brothers, according to the fear and love of Christ, should wish to be set over them from among their own. And he exempts the monastery from every burden, except that when his lords successors must set out beyond the Alps for the state and business of the kingdom, they should receive from the abbot of the aforesaid church, out of charity, a strong bay horse, but bare; and if within the Alps, a vehicle without beasts of burden, which, if it survives after the expedition, is to be restored, lest even in this they bring loss upon his church. Thus the cited Gelenius; and since the diploma of foundation, by which the things here mentioned were granted to the monastery of St. Pantaleon by Bruno, is noted, as he presently adds, as given in the year 964, hence very probably he supposed that monastery to have been founded in that year, and further asserted, in the words recited here in the first place, that it is handed down in that diploma, which he calls the tablets of foundation and which he interprets more freely than is right, that this was in fact then done.

[120] But Mabillon, who thinks the monastery of St. Pantaleon at Cologne was founded in the year 956, in the year 956, as Mabillon judges, having first said in the Benedictine Annals, book 45, num. 96, that its construction is deferred later by Gelenius (namely in the place now cited by me), and that this is proved by him from Bruno's diploma or privilege, by which the things already mentioned are granted to that sacred ascetery, immediately adds: But this privilege could have been granted some years after the founding of the monastery; nor is it probable that Bruno, after receiving the relics of St. Pantaleon from the City, waited eleven years before a fitting seat and religious guardians and worshippers of the place were assigned to them. The matter plainly stands thus, as it certainly appears to me. And indeed, that Bruno did not defer the building of the monastery of St. Pantaleon until the year 964 is suggested to me also by the very biographer of our Saint. For after the relics of St. Pantaleon, in the ancient church of that holy martyr, close to ruin,

near Cologne, had been deposited for a time by Hadamar, abbot of Fulda, who, as everyone will gather from what was said above, had brought them from Rome in the year 953 or about the beginning of the following year, as he narrated at num. 42, he presently adds that not long afterwards brothers watchful and solicitous in the divine praise, to serve the Lord, were established there by Bruno, which he would certainly not have done if the thing had been done only ten or eleven years later. Besides, the Saxon annalist and chronographer write thus at the year 956: Brun, archbishop of Cologne, the king's brother, built the monastery of St. Pantaleon; and since no writer is found, either more excellent or more ancient than that annalist and chronographer, who places the building of the monastery of St. Pantaleon after the year 956 assigned by them, I think one must stand with Mabillon, who, as I have said, ties it to this year.

[121] Moreover Gelenius, who supposes that the monastery of St. Pantaleon was founded by St. Bruno only in the year 964, he builds it, as appears, even from the very foundations, writes thus at the beginning of the Syntagma cited above: The church under the patronage of the holy physicians Pantaleon, Cosmas and Damian lacks any record of its origin on account of its antiquity; yet that it existed in the times of the emperor Louis and his son Lothar is established from a diploma of the year 853, in which I read these words: "The church of St. Pantaleon, which is known to belong to the treasury and the lights of the same mother church (the metropolitan), but also the hospital built therein for the reception of the poor, etc." Which words suggest not a recent origin but an aged antiquity. Thus he, adding then still some other things from which he affirms it is known that the beginnings of the monastery of St. Pantaleon, although St. Bruno is reckoned its founder, are to be placed before his age; but since the ancient church of St. Pantaleon near Cologne, when Hadamar, abbot of Fulda, deposited in it for a time the relics of St. Pantaleon which he had brought from Rome, was neglected and close to ruin, as Rotger testifies in the place just cited, nothing prevents Bruno from being believed to have ordered it to be pulled down, even if it had formerly been occupied by monks, as the things Gelenius alleges seem to prove, and to have built a new one from the foundations together with buildings destined for the use of the monks. And indeed that the Saint did in fact do this, and did not merely restore the ancient church, is suggested to me, together with the Lorsch Chronicle cited above more than once, which, as I said, expressly lists among three monasteries built, as it reports, at Cologne Agrippina by St. Bruno, one distinguished by the name of St. Pantaleon, by the Saxon annalist and chronographer, likewise cited above more than once already, who record that the said monastery of St. Pantaleon at Cologne was not restored but built by Bruno.

[122] He takes care that her dowry goods be restored to his sister Gerberga. Now let us proceed from this sacred ascetery, which, as I have shown, the Saint built in the year 956, or at least (for perhaps it was not brought to completion in the same year in which it was begun) began to build, to other things which Bruno is related to have done in the same year 956. Lothar, son of Louis d'Outremer, king of the Franks, by Gerberga, sister of our Saint, as I showed above, who had succeeded his father in the kingdom when he was taken from among the living in the year 954, about two years having passed from then, that is, in the year 956, had seized the castle of Reginar, count of Hainaut, situated on the river Chiers, and, having sacked and burned the castle, had carried off with him his children and soldiers. Gerberga, thinking that this occasion should be used to recover the goods which she had received under the name of dowry from her former husband Duke Giselbert, and which Reginar was holding by violence, came down to a conference with her brother Bruno, so that through his intervention she might be made to obtain her wish and matters might be settled with Reginar; and Bruno, having spoken with his sister and, as appears most probable, also with Reginar, brought it about that her goods were restored to her, and his children and soldiers to him. So I gather from Flodoard, who in his Chronicle at the said year 956 writes thus: King Lothar recovered by fighting a certain fortification on the river Chiers, which Count Reginar had taken from a certain Urso, a knight of the church of Reims, and carried off with him the children of Reginar and certain soldiers found there, and burned the castle itself after sacking it… Queen Gerberga held a conference with Bruno her brother, where his soldiers and children are returned to the aforesaid Reginar; and to the queen are restored the possessions which Duke Giselbert had once given her under the name of dowry.

[123] In the same year 956 in which these things were done there happened also another thing, [and that to Abd al-Rahman, king of the Saracens, from whom envoys had come to Otto,] in which the Saint had no small part. Through frequent victories, says Widukind of Otto in book 3, the emperor, having become glorious and famous, earned the fear and likewise the favour of many kings and nations; whence he receives very many envoys, of the Romans and of the Greeks and of the Saracens, and through them in those days gifts of different kinds, vessels of gold and of silver; and what is reported in these words happened either in the year 956, as appears, to which it is commonly tied by the learned, or certainly toward the end of the year 955, to which it is referred by the Saxon annalist. For Widukind, immediately after the words already recited, with only a few other things interposed which bear on the same matter, has thus: But Liudolf, the emperor's son, wishing to keep faith with his friends, left his fatherland and went to Italy with them; while he was there for almost a whole year, he died his last day; wherefore, since he thus hints, as appears, that the envoys of different kings and nations came to Otto at about the same time at which Liudolf went to Italy, to die there after a year, and Liudolf went to Italy in the year 956, as we saw above, it follows that the envoys mentioned by Widukind came to Otto either in the same year 956 or certainly (for nothing suggests that that event is to be tied to the year 957) in the year 955.

[124] Furthermore, to come nearer now to what concerns our Saint, envoys were likewise to be sent by him, among those envoys there were also some who, as the Life of St. John, abbot of Gorze, inserted in our Work at the 22nd day of February, teaches us, had been sent with letters and gifts by Abd al-Rahman, the most powerful king of the Moors in Spain. These, over whom a certain bishop presided, having been received according to their dignity and long detained, after rather long delays, during which that bishop dies, it is inquired who should likewise be sent by Otto as envoys to the king of the Saracens. While it is inquired by our people, says the writer of the Life of St. John, abbot of Gorze, who should be sent back there, after some counsels had been debated for some time, it was at length agreed that, because the same king was sacrilegious and profane, as being a Saracen and altogether alien from the true faith, and who, although he sought the friendship of a Christian prince, had yet in the letters which he had sent vomited forth certain blasphemies against Christ, they should, together with the imperial writings which they were to carry, also open their own voice to him, and, if by any means it should be granted from on high, might change his unbelief. An end to the difficult and long deliberation was put by Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, who enjoined Adalbero, bishop of Metz, to choose for that embassy two suitable men from among his own, who would be ready freely to profess the Christian truth, if the matter so required.

[125] How the matter was done the author of the cited Life of St. John, [to Adalbero of Metz, that he should prepare two of his own fit for that embassy, not before,] abbot of Gorze, sets forth in these following words, with us at num. 116: It happened, he says, that just about those days our Adalbero of sacred memory had come to the palace. Bruno, the king's brother, who was afterwards to be of great and happy use and honour, was so excellently learned in wisdom and prudence, both in public affairs and in the learning of all the liberal disciplines, that he surpassed all of his own time and almost equalled the ancients; to whom moreover much instruction in Greek reading had been added; he was at that time the sharer of all affairs to be transacted publicly and privately, and a most prudent counsellor, and to him had been given the charge of the imperial letters. He, while the others were consulting in various ways, names our Adalbero, the bishop of sacred memory, and adds that this business could be enjoined on no one more fitly, because he had very many perfect men who, it was well established, would by no means yield to human terrors, as being already dead to the world and ready to speak with free mouth for the faith before any powers whatever. The bishop is approached and is ordered to prepare two suitable men of his own for the embassy to Spain. Since Bruno is here said by the cited writer of the Life of St. John, abbot of Gorze, only to be afterwards of great and happy use and honour and to have had the charge of the imperial letters committed to him, the title neither of bishop nor of duke being anywhere attributed to him, and so he makes him here archchaplain indeed, in which office we saw above that our Saint served with Otto even before he was a bishop, but not also bishop, someone perhaps will call into doubt whether it was before or after he had been raised to that dignity, and therefore whether before or after the year 953, that our Saint did what he narrates in the words already given that he did.

[126] but after the year 955, as the things adduced here suggest But Widukind does not supply the words transcribed here above, in which he reports that envoys of different nations, and by name of the Saracens, came to Otto, already glorious and celebrated through frequent victories, before he has narrated the two victories which Otto won in the year 955, the one over the Hungarians on the day sacred to St. Lawrence, that is, the 10th of August, as said above, the other over the Slavs on the day, as Hepidannus teaches, sacred to St. Gall, that is, the 16th of October; wherefore, since that writer, who flourished in the same 10th century as our Saint, is accustomed to narrate things in the order in which they were done, his authority altogether requires us to believe that those envoys came to this prince not before the two said victories had been won by Otto and the year 955 had therefore already advanced to the 16th day of October. And now, since certainly also, as will be evident to one who considers it, our Saint did not do what he is related, in the words just transcribed here by the author of the Life of St. John, abbot of Gorze, to have done, before the said envoys had already come to Otto, and since between this and the arrival of the envoys to Otto no altogether small space of time intervened, as it is easy to gather from what was said above, it follows that our Saint very probably did not do what is reported by that author in the said words to have been done before the year 956, and indeed when it was already somewhat advanced; that is, that Bruno only then, when this latter year had already been running for some time, enjoined Adalbero, bishop of Metz, or at least took care that it should be enjoined, to choose two men from among his own fit for the embassy to be sent to Abd al-Rahman, king of the Saracens.

[127] Nor is there reason why anyone should

call into doubt whether the matter did not happen already from the year in which, as Flodoard writes in his Chronicle, envoys of different nations also came to Otto, he enjoined it, or took care that it be enjoined. namely 948, and therefore before the year 953, or the time at which our Saint was made bishop of the people of Cologne, on the ground that the writer of the Life of St. John, abbot of Gorze, already cited above more than once, in the words transcribed here above makes our Saint Otto's archchaplain but not likewise bishop. For Bruno performed the office of archchaplain with Otto even at the time when he had already been promoted to the chair of Cologne, nor was it necessary that the writer of the Life of St. John, abbot of Gorze, wishing to designate Bruno, should for that purpose use all the titles that belonged to him. Indeed, since he hints (see his words adduced above) that the Saint was not already, when he did what he is said in those words to have done, but only afterwards was to be, of great and happy use and honour, he gives a handle for suspecting that he was not yet a bishop even then; but since that writer was a monk, he may perhaps have spoken thus wishing to signify that Bruno, when he had done what he relates him to have done, became shortly afterwards, not bishop of Cologne, but, having repressed some malevolent men who were most hostile to the monks in Hainaut, and by name Reginar, count of Mons, whom he drove into exile in the year 957, as we shall see in the following §, the protector and patron of the churches and monasteries in Lotharingia. However that may be, that the embassy of Abd al-Rahman to Otto was most certainly later than the year 948 and must therefore be tied to the time already assigned is clear even from this, that, certainly not yet five years having passed after it, that king of the Saracens reproached John, Otto's envoy and afterwards abbot of Gorze, with the irruption of the Hungarians into Otto's realms under the leadership of Conrad, his son-in-law, which was made, as we saw above, in the year 954, as may be seen in his Life cited above, with us at num. 136.

§ X. He zealously cares for the things that pertain to religion; he drives Reginar, count of Hainaut, into exile; why and when he did this.

He either builds or restores various monasteries in the diocese of Cologne. Among the buildings which Rotger teaches, in the words transcribed here at num. 118, that our Saint built, there must be counted not only that of St. Pantaleon at Cologne, which, as has been said, he built in the year 956 and which we mentioned in the § immediately preceding, when the discourse there was of the things then done by Bruno, but also many other monasteries built in various places in the diocese of Cologne. The biographer of our Saint, having already spoken of not a few of his deeds, adds at num. 48 these following words about him: Meanwhile, in many places, through the parishes of his bishopric, this faithful and prudent Servant of the Lord eagerly erected churches, monasteries and other buildings fitted for the service of the Lord his God and the honour of his Saints, some from the foundations; some previously founded he nobly enlarged, others formerly destroyed he repaired. All and each of the monasteries which are here mentioned as either restored or enlarged or erected from the foundations by our Saint no writer anywhere enumerates. Besides, although the Lorsch Chronicle, in the words transcribed here at num. 38, adds to the already mentioned monastery of St. Pantaleon at Cologne two other monasteries, namely of St. Andrew and of St. Martin, as built by the Saint in the very city of Cologne, yet Gelenius, On the Greatness of Cologne Agrippina, book 3, syntagmas V and XIII, contends that neither was built from the foundations by Bruno.

[129] He either did this, or at least began to do it, before he banished Reginar. But although this is so, yet both those sacred places were, as Gelenius himself does not deny in that same place, undoubtedly enlarged by Bruno at least in buildings or in wealth, and hence noted in the Lorsch Chronicle as founded by him. However that may be, that not a few monasteries in the diocese of Cologne were either enlarged or restored or even built from the foundations by our Saint is ascertained from the text of our biographer just transcribed here; and although I am not in a position to determine the time at which he set his hand to each of them, yet it seemed good to set forth here the few things which I have just set forth about those sacred buildings, because our Saint certainly did this, or at least began to do it, before the things which I am now about to mention. The matter will become evident without difficulty to anyone from what is to be said. Rotger, as soon as he has spoken, in the words partly just now transcribed here, of the monasteries built and liberally endowed by the Saint in the diocese of Cologne, adds: The same he transfused to foreign nations, and in the kingdom delegated to his providence he spread it abroad, partly by example, partly by his own work, partly by the varied quality of persons and by frequent admonition. What the Saint accomplished, therefore, in restoring or building and further founding monasteries in his diocese of Cologne, he certainly either did, or at least began to do, as everyone will gather from these words of our biographer, before he accomplished the same in the kingdom committed to his care, that is, Lotharingia. But when did the Saint likewise either build or restore monasteries in Lotharingia?

[130] For this cause, here by Folcuin, That I may set forth each thing in the order in which it seems to have been done, I will not begin a discourse on that matter before I have treated of Reginar, count of Hainaut, sent into exile by Bruno. Flodoard in his Chronicle at the year 957 writes thus: Tumults of wars are stirred up between Bruno, from prelate become duke, and Count Reginar and the other Lotharingians … King Lothar with his mother and his aunt, the widow of Hugh (these two, of whom the latter was called Hadwig, the former Gerberga, were from what has already been said sisters of St. Bruno), goes into the district of Cambrai to meet his uncle Bruno. But Reginar, seeing that he could not resist the multitude that was coming, came to Bruno; but because he would not give the hostages demanded, Bruno, seizing him, led him away with him under guard, and not long afterwards sent him into exile beyond the Rhine. Reginar was therefore, as is clear from this text of Flodoard, driven into exile by Bruno. But why was this done by Bruno, and was it in the year assigned by Flodoard? Folcuin, On the deeds of the abbots of Lobbes, in d'Achery's Spicilegium, edition of the year 1723, page 739, having narrated the violation of the church of St. Ursmar by Reginar and some other things which he impiously did, supplies the following words, which bear chiefly on this: After the aforesaid violation of the church of St. Ursmar, Reginar multiplies his tyranny, oppresses the poor, and makes the property of the churches not God's but his own; for all which things, being summoned by the lord Bruno, truly peaceable, to Saint-Saulve, he confessed and was convicted as guilty of lese-majesty, was proscribed and deported into perpetual exile.

[131] Folcuin is supported by the anonymous writer of the Life of St. Gerard, with whom the writer of the Life of St. Gerard and Balderic in his Chronicle, abbot of Brogne, who flourished in the 11th century, and by Balderic, the learned and grave author of the Chronicle of Cambrai. For the former, with us in tome 2 of October, in that Life, num. 39, has thus: That some mention, however small, may be made of his other brother, the duke and archbishop Bruno, whose memory indeed is in Benediction, who could equal his virtues with a worthy account? Under whose most sagacious administration, cutting off by the root the foul offshoots of the wicked, Lotharingia flowered again like a fruitful tree with abundance of peace and justice, asserting that by his protection he had brought back [*] the golden little times of old. Of which thing an indication is Reginar, count of Hainaut, not unknown, surnamed Long-neck, who, because he harassed his fellow provincials tyrannically and would not come to his senses, though admonished once and a second time, is in exile until now in unknown regions, by the ambidextrous industry of this Archprelate; and the latter, in the cited Chronicle, book one, chapter 94, speaks in the following manner: The death of the emperor (namely Otto I) having therefore been heard far and wide, Reginar and Lambert, namely the sons of Reginar, whom, while the emperor was still living, Archbishop Bruno, who held the monarchy under his brother, often corrected by reproving him for his insolences, for his robberies, for his assaults upon the Church, and also for many crimes, and often softened by appeasing his savagery with benefits; but since he could in no way repress his ferocity, puffed up with a siriatico targore, he at length delivered him to his brother condemned to perpetual exile.

[132] But Sigebert in his Chronicle at the year 959 has thus: but not likewise by the words recited here Archbishop Bruno, archduke of Lotharingia, administering the second place in the kingdom of his brother (namely Otto I) powerfully and industriously, seizes Reginar, count of Mons, who was surnamed Long-neck, having summoned him to Valenciennes, and condemned him to irrevocable exile, because he disturbed the kingdom with wars, or, which is said to have been more true, because, Duke Giselbert his kinsman having died, he presumed to take away from her by violence the things which Giselbert had conferred as dowry on his wife Gerberga, the emperor's sister. If, therefore, credence is to be given here to Sigebert, with whom the Saxon annalist and the author of the Great Belgian Chronicle also agree, as relating the very same thing which he does, almost in the same words, Reginar was punished with exile by our Saint not certainly because he vexed the kingdom with wars, practised robberies, violated sacred things and governed tyrannically, but either for that reason or because he took away by violence the things which had been conferred as dowry upon Gerberga, Bruno's sister, by her deceased husband; but since the possessions which Gerberga had received under the name of dowry from her deceased husband Giselbert had already, as we saw at num. 122, been restored to her by Reginar from the year 956, it seems that it can not altogether undeservedly be doubted whether Reginar was afterwards sent into exile by Bruno even partly on account of those possessions taken away by force. And indeed it must be said either that this was certainly not done even partly for that cause, or that Reginar, after he had restored the said possessions to Gerberga in the year 956, afterwards again took them from her by violence.

[133] Sigebert, support, Since Sigebert, when in the words just transcribed here he sets forth the cause for which Reginar was banished by Bruno, speaking disjunctively, writes that this was done either because he disturbed the kingdom with wars or because he took away by violence the dowry goods of Gerberga, he not obscurely shows that he himself remains in doubt whether that penalty was inflicted on Reginar even partly for this latter cause; and although, as he hints, some believed that it was more probably done for this same latter cause alone, from this it can only be concluded that such was indeed their opinion, but not likewise that it was consonant with the truth. Since it not infrequently happens that what most holy Men do even with the best intention the malevolent interpret in the worse sense, I am easily led to believe that certain persons

according to their own disposition interpreted unfavourably what Bruno had done in banishing Reginar, and believed, and further spread abroad, that it was done by him not to provide for the commonwealth and religion, but to serve the interests of his sister. But that those who, as appears from the recited words of Sigebert, thought that Reginar was punished with exile by Bruno only because he had taken away by violence the dowry goods of Gerberga, were deceived in this opinion of theirs, is proved by the words recited above, not only of the anonymous author who wrote the Life of St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, but also, and indeed chiefly, of Folcuin, who was created abbot of Lobbes in the same year 965 in which St. Bruno died. For in these, no mention at all being made of the dowry goods which were taken from Gerberga by Reginar, it is only indicated that he was sent into exile by Bruno because he exercised tyranny, oppressed the poor and plundered the churches.

[134] alleged, into exile Nor is there reason why anyone should think that Flodoard, who in the words recited above reports that that count of Hainaut was sent into exile by Bruno because he had refused to give the hostages demanded, to some extent supports the opinion of those who believed that Reginar was banished by Bruno on account of the dowry goods taken from Gerberga. For although Bruno, in order to make certain and secure the restitution of the dowry goods of Gerberga, which Reginar had perhaps seized again, or had indeed promised in the year 956 that he would restore but had in fact not yet been willing to restore, might rightly have demanded hostages from Reginar, yet everyone sees that he could also have done this in order the more surely to compel him to keep the peace and thenceforth not to commit the crimes of which, if one regards Folcuin, he had made himself guilty. Besides, that Reginar, when he was already in Bruno's power and hands, should have cared so little for his liberty that he refused to give Bruno the hostages he demanded in order to extricate himself from them, does not appear very probable, although meanwhile Flodoard, from what has already been said, asserts it; wherefore I think one must stand with Folcuin, who, without any mention of hostages which Reginar refused to give, records in the place cited above that he was banished by Bruno because, having been summoned by our Saint for the tyranny he had exercised, for the oppression of the poor, for the plundering of the churches, he had been convicted as guilty of lese-Majesty, and who further has in this matter, if not openly agreeing with him, at least supporting him, the chronographer of Cambrai and the anonymous writer of the Life of St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne.

[135] As for what concerns the time at which our Saint banished Reginar, he drove him out in the year 957, as appears from Flodoard must be determined. it seems that it can not undeservedly be doubted whether this was done in the year 957 or in the following one; for not only the Saxon annalist, but also the continuator of Regino, who has in that place, By the faction of Archbishop Brun Count Reginar is seized and sent as an exile among the Slavs, clearly tie the matter to this latter year; and although Sigebert refers it not to the year 958 but to the following one, yet not on that account, since he perhaps here, as he does now and then elsewhere too, following the documents that lit his way, takes the beginning of the years from the 25th day of March preceding the Nativity of the Lord, does he certainly dissent from the Saxon annalist and the continuator of Regino, who begin to count from the Lord's Nativity. But although this is so, I prefer nevertheless to agree with Flodoard, who ties the exile of Reginar to the year 957: first indeed because, although the continuator of Regino, who, as has been said, notes that Reginar was punished with exile in the year 958, is thought by some to have been contemporary with Bruno no less than Flodoard, yet this does not appear altogether certain; and then because the continuator of Regino is commonly held by the learned for a less accurate writer than Flodoard, nor can any weight accrue to him from the Saxon annalist, as one who blindly followed either that very writer or Sigebert.

[136] Furthermore Bruno, in the very year 957 in which, from what has already been said, he drove Reginar into exile, In the same year several Northmen, took care that many of the Northmen, not only common people but also princes or magnates, should be washed in the sacred waters of Baptism, as the Saxon chronographer and annalist testify at that year; and although Sigebert refers this deed of the Saint to the year 958, yet he is by no means to be thought to dissent from them, since here again he perhaps begins the year from the 25th of March, nine months before they do. But who are the Northmen, many of whom, not only common people but also princes or magnates, our Saint took care to have baptized? Rotger, at num. 60, having spoken of Bruno protecting Lothar in Gaul against the sons of Hugh the Great, immediately adds: There threatens that kingdom, which must not be passed over in silence, a savage calamity, the nation of the Northmen, than whom none are more practised in piratical robbery. To these the people, accustomed to dissension and civil ruin, had already in great part been a prey. What had survived them they had consumed among themselves in domestic sedition; but the provident dispensation of our Ruler brought it about, who, since he understood that he was a man, thought nothing human alien to himself, brought it about, I say, that all who loved quiet and peace fled to him as to a most secure harbour; he also mitigated the savagery and long intolerable ferocity of the barbarians themselves, since at the same time their king Harold too, with a great multitude of his nation, submitting his neck to Christ the King of kings, rejected the vanity of idols.

[137] with the Northmen together with Harold, king of the Danes, Thus he; and since, together with Harold, king of the Northmen, or rather (for the Danes too were wont to be distinguished by the name of Northmen) of the Danes, who he here records submitted himself to the yoke of Christ together with a great multitude of his nation, Bruno taking care of it, as he seems to indicate, or at least contributing his effort to it, many, no doubt, of the Northmen or Danes, not only common people but also magnates, were washed in the sacred waters of Baptism when that king did so, someone perhaps may bring himself to think that these are the very Northmen whom Sigebert, no less than the Saxon chronographer and annalist, records, as I have shown, that Bruno took care to have washed in the sacred waters in the year 957. But it is altogether established, from what Adam of Bremen writes in his ecclesiastical history, book 2, chapter 2, and Helmold, that Harold, king of the Danes or Northmen, had already been converted to the faith of Christ from the year 947; wherefore it is necessary that the Northmen who, as Rotger teaches in the words just recited, submitted themselves to the yoke of Christ together with him, were different from the Northmen whom Sigebert and the Saxon annalist and chronographer report were baptized in the year 957 through Bruno's care. Perhaps indeed, since Adam of Bremen in the place just cited distinguishes the Danes from the Northmen, and takes these for the Norwegians, someone will contend that it could have happened that, as the Danes had a king named Harold converted to the faith already from the year 947, so the Norwegians also had a king of the same name who embraced the Christian rites later and is mentioned by Rotger in the words given above.

[138] as Rotger narrates, to the faith But although indeed a king who was called Harold or Harald did in fact rule the Norwegians from the year 950 until the year 962, as Torfaeus teaches in the History of Norway, part 2, page 78 and following, yet that he ever embraced the Christian rites neither does he declare here, nor can it be proved from elsewhere. Besides, Rotger, in narrating the things which he writes in the place cited, that is, at num. 60, must be thought either to keep or not to keep the order in which they were done; if the first be admitted, it will follow that, even if we should grant for the moment that Rotger in the place cited treats of a Harold and of Northmen who were not Danes but Norwegians and were converted to the faith with that king of theirs later than the year 947, yet those Northmen or Norwegians must necessarily have been different from the Northmen, many of whom, both common people and magnates, the Saxon annalist and chronographer, with Sigebert also supporting them from what has already been said, report were washed in the sacred waters of Baptism in the year 957 through Bruno's care. For since Rotger in the place cited does not begin his discourse on Harold and the Northmen converted to the faith together with him before he has spoken of Bruno protecting Lothar in Gaul against the sons of Hugh the Great, and Bruno only began to protect Lothar against the sons of Hugh in the year 958, as we shall see later, it follows that, if Rotger narrates things in the order in which they were done, Harold and the Northmen whom he then reports embraced the Christian rites together with him did not do so before the year 958, and therefore must have been different from the Northmen converted to the faith in the year 957, as Sigebert and the Saxon annalist and chronographer report.

[139] And now, since this is so, there is surely no reason, converted, not to be confused, he took care to have baptized, in order to show that Rotger recorded true things in the place cited, why we should admit without any ancient surety a Harold, king of the Northmen who were Norwegians, distinct from Harold, king of the Northmen converted to the faith in the year 947, who embraced the Christian rites later; and since, therefore, Harold, king of the Danes, mentioned by Rotger in the place cited, is undoubtedly no other than the Harold who, as we showed above, embraced the Christian rites in the year 947 together with many Northmen, nothing remains but that we believe that these are not to be confused with the Northmen whom Sigebert and the Saxon annalist and chronographer report were converted to the faith in the year 957, and that things are not narrated by Rotger in the place cited above in the order in which they were done. Wherefore, when he uses these following words toward the end of num. 60, At the same time their king (of the Northmen, or Danes) Harold too, submitting his neck to Christ the King of kings with a great multitude of his nation, rejected the vanity of idols, he is to be thought not to have looked back to something previously mentioned by him which was done at the same time as what he declares in those words, but only to have wished to signify that both Harold, king of the Danes, and a great multitude of this nation submitted their necks to the yoke of Christ at the same time. But let these things now suffice on that matter; let us now turn our discourse to the things which the Saint accomplished in Hainaut after Reginar had been driven into exile.

[140] That Bruno, Reginar having been driven into exile and Hainaut at length pacified in this manner, [and Hainaut having been pacified by Reginar's exile, likewise various things there] gave his effort with untiring zeal to restoring to due order the affairs there, both temporal and spiritual, which were miserably disturbed, to reforming the clerics and monks who had fallen away from ecclesiastical and regular discipline, and to restoring the churches and monasteries which had been devastated by the preceding irruptions of the Northmen into the region and by the intestine wars that followed them and had been bereft of their goods, among all

the writers of Hainaut who have spoken of that matter, both ancient and more recent, it is admitted; and with these agree also not a few other writers, and in the first place Molanus, who, citing in his support also the Chronicles written in the vernacular tongue of the people of Hainaut, writes thus of Bruno today in the Birthdays of the Saints of Belgium: The people of the Lotharingian kingdom, while he was bishop, he so governed with his brother that he rendered it, from uncultivated and wild, pacified and gentle. And this is expressed more explicitly through several chapters concerning the people of Hainaut in their vernacular Chronicles. The face of the monasteries, the churches and the clergy was then pitiable. The nobles had invaded the ecclesiastical goods and oppressed their subjects with a heavy yoke. For the Northmen had laid waste everything; but of these the blessed Bruno, archbishop and archduke, caused many to be baptized with their princes.

[141] Reginar, count of Mons, surnamed Long-neck, was disturbing the kingdom, but he seized him at Valenciennes and condemned him to irrevocable exile, he either restored monasteries or built them from the foundations. his goods being confiscated to the treasury. These things having been settled, he brought the nobility and clergy of Hainaut into most seemly order, and restored the fallen places, both sacred and profane. In certain places, however, which had been too much devastated, he substituted canons for monks and nuns, as at Mons, Soignies, Condé. For great at that time was their dignity in the Church on account of their regular discipline and zeal for helping the people. The vernacular Chronicles of Hainaut cited by Molanus are very probably no other than those which were composed in Latin under the name of Annals by Jacques de Guyse toward the end of the 14th century, and then in the 16th century, translated into the French tongue, came out to light under the title of Illustrations of Gallia Belgica from the Paris press in the year 1532; but did St. Bruno really substitute at Soignies, Mons and Condé (Maubeuge can be added too) either canons for monks or canonesses for nuns, as Guyse records? That Bruno extended what he accomplished in the various parishes of his diocese of Cologne, not only, as we have already seen above, in restoring, building and founding monasteries, but also in establishing in each of them men who should serve almighty God under the rule of the canonical life, to the kingdom committed to his care, that is, Lotharingia, and therefore also to its part Hainaut, our biographer teaches at num. 48; wherefore, since the monasteries which had existed at Soignies, Mons, Maubeuge and Condé had undoubtedly been devastated at that time either by the irruptions of the Northmen or of other barbarians, or by intestine wars, it does not appear that it should be doubted that Bruno then both restored them and placed in each men who should serve the Lord under the rule of the canonical life.

* revixisse had revived

§ XI. What rule of life he prescribed to the monasteries restored by him in Hainaut.

That Bruno changed the nuns at Mons in Hainaut into secular canonesses, Denis de Sainte-Marthe, in tome 3 of Gallia Christiana enlarged, col. 144, writes thus of the monastery of St. Waltrude of Castrilocus or Mons, which Molanus above lists in the first place among the monasteries granted, as he says, by Bruno to those who were to profess the rule of the canonical life: The monastery of St. Waltrude of Castrilocus or Mons, formerly of the Benedictine Order of sacred Virgins, now a distinguished college of noble canonesses, has its name from St. Waltrude, who laid its foundations by the counsel of the venerable man Ghislain in the year 656 on a hill which was called the place of the camps, and with the lapse of time it grew into a most ample city, today the chief of all Hainaut, which received the name Mons from its site. A little later Sigebert, king of Austrasia, increased this foundation with gifts for the soul of his father Dagobert, who had slain Duke Brunulf at Ablato. He caused, namely, a greater church to be built to Bl. Mary the virgin, thirty prebends having been established for as many noble maidens, who should be bound in it to the service of Christ; and having placed monks in the principal temple of the same Saint, which was that of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, he provided revenues for their sustenance, that they themselves at fixed hours might perform the divine offices in the sacred house of the maidens.

[143] Not from the beginning, therefore, was the church of St. Germanus assigned to the sacred ministry to be rendered to the nuns, [and that he changed the monks, accustomed to serve in sacred rites for them there, into secular canons,] but it was formerly only the parish of Mons, in which about the year 957, the monastery of the monks of St. Peter having already been destroyed, Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, established clerics to perform the sacred rites in the house of the noble virgins of St. Waltrude. At that time too the same Prelate, having received from the supreme Pontiff the authority of apostolic nuncio to apply himself to the repair of the churches destroyed by the Northmen in Hainaut, changed the nuns of St. Waltrude into canonesses, and likewise the monks of St. Peter into secular canons, whose prebends, thirteen in number, afterwards passed to the monks of Saint-Denis-en-Broqueroie by the gift of Baldwin, count of Hainaut, in the year 1084. And the church of the Saint itself passed to the canons of St. Germanus under an annual rent of six denarii, to be paid to the church of St. Denis on the feast of St. Denis himself, which even now are paid every year to the abbot of Broqueroie; and thus, so to speak, the church of St. Peter ceased to be. If, therefore, one regards the things which the cited writer records in these words, St. Bruno, fortified also with authority from the Roman Pontiff, changed the Benedictine nuns of St. Waltrude at Mons in Hainaut into secular canonesses, and likewise the Benedictines, monks there of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, who were accustomed to perform the divine offices in their sacred house, into secular canons, and established in the church of St. Germanus at Mons clerics, who afterwards also became canons, to perform the sacred rites thenceforth in the temple of the noble virgins of St. Waltrude.

[144] Splendidly indeed, if only all these things could be confirmed either by some authentic document or by the testimony of an ancient and trustworthy writer! [Denis de Sainte-Marthe from Guyse or Vinchant, who say this was also done by the Saint] But they seem to have been taken from nowhere else than either from Jacques de Guyse, cited above, who flourished only in the fourteenth century, or from the Annals of Hainaut of Vinchant, who himself also drew them from him, published in the year 1648. This opinion is settled, first indeed because Denis de Sainte-Marthe, of whom we are speaking here, a little after the words transcribed here above cites Vinchant, and below, when he treats of the convent of Maubeuge, cites also Guyse, some of his words being transcribed in the lower margin of the page; and then because what he teaches concerning the monastery of St. Waltrude in the words already given is in fact recorded by Guyse himself, as he exists with us translated into the French tongue, tome 2, fol. 65, or, if you prefer, by Vinchant, who cites him in his support, in the Annals of Hainaut, chapter 24, writing there of Bruno thus, in French words which I render into Latin and transfer all here, since they are to be diligently discussed here: At Mons he found the three neighbouring churches of St. Waltrude, of St. Peter, and the parish church of St. Germanus greatly disturbed, chiefly because the college of St. Waltrude had been diminished in revenues as well as in religious discipline, its goods having been seized by Count Reginar for the expenses of war and most of the young ladies having been forced to live with their parents. In order to restore the former splendour to that church in an easier and at the same time a gentler way, by the Apostolic authority which he had received from the holy See, he dispensed the young ladies, and first erected them into a college of secular canonesses, as Guyse affirms, although others would have it, but with less foundation, that this was done in the year 817 after the synod of Aachen.

[145] it was done at Maubeuge, they say, Then, therefore, it was first done that by Apostolic authority they were made seculars, and they are thought likewise to have changed their habit at that time, assuming the one which they now use. "In the town of Mons," says Guyse, "in the church of the blessed virgin Mary, which is now called that of St. Waltrude, and in the town of Maubeuge in the church which is now called that of St. Aldegund, he ordained secular canonical prebends, ordaining secular canons and canonesses out of nuns, and assigning to them the revenues left by the aforesaid Saints and other deceased persons." Then he changed the monks of St. Peter at Mons and of St. Quentin at Maubeuge into canons, ordaining fourteen for the former and twelve for the latter; and in St. Germanus, which was the parish of Mons, he established fourteen chaplains, who afterwards assumed the name of canons, as Guyse records, who however confesses that his opinion is contrary to Gislebert (whose Chronicle of Hainaut has already first come out to light in the year 1784 by the care and zeal of the marquis du Chasteler). "Establishing other churches," says Guyse namely, "conventual and collegiate, with canons and prebends, who should serve the aforesaid young ladies more devoutly in those things which ought to pertain to the divine and ecclesiastical Offices, and moreover he restored the said churches." At Mons, of the monks of the church of St. Peter, as he changed the nuns into secular canonesses, so he changed the monks into secular canons. Likewise in the church of St. Germanus, in the place where the parish of the town had been built, he ordained canons, or perhaps, as Vinchant says above from Guyse, chaplains afterwards made canons, and prebends, for the end declared above.

[146] [affirms; but the Life of St. Theodoric the abbot suggests that this was not done at Maubeuge by Bruno] Let the studious reader now compare these things with the words of Denis de Sainte-Marthe recited above, and he will see that what that writer records in them concerning the monastery of St. Waltrude has undoubtedly flowed from nowhere else than either from Guyse or from Vinchant; but is what these report in the words already given, concerning the nuns of Mons and Maubeuge changed by our Saint into secular canonesses, and the monks likewise into secular canons, certainly consonant with the truth? In the Life of St. Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Hubert of Andage, in Benedictine Century VI, part 2, and with us at the 15th day of August, on which that holy abbot died in the year 1087, the anonymous contemporary author, having first said some things about the holiness of life and the virtues with which Ansoaldis, sister of St. Theodoric, shone in the monastery of St. Aldegund at Maubeuge, then speaks of her in the following manner: Since by the grace of God she abounded in these and other virtues, she stirred up many in the convent of Maubeuge to similar virtue, recalled many after a fall to penance; and, with the assent of Gerard, bishop of Cambrai, and of Reginar, count of Mons, she corrected the order of monastic religion, which had been almost annihilated in the same monastery, and restored it for the better. Since therefore monastic religion in the monastery of St. Aldegund at Maubeuge, when the middle part of the 11th century had already passed, as it is easy to elicit from what has just been said, had not yet been entirely extinguished, but had only grown very lukewarm, and therefore still had place there then at least in part, this is indeed a very strong argument that the nuns of that monastery had not been changed into secular canonesses by St. Bruno already from the 10th century.

[147] Wherefore Guyse and Vinchant, who in the words recited above report the contrary, suggests that it was not done at Mons either, very probably stray from the truth; and since this is so, who, I ask, that even already from

the 10th century the nuns of St. Waltrude at Mons were changed by our Saint into secular canonesses, would easily bring himself to believe it without doubt? Accordingly, it appears that it must altogether be believed that the monasteries of St. Waltrude and of St. Aldegund, which had suffered very much both from the irruptions of the Northmen and from intestine wars, were indeed restored by Bruno, and that it was also granted by Bruno to those who either inhabited them or were thenceforth to inhabit them that, leaving the more rigid manner of living which they had previously followed, they should thenceforth follow a less rigid one, but not however that, the vow of chastity being dissolved and being no longer bound to the common life, they could pass to marriage, if they wished, after the fashion of present-day secular canonesses. Indeed I find no argument by which it could be proved as strongly that the nuns of St. Waltrude at Mons were not changed by Bruno into secular canonesses as this has already been accomplished with regard to those of St. Aldegund at Maubeuge. But although this is so, I am nevertheless persuaded that the nuns of St. Waltrude at Mons were no more changed by St. Bruno into secular canonesses than the nuns of St. Aldegund at Maubeuge.

[148] I am so minded, first indeed because I find no document at all but that there, as at Maubeuge from which it could be solidly proved that even one college of secular canonesses existed in our Belgium before the 11th century. And then because Rotger, the biographer of our Saint, after he has narrated at num. 42 that the monastery of St. Pantaleon was established by our Saint in the suburb of Cologne under the rule of monastic discipline, and has further taught at num. 48 that churches, monasteries and other buildings fitted for the service of God and of the Saints were either built from the foundations or enlarged or restored by him in various places of the bishopric of Cologne also, and that in each of them men were established who should serve almighty God under the rule of the canonical life, immediately adds that this care of the Saint was spread to foreign nations, and by name to the kingdom committed to him, that is, Lotharingia. For from this it seems possible to conclude that there, no differently than in the diocese of Cologne, Bruno not only built or restored monasteries in various places, but also placed in each of them men who should serve almighty God under the rule of the canonical life. Wherefore, since by the rule of the canonical life Rotger very probably understands no other than that which was prescribed by the council of Aachen of the year 816 for those who were to live in common according to the canons, it follows that the Saint, not only in the monasteries of the diocese of Cologne but also in those of Hainaut either built or restored by him, established men who were to live according to the statutes of the council of Aachen, and that therefore in place of the nuns who had previously been in the convents of Mons and Maubeuge he substituted, not secular canonesses, but sacred virgins who were to live according to the said statutes of the council of Aachen.

[149] [that those were who lived according to the rule prescribed in the council of Aachen] The matter appears certain enough, if only, as I have said, Rotger by the rule of the canonical life understands no other than that which had been prescribed by the council of Aachen of the year 816 for clerics who were to live in common according to the canons of the councils. But does Rotger truly understand by the rule of the canonical life no other than that prescribed by this council of Aachen? Clerics who, before the 8th century had advanced to its middle part, were wont to be called canons from the matricula or canon of the church in which they were enrolled, were afterwards, under Pepin and Charlemagne, given that name from the rule, composed from the writings of the holy fathers and the canons of the councils, which they followed. This rule, which so bound the congregations into which clerics then began to be gathered to the common life to be led in a cloister that it yet permitted each to retain his own patrimony and to have private property, had been composed by St. Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, and was everywhere observed in all colleges of canons until the year 816; but then a new one, very similar to this rule of Chrodegang, was composed in the council of Aachen for those who were to live canonically, that is, according to the canons, there being added also a rule not much unlike it, which was to serve for sacred virgins who were to live canonically.

[150] statutes, adduced here, To these two rules there was afterwards added also a third, which the canons regular embraced, adding to the vows of other canons the vow of Evangelical poverty. But which of these three Rules of the canonical life, besides which no others come to be mentioned here, did Rotger understand by the Rule of the canonical life of which he speaks in the place cited above? Since the third was introduced only in the 10th century, as Thomassin teaches in On the Old and New Discipline of the Church, tome 1, book 3, chapter XI, Rotger certainly did not understand it by the Rule of the canonical life of which he speaks; wherefore nothing remains but that he be believed to have understood either the Rule of Chrodegang or that of the council of Aachen (for it is in no way probable either that Bruno wished to introduce into the monasteries restored by him the manner of living of the canons whom we now call secular, or that Rotger designated this by the rule of the canonical life); and since after the council of Aachen the colleges of canons for about two centuries everywhere followed the rule which it, and not that which Chrodegang had established, it appears, if not altogether certain, at least most like the truth that Rotger understood the rule of Aachen by the rule of the canonical life of which he speaks.

[151] one objection also And now, since this is so, and therefore the Saint very probably introduced no other rule than that of Aachen into the monasteries of Hainaut restored by him, and by name both into the monastery of St. Waltrude at Mons and into that of St. Aldegund at Maubeuge, it follows that both in the monastery of St. Waltrude and in that of St. Aldegund he placed, not secular canonesses, whose manner of life is very far removed from the Aachen rule for canonesses, but others who should pass their life according to its prescriptions. Someone perhaps will contend that this was not done in the monastery of St. Aldegund at Maubeuge, on the ground that in it, as being one in which monastic Religion had not yet been entirely extinguished when the middle part of the 11th century had already passed, as the words of the Life of St. Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Hubert, transcribed here at num. 146, attest, the Aachen rule of the canonical life had not yet even then obtained place; but since Bruno very probably introduced the Aachen rule of the canonical life into all the monasteries of Hainaut restored by him, and therefore also into that of Maubeuge, which, as appears from what has already been said, is to be counted among them, the anonymous author of the Life of St. Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Hubert, when he declares in those words that monastic Religion had been almost annihilated in the convent of Maubeuge when the middle part of the 11th century had already passed, is to be thought to speak thus, not because religion or the monastic life still somehow then obtained place there, but because the very Aachen rule of the canonical life, which Bruno had long before substituted for the monastic rule or religion in the said convent, and which is similar in many things to the rule of monks and nuns, had then almost altogether ceased to be observed there.

[152] Surely it must be said either this, or that the monastery of Maubeuge was not restored by Bruno, and another, which to the contrary contrary to what we have taught above. But indeed, you will say, St. Bruno removed the nuns who inhabited the monastery of St. Mary at Cologne from there for just causes, namely, as Gelenius says in the Hierotheca sacra, page 62, because they dealt more familiarly than was fitting with the neighbouring brothers of St. Peter, and transferred them to the monastery of the royal town founded by Charlemagne, commonly called Königsdorf, and substituted canons for them in the church of St. Andrew, adjacent to that monastery; and that these were not regulars according to the rule of Aachen but seculars appears to be concluded even from this, that otherwise some would seem not to have been going to take it ill, as yet Rotger teaches was the case, writing thus of Bruno at num. 50: Concerning the handmaids of God who had been devoted to divine religion in the monastery of St. Mary, and concerning the canons transferred to the church of St. Andrew the Apostle, and whatever things of this kind there were, he did indeed leave no small scruple, but to those whose keenness of mind does not so press on that they are able to perceive clearly his sincere intention in his various works. Who surely, if they adverted that men are not chosen by God for the sake of the place, but the place for the sake of men, and, since obedience pleases God above sacrifice, would perhaps know that the sheep ought to hear the voice of the shepherd, and that that will be more ratified and acceptable to God which they follow through obedience than what they follow through their own will. That the canons whom Rotger in these words reports were transferred by Bruno to the church of St. Andrew were seculars, the words of Rotger just adduced by no means prove.

[153] For it will become evident to everyone who has attentively weighed the words of Rotger just transcribed here that what the Saint is said in them to have done however it may be, being resolved, was disapproved by some, not because he had substituted for those who followed a more rigid kind of life some others who embraced a less rigid life, but because he had assigned to canons a place which had previously belonged to nuns. However that may be, Rotger in the words just transcribed here supplies nothing at all which would suggest that the canons transferred by the Saint to the church of St. Andrew were then made of another institute, of which they had not been before; and since this is so, and therefore it cannot be inferred from them that the Saint changed either monks into secular canons or nuns likewise into secular canonesses in the diocese of Cologne, surely those words can be no argument that he did this in Hainaut; wherefore, since on the contrary the Saint seems, from what has already been said above, to have established in the monasteries either built or restored by him in the diocese of Cologne no others than those who were to live canonically according to the prescriptions of the council of Aachen, which was held in the year 816, and therefore nowhere there to have changed either monks into secular canons or nuns into secular canonesses, it follows that likewise, whatever may meanwhile be said of the canons transferred to the church of St. Andrew, he did not do this in Lotharingia, and therefore also not in its part Hainaut.

[154] [they show, as also that the same rule was introduced into other monasteries of Hainaut.] And hence it now flows that whatever either Guyse or Vinchant write, not only concerning the nuns in the monasteries of St. Waltrude and St. Aldegund changed into secular canonesses, but also concerning the monks, whether of Mons, or of Maubeuge, or finally of Soignies, changed by Bruno into secular canons, can deservedly be called into doubt, indeed even be held as very probably alien from the truth. I would believe, therefore, that by Bruno, since the convents of the said monks, almost collapsed or of ruin

he had restored, it was granted to those who either inhabited them or were thenceforth to inhabit them that, leaving the severer rule of monastic life, they should follow the less rigid statutes which the council of Aachen of the year 816 had established. And our Saint undoubtedly did this with the best counsel, namely in order that, since through the irruptions of the Northmen into the region and the intestine wars the monasteries had been reduced to the utmost poverty and did not suffice for supporting those who inhabited them, they might at least be able to do so if they were occupied by canons who had their own patrimony and private property, being helped thereby by them. But little by little, through the injury of the times, it came about that, relaxation having been introduced into discipline, the canons fell away from the very norm of living which the council of Aachen had prescribed, and at length, bidding farewell both to the common life and to the cloister, embraced the institute which those whom we call secular canons now follow; and the women whom we now call secular canonesses did the same, due proportion being kept.

§ XII. He goes to Burgundy for the sake of making peace. When the Lotharingians fall away from him he sets Frederick over them; whether then, or ever, he divided Lotharingia in two.

[In the year 958 he goes to Burgundy to bring his sisters and nephews into concord,] Although the Saint was most zealous for public quiet as well as for peace, yet it becomes plain from what Flodoard records in his Chronicle at those three years that it was by no means permitted to him to rest in the year 958 and the two following; for at the first of them he has there thus: Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, with an army of Lotharingians sets out through Francia into Burgundy, to speak with his sisters and his nephews. The Saint's sisters, as I have already noted above, were Gerberga and Hadwig; and the nephews were, from the former, who was a widow, her husband Louis d'Outremer having already been taken from among the living four years before, Lothar, king of the Franks, and Charles, afterwards duke of Lower Lotharingia; and from the latter, who was likewise already a widow, her husband Hugh, count of the Parisians, having been snatched from among the living in the year 956, Hugh, surnamed Capet, afterwards king of the Franks, Otto and Henry, both dukes of Burgundy, namely one after the other. Bruno therefore went to Burgundy in the year 958 to hold a conference with these; but Flodoard, who teaches us this, so passes over in silence the cause for which the Saint did it that he supplies a handle for conjecturing that the Saint did it then in order to settle the discords of his sisters and nephews, immediately adding at the year 959, after the words already recited, these following: In the year nine hundred and fifty-nine Bruno came again into Francia, and at Compiègne held a conference with the queen his sister and his nephews, who were at discord over certain castles which King Lothar had recovered from Burgundy, and, hostages having been given, he made peace between them until the future time of a placitum.

[156] What the cited writer reports in these words must have happened [he is visited at Cologne by his nephew Lothar, king of France; the Lotharingians,] about the beginning of the year 959, or certainly when it had not yet advanced to Easter. For the writer, presently teaching there what return Lothar, king of the Franks and nephew of the Saint, made to Bruno, continues thus: King Lothar with the queen his mother sets out for Cologne in the days of Easter, to stay for this festival with his uncle Bruno, and, having given him security concerning the Lotharingian kingdom and having received certain gifts from his uncle, he returns to Laon. By the security of the Lotharingian kingdom promised to Bruno by Lothar, as Flodoard here indicates, that writer very probably wishes it to be signified that Bruno was promised by Lothar that, if the Lotharingians fell away from Bruno, as was feared and as happened a little later, Lothar would neither receive them into his clientship nor help them in any way. So I suppose, because he immediately adds that the Lotharingians did in fact revolt from Bruno. The Lotharingians, he says, revolt from Duke Bruno, at the persuasion of a certain Immo, who had formerly been his counsellor and had recently withdrawn from him, on account of certain new towns of theirs, which the same duke ordered to be overthrown, and other burdens unaccustomed to them, which he was reported to wish to impose upon them. Thus he; but Bruno, having heard of the rebellion of the Lotharingians, applied every care to recall them to their duty. He revoked the order by which he had enjoined them to destroy certain new towns which they had built, and at the same time, as appears, promised that the unaccustomed burdens which they feared would not be imposed upon them.

[157] Frederick to these; whether their kingdom into two parts These having afterwards been recalled, says Flodoard of Bruno immediately after the words just recited, he set over them in his stead a certain Count Frederick. Sigismund Calles, having transcribed in the Ecclesiastical Annals of Germany, tome IV, page 381, these words of Flodoard, by which it seems to be indicated that only the vicarious power of a duke was conferred by Bruno on Count Frederick, together with some other words of the same writer which I have just given, immediately adds: That this Frederick was the son of Otto, formerly duke of Lotharingia before Conrad, son-in-law of Otto the Great, and died in the year 984, Mabillon affirms in the Benedictine Annals, tome 3, page 544. The same assigns to him as brother Adalbero, bishop of Metz, and as wife Beatrice, daughter of Hugh the Great by Hadwig, sister of King Otto and of Bruno, from whom descended his son Theoderic and his grandson Frederick II, dukes of Bar and of the Moselle, as namely, as he notes in the margin, Alberic in his Chronicle at the year 958 and the Genealogy of Bishop Arnulf in Duchesne, tome 2, page 543, declare. Whether it was already then, or some years later, with the assent of Otto the Great, that Lotharingia was divided into the Upper or Mosellan, which, cut in two by the course of the Moselle, was enclosed by almost the same boundaries as present-day Lorraine, and the Lower, which comprised Brabant with part of Belgium, Guelders, Jülich and other provinces between the Meuse, the Scheldt and the Rhine, I would not easily determine, especially since Frederick, as we have said from Flodoard, received in this year (namely 959) only vicarious power from Bruno, and the opinion of those is not a little probable who would have so great a matter transacted first in the sixth year after, in the assembly of kings at Cologne.

[158] Bruno ever, The assembly of kings of which the cited writer here speaks was held at Cologne Agrippina, as we shall see below, in the year 965, when Otto had first returned from Italy, whither, from what is to be said below, he had set out in the year 961. And it is mentioned at that year indeed by the continuator of Regino and by Flodoard, and likewise by Sigebert and by the Saxon annalist, with whom our biographer also, by whom it is done at num. 62, must be joined; but what they write there does not seem to me to make the opinion that holds that Lotharingia was divided into lower and upper in that assembly, and therefore in the year 965, not a little probable. Nor yet, although I am so minded, do I think it must be held for certain and undoubted that that region was ever divided in two by Bruno, much less in the determined year, as some will have it, 959. The contrary would indeed in some measure be pleasing, if it could be solidly proved that Frederick, whom, by the testimony of Flodoard from what has been said, Bruno set over the Lotharingians in his stead either in the year 959, from what is to be said, or certainly not long after, then received not the whole of Lotharingia but only a part of it to govern; but I do not see that this can be done in any way. Valois in the Notitia Galliarum, page 286, writes thus: Miraeus declares that Frederick was first made duke of the Mosellans in the year DCCCCLIX by Bruno, archduke of Lotharingia, and cites Flodoard as the authority for that matter; in whom it is only said that Bruno in the year DCCCCLIX set over the Lotharingians in his stead Frederick, brother of Adalbero, bishop of Metz, son-in-law of Prince Hugh, from count; which Frederick he calls duke of the Lotharingians in the year DCCCCLX; the Life of Adalbero the younger, his son, bishop of the people of Metz, calls Frederick duke of Middle Gaul: so that it is uncertain whether he ruled the whole of Lotharingia or a part of it under Bruno.

[159] Thus he; but although indeed it is not certain, as he says, that Frederick ruled the whole of Lotharingia under Bruno, as some suppose, and not only a part of it, yet it truly appears more likely to me that he was set over that whole kingdom under Bruno, first indeed because Flodoard, when he writes that Frederick was set over the Lotharingians by Bruno, speaks universally, using no word at all by which the discourse is restricted to the inhabitants of only one or the other Lotharingia; and then because, since Frederick, as Valois testifies in the words already given, is called in the Life of his son Adalbero duke of Middle Gaul, by which two words the whole of Lotharingia, and not only either its Lower or Upper part, seems to be designated, it appears necessary that at some time at least he was duke of all Lotharingia. Besides, Flodoard, when he speaks of the prefecture of the Lotharingians conferred on Frederick by Bruno, adds nothing at all by which he even in any way indicates that Lotharingia was then divided by the Saint into Lower and Upper. But although these things are so, Calmet in the History of Lorraine and Barre in the History of Germany affirm that Bruno, having found himself unequal to governing conveniently both his diocese of Cologne and the widely extended kingdom of Lotharingia at the same time, divided it into two parts, and, reserving only one of them for himself, gave the other to Frederick to administer; and several others agree with those two writers.

[160] All those, namely, thought that they must do so, divided, because Bruno, after he had already set Frederick over the Lotharingians in his stead, still exercised the power of a duke over Lotharingia, as is understood from Flodoard and will become evident from what is to be said below, and this, as they think, he could not have done unless, that kingdom having already been divided into two parts, he had obtained the dominion over one of them and Frederick over the other. But Frederick received from Bruno only vicarious power over Lotharingia, as appears from the words of Flodoard transcribed here above; and since this is so, and therefore the Saint always reserved to himself the supreme dominion of a duke over it, surely from the fact that, Frederick having already been set over the Lotharingians, he still exercised the power of a duke over them, it is not to be determined that Lotharingia was divided by him into two parts, of which he retained one for himself and gave the other to Frederick to govern. But indeed, you will say, although Bruno truly seems always to have reserved to himself the supreme dominion over Lotharingia, which was proper to a duke, and therefore from the fact that, Frederick having already been set over the Lotharingians, he still exercised the power of a duke over the Lotharingians, it cannot be inferred that Lotharingia was then divided by him into two parts, of which he retained one for himself and gave the other to Frederick to govern, yet there will be reason to believe that this was done by the Saint, if not in the year 959 or the following, at least in the year 961, if two dukes can be assigned who were then set over Lotharingia under Bruno. Hence,

I confess, it could in some measure be argued for the opinion of Lotharingia divided in two by Bruno; but can two dukes of this kind be assigned?

[161] and whether he set Duke Godfrey, here mentioned, over one of these Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals first writes thus of Bruno at the year 959: He gave Count Frederick as ruler and duke of Mosellan Lotharingia in his stead and name; and then at the year 963, among those whom he records died of the plague in Italy in the army of the emperor Otto, he lists Godfrey, duke of the lower Lotharingian province, which, as he says, they call the Mosan, to distinguish it from the Mosellan, over which Frederick presided. He therefore thought that Lotharingia was already then, while Bruno was still living, divided into the Mosellan and the Mosan, or into Upper and Lower, and that Frederick presided over the former and Godfrey over the latter. But rightly? Rotger writes at num. 61 that auxiliary forces, not light-armed troops, from the people of the Lotharingians, were sent by our Saint to Otto when he set out for Italy in the year 961, and then adds: Over these presided Duke Godfrey, whom he himself had brought up, a wise and religious man, most loving of peace, most observant of equity … He at the same time (namely when the emperor was staying in Italy with his army) was seized by a fever and expired. The Godfrey here mentioned is undoubtedly no other than Godfrey, duke of the Lotharingians, who is reported by the continuator of Regino at that year to have died of the plague in Italy in the year 964; and Mabillon, following Molanus, Sacred Militia of the Dukes of Brabant, chapter 29, and Louwius in his Notes on it, thought that he was duke of Lower Lotharingia, and hence very probably it came about that he indicated in the places cited above that, Lotharingia being already divided into Upper and Lower, Frederick presided over the Upper in the year 959, and Godfrey, who died in the year 964, over the Lower.

[162] set over; But was Godfrey, mentioned by Rotger in the words just transcribed here and by the continuator of Regino in the place just cited, truly duke of Lower Lotharingia? Since it is asserted universally by Flodoard in the place cited above that Bruno set a certain Count Frederick over the Lotharingians, and so this writer indicates that Frederick, whom he also at the year 960 calls universally duke of the Lotharingians, was set by Bruno, as soon as the Lotharingians had revolted from the Saint, over the whole of Lotharingia, and not only over a part of it, with vicarious power, or such that he could administer affairs not in his own but in Bruno's name, surely in the year 959, in which, from what is to be said below, this was done, Godfrey had not yet been set by Bruno over Lower Lotharingia; but since afterwards, toward the end of the year 960, certain Lotharingians, when matters had already been pacified, rose again against the Saint, as will be said, and he, having made a truce with them, withdrew to Cologne, nothing seems to prevent it from being believed that either then or about the beginning of the following year St. Bruno, in order that a firm peace might be established in it, divided the kingdom into two parts with the assent of his brother Otto, and, the one having already been conferred on Frederick, granted the other to Godfrey to govern under the name of duke, the supreme authority over both being reserved to himself.

[163] And thus I would indeed think it not alien from the appearance of truth both that the matter was then done and that Godfrey was set over Lower Lotharingia, it is doubtful, not Upper, since the latter, but not likewise the former, is found to have remained subject to Frederick after Bruno's death, if it were beyond doubt that by the name of duke, which from what has been said is attributed to Godfrey by the biographer of our Saint and by the continuator of Regino, there is signified not a commander of military forces but a governor of a province or kingdom; but since this is plainly uncertain, as it certainly appears to me, it is necessarily likewise doubtful and uncertain whether in the year 960 or at the beginning of the following one Bruno both divided Lotharingia into two parts and, having already before set Frederick over one of them, granted the other to Godfrey to rule. The continuator of Regino and the Saxon annalist report at the year 966 that the emperor Otto celebrated the Nativity of the Lord at Cologne Agrippina and there then disposed all the business of the Lotharingian kingdom as seemed good to him; and since they begin the reckoning of years from the nativity of the Lord, it is necessary, if credence is to be given to them, that Otto did what they say when not yet three months had passed after Bruno's death. What then if it should be said that Otto himself only then divided Lotharingia into two parts and left one of them to Frederick to govern, since he had previously received from Bruno not that very part but the whole of Lotharingia, and reserved the other for himself? What if even before Bruno's age, as seemed to Valois from the Annals of Saint-Bertin, Lotharingia was divided in two?

[164] However that may be, it appears beyond doubt that Bruno, whether he divided or did not divide the kingdom of Lotharingia into two parts, a duke having been appointed, he restrains. always retained supreme authority for himself either over the whole of it or over a part of it, after he had set Frederick over the Lotharingians in his stead: first indeed from Flodoard, who at the year 960 expressly calls Frederick duke of the Lotharingians, and yet reports at each of those years that Bruno, both in that very year and in the year immediately preceding, moved into Gaul with an army composed partly of Lotharingians; and then from the biographer of our Saint, who clearly declares at num. 61 that he sent auxiliary forces, composed of Lotharingians, to his brother Otto when he set out for Italy in the year 961, and therefore was still then set over them. Nor is only what I have said ascertained from what Flodoard writes at the two said years, but also that the Lotharingians, who in the year 959, as has already been said, had fallen away from the fidelity owed to Bruno, returned to their duty already from the same year, Frederick having been set over them, and that they were therefore already then in some measure pacified by Bruno's industry and zeal. The matter appears certain and undoubted from this, that otherwise the Lotharingians would not then have been going to set out for Gaul with Bruno; wherefore, adding nothing more about this, I turn my discourse to the things which the Saint is recorded to have done in Gaul when he had come there in the two said years with an army composed partly of Lotharingians.

§ XIII. He restores to the see of Troyes Ansegisus, unjustly expelled from it, brings his sisters and nephews into concord, and renders the Lotharingians altogether pacified.

In the year 959, if what the chronicle Flodoard in his Chronicle at the year 959 records the following: Count Robert invades the castle of Dijon, the king's faithful men having been expelled. Wherefore Bruno, summoned at the petition of the king and queen, came into Burgundy with the Lotharingians and other peoples subject to him, and surrounds with a siege the same castle, and also the city of Troyes, which the aforesaid Robert was holding. Thus he, adding neither with what success St. Bruno besieged the city of Troyes, nor teaching us that Bruno then came into Gaul for any other cause than that he had been summoned by King Lothar and his mother Queen Gerberga against Robert, count of Troyes, who had occupied the castle of Dijon after expelling the royal soldiers; but in d'Achery, tome 2 of the Spicilegium, from page 705, there is extant a Chronicle distinguished by the appellation of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif of Sens, written by Clarius, first a monk of Fleury and then of the same monastery of St. Peter, and carried from the year 446 down to the year 1179, in which, having narrated the death of Otto, duke of Burgundy, the chronographer continues thus: At that very time there arises a contention between Ansegisus, bishop of Troyes, and Count Robert. And Ansegisus, cast out from the city by Robert, went on into Saxony to the emperor Otto, and, Saxons having been brought, he besieged the city of Troyes in the month of October for a long time. And coming for plunder to the Senones [*] they wished to lay waste the whole region. But Archembald the archbishop (namely of Sens) and Rainard, the old count, met them with a very great army at the place which is called Villare; and the Saxons having been slain with their leader Helpo, the men of Sens returned victors.

[166] of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif notes, Helpo had said that he would burn the churches and villages as far as the city, and thrust his lance into the gate of St. Leo. But, slain, he was carried back to his fatherland, the Ardennes. For so his mother Warna had ordered. And Count Rainard and Archbishop Archembald greatly lamented him; for he was their kinsman. And Duke Bruno, the companion of the same Helpo, seeing that he himself was dead, and the people, returned to his own fatherland. If therefore one must assent to this chronographer, with whom also Hugh of Fleury in his Chronicle, and Aimoin, or rather his much more recent continuator, book 5, chapter 44, agree almost exactly, as setting forth the matter in almost the same words as he, Bruno neither came into Gaul in the year 959 only for the cause which Flodoard alleges, nor besieged the city of Troyes with a happy outcome; but although Hugh, Aimoin or his continuator, and Clarius seem in the places just cited to treat of the same expedition of Bruno into Gaul of which Flodoard treats in the words recited above, yet this expedition, which Flodoard ties to the year 959, they, as appears, wrongly defer until the death of Otto, duke of Burgundy, which, by the testimony of Flodoard, happened in the year 965, nor do they make mention of the Lotharingians, of whom, as Flodoard reports, the army with which Bruno came into Gaul in the year 959 was partly composed. Besides, all three lived at least two hundred years removed from Bruno's age; so that it can deservedly be called into doubt whether they had sufficiently ascertained the things they write concerning him. Surely the anonymous author of the Translation of St. Patroclus, who, although from what has already been said above he is different from Rotger, the biographer of our Saint, yet seems to have flourished not later than the 11th century, nowhere makes any mention of an unhappy outcome with which Bruno, wishing to restore the expelled bishop Ansegisus to the see of Troyes, besieged the city of Troyes, although meanwhile he speaks of Ansegisus expelled from the see of Troyes and restored to it by Bruno.

[167] Nevertheless, since nothing at all prevents it from being believed that Bruno undertook an expedition into Gaul in the year 959 both in order to restore Ansegisus to his see and in order to compel Robert, agree with the truth, with an unhappy outcome count of Troyes, who had occupied the castle of Dijon after expelling the royal garrison from it, to give it back to the king, and since Clarius and the other two writers just cited do not conflict with Flodoard, who does not declare with what outcome Bruno besieged Troyes, except in the time to which they refer it, I would not dare to assert that what they record on that subject, perhaps received even from ancient documents, is certainly alien from the truth. Nor did the brothers Sainte-Marthe dare to assert it, when they treated in the Gallia Christiana Antiqua, tome 1, page 625, of Archembald, archbishop of Sens, who is narrated by the cited writers to have routed the Saxons besieging the city of Troyes in the year 959. Their words which bear on this,

since they serve to illustrate the words of Clarius which I have shown above, it will be useful to set here before the eyes. They, therefore, having first said that Archembald, born of Robert, count of Troyes, and of Adelaide of Burgundy, approved by the judgment of his parents rather than of God, and not named by canonical election, nevertheless received the gift of consecration from Pope John about the year 959, then continue the discourse begun about him thus: The same … brought up in delights and a follower of a profane life, neglected sacred things; indeed [*] the continuator of Aimoin (with me book 5, chapter 44) notes in book 4, chapter 43, that, a contention having arisen between Ansegisus, bishop of Troyes, and Robert, the father of Archembald, when it had come to arms on both sides, the emperor Otto sent Saxons under the leadership of Helpo to the help of the bishop, and the metropolitan of Sens, Rainard, count of Sens, his kinsman, being joined with him, routed the army (namely Helpo's) at the place Villare.

[168] he besieged Troyes, but in the year Thus the cited Sainte-Marthes, adding then that Archembald, who had chiefly opposed the restoration to his see by Bruno in the year 959 of Ansegisus, expelled from the city of Troyes by Count Robert, at length perished miserably, if credence is to be given to the Chronicle of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif of Sens cited above, struck by Bl. Savinian. The writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 12, col. 494, having likewise narrated from the said Chronicle of St. Peter of Sens the victory of Archembald and the men of Sens over the Saxons who had come under the leadership of Helpo to besiege Troyes in the year 959, then add thus: In the year 960 Bruno, bishop of Cologne, sent into Gaul by the emperor Otto his brother to reconcile the sons of his two sisters, restored the expelled bishop Ansegisus, from whom he obtained the body of St. Patroclus the martyr, to be carried away with him. Nor did Bruno obtain in the year 960 only what those writers record in these words and what he had not been able to do by arms in the year 959, but he also then brought it about both that the castle of Dijon, which likewise, as appears, he had not been able to obtain by arms in the year 959, should pass into the king's power, and that the sons of his sisters should be reconciled among themselves. All these things we are clearly taught partly from Flodoard, partly from the anonymous writer cited above, who committed to writing the translation of St. Patroclus and, as I have already noted above, very probably flourished not later than the 11th century.

[169] as is clear from the author of the translation of St. Patroclus For he, today in Surius in the Life of our Saint, chapter 28, having first said that the emperor Aurelian, under whom St. Patroclus suffered martyrdom, began to hold the reins of the Roman empire in the two hundred and seventy-fifth year from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, presently continues thus: About six hundred and eighty-five years from then (these, added to the years 275, bring us down, as will be evident to one who reckons, to the year 960) St. Bruno, the most reverend archbishop of the church of Cologne, was sent by the august emperor Otto, his brother, into Lyonnese Gaul, in good time for us, almost too late for the people of that province; where the wills of the citizens were diverse and their opinions divided, each having his own will, and they were at variance not only in counsels and inclinations, but also in arms and camps. There, then, the sons of his two sisters held the chief power. These, near to one another by the bond of blood, discordant in spirit, were the sport of their own greedy soldiers, who, intent only on the gains of riches, kept faith neither on this side nor on that. For where the princes of a region pant with the heats of avarice, all the wretched await the joys of peace in vain. But the glorious archbishop, the messenger of peace, sooner than could be believed, brought silence on the hot crowd by the majesty of his hand; then he taught what was useful to all, what was expedient for each, and, the citizens having been reconciled with one another, by goodness toward his own and justice toward all he restored a most perfect peace.

[170] and Flodoard, it is clear, These things having been so done, when he was already arranging to return, he obtained with many prayers from Ansegisus, the venerable bishop of the church of Troyes, whom, having been expelled a little before, he had, among other distinctions of his legation, restored to his own see with great applause of the people, that he should give him the body of Bl. Patroclus the martyr, to be carried away likewise with him. Thus the cited anonymous writer; and Flodoard in his Chronicle at the year 960 records thus: A certain fortification, Dijon, which the faithful men of King Lothar held, Robert, the brother of Heribert, deceiving the king's faithful man, entering by guile, invades, the royal guards having been expelled. To recover it the king, having set out with the queen his mother, besieges that castle. Bishop Bruno, arriving there with the Lotharingians and other peoples subject to him, received hostages from Robert, whom he handed over to the king. Of these one, the son of Count Odalric, was proved a traitor and judged and beheaded; the other was kept alive. Otto and Hugh, sons of Hugh, through the mediation of their uncle Bruno, come to the king and are made his men; of whom the king appointed Hugh duke, the district of Poitou being added to him to the land which his father had held, Burgundy being granted to Otto. Let the studious reader now weigh all these words, both of Flodoard and of the cited anonymous writer who committed to writing the translation of St. Patroclus, and he will presently perceive from the text of the latter, which they contain, that Ansegisus, bishop of Troyes, was restored by Bruno in the year 960 to his see, which he had been compelled by Robert, count of Troyes, to abandon.

[171] And thus indeed he then very probably effected, chiefly by counsel and prudence, what he had not been able to effect by arms in the year 959, in 960 was more fortunate, if what Clarius, Hugh and the continuator of Aimoin record in the words transcribed here above is consonant with the truth; but since Bruno, when he did this, that is, from what has been said in the year 960, had come into Gaul with an army composed partly of Lotharingians, as everyone will gather from the words of Flodoard already given, I think it came about partly also from fear of arms that Robert, count of Troyes, who had expelled Ansegisus, its bishop, from his city in the year, as appears, 959, allowed him, received within it in the year 960, to be restored to his see by Bruno. Nor in any other way did the castle of Dijon, occupied by the same Count Robert, return to the king's power in the said year. Bruno had besieged it as well as Troyes in the year 959, as we saw above from Flodoard, but, as appears must be concluded even from this, that this writer does not add with what success it was done, with a vain attempt. But when Count Robert, not content with having occupied the castle of Dijon in the year 959, had in the following year taken also by guile the fortification of Dijon, or, as I think, the city of the same name, then fortified, not very far removed from the castle, and King Lothar, in order to subject the fortification to himself again, had surrounded it with a siege, Bruno, arriving with the Lotharingians, received from the count, who very probably feared for himself from the army with which the Saint had come, hostages whom he handed over to the king; and afterwards not only the castle of Dijon but also the fortification of the same name passed into the king's power while the same year 960 was still running, as Flodoard, who in the words recited above reports what I have just said of the hostages handed over to Bruno, testifies also a little after these.

[172] intent on making peace among his nephews, the sons of Hugh But Bruno, who had come into Gaul not only to restore Ansegisus to his see and to repress Count Robert, but also, and indeed chiefly, to bring the sons of his sisters, who were at variance among themselves, into concord, Ansegisus having already been restored to his see and Robert having been brought almost altogether to his duty, devoted himself wholly to reconciling his nephews among themselves. He had indeed in some measure made peace between them in the year 959; but this had been fixed only for the time until another assembly should be held, nor did it seem that another, which would be more lasting and firmer, could easily be fixed. The sons of Hugh the Great, count of the Parisians, who had departed this life in the year 956, were more powerful than King Lothar himself, and hence, as appears, being puffed up with a loftier spirit than was fitting, they altogether refused to submit themselves to Lothar as their king. But Bruno, who had already twice, namely in the year 958 and then again in the year immediately following, come into Gaul with an army, not only to make peace between Lothar and those more powerful sons of Hugh, but also, if it should be necessary, to protect Lothar by arms, even against these, as appears, at length in that year 960, as appears must be gathered from the words of Flodoard just transcribed here, brought the matter to the point that Hugh and Otto, the two elder sons of Hugh the Great, at length submitted themselves to Lothar as their king, promising him fidelity and obedience, when the former had received from him the duchy of the Franks together with the district of Poitou, and the latter Burgundy, in fief.

[173] he brings them to promise due fidelity to Lothar. The words of Flodoard which I have just mentioned do not expressly bear this; but I thought that the interpretation which I have just set forth must be applied to them on account of the biographer of our Saint, who at num. 60 speaks of Bruno in the following manner: Moreover Lothar, his sister's son, sprung from the ancient lineage of kings, when he was vehemently oppressed by his cousins, he wonderfully rescued and exalted, and did not cease until he had established him as king in the place of his father, and laid prostrate under his yoke the sons of Hugh, greater and more powerful than he, and all the princes of that kingdom, so providing for all that under the governance of one rule all alike might be both safe from enemies and at peace with one another. Since immediately, or certainly not very long after Louis d'Outremer departed from among the living in the year 954, his son Lothar was consecrated king of the Franks at Reims by Artald, archbishop of Reims, the nobles of Francia, Burgundy and Aquitaine, and Hugh the Great himself, as Flodoard teaches at the year 954, and therefore Bruno, with whose favour also, as the same writer testifies in that place, that matter had been accomplished, certainly did not afterwards have to labour against the sons of Hugh in order that it might be done, the biographer of our Saint very probably wished only to signify in the words just transcribed here that our Saint laboured, not that King Lothar might be crowned, but that the authority due to him over his subjects might be asserted for him.

[174] and the Lotharingians, some of these rebelling again, Accordingly, lest he should in any way collide here with Flodoard, I have interpreted the words of this writer concerning Hugh and Otto, the sons of Hugh the Great, which I transcribed here just above, in such a way that by them it is signified that the sons of Hugh at length submitted themselves to Lothar through Bruno's action. And indeed these following words, together with some others, of Flodoard himself concerning Otto and Hugh, the sons of Hugh the Great, just given, they come to the king and are made his men, since by them it seems to be signified that these were made subjects or faithful men of King Lothar, do not seem to be adverse to an interpretation of this kind. If however there should perhaps be some reason why this does not seem certainly to be admitted, that concord and peace was indeed made between Lothar and the two elder sons of Hugh the Great through Bruno's action in the year 960,

is certain from Flodoard. But while the Saint was restoring peace in Francia, in Lotharingia, or the kingdom committed to his care, as Rotger puts it, matters are disturbed, as becomes plain from what Flodoard presently adds about Bruno after his words just transcribed here: But hearing, he says, that certain of the Lotharingians were rising against him, he returns there with haste, the king being left at the siege with his cousins. One of Bruno's enemies, Robert by name, was fortifying the castle of Manuvium [*], the other, Immo, a fortification which they call Chèvremont: hastening to besiege it, Bruno found the places round about exhausted of supplies, and so he besieges an enemy abounding in provisions. A truce therefore having been granted, he enters Cologne.

[175] In Miraeus, tome 3 of the Belgian Diplomas, there is extant a Charter, he renders, Duke Godfrey perhaps given in the year 946, by which the town of Melin is given to the abbey of Waulsort by Robert, count of Namur. He was very probably the very Robert here mentioned by Flodoard, who is thought to have been the son of Berengar, count of Namur or of Lomme, who subscribed the diploma by which Henry the Fowler confirmed the foundation of the abbey of Brogne in the year 932; and as for Immo, the other enemy of Bruno mentioned by that writer, he is undoubtedly no other than he who had stirred up the Lotharingians in the year 959, as we saw above, to revolt from Bruno. But why did these rise again against the Saint, since, from what has just been said, Bruno had already revoked the things on account of which he knew the Lotharingians had revolted from him in the year 959? That is obscure; but although this is so, Robert and Immo seem indeed to have been driven to it by ambition rather than by any reason weighty or honourable even in appearance. However that may be, the Saint, as Flodoard adds, made a truce with them, very probably so that they might thus have room to reconsider and return to their duty; nor do the new commotions which they had stirred up in Lotharingia seem to have lasted long after. But how were these settled so quickly? That this was done chiefly by the appointment of Duke Godfrey to preside over Lower Lotharingia is made in some measure probable by what I adduced above at num. 161 and the two following. Indeed, the things I added in that same place at the same time render the matter uncertain and doubtful; but although this is so, it certainly becomes no more doubtful from the fact that Flodoard makes mention of Duke Godfrey neither at the year 959, at which he speaks of Frederick, then set over the Lotharingians by Bruno, nor at the year 960, at which he reports these new commotions of certain of them rebelling against him.

[176] For how the commotions which he mentions in the latter place were settled that writer explains neither there nor afterwards; and in the former place he only declares what Bruno did concerning the Lotharingians set over them, when he had experienced them rebellious against him for the first time; so that, since Godfrey was not then set over them, it is surely no wonder why he makes no mention of him there. But although this is so, it will altogether have to be said that certain Lotharingians who had last risen against Bruno were not pacified by Duke Godfrey being set over them, if Duke Godfrey, who in Martène and Durand, tome 2 of the Ancient Writers, is found subscribed to the Diploma by which our Saint confirmed a certain exchange of goods made between Werenfrid, abbot of Stavelot, and Count Warner, was duke of Lotharingia. For since that diploma is noted as given in the year 953, it will follow that already from that year there was a duke of Lotharingia under Bruno named Godfrey, nor will there be any further reason to believe that Bruno restrained the Lotharingians in the year 960 or the following by first setting Duke Godfrey over them then. Indeed, if Duke Godfrey, subscribed to the said diploma, was in fact duke or governor of Lotharingia, as he may seem to have been from the fact that the diploma concerns Lotharingia, it could deservedly be thought, on account of what has already been said above, that to this duke, who had already been duke of Lotharingia under Bruno for some years, another duke named Frederick was joined by our Saint in the year 959, and that, Lotharingia having been divided into two parts, Frederick was set over one of them, Godfrey retaining the other, and the Saint reserving to himself supreme authority over both.

[177] altogether pacified. But although surely, if the matter was so, it is not to be believed that the new commotions of certain Lotharingians were settled by Duke Godfrey being set over them, yet they do not seem, as I have already said, to have lasted long. So I suppose, first indeed because Flodoard, who narrates that they arose in the year 960, makes no further mention of them thereafter; and then because, before Otto set out for Italy in the year 961, matters had been duly settled throughout all Francia and Saxony and the neighbouring regions round about, as Widukind testifies, the continuator of Regino and Sigebert, who says that Gaul and Germany were then well pacified, also supporting him. Besides, the Lotharingians in the year 961, as we shall see below, adopted for themselves Otto's son as king by unanimous vote; which they do not seem likely to have done unless they had then been thoroughly pacified. The Saint, therefore, who in the year 960 had restored Ansegisus, expelled from the see of Troyes, had taken care that the castle of Dijon should be given back to Lothar, or certainly had contributed much to it, and finally had reconciled his nephews, that is, the sons of his sisters, in the same year also, or certainly not very long after, altogether pacified the people of Lotharingia; so that our biographer and Widukind probably had regard to this, the former when he asserts at num. 60 that the people of the Lotharingians was rendered by Bruno, from uncultivated and wild, pacified and gentle, as was seen when he was writing this; the latter when he recorded these following words in book 2: The lord Brun was great in talent, great in knowledge and in every virtue and industry. When the king had set him over the untamed nation of the Lotharingians, he purged the region of robbers and so instructed it in discipline that the highest reason and the highest peace held place in those parts.

* Saxones

* supply, ut

* elsewhere Namwrum

§ XIV. He attempts to subject the church of Bremen to himself as a suffragan of the church of Cologne; when, and whether by right, he did this.

Bruno, that the church of Bremen to the church of Cologne How, a signal victory over the Danes having been won by the emperor Otto I, three bishoprics in the Cimbric Chersonese, namely those of Schleswig, Ribe and Aarhus, were instituted, to be thenceforth subject as suffragans to the archbishopric of Hamburg, Adam of Bremen explains in his Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 2, and then, some things still interposed which do not bear on our matter, he adds in chapter 3: The most mighty king Otto subjects all the peoples of the Slavs to his rule. And those whom his father had subdued in one great war, Otto himself thenceforth so constrained, with the help of God, by such power that they willingly offered to the victor tribute and Christianity in exchange for life and fatherland together; and thus the whole people of the gentiles is baptized. And churches were then first built in Slavonia… After these things, therefore, Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, seeing that our Hamburg now had suffragans by the help of divine grace, renewed the old complaint concerning Bremen, as we have found in the archives of our church, hoping that he would obtain what he wanted the more easily because he was the son (rather, the brother) of King Otto. But when he had laboured in vain in every way, he obtained neither the counsel of the Pope nor the help of his father (rather, brother). So that the noble and wise Man, easily overcome by the authority of the pontiff Adaldag, returned into favour with our church, proclaiming that the church of Hamburg, which was set in so great a danger from the gentiles, ought not to be injured by anyone, but was worthy to be cherished with every love of consolation and celebrated by all churches everywhere. It is still in the memory of posterity that a certain Erp, deacon of the pontiff Adaldag, because he had stood by him faithfully in the aforesaid contention, was given the bishopric of Verden by the king.

[179] The war waged by Otto I against the Slavs with as great success he strove in the year 960 that it be subjected anew, as is narrated at the beginning of these words is referred to the year 960 by the Saxon chronographer and annalist, with whom also the continuator of Regino and Sigebert agree; wherefore, since our Saint renewed the ancient complaint concerning the church of Bremen, as the words of Adam of Bremen just recited attest, both after that war and after the new bishoprics instituted in Denmark which I have just named, or, as Adam wishes to signify here by the old complaint concerning Bremen, attempted to subject the church of Bremen as a suffragan to the church of Cologne, it follows that he did not do this before the said year 960; whether indeed not a little later, it is not worth the trouble to inquire; but since there are those who think the Saint is to be censured because he renewed a suit which, as they say, had long before been decided against the church of Cologne or its bishops, it must now be shown here that he contended by right that the church of Bremen should be subjected to that of Cologne as a suffragan; and to accomplish this, it will be useful before all things to set out for the reader in summary the occasion, beginning, progress, and such decision as there was of that suit, which preceded the age of our Saint. In the time of Charlemagne Bremen had been distinguished with a bishopric, and St. Willehad, who is to be inserted in our Work on the 8th day of November, on which he is venerated, undertook to administer it, which from the very beginning was subject to the church of Cologne as a suffragan.

[180] and this, since the church of Bremen, although lawfully with that of Hamburg To him was substituted Willeric, who under Louis the Pious announced the faith of Christ to the peoples beyond the Elbe, and to him, when he departed this life in the year 837, was appointed in succession Leuderic, to whom St. Anskar, driven from his see of Hamburg by the heathen, fled; and when he then died in the year 849, it immediately began to be treated with Louis, king of Germany, of setting St. Anskar, driven from the see of Hamburg, over the bishopric of Bremen. He, wishing it to be discussed whether this was permitted by canonical authority, proposed the matter to an assembly of bishops, and when these had proved by many examples that, since the diocese of Hamburg was small and had already been devastated very often by the incursions of the barbarians, another could be joined to it for the sake of relief, the see of Bremen was united to the archbishopric of Hamburg and handed over to St. Anskar to govern. But since at that time Cologne, whose suffragan the church of Bremen was, was bereft of a bishop, and Gunthar, who had afterwards been created archbishop of Cologne, showed himself most contrary to the union of the see of Bremen with the archbishopric of Hamburg, because a suffragan see was thus withdrawn from his church, the matter was discussed anew in a synod held at Mainz in the year 857, and when Gunthar, asked by the bishops gathered there to consent to the union, had answered that he would also hold it ratified if it were approved by Apostolic authority, an embassy was sent to Pope Nicholas I, and he confirmed the union. Hence at the said year 857 the Saxon annalist has thus: The joining together of the dioceses of Bremen and Hamburg was made in the last time of St. Anskar by the authority of Pope Nicholas, who appointed both him and his successors as legates and vicars

in all the nations of the Swedes, the Danes and the Slavs; which Pope Gregory (namely the IV of this name) had also granted before.

[181] [previously united, yet to return, if ever this were increased by other bishoprics] But although the see of Bremen, whose union with the archbishopric of Hamburg had been established in this manner, might seem no longer subject to the church of Cologne, yet Anskar, as long as he still remained alive, and St. Rembert, who immediately succeeded him, constantly offered some measure of subjection to the prelate of Cologne. That manner of acting was surely most to be approved in holy men; but when Adalgar, who had succeeded Rembert in the year 888 in the see of Bremen united with the archbishopric of Hamburg, had afterwards neglected it, the difficulty broke out again more severely, Hermann, archbishop of Cologne, pressing it; a synod of the bishops subject to the archbishop of Cologne was gathered at Frankfurt, in which Adalgar appeared neither in person nor through a vicar; recourse was had to Pope Formosus, who sat from the year 891 until the year 896; he, in a letter written to Adalgar, which is recited in full with us at the 3rd day of February in the Commentary preliminary to the Acts of St. Anskar, § XX, judges by way of dispensation that the church of Bremen may remain for the support of the archbishop of Hamburg, with some regard of subjection, until, new bishoprics having been founded to be subject to the prelate of Hamburg, the see of Cologne should receive back the church of Bremen.

[182] Pope Formosus had decreed that it ought to return to that of Cologne, We have judged by way of dispensation, says Formosus, having first said some things about the controversy and the two churches of Hamburg and Bremen, that, until, by the support of divine grace, the aforementioned church of Hamburg be so far enlarged that it can institute bishoprics, it may have the already mentioned church of Bremen for its support, and that as often as it shall be needful in great and very necessary canonical business, the archbishop of Hamburg, who holds the rule of the same church of Bremen, being invited, should come, not by any subjection but by the affection of fraternal charity, in person or through a vicar acting in his stead, to the aid of the archbishop of Cologne. But when the church of Hamburg has been enlarged, the bestower of all good things supporting it, and bishoprics have been founded, let the often-mentioned see of Cologne receive back the church of Bremen. For it is inhuman even among seculars to invade the rights of others; how much more for most holy bishops to transgress the boundaries established by the fathers, and for those to go to law who ought to furnish their subjects with examples of peace? And this dispensation has been decreed to this end, that peace may flourish, contention cease, and the compassion of mercy temper the rigour of justice, knowing that without the good of peace no gift will be acceptable to God.

[183] Such was the state, toward the end of the 9th century, of the controversy with which we are now dealing here; nor did Sergius the third this sentence, and since at that time, although the church of Bremen had indeed already before been united with the archbishopric of Hamburg by Pope Nicholas I, with the consent also of Gunthar, archbishop of Cologne, and so torn away from the church of Cologne, whose suffragan it had been, it had been decreed by Pope Formosus, from what has already been said, that, if ever the church of Hamburg should be increased with suffragan bishoprics, the church of Bremen should return to the archbishop of Cologne, Bruno certainly in the year 960, since already for more than ten years then the bishoprics of Schleswig, Ribe and Aarhus in the Cimbric Chersonese had been founded and subjected as suffragans to the church of Hamburg, could by right contend that the church of Bremen should be subjected anew to the church of Cologne. But indeed, you will say, Pope Sergius the third, who sat from the year 904 until the year 911, pitying the calumnies, that is, the complaints, of Adalgar, afterwards renewed the privileges of the church of Bremen. So, I confess, writes Adam of Bremen, cited above; but granted that that Pontiff renewed the privileges of the church of Bremen, yet he by no means thereby abrogated the sentence by which Formosus, his predecessor, had decreed that the church of Bremen should return to the church of Cologne if the archbishopric of Hamburg should acquire other bishoprics to be its suffragans; indeed he did not even bring it about that Bremen should thenceforth be reckoned in no way at all a suffragan of the church of Cologne. This is clear from Adam of Bremen himself and from Albert of Stade, who affirm that Bremen, namely after the already mentioned decree of Formosus, was made a suffragan of Cologne at all times under Adalgar and Hoger.

[184] contrary to what Lambecius would have, For both Hoger and Adalgar were bishops of Bremen, and the latter occupied this see, united with the archbishopric of Hamburg, from the year 888 until the year 909, and the former from this year until the year 914, as Peter Lambecius teaches in his Supplement to the first book of the History of Hamburg, arranged Chronologically from the year 808 until the year 1225; and since this is so, and Bremen at all times when these occupied its episcopal see was a suffragan of the church of Cologne, as Adam of Bremen and Albert of Stade say, who would bring himself to think that Pope Sergius, who, as I have already noted, sat from the year 904 until the year 911, brought it about that it should be reckoned in no way at all a suffragan of the church of Cologne? No one surely, so far as I think; and if Sergius did not even do this, it appears altogether incredible that what Pope Formosus had decreed toward the end of the 9th century concerning the return of the church of Bremen to the church of Cologne, if ever the archbishopric of Hamburg should be increased with other suffragan bishoprics, was also abrogated by him. Lambecius indeed in his Supplement just cited writes thus at the year 911: In this year of the Christian Era 911 Pope Sergius the Third sent the episcopal pallium to Hoger, fourth archbishop of Hamburg, and confirmed the abrogation of the sentence against the right of Adalgar, archbishop of Hamburg, over the church of Bremen, fortified by the privileges of the Pontiffs Gregory IV and Nicholas I, promulgated in the council of Tribur with the consent of Pope Formosus in the year of the Christian Era 895. There is still extant concerning that matter the very Rescript of Pope Sergius the third, given on the Kalends of June of the current year of the Christian Era 911, which has been published by Philip Caesar in the Appendix to the Triapostolatus of the North; but in the Rescript of Sergius, which Lambecius here cites and presently recites in full, nothing at all occurs from which the abrogation of the sentence pronounced by Formosus against the right of Adalgar can deservedly be extracted.

[185] had abrogated, he could by right demand in the year 960, The Pontiff, in that rescript or letter to Hoger, after he has signified to him that he has sent him according to custom the pallium for celebrating the Solemnities of the Masses, only prescribes the days on which he may use it, and then supplies some wholesome admonitions for rightly governing the church committed to his care. Sergius indeed, in that place of the letter where he determines those days, speaks in the following manner: The pallium … we have sent to your Fraternity according to custom for celebrating the Solemnities of the Masses, which we grant you to use, the privileges of your church remaining anew in their state, only on the day of the holy and venerable Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc.; but although the Pontiff thus in some measure hints that he wishes, or, if you prefer, that he decrees anew, that the privileges of the church of Hamburg should remain unimpaired and untouched, yet he by no means declares that he abrogates the sentence of Formosus mentioned above. Indeed, since he seems not to grant new privileges but only to renew those which the church of Hamburg had had before, he is to be thought not to have changed the privilege bearing on this which it had had before, and which bore only that, so long as the church of Hamburg had not been increased with new bishoprics subject to it as suffragans, it should retain the church of Bremen for its support, and therefore not to have abrogated the said sentence of Formosus, but rather to have confirmed it; and since this is so, and from what has already been said the church of Hamburg had already obtained new bishoprics subject to it as suffragans from about the year 947, surely the Saint could by right demand in the year 960 that the church of Bremen be subjected anew to the church of Cologne as a suffragan.

[186] Nor is there reason why anyone should oppose here the letter of Pope Agapetus II, nor the contrary even from the letter of Agapetus here mentioned, who sat from the year 946 until the year 956, to the archbishop of Hamburg, brought in by Hartzheim from Mansi's Supplement of the Councils, tome 1, into the Councils of Germany, tome 2, page 619 and following; for although in it the Pontiff, at the request of the archbishop of Hamburg, confirms all the rights granted to him by Pope Nicholas I, subjects to him the new bishoprics recently erected in the Cimbric Chersonese, and decrees that the archbishop of Cologne can thenceforth claim no jurisdiction for himself in the diocese of Bremen, and that this and that of Hamburg are thenceforth to be and be called not two but one, yet he nowhere makes any mention either of Pope Formosus or of the decree by which he had decreed, in the words recited at num. 182, that the church of Bremen, if ever that of Hamburg should be increased with new bishoprics suffragan to it, should return to that of Cologne. Indeed he does not even seem to have known that decree; for otherwise he would very probably have declared in the said letter, or the decree included in it, that he wished not only that the diocese of Hamburg and of Bremen should thenceforth be one, but also that the latter of them, although the former of them had already been increased with suffragan bishoprics, should not return to that of Cologne, since by this, as they say, he wished to abrogate what had been decreed concerning the church of Bremen by Formosus; and since this is so, and the archbishop of Hamburg, to whom at his request Agapetus granted what I have said by the mentioned letter or the decree included in it, probably concealed these things from the Pontiff, our Saint could think that this latter decree had been obtained by obreption and subreption, and could therefore with full right demand that it be rescinded and that what Formosus had decreed be granted to him.

[187] Besides, it may be doubted whether the mentioned letter of Agapetus is not spurious; which letter of Agapetus, it may also be doubted whether it is not spurious, for during the whole time that Agapetus II occupied the Roman chair of St. Peter, no archbishop named Adalgar, to whom it is indicated in the title which it bears that it was sent, governed the church of Hamburg; and although Adam of Bremen writes in the Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 2, that all the privileges which had been granted to the church of Hamburg by Nicholas I and other Roman Pontiffs were likewise granted by Agapetus to Adaldag, who presided over the church of Hamburg from the year 937 until the year 987, and the suspicion can deservedly, as appears, arise even from this that the name of Adalgar crept by error into the just mentioned title of the letter in place of the name of Adaldag, yet Lambecius, who was by no means ignorant of what Adam writes in the place cited, nowhere brings forward a letter written by Agapetus to Adaldag by which he might give proof that what Formosus had decreed concerning the church of Bremen had been abrogated, although meanwhile he does not omit to bring forward for that purpose the rescript of Sergius the third, which yet, as I have already shown, by no means proves the matter. And indeed that no letter by which this was abrogated was written by Agapetus to Adaldag, and even that the letter mentioned above, by which that Pontiff, all jurisdiction in the diocese of Bremen being forbidden to the archbishop of Cologne, decreed that this and that of Hamburg should thenceforth both be and be called one, is spurious, seems to me, even from this,

that, as may be seen with us at the third day of February in the Commentary preliminary to the Acts of St. Anskar, num. 10, the church of Bremen was still subject to the church of Cologne in the 11th century, and that only then, as Krantz observes in book 2 of the Metropolis, chapter 21, Adalbert or Albert, archbishop of Hamburg, brought it about with the supreme Pontiff and the emperor that the church of Hamburg should return to its dignity, enjoying metropolitan right against the people of Cologne.

[188] it can be concluded even from this, that Bruno did not obtain his wish. For hence it follows not only that Agapetus did not decree what I have just mentioned when the church of Hamburg had already been increased with new bishoprics that were to be its suffragans, but also that the bishops of Cologne obtained, while the 10th century was still running, what Formosus had decreed ought to be done in that case; and although, as Adam of Bremen teaches in the words recited at num. 178, this was not granted to Bruno, though he was powerful with the highest authority and strove in every way to obtain his wish in that matter, yet that he could not by right demand that it be granted to him can no more be inferred from that than from the letter mentioned above, which is attributed to Agapetus, but, as appears from what has been said, falsely; for this very probably happened, not because what Bruno demanded was not consonant with justice, but because Otto judged, for the same cause for which it had formerly seemed good to Louis, king of Germany, to unite the church of Bremen with that of Hamburg, that the one should not be separated from the other. Louis, king of Germany, thought of uniting the bishopric of Bremen with that of Hamburg, as St. Rembert his disciple testifies in the Life of Anskar, in order that St. Anskar, set over both, might be able with greater fruit to carry out his legation for illuminating the Northern lands with the light of the Gospel; and Otto very probably thought that those two churches should not be separated from each other in order that Adaldag, set over both, who, as Adam of Bremen testifies in the place cited above, devoted himself wholly to the conversion of the heathen and the salvation of souls, might be able with greater fruit to cultivate the most ample field, opened far and wide for disseminating the Gospel through Otto's victories over the Danes and the Slavs.

§ XV. By Otto, on his way to Italy, he is appointed guardian of Otto the Younger and vicar of the Cisalpine kingdom; he opposes the excommunicated Hugh of Reims; he provides vacant churches with excellent pastors; he holds two synods or assemblies.

By Otto, about to set out for Italy in the year 961, The Italians, heavily oppressed by Berengar and his son Adalbert, to whom Otto had restored the kingdom of Italy in the year 952 when they had given themselves into his clientship, desired Otto as their prince, and in the year 960, about which also, as will be more fitly observed below when the relics of St. Patroclus obtained by Bruno are treated, Euracrus, a man most worthy of the episcopate, was set over the church of Liège with Bruno's consent, they had most earnestly besought him to come into Italy with all haste and free them from the tyranny of Berengar. Envoys, says the continuator of Regino at that year, come from the Apostolic See, John the deacon and Azo the archivist, calling the king to defend Italy and the Roman commonwealth from the tyranny of Berengar. Walpert too, archbishop of Milan, and Waldo, bishop of Como, and Marquis Otbert, fleeing Berengar, come to the king in Saxony. And almost all the other counts and bishops of Italy also, by letters or envoys, beg him to come to free them. Otto, having heard the complaints of each, promises a timely arrival in Italy, but, deferring the journey for grave reasons to the following year, he gives his attention meanwhile to settling affairs in Germany and to preparing everything for the expedition. Nor did he think that only these things were to be done by him, but, mindful of the human condition, he thought he must provide for the kingdom and for himself concerning a successor, his son, if anything should happen to him in human fashion. This was Otto, born of Adelaide only six years before, that is, in the year, as the continuator of Regino teaches, 955.

[190] Him, therefore, before he set out for Italy, his son Otto into the guardianship, he caused to be elected king, of Germany at Worms and of Lotharingia at Aachen, as the continuator of Regino records, and, since he was still unfit by reason of his age to administer affairs, he commended him to his brother Bruno and to his son William, or, as appears, committed him to the guardianship of those by whom, and by Henry, archbishop of Trier, he had been anointed and consecrated king. Almost all these things we are taught partly from the continuator of Regino and partly from the biographer of our Saint. For the former has thus at the year 961: The king, arranging to go into Italy, gathered together a very great multitude of his faithful men at Worms; where by the consent and unanimity of the nobles of the kingdom his son Otto is elected king; and proceeding from there, by the agreement and election also of all the Lotharingians, he is ordained king at Aachen; and the latter at num. 61 records the following: The emperor had a son, still very young, of most delicate disposition and most upright will, a hostage of peace and the glory of the people; him, commended to the archbishops, his Uncle and his brother, the emperor had left for the guarding of the Cisalpine kingdom, as he was about to set out for Rome and to order the affairs of all Italy; being himself about to be Caesar, he established him as king, elected with the highest consent by all the people, and Archbishop Bruno, William and Henry and the other priests of the Lord anointed Otto, his father's namesake, as king in the palace of Aachen, and the people exulted with the greatest rejoicing, saying: May the king live for ever. With excellent counsel surely did Otto commit his son, the recently anointed king, to the guardianship both of William, his son, archbishop of Mainz, and of Bruno.

[191] although the continuator of Regino by no means hints this, For since it was going to be the case that under him, still unfit by reason of his age to administer the business of the kingdom, the guardians of the still boyish king would have to administer either all or at least a great part of it, it was fitting that no others surely should be chosen for that guardianship than those who, excelling in counsel and prudence, were also concordant in mind among themselves; and that both William and Bruno were such it is permissible to gather even from this, that the latter, whom no one would deny excelled in prudence and counsel, was frequently wont to call William into counsel even before this happened, as Rotger clearly testifies in the Life of our Saint at num. 56. But it is asserted by the continuator of Regino at that year, no word at all being used by which it might be indicated that he was commended to Bruno his uncle, that Otto, about to set out for Italy in the year 961, committed his son Otto to Archbishop William to be protected and brought up, and the anonymous writer of the Life of St. Mathilda, who flourished in the 11th century, agrees with him, with us at the 14th day of March, writing there at num. 25 thus of Otto about to set out for Italy in the year 961: Then commending the kingdom and Otto his little son to his pious mother and to Archbishop William, he took with him the stout hearts of men; and hence there will be someone who perhaps will call into doubt whether Otto, departing for Italy in the year 961, committed the guardianship of his son to Bruno. And indeed, since Otto then gave his son to William, archbishop of Mainz, also to be brought up, as the continuator of Regino says, and he afterwards went to meet his father returning from Italy in the year 965, not with Bruno, but, as the continuator of Regino again testifies, with William, archbishop of Mainz, it appears that it must be believed that the son of Otto, while he was absent in Italy, stayed with the latter at Mainz and was therefore committed chiefly to his guardianship.

[192] [was given to Bruno, even from this, that the emperor's stead also, as from Widric,] But both Sigebert and our biographer affirm equally that his son was commended by Otto, on his way to Italy in the year 961, both to Bruno and to William. Wherefore, although Otto the younger did not, as appears, stay at Cologne with our Saint while his father was absent in Italy, yet that Bruno acted as guardian of that nephew of his, to whom, as Rotger says at num. 61, Otto had left the guarding of the Cisalpine kingdom, in administering its business, appears even from this, that he acted in the stead of Otto himself, absent in Italy, if not in the whole of the said Cisalpine kingdom, at least in a great part of it, as the studious reader will understand from what is now to be said. With us at the 23rd day of April, on which St. Gerard, bishop of Toul on the Moselle, is venerated, in his Life written by Widric, a contemporary author and abbot of St. Aper, these following words are read at num. 4: Meanwhile, the lord Gauzelin, pontiff of the see of Toul, having been taken from human affairs (namely about the year 962), who, illustrious for the holiness of his morals, was, as is believed, received into the fellowship of the angels in heaven, the Leuci people grieved heavily, bereft of the solace of so great a pastor. There was at that time the venerable Bruno, supreme pontiff of the church of Agrippina, who in all Germany and the parts bordering on it acted in the imperial stead, as being the full brother of the great Otto Augustus; and the aforenamed prince himself was then absent, because, an urgent cause pressing, he had gone to the Italian borders. If, therefore, credence is to be given to this writer, there will surely be reason why we should believe that Bruno was appointed by Otto, setting out for Italy, vicar of the empire in the West. But lest we do this at once without any examination, the things I am now about to say stand in the way.

[193] Widukind, having narrated in book 3 some things which happened in Italy when Otto had gone there for the third time, with the Chronicles of the continuator of Regino which, as the continuator of Regino teaches, happened in the year 966 after the 15th day of August, adds: At that time, while these things were being done within Italy, the supreme pontiff William, a wise and prudent man, pious and affable to all, was ruling the empire of the Franks, commended to him by his father; and since he thus records, as will be evident to one who considers it, that William, archbishop of Mainz, acted in Germany, or in the Cisalpine kingdom, in the stead of the emperor Otto, who had set out for Italy in the year 966, and Dithmar also agrees with him, as one who, beginning his discourse in book 2 on the death of William, archbishop of Mainz, which happened in the year 968 on the second day of March, affirms that the care of disposing Magdeburg and of ruling the other necessary affairs of the kingdom, committed to him by Otto his father, then lay upon him, there will perhaps be someone who will think that the same William, and not Bruno, likewise acted in the Cisalpine kingdom in the stead of Otto, who set out for Italy in the year 961 and stayed there until the beginning of the year 965, being chiefly moved to this, first indeed because Widukind, Dithmar and the continuator of Regino, who in no way at all indicate that the guardianship of Otto the Younger was committed to Bruno by Otto on his way to Italy in the year 961, also supply nothing from which you might gather that Otto then committed his stead in the Cisalpine kingdom to him; and then because, since Otto, departing for Italy in the year 961, committed the guardianship of Otto the Younger to William, archbishop of Mainz, as the continuator of Regino teaches, the consequence from this, as appears, is certainly that to the same William then, as the guardian of this young prince, to whom, although not yet fit by reason of his age to administer affairs, his father Otto,

as Rotger teaches, had left the guarding of the Cisalpine kingdom, he also granted it to be governed in his stead.

[194] Surely what the continuator of Regino writes seems to require that the matter was so; to be reconciled by the reasoning here assigned but since Widric, who was contemporary with Bruno equally with the continuator of Regino, openly reports that Bruno acted in Otto's stead in Germany, or in the Cisalpine kingdom, while he was staying in Italy from the year 961 until the beginning of the year 965, and they therefore do not sufficiently agree between themselves, what are we to do here? Since authors who are of equal merit and credibility are not to be set against each other but, if it can be done, to be reconciled with each other, right reason requires that we try to bring Widric, who from what has been said conflicts in appearance with the continuator of Regino, into concord with him. In order therefore to do this, it must be said that both William, archbishop of Mainz, and Bruno acted in Otto's stead in the Western or Cisalpine empire, and that William did this chiefly in German Francia, of which Mainz, where he had his see, was then the metropolis. Thus surely everyone will easily understand that what both Widric and the continuator of Regino say on this subject could have been said by them with truth preserved. Dithmar indeed, Widukind and the continuator of Regino supply nothing at all from which you might conclude that Bruno acted in Otto's stead in the West when the latter had set out for Italy in the year 961; but Widric, from what has already been said, expressly affirms that the Saint did this, and so the contrary cannot be concluded from the silence of those three writers on the matter, since, as follows from this, it is not universal.

[195] and is proved by the charter here mentioned, Besides, the same three writers also supply nothing by which it is even in any way hinted that Otto his son was commended to Bruno by Otto when about to set out for Italy in the year 961, and yet it is certain from the words of Rotger transcribed here just above that this was then done by him. In Miraeus, in the Notitia of the Churches of Belgium, chapter 61, there is extant a charter by which it is declared to all, both present and future, that Count Sigifrid acquired for himself and his heirs, by title of exchange, from Wiker, abbot of St. Maximin of Trier, the castle of Luxembourg, situated in the district of the Ardennes; and in that authentic document, which is noted as given in the year 963, it is asserted that Archbishop Bruno, brother of the emperor Otto, then held the principate of the whole kingdom after him. Wherefore, since, if William, archbishop of Mainz, alone had then acted as vicar of the emperor in all the Western parts of the empire and therefore had played the first part after him, it could not have been said with truth preserved in the cited charter that Bruno held the principate of the whole kingdom after Otto, and therefore the first place in it after him, in the year 963, this charter, in which it is nevertheless said, is certainly a very strong argument that our Saint then held the emperor's place, or acted in his stead, at least in the kingdom of Lotharingia, in which the castle acquired by exchange by Count Sigifrid from the abbey of St. Maximin was situated. Nor can you reply that Bruno, because he was duke of Lotharingia, could be said to have obtained the principate in that kingdom after Otto, or the first place after him, in the year 963.

[196] it appears to be concluded that they were committed in the Cisalpine kingdom; For if William, archbishop of Mainz, alone had then obtained the emperor's stead in the kingdom of the Lotharingians also, he certainly, and not Bruno, would then have obtained the first place there after the emperor Otto, and our Saint could therefore not have been said with truth preserved in the charter cited above to have obtained the principate of the whole Lotharingian kingdom after Otto in the year 963. Bruno therefore acted as vicar of the emperor, absent in Italy from the year 961 until the year 964, in the whole kingdom of Lotharingia, and not merely as its duke, and at the same time, by common counsel together with Archbishop William, governed the remaining Cisalpine provinces of the empire in the emperor's stead and name, William meanwhile chiefly administering a part of them, German Francia, in which Mainz was situated. That I should believe that the matter was truly so done, and therefore also that Otto the Younger was then given into Bruno's guardianship, I am led also by this, that Otto at other times also was accustomed to make use of Bruno's counsel and work for ruling his kingdoms best, as it is permissible to gather from these following words about our Saint which Rotger supplies at num. 59: There are many other things, and almost infinite, which in a short time he most vigorously wrought in the things of God and for the salvation of the whole people, not only among the people of the Lotharingians, which he had taken up entirely to govern, … but also throughout the whole kingdom of his most glorious emperor. For he had a care altogether in common with his lord and brother, each of whom deservedly gloried in the other in the Lord. I proceed now to the things which our Saint did while Otto was absent in Italy from the year 961.

[197] When Artald, to whom the see of Reims had been adjudged in the year 948, Hugh, son of Count Heribert, he dissuades the restoration of the excommunicated Hugh of Reims, who had occupied it for some time without having lawfully entered it, and who, many disturbances having been stirred up on that occasion, had also been unwilling to present himself to councils, having been excommunicated, was taken from among the living in the year 961, as Flodoard teaches in his Chronicle, Hugh strove in every way that the see of Reims, now vacant, should be given back to him, and King Lothar and not a few others favoured his restoration; but Bruno, not thinking that one who had been excommunicated by so many bishops should be restored to an episcopal see, showed himself contrary to Hugh, as Flodoard teaches, writing thus in his Chronicle at the year 962: In the year 962 Queen Gerberga sought a conference with her brother Bruno, and this Brother of hers suggested to her that the bishopric of Reims should not be given back to Hugh, as his brothers were asking; and the outcome of this matter showed that Bruno thus persuaded his sister Gerberga nothing except what was consonant with the sacred canons. For when thirteen bishops, by whom the matter had been discussed in a synod on the Marne in the diocese of Meaux, had judged that nothing at all should be decided in Hugh's cause without consulting the holy See, and it had therefore been referred to the Roman Pontiff, the answer was given by Pope John that the aforesaid Hugh, formerly bishop, had been excommunicated not only by the Pope and the whole Roman synod, but also by another synod held at Pavia; and the people of Reims, informed of this pontifical answer by Bruno, reject Hugh and elect as bishop for themselves Odalric, a distinguished cleric, son of a certain Count Hugh, the same Bruno as well as King Lothar and the queen mother favouring it, as may be seen in Flodoard in the place just cited.

[198] Furthermore Bruno, who, from what has already been said, had in the year 962 opposed the restoration of the excommunicated Hugh to the see of Reims, he administers the church of Metz, vacant for some time, in the same year received the see of Metz, bereft of its pastor, to administer for a time together with that of Cologne, and probably administered it until the year 965. So, namely, I think it is to be gathered from the charter of Theoderic, bishop of Metz, which is extant in Meurisse, in the History of the Bishops of Metz, page 326. For in it that prelate, who in the year 965, as the same continuator of Regino again reports at this year, Otto having now returned from Italy, was appointed to the see of Metz in succession to Adalbero, who had been taken from among the living in the year 962, as the continuator of Regino teaches at this year, not obscurely declares that, some time after the death of Adalbero, his pious predecessor, Archbishop Bruno, upon whom, as he puts it, the administration of the kingdom then lay, or its vicarious care conferred on him by the emperor, from what has been said, disposed or administered the vacant see. Meurisse, in the History which he composed, just cited, page 216, affirms that Bruno's administration was of only a few months; but if it lasted the whole time during which the see of Metz was vacant from Adalbero's death until Theoderic's promotion, it is clear from what has already been said that it was undoubtedly longer. That the Saint meanwhile allowed that see to remain so long without a bishop may not undeservedly seem strange; but he very probably did this in order to comply with his brother, who seems to have wished that see to remain vacant until his return from Italy.

[199] Berengar, who had been raised to the see of Cambrai in the year 956, bishop, That this surely happened through no fault of our Saint it is permissible to conjecture even from this, that, since at the same time as the see of Metz two other churches in the kingdom of Lotharingia, namely those of Cambrai and of Toul, had been made vacant by the death of their bishops, he promptly provided them with excellent pastors. The matter will become evident from what is now to be said. Fulbert, bishop of Cambrai, had departed from among the living in the year 956, and Berengar, a cleric from beyond the Rhine of noble lineage, had been appointed to succeed him in the same year, as Flodoard teaches in his Chronicle; and since some time afterwards a dissension had arisen between him and the people of Cambrai, to be attributed, as appears, not so much to the bishop as to the citizens, who, as Balderic, an 11th-century writer, not obscurely declares in the Chronicle of Cambrai, book 1, chapter 79, were always disobedient and rebellious to all their bishops by reason of their ferocity, and Berengar had set out for Germany on account of business, the people of Cambrai, having entered into a conspiracy, resolved no longer to receive him within his city when he returned. The bishop, being already on the road, the business on account of which he had gone into Germany having been completed, returning to his episcopal see, having been informed of the matter, obtains from Bruno a numerous band of soldiers, Arnulf, count of Flanders, being also summoned to help, in order to extort by force from the rebels what he knew would be refused him by them. The citizens, informed of this, and fearing for themselves from the forces hastening to Cambrai, to which they knew themselves unequal, return to their duty, and receive the bishop, even coming to them alone, within his city, no force being applied to them.

[200] [who might shine before the citizens, offended by this man's horrible savagery, by holiness of life,] Thus everything now seemed pacified, nor had Berengar so far committed anything for which either he himself or Bruno, by supplying the military forces by which the people of Cambrai were compelled to their duty, could deservedly be blamed; but after some interval of time had elapsed, as Balderic, who narrates what has just been related in the Chronicle of Cambrai, book 1, the chapter just mentioned and the following, adds in chapter 82, the bishop, mindful of the injury inflicted on him by the citizens, secretly summoning soldiers to himself, takes horrible vengeance on them, who feared nothing more of this kind, and while he exceeds every measure in it, some are slain by these soldiers, others are mutilated in hands and feet, others are deprived of their eyes, and others finally are branded on their foreheads with burning iron. Such savagery would indeed have been detestable in anyone whatever, and was certainly so in a bishop; but divine justice, if credence is to be given to Balderic, did not leave it unavenged. For Berengar, since besides, as that chronographer

adds in chapter 83, he had by his cruelty violated the church of St. Gaugeric, being struck by him at night, he perished miserably a little later at Cologne, whither he had betaken himself. Since therefore these things had been done, which I thought should be narrated here so that the studious reader, by whom they have been weighed with an attentive mind, may understand that they could all have happened without fault of our Saint, who, in furnishing Berengar with a military band to compel the rebellious people of Cambrai to their duty, had certainly not foreseen that that prelate would abuse it, and since the church of Cambrai was thus destitute of a bishop, St. Bruno held nothing more important than promptly to grant to it, in that state of affairs, an excellent bishop, who would rebuild by the good odour of a holy life and of virtues what the other had destroyed in the minds of the faithful by his most evil example.

[201] Ingelrann, otherwise Ingrann, or also Enguerrand, Ingrann by name, distinguished for virtue and uprightness of morals, a monk of Old Corbie, distinguished for uprightness of life and morals, had worked himself into the familiarity of our Saint while he was managing the goods of his monastery beyond the Rhine. Him Bruno substituted in the see of Cambrai for the deceased Berengar, or certainly caused him to be substituted, as Balderic teaches us in the Chronicle already often cited, book 1, chapter 84. The words with which he does this I transcribe here. They run thus: After his (namely Berengar's) departure, Engrann, formerly a monk of the convent of St. Peter of Corbie, is promoted to the episcopal throne at the instance of the aforesaid archfather Bruno, with whom he had acquaintance and familiarity on account of the affairs of the brothers which he was managing beyond the Rhine. He, sufficiently instructed both in ecclesiastical and in secular disciplines, abounded in wonderful charity toward his flock, and, full of all gentleness, filled the dignity of a bishop with so great a compass of religion that he seemed in no way to exceed the purpose of a monk. He always laboured, namely, in the zeal of ecclesiastical cultivation, and taught the flock committed to him by the example of an innocent life and the formation of good morals. Such was he who, through the care of St. Bruno, was appointed to succeed Berengar, deceased, in the see of Cambrai; but when was this done?

[202] Ingrann, as Balderic teaches in his Chronicle, book 1, not in the year 957, as follows from what Denis de Sainte-Marthe writes, chapter 86, having ruled the church of Cambrai for three years, departed to Christ; wherefore, if one must stand with Denis de Sainte-Marthe, by whom it is asserted in tome 3 of Gallia Christiana enlarged, col. 16, that Berengar, promoted to the see of Cambrai in the year, as I have shown, 956, departed from among the living after a year of episcopate, and Ingrann on the 12th day of October in the year 960, it will follow that Ingrann was certainly raised to the see of Cambrai not sooner than the year 957, and most probably in that very year; but it appears extremely difficult to believe that what I narrated above from Balderic about Berengar was done within the space of only one year and that he therefore died in the year 957. Nor indeed, so far as I think, would Denis de Sainte-Marthe himself have believed it, unless he had persuaded himself that Ingrann, whom he had ascertained from Balderic presided over the church of Cambrai for three years, died on the 12th day of October in the year 960. But not everyone will easily understand by what reason he was moved to bring himself to think this last thing and further to put it into writing. For in that very place in which, from what has been said, he ties Ingrann's death to the year 960, he cites the twenty-eighth chapter of the deeds of the abbots of Lobbes by Folcuin, abbot of Lobbes, who was ordained abbot by Ingrann himself: and if he had turned over this chapter together with the one immediately preceding, even only cursorily, he would have learned from that writer that Ingrann did not die in the year 960, but prolonged his life at least until the year 965.

[203] but, as from the words of Folcuin recited here For he, having first said some things about Aletrann, abbot of Lobbes, in chapter 27, first continues thus toward the end of the same chapter: Having therefore at length, late, obtained this long-desired peace [*], our church was very quickly bereft. For the lord Bruno, upon whom the chief burden of affairs lay, closed his day on the sixth (Rotger has the fifth) day before the Ides of October, and the lord abbot (namely Aletrann), after he had been undone by paralysis for two years, and after five years from when he had begun to preside, died in great hope of future glory on the third day before the Nones of November, both in the year DCCCCLXV of the Lord's Incarnation; and then he begins the following chapter, that is, 28, with these following words: After these things the lord Euracrus (bishop of Liège) set Folcuin, truly a sinner, but also young in age, over the monks of Lobbes as abbot; whom, when the same pontiff was at Cologne in the imperial presence, in a great concourse of the people, the election of the brothers having first been recited and read, he caused to be ordained there. He was ordained, therefore, by Ingrann, bishop of Cambrai, on the very day of the Lord's Nativity.

[204] it is concluded, he substituted or caused to be substituted in the year 963, Since therefore, as becomes plain from these two texts of Folcuin, Aletrann, abbot of Lobbes, closed his last day in the year 965 on the third day of November, and afterwards that writer, who was appointed to succeed Aletrann, was ordained abbot of Lobbes at Cologne by Ingrann on the very day of the Lord's Nativity, it follows that this prelate of the people of Cambrai, who, by the testimony of Balderic from what has already been said, occupied the see of Cambrai for three years, very probably left it vacant by his death not sooner than the year 966, and that he is therefore wrongly said by Denis de Sainte-Marthe to have died already in the year 960. I think that some ancient document lit the way for this writer, who expressly writes in the place cited above that Ingrann died not only in the year 960, but also on the 12th day of October, in which it was marked that that prelate died in the nine hundred and sixty-sixth year by the Arabic numerals 966, the upper part of the third of them being almost eaten away or certainly not expressed clearly enough, and that hence it came about that, thinking that not 966 but 960 was noted in that record, he both tied Ingrann's death to the year 960 and confined to one year the see of Berengar, who preceded him and sat about six years; and since this is so, from this and at the same time from what has already been said above, you would rightly think that Ingrann made the see of Cambrai vacant by his death in the very year 966, when it had advanced to the 12th day of October, and that he was therefore promoted to it, which from what has been said he occupied for three years, in the year 963.

[205] And he indeed who, from what has already been said, received the church of Cambrai to rule in the year 963 through the care of our Saint and in the same year Gerard, honoured also as a Saint, is nowhere distinguished with the honour proper to Saints, although meanwhile he was plainly distinguished for uprightness of life and morals; but another, who also enjoys ecclesiastical cult, is now also to be mentioned here, likewise promoted to the episcopal dignity by the work of our Saint. This is St. Gerard, bishop of Toul, which is the ancient city of the Leuci on the river Moselle, inserted in our Work, as I have already noted, at the 23rd day of April, on which he is venerated. That he was appointed to that see by St. Bruno, in succession to St. Gauzelin, who had died a little before, in the same year 963 to which I tied above the promotion of Ingrann to the mitre of Cambrai, the contemporary author cited at num. 192, who wrote his life, brought into our Work in the place cited, teaches us in it at num. 4 and the two following. The words with which he does this there follow immediately upon the words transcribed here at num. 192, in which he declares that Bruno acted as vicar of the Cisalpine kingdom while Otto was absent in Italy in the year 963. The chief of them I set here before the reader's eyes, that they may be an argument of how much zeal Bruno thought must be laboured with, that he might either himself set excellent pastors over vacant churches or cause them to be set over them.

[206] They run thus: The people of the Leuci, therefore, mournful (namely on account of the death of Gauzelin, their bishop) and widowed of the counsel of a pastor, sends envoys to the aforementioned archprelate Bruno, to the see of Toul, counsel having been taken with the chief men of the clergy, intimates its desolation by humble suggestion, and suppliantly begs that it be succoured, lest, like a wandering flock, having lost its shepherd, it perish. He, condoling with their lamentation in the compassion of a merciful mind, and considering that very city, bordering on the kingdom of Francia, very recently joined to the Roman empire, was distressed with the greatest anxiety of mind, thinking whom he might choose as a fit pontiff for the same church according to the decrees of the canons, according to the worship of divine religion, with goodness of morals, seasoned with the salt of wisdom and exercised in the study of secular knowledge. But God, who in the dispositions of good men always assists the affection of the pious, did not allow him to be tossed longer by the waves of his cares, and inspired him by his counsel to take the venerable Gerard to be set over this office, who, it was established, was useful in all things by the gift of the heavenly Creator. Thus he, who, some things being then interposed about Gerard, at that time devoting himself to penitence, first adds: The religious pontiff Bruno, therefore, calls to himself the chief men of the clergy, makes known to them the lamentable passing of his fellow bishop the lord Gauzelin, and consults with them familiarly whom he should substitute as his successor.

[207] Presently the dean, a lover of divine religion, returned these things to his consultations of sound counsel: he promotes him, though he resisted much out of humility, If, lord Prelate, you deign to believe my slight word, I assert by truthful testimony that brother Gerard is fit for this rank before others: whom I most certainly attest to be subject in true humility, distinguished for ready obedience, proved in long-suffering patience; and afterwards, some things being still put before, he explains how Gerard opposed his promotion to the episcopate, and yet was at length compelled by Bruno to assent to it: The man of the Lord, he says of Gerard, firmly established on the foundation of humility, resisted this ordination with all his strength, and chose rather to seek again the former leisure of penitence than to be weighed down by the laborious weight of this prelacy. Yet, protesting very much, resisting very much, he is led before the already mentioned Archprelate (namely Bruno), and under the command of obedience is compelled to undertake the pontifical summit. While, therefore, the nine hundred and sixty-third year of the Lord's Incarnation was running, he is brought to the city of the Leuci, and is received by crowds of the people coming to meet him with hymn-sounding praises, and, as custom required, is enthroned in the prelatial see. Thus Bruno set over the church of Toul a man surely most worthy of the episcopate; and since Widric, the biographer of St. Gerard, in the words just transcribed here, expressly assigns also the time at which this was done, there is no need that I should bring forward here more about that prelate of Toul, of what kind and how great he was the studious reader will find in the same Widric in the place cited above.

[208] and then he holds two synods or assemblies in the year 964. Now two synods or assemblies, of which our Saint held one at Cologne Agrippina, the other at some unknown place in Lotharingia, in the year 964, and therefore not very long after the two excellent bishops whom I have already mentioned had been set over the churches of Toul and Cambrai, are still to be mentioned here before I put an end to this §. The former of these indeed becomes known from Trithemius, who in the Annals of Hirsau, at the year in which, as I have already hinted, it was therefore held, 964, records the following: Bruno, duke and archbishop of Cologne, a man most zealous for ecclesiastical discipline, celebrating a provincial synod at Cologne, all the bishops and abbots

of his whole archdiocese he called together, and in the same council established many things for the common advantage; and the latter from Balderic, already cited more than once, who in the Chronicle of Cambrai, book 1, chapter 85, writes thus: At that time Bruno, duke or archbishop, is said to have held a general assembly with many princes and bishops at a certain town whose name does not come to mind [*], in which matters concerning the peace and religion of the holy Church of God and the state of the kingdom were treated wholesomely and fittingly; that the assembly here mentioned was likewise held in the year, as I have said, 964, appears beyond doubt. For since, as Balderic teaches in the place cited, Ingrann, created bishop of Cambrai only in the year 963 from what has already been said, was present at the said assembly, it follows that this, since it seems to have taken place not before some little space of time had already elapsed since Ingrann's promotion, was very probably held not sooner than the year 964; and since Bruno, who, as Balderic teaches, was likewise present at it, having gone forth to meet the emperor Otto returning from Italy about the beginning of the year 965, as we shall see below, then held with him a great assembly at Cologne Agrippina about Pentecost, and, this being finished, having set out for Gaul, died at Reims, and therefore no opportune and fitting time can be assigned at which he could have held in the year 965 the assembly of Lotharingia just mentioned in Balderic's words, it follows from what has just been said that Bruno held both this one and the former mentioned by Trithemius, not in the year 965, but, as I have said, in the year 964.

* pace

* better, non occurrit

§ XVI. He goes forth to meet his brother Otto returning from Italy, celebrates with him at Cologne both Pentecost and a very great assembly of the kingdom; afterwards, going to Gaul to reconcile his nephews, who were again at variance among themselves, he dies at Reims, and, carried back to Cologne, is buried there.

[He goes forth as far as Worms to meet his brother Otto returning from Italy in the year 965, and with him,] Otto, who, as we showed above, set out for Italy in the year 961, and whom other disturbances, continually arising one after another, compelled to stay there, even after he had already received the imperial crown from the Pontiff, much longer than he had at first thought he would, returned to Germany only in the year 965, after he had celebrated the feast of the Lord's Nativity at Pavia in the year 964, and then he had both St. Bruno and his sons William and Otto come to meet him when he had already arrived in Germany. Moreover his brother awaited the emperor's return anxious night and day, and joyfully went to meet him as he returned in all glory. Thus Rotger of our Saint at num. 62; but since he teaches neither the year in which Otto's return occurred nor how far Bruno went forth to meet him, the continuator of Regino opportunely comes to our aid here. For he supplies the following words at the year 965: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation 965 the emperor celebrated the Lord's nativity at Pavia, and, the festival being completed, immediately, the affairs of the kingdom in Italy having been disposed, he went to his fatherland; whom his sons Otto and Archbishop William met on the border of Francia and Alemannia at the town of Heimbodesheim, and received him there with great eagerness. Proceeding from there to Worms, he had his brother Archbishop Brun come to meet him on the Purification of the most holy virgin Mary; and since he begins the year, which should be well noted, from the Nativity of the Lord, he not obscurely declares that what he narrates here concerning Otto's return to Germany and Bruno's going forth to meet him happened in the year 965, although what he says about the Lord's Nativity celebrated by the emperor at Pavia happened in the year 964.

[210] Furthermore, as Rotger, although he writes that Bruno went forth to meet Otto when he returned from Italy into Germany, who, having celebrated Easter at Ingelheim, betakes himself to Cologne, yet did not express the place where this was done, so also, although he presents the same Otto as present at Cologne with Bruno not long afterwards, yet he left in obscurity the place from which he came there; but this again the continuator of Regino teaches us. For, having first said that Otto, as soon as he had returned from Italy in the year 965, stayed the whole of Lent in Francia, namely German Francia, whose metropolis, as I have already noted above, Mainz was then reckoned, and celebrated Easter with great joy at Ingelheim, he immediately adds: Thence, reaching Cologne by ship, he entertained there with fitting honour and love his mother the lady Mathilda and his sister Queen Gerberga and her son King Lothar, who had come to meet him. Thus the cited writer; and although our biographer does not teach, as this one does, as I have already noted, the place from which Otto then arrived at Cologne, yet he not obscurely declares the year, and indeed the season of the year, in which it happened, writing thus at num. 62: When … the Emperor was in the thirtieth year of his reign, his Brother (namely Bruno) in the twelfth of his pontificate, having scarcely yet passed the fortieth of his age, celebrating holy Pentecost together at Cologne, than which no greater glory has been granted to mortals, they were present to one another amid the holy offices of the solemn days, together with their divine mother, their sister the queen, their nephews (namely Charles and Lothar, sons of Gerberga, or certainly, besides the latter of these, the still very young Henry, son of Henry, duke of Bavaria, who died in the year 955, whom Mathilda, as her Life, cited above with us, num. 26, attests, had brought with her), and their sons the kings, and all that family beloved of God, and all the senators of the kingdom.

[211] Pentecost and a great assembly there, That by the twelfth year of Bruno's episcopate, which Rotger here joins with the thirtieth year of Otto's reign, the year of Christ 965 is designated, and that therefore what he relates in the words already given concerning Pentecost celebrated by Bruno at Cologne with Otto and the great assembly of kings then held there happened in this year, the things which I discussed above in §2 clearly prove, and so nothing need be added here to what I adduced there to show it; but certain other things come up to be observed concerning the great assembly or meeting of kings and queens held at Cologne, which this biographer of our Saint mentions, and concerning the Pentecost celebrated by it there in the year 965. The continuator of Regino, after he has narrated in the words transcribed here above that Otto in the year 965, having celebrated Easter at Ingelheim, went thence by ship to Cologne, and there had his mother Mathilda, his sister Gerberga and her son King Lothar come to meet him and entertained them honourably, immediately adds, no mention at all being made of Pentecost, which he also then celebrated at Cologne, that he went thence again into Saxony; but Sigebert, nowhere mentioning that Otto in the year 965, after Easter celebrated at Ingelheim, came thence to Cologne and there had his mother, his sister and her son the king come to meet him, writes thus at the year 965: The emperor Otto celebrated Pentecost at Aachen, his sisters from Francia coming together there, namely Gerberga, queen of the Franks, mother of King Lothar and Duke Charles, and Hadwig, wife of Hugh, count of the Parisians; whose son was Hugh, who afterwards reigned in France.

[212] not, as Sigebert reports, at Aachen, he celebrates, Where all that royal lineage was affected with such a jubilation of mutual congratulation that in all their life scarcely anything of joy could be equalled to this gladness; and hence it came about that the Saxon annalist, who is wont to bring into his Annals what he found in Sigebert, the continuator of Regino, Widukind and Dithmar, seeing that an assembly of kings was marked at Cologne by the continuator of Regino without any mention of Pentecost celebrated by that assembly, and at Aachen by Sigebert, with this added, committed to writing that two assemblies of kings were held in the year 965, one at Cologne, the other at Aachen, and that Pentecost was then celebrated by the latter of them. But not only our biographer together with the continuator of Regino, but also Flodoard in his Chronicle records only one assembly of kings which was held in the year 965, and since Sigebert likewise mentions only one then held and says that Pentecost was celebrated by it, it does not appear to be doubted that he is discoursing of the same assembly of kings which those three writers mention and which our biographer adds celebrated Pentecost. Wherefore, since all those three writers, who lived at the very time at which the matter was done, and by name our biographer, who says that Pentecost was celebrated by the said assembly at Cologne, where, as both he and the other two declare, it was held, certainly deserve greater credence than Sigebert, who was about a century and a half distant from the event, the next thing is that we determine that both the assembly of kings of the year 965 and the Pentecost then celebrated by it were not at Aachen with Sigebert, but at Cologne Agrippina with our biographer, whom, from what has already been said, the continuator of Regino and Flodoard support.

[213] I proceed to other things which are still to be observed concerning this assembly before I declare what our Saint did [and when it was finished; whether at it, as Sigebert says, Hadwig, widow of Hugh the Great,] when the assembly of which we are speaking here was finished. Since Sigebert, as well as the author of the Great Belgian Chronicle, who is more recent than Sigebert and agrees with him here, err, from what has already been said, in assigning the place at which they say Otto met together with the kings in the year 965 and celebrated Pentecost, it may deservedly be doubted whether they rightly add to those who are recorded to have been present at the assembly Hathuid or Hadwig, wife of Hugh, count of the Parisians, of whom this is reported neither by the continuator of Regino, nor by Flodoard, nor finally by our biographer. But there will perhaps be someone who will suspect that, as Hathuid is perhaps not rightly counted by Sigebert and the author of the Great Belgian Chronicle among those who were present at the assembly, so also the sons of Otto, the kings, are likewise not rightly numbered by our biographer among those who were present at the same assembly, on the ground that Otto in the year 965 is found to have had only one son a king, namely Otto, crowned in the year 961, as we saw above, king of Germany at Worms and of Lotharingia at Aachen. Surely who are to be understood by the sons of Otto, the kings, whom Rotger records were present at the assembly of kings mentioned above, appears at first sight difficult to say; but the sons of kings, even if they had been neither elected nor crowned kings, are found to have been sometimes called kings by the writers of the middle age, and in like manner daughters queens.

[214] That the matter may become evident by an example, in the title of the preface [but not likewise whether, as Rotger declares, the sons of Otto, the kings, were present, can be doubted,] with which Widukind dedicates his Annals, already often cited by us above, to Mathilda, daughter of the emperor Otto I and of Adelaide, she is expressly called queen by him, although she was then only a nun of Quedlinburg and therefore by no means a queen. If, therefore, besides Otto, already elected and crowned king, another son of the emperor Otto was present at the assembly of kings of which we are speaking here, the biographer of our Saint will rightly have asserted that the sons of Otto, the kings, were present at that assembly; but whom shall we say that other son of Otto was?

Widukind, beginning in book 2 of the Annals a discourse on the sons of Otto born of Adelaide, writes thus: And there were born to the king of the most serene queen sons: the first-born Henry, the second Bruno, the third Otto, marked out by the majesty of his father's name; and since of these three sons of Otto here mentioned Bruno had died already from the year 957, as is established from the Necrology of Fulda, there seems to be reason why Henry, of whom it is nowhere found when he died, could be thought to be that other son of Otto who is indicated by our biographer to have been present at the said assembly together with Otto, already elected and crowned king; yet since he, by the testimony of Widukind, was the first-born son of Otto, and it does not seem likely that Otto, the youngest, would easily have been made king in the year 961 if the former had then still been alive, I think it more probable that that other son of Otto, who is indicated by Rotger to have been present at the aforesaid assembly together with Otto, already king, was William, archbishop of Mainz, who also himself, although not of a lawful wife, was, as I have already shown above, the son of the emperor Otto, especially since he was undoubtedly present at that assembly, and yet is nowhere said by the biographer of our Saint, with his name expressed, to have been present at it. However that may be, since that other one of the sons of Otto, the kings, who are said by Rotger to have been present at the assembly, can be, from what has already been said, either Archbishop William or the elder son of Otto and Adelaide, it surely cannot deservedly be called into doubt whether the sons of Otto, the kings, are rightly said by that biographer of ours to have been present at it.

[215] that assembly, Bruno, whether it was convoked at whose request is doubtful, Furthermore, that assembly, in which also the foundation of the collegiate church of St. Martin at Liège was confirmed, as the diploma extant on that matter in Martène, tome VII of the Ancient Writers, col. 54, recognized by Bruno, archbishop and primiscrinius, as is added to it, attests, Flodoard distinguishes by the appellation of a great placitum, adding that it was held by Otto with Queen Gerberga, her son King Lothar, and other great nobles; and our biographer supports him, as one who says that not only the kings but also all the senators of the kingdom were present at that placitum or assembly, and thus hints in some way, as appears, that the business of the kingdoms was treated in it, as was wont to be done in great placita. It is the opinion of some that that assembly was convoked at Bruno's request, and that it was demanded by him in it that the division of Lotharingia into two parts made by him should be confirmed; but since it is not certain on every side, as it is permissible to gather from what was said above, that a division of this kind was made by Bruno, it likewise cannot be certain that it was demanded by the Saint in the said assembly that it be confirmed; and although our biographer hints in more than one place that Otto did not a few things by Bruno's counsel and request, yet he is deservedly believed to have done not a few things also to which he had certainly not been impelled by Bruno. Wherefore the opinion which determines without any ancient surety that the said assembly was convoked at Bruno's request is also doubtful and uncertain. Less surely does it shrink from the appearance of truth that Gerberga and Lothar, who at Bruno's persuasion had come to Cologne to congratulate the emperor on the victories won, asked Otto for help and counsel against the sons of Hugh, count of the Parisians, from whom Lothar, though previously reconciled with them through Bruno, as we saw above, was again at variance.

[216] So I suppose, because after the assembly of Cologne, about which I have already discussed enough and more than enough, he sets out for Gaul, and to Reims, from Compiègne thither, as Sigebert, and Otto's departure from it toward the East, that is, into Saxony, our Saint betook himself again into Francia, as our biographer testifies at num. 63, in order there to recall his nephews, who were at variance with one another, to concord. But with what success did the Saint undertake that journey? Did he again bring his sisters and nephews into concord, as we have already seen that he did in the year 960? While he has his mind intent on this matter, he found the goal of his labours, snatched from this mortal life in the flower of his age. Let us investigate how the thing came about. Sigebert in his Chronicle at the year 965 uses these following words: Bruno, duke and archbishop, going into Francia to pacify his nephews, King Lothar and the sons of Hugh, when he came to Compiègne, seized with a fever, returns to Reims; where, having delegated by testament to the churches of the Saints whatever he had by right of ownership, he died. His body is carried back to Cologne by Deoderic, bishop of Metz; and the Saxon annalist and Alberic in his Chronicle agree with Sigebert, nor have I been able to find any writer, whether ancient or more recent, by whom, if he speaks of that matter, it is not said that St. Bruno, having set out for Compiègne to bring his nephews, at variance among themselves, into concord, returned thence to Reims seized with illness and died there; but although this is so, the biographer of our Saint will perhaps make someone doubt whether our Saint, having set out from Cologne for Compiègne to bring his nephews into concord there, was not both seized with illness and taken from among the living before he arrived there, and therefore whether he ever then arrived at Compiègne. For he may seem to indicate that Bruno began to be ill on the way, when he had gone from Cologne into Gaul, and in the city of Reims, when he had arrived at it, was detained by the illness, now lasting the fifth day, and there died of it.

[217] That the studious reader may be able to judge whether I think so deservedly or undeservedly, the matter meanwhile doubtful I set here before his eyes all the words bearing on it which he supplies at num. 63 and following. When, he says, the supreme prelate (so he undoubtedly calls Bruno here, because he was archbishop) Bruno had left the company of his lord and brother, going toward the East, first rushing into kisses and weeping abundantly, and had looked upon all things pacified and quiet within the bounds of the kingdom entrusted to him, giving thanks to God, he again and again admonished all his own, clergy and people, of the things which were to be done, and presently went to Compiègne in the West, in order there to recall his nephews, at variance with one another, to concord, to establish in faith and grace the Religion of the church, honour for the king, and, as the reason of equity dictated, the Lord assenting, to confirm to each what was his own. Intent on this business he began to be ill, and, detained in the city of the people of Reims by grievous bodily trouble, on the fifth day at length after the sickness invaded him, it came upon him. During which days, on the road no less than in lodging, he was refreshed by assiduous reading, with almost no other food. And being asked familiarly by Bishop Wicfrid, as he himself is witness, by the heaviness of what illness he was pressed, he answered that it was not illness but the dissolution of his body. The earlier words of this text, in which Bruno is reported to have gone to Compiègne in order there to bring his nephews, at variance with one another, into concord, by no means, as appears, prevent it from being called into doubt whether the Saint went as far as Compiègne to do this, or only set out on the way toward it.

[218] and uncertain, Rotger making it Nor is it made certain, as appears, that he reached as far as Compiègne from the fact that these following words about Bruno are immediately added to those words: Intent on this business he began to be ill; for since the Saint could have had his mind intent on making peace among his nephews both on the road toward Compiègne and when he was already there, indeed, whether he first began to be ill then, when he had already arrived at Compiègne, or before, does not become plain from those latter words; and since this likewise, as will be evident to one who considers it, does not become known from the other things that follow, Rotger surely by his manner of writing makes it uncertain and doubtful whether Bruno died at Reims having already returned from Compiègne, or not yet having arrived there. Nor do Sigebert and the others cited above, who expressly assert it, make it certain that the Saint died at Reims when he had returned there from Compiègne. For no writer older than Sigebert is found who likewise asserts it, and he, having found Rotger to light his way, cites the same in his Chronicles at the year 953 as one by whom the Life of our Saint has been clearly described; and since these things are so, he wrote that Bruno died at Reims when he had returned there from Compiègne for no other cause, as I think, than because he thought that it was so signified by the words of Rotger transcribed here above. But did not his opinion deceive Sigebert, who is at least a hundred years more recent than Rotger, in that matter, and so lead into error the Saxon annalist, Alberic and the others who followed it?

[219] or certainly Rotger leaving it, That it is very uncertain whether it is signified by the text of Rotger transcribed here above that Bruno died at Reims on his return from Compiègne, everyone, so far as I think, will easily recognize from what has just been adduced here. Nor can these following other words, which in that text are immediately added to these words, Intent on this business he began to be ill, namely, And, detained in the city of the people of Reims by grievous bodily trouble, on the fifth day at length after the sickness invaded him, it came upon him, in any way bring it about that one should think the contrary; for, these being regarded in themselves and in no way changed, no one would easily say what is certainly signified, unless perhaps, moderately changed, they should admit this following sense: And into the city of the people of Reims, detained by grievous bodily trouble, on the fifth day at length after the sickness invaded him, he arrived. But even if they had in fact this sense, they could not on that account, as will be evident to one who considers it, bring it about that it is clearly signified by Rotger in the text transcribed here above that Bruno, when he had returned from Compiègne to Reims, died in this latter city. And indeed that this is not signified by it by Rotger can be contended even from this, that it does not appear probable that Bruno, if he had been at Compiègne when he began to be ill, would have betaken himself in haste from there, where he had been staying with his sisters and nephews, to Reims, no cause at all pressing him for which he should hasten his return to Germany.

[220] But since the emperor Otto, who after the assembly of the year 965 mentioned above departed from Cologne into Saxony, he records, having returned, or, as Rotger puts it at num. 63, toward the East, was at Magdeburg, or Parthenopolis, in that year already from the 26th day of June, as his Diploma in Meibom, History of Germany, tome 1, page 749, granted there at that time in favour of the churches suffragan to Hamburg, attests, that assembly, at which also Theoderic and Wicfrid, bishops of Metz and of Verdun, who will come to be mentioned below, were undoubtedly present, as being subscribed to the diploma cited at num. 215, was very probably not prolonged beyond the 14th day of June; and since Bruno, the assembly being finished, presently

set out for Compiègne, as Rotger teaches at num. 63, and yet, as the same Rotger clearly declares at num. 64, did not arrive at Reims before the end of September, though he would certainly have arrived there sooner had he not first turned his journey elsewhere, it appears indeed more probable that our Saint went straight from Cologne to Compiègne, and only then, when, having stayed there about two months in order to bring his nephews into concord, he had begun to be ill, ordered himself to be carried from there to Reims. Wherefore I think it must be said that, when he began to be ill, he had already arrived at Compiègne, as Sigebert writes, and that he ended his life at Reims when he had returned from there, although meanwhile that writer, in the words recited at num. 216, not rightly hints, as everyone will elicit from what has already been said, that Bruno began to be ill as soon as he had come to Compiègne.

[221] But however these things may in the end stand, it is altogether certain that Bruno died at Reims. from this life in the year 965, not on the 10th, as Folcuin says, For not only Sigebert, but also Rotger and almost all the other writers who have spoken of that matter report it with unanimous consent. But in what year and on what day did it happen? Rotger, having spoken at num. 62 of the great assembly of kings, which we mentioned above, held at Cologne in the year 965 about Pentecost, as we have shown, narrates at num. 69 that Bruno set out from there for Compiègne and died at Reims on the fifth day before the Ides of October, relating nothing at all that happened in any other year than the said year 965, and so not obscurely declares that he departed from among the living in that very year; and with Rotger agree not only Sigebert and the Saxon annalist and chronographer, but also those who were contemporaries of the Saint, the continuator of Regino and Folcuin, abbot of Lobbes (see his words transcribed here at num. 203); wherefore there is surely no reason why it should be called into doubt by anyone whether the Saint truly died in the year 965. But whether it happened on the 10th or the 11th of October, as is commonly believed, seems in some measure able to be called into doubt. For it is asserted by Folcuin (see again his words transcribed here at num. 203) that Bruno died not on the fifth but on the sixth day before the Ides, that is, not on the 11th but on the 10th day of October; but that our Saint exchanged this mortal life for the immortal on the fifth day before the Ides, or the 11th day of October, is recorded not only by Rotger but also by the continuator of Regino and by Dithmar, with whom also the Epitaph of the Saint, subjoined to his Life, agrees, and almost all the writers who have spoken of Bruno's death-day support them.

[222] but on the 11th, as the things adduced here, by the reasoning also, Indeed the same Rotger reports at num. 73 that Bruno's body was buried there in the monastery of St. Pantaleon on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of November, that is, the 19th of October, having been brought to Cologne on the day before this day, or the 18th day of October, on the eighth day after the Saint's death, as Rotger expressly says at num. 69; and so, since eight days reckoned backward from the 18th day of October bring us to the tenth day of the same month, he furnishes from what he writes a handle for arguing that Bruno died on this very day, and not on the 11th of October. But I have already shown at num. 10 that it is affirmed by Rotger that Bruno's body was brought to Cologne on the eighth day after he had died, the very day of the Saint's death being counted in. Nor is there reason for you to suspect that an error crept through the carelessness of copyists into the numerical notes by which that day is expressed by Rotger. For, besides the fact that the day on which Bruno died is expressed in our manuscript codex and in Surius's edition of Rotger not by notes of this kind but by words written out without any abbreviation, although meanwhile the contrary is done in Leibniz's, it is clear that Rotger himself wished to mark in the place cited above not the sixth but the fifth day before the Ides of October as the Saint's death-day, even from this, that by what he writes at num. 68 and following he most clearly declares that the Saint died when the midnight that immediately followed the feast of SS. Gereon and his companions, which recurs every year on the tenth day of October, was already past, and therefore on the eleventh day of October, since this, from what is to be said, took its beginning from that midnight in which the tenth day of the same month had ended.

[223] [by which it can easily have come about that this writer strayed here from the truth,] Besides, it is asserted that our Saint closed his last day on the fifth day before the Ides of October both in his Epitaph and in the Chronicles of Dithmar and of the continuator of Regino, as I have already indicated above, and in the Life written by Rotger; which is surely an argument also that this did not arise from a copyist's error, as is done in the latter; and on the other hand, since St. Bruno is said to have died on the sixth day before the Ides of October only in the Deeds of the abbots of Lobbes by Folcuin, and this is done with Roman numerical notes, into which errors are prone to creep through the carelessness of copyists, it seems that it can not undeservedly be doubted whether it did not arise from the carelessness of the copyist who transcribed those Acts that in them not the 5th but the 6th day of October is marked as Bruno's death-day. Nor, even if it were altogether certain and beyond doubt that no error had crept into the text of Folcuin in which Bruno is reported to have died on the fourth day before the Ides, or the tenth day of October, would it on that account have to be believed that the Saint truly died on that day. This opinion is settled, first indeed because Rotger received what he records concerning the death of St. Bruno by hearing from Wicfrid, bishop of Verdun, who stood by the Saint as he lay sick at Reims and as he died of the illness with which he lay there, as he himself not obscurely declares in the words recited at num. 217, and he therefore undoubtedly deserves greater credence when he writes that the Saint died on the 11th of October than Folcuin when he writes the 10th; and then because, since the Saint closed his last day in the night that preceded the rising of the sun on the natural day immediately following, the eleventh of October, Folcuin perhaps referred that nocturnal time at which it happened not to the eleventh but to the tenth day of October, as being its completion, if it is taken for the natural day and not for the civil or artificial day, and so it will appear by no means difficult to believe that Folcuin strayed here from the true day of Bruno's death.

[224] For since by the custom received among the French, the English, the Germans, it may have happened, the assigned ones prove, on the day of October, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, and finally the Belgians, of whom Folcuin was one, the day (understand here not the natural day, or the time elapsing from the rising to the setting of the sun, but the civil day, or the space of time which is completed by a single revolution of the sun about the earth) takes its beginning from midnight and its end at the following midnight, it follows that the eleventh day of the same month begins from the same midnight in which the tenth day of October ends; wherefore, since on the eleventh day of October, a little after midnight, and therefore also only a little after the end of the tenth day, our Saint, from what has already been said, ended his Life, it can easily have happened that some, not having all the circumstances which had accompanied Bruno's death sufficiently ascertained, wrongly believed that what had happened about the beginning of the eleventh day had occurred about the end of the tenth day, and hence that Folcuin, led into error by them, committed to writing that our Saint died not on the fifth but on the sixth day before the Ides of October. But by whatever reason at last he was moved to do so, the things already adduced prove enough and more than enough, unless I am greatly mistaken, that he indeed strayed from the truth in that matter, and further that St. Bruno exchanged this mortal life for the immortal not on the 10th but on the 11th day of October, on which, for this reason also, the anniversary day of his death is commemorated every year at Cologne Agrippina.

[225] Furthermore, that this happened when the Saint was still only in the forty-first year of his age, he departed in the 41st year of his age, the 13th of his episcopate, and the thirteenth of his episcopate, becomes evident even from this, that, born a little before the year, as I showed above at num. 22, 925, on the fourteenth day of May, he was created bishop of the people of Cologne in the year 953 about the beginning of July, as I demonstrated in § IV; so that it is by no means necessary to bring forward more here in order to give proof of it. Nor is there need either that I should set forth here with how great a readiness and alacrity of mind he conformed his will to the divine will when he saw death imminent, with how great piety he prepared himself for it, with how great faith and veneration he received the sacred viaticum, confession having been made first, with how great effort he still performed the priestly office, though oppressed by a mortal illness, and with how fervent a charity toward God and firm confidence he awaited the hour of his dissolution; for Rotger teaches us all these things from num. 64 until num. 69 so clearly that they need no commentary. To what he also relates in that same place concerning the testament promptly made then by the Saint, I add only that by it provision is made for sacred places alone, and yet that there is no reason why this should appear strange to anyone. For although in this monument of his last will he made mention neither of the poor nor of the place in which he wished to be buried, yet he did not on that account forget either the latter or the former when he was close to death.

[226] For Rotger, after he has narrated how the Saint's body, brought to Cologne Agrippina on the eighth day from his death, was then deposited there in the church of St. Peter, and that on the following day a huge multitude of the people flocked to it, immediately adds at num. 71: and, carried to Cologne, he was buried there in the monastery of St. Pantaleon. There came forward into the midst, namely those who had stood by him as he died, the bishops of Metz and Verdun, Theoderic and Wicfrid, witnesses of his last sanction… His testament was read in the venerable presbytery before the altar of most holy Peter. There were also recounted those things which he had asked and commanded with a mind pious indeed and solicitous in the things of God, but had not thought fit to have written, namely that throughout that whole year on each [*] never less than a whole pound should be paid out for the uses of the poor. Then, according to the request and desire of his heart, with which he burned in his last moments, the most holy clergy was persuaded to permit with a willing mind his body to be transferred to the monastery of monks which he built in honour of the holy martyrs Pantaleon, Cosmas and Damian and Quirinus … Thus he; and since, as he presently adds, the clergy had consented to all the things which the Saint had prescribed, and even, although very reluctantly, to the last of them, Bruno was buried in the temple of SS. Pantaleon, Cosmas, Damian and Quirinus on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of November, or the nineteenth day of October, with great mourning of all orders, and, as the sacred places, so also the poor experienced the kindness and benevolence of the deceased.

* supply dies [day]

§ XVII. With what fame of holiness and virtues he was renowned before and after his death, and whether any monuments also of his talent

he transmitted to posterity.

A great fame of uprightness and holiness, as from St. Wolfgang We have already seen at num. 31 and following that Bruno, while still a youth, though now become of more advanced age, was honoured with the appellation of holy Man by Israel the Scot, under whose discipline he was. Furthermore, this surely splendid opinion, which he had conceived of his disciple, afterwards prevailed among others also, as we are now about to see. And first indeed among these must be mentioned here St. Wolfgang, bishop of Regensburg, to be inserted in our Work at the 31st day of October, on which he is inscribed in the present-day Roman Martyrology. Since he, whom no one will deny to have been a fair judge of virtue, had for some time associated with St. Bruno at Trier, whither the latter had betaken himself after the death of Henry, archbishop of Trier, who died in Italy in the year 964, as the continuator of Regino teaches, he afterwards frequently asserted, as his Life, which is extant in Mabillon, Benedictine Century V, part 1, written by an anonymous author who was intimate with St. Wolfgang, chapter 9, attests, that he had rarely seen anyone like the same Bishop Bruno in all uprightness. With Wolfgang, who thought so splendidly of St. Bruno while he was still alive, and undoubtedly also afterwards when he was dead, must be joined also those who had rejoiced in that Pastor, either all or certainly very many of them.

[228] It is clear that this must be so determined from Rotger, who, after he has related at num. 73 that the Saint was given burial, as he had asked, in the monastery of SS. Pantaleon, Cosmas, and from some here mentioned, Damian and Quirinus, then continues thus: Where even to this day it is clearly shown how great he was in the eyes of all good men. After they lost him, both good and bad recognized more clearly what he had been. They frequent the place of his burial, they vie in recalling what he did, what he taught, how he lived, how he died. Now they pray for him, now they ask that he himself would deign to pray for them. They do not seek signs, they attend to his life, they recall his teaching, they promise themselves or their posterity something great in him to come. Finally, all are roused by his monuments to the praise and glory of God, as formerly through him living, so now through him dead. Thus he speaks generally of those by whom the Saint, especially when he had already died, was celebrated for his virtues, uprightness of morals and holiness of life; but in order that it may become known still more specifically who, besides these and the just mentioned St. Wolfgang, likewise thought magnificently of Bruno when he was already dead and further spoke of him so, it will be useful still to allege here both what two anonymous writers, of whom one committed to writing the Translation of St. Evergisl and the other the Life of St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, and what a third writer, likewise anonymous, who composed the Life of St. Mathilda, already brought into our Work at the 14th day of March, opportunely supply for our purpose. The former, with whom can also be joined Folcuin, in the Deeds of the abbots of Lobbes, who in chapter 20 names Bruno the unique and singular ornament in the Church of Christ, calls this same Saint most pious, a mirror of good morals. Nor did the second of the anonymous writers just cited think less magnificently of the Saint's virtues and uprightness of morals. For he clearly declares in the words transcribed here at num. 131 that all the virtues with which the Saint shone could not be fitly delineated or worthily sketched.

[229] As for what pertains to the third, or the anonymous writer of the Life of St. Mathilda, [of whom one is the biographer of St. Mathilda, it seems possible to conclude from writers.] he sets forth in a fairly lengthy elogium how splendidly he thought of Bruno; and since this is concerned almost wholly with the virtues with which the Saint shone forth, and therefore bears on the subject proposed to us here, I set it entire before the reader's eyes here in the very words in which it is comprised by that writer. He therefore, having first said at num. XI in the said Life of St. Mathilda with us that St. Bruno was appointed to the see of Cologne when Wicfrid died, and so raised to the honour of the episcopal dignity, immediately adds these following words about him: But, having ascended so great a summit of piety, the swelling of pride by no means grew in him from it, but the holy mind of the Bishop rather inclined itself to humility, storing up in memory what Scripture admonishes, saying: The greater you are, humble yourself in all things. He was very watchful in wisdom, placable with exceeding gentleness; he kept the cunning of the serpent with the law and did not lose the mind of the simple dove. He loved the flock committed to him and by the staff of discipline snatched many from error; leading some to better things by conferences of assiduous disputation, filling others by the gentle maturity of his teaching with the desire of a holy way of life. He had been mild in speech, humble in teaching, a most keen destroyer of evils and a most zealous asserter of truth; gentle to the humble, severe to the proud; receiving some within the folds of the flock, he made sheep out of wolves, others he nourished outside the folds; and whatever he taught others he himself first fulfilled; and he also built very many monasteries in the same city. In all things also he was a strong athlete of God and a champion of the Christian faith.

[230] he left behind him fame, and, excelling in learning These things the cited anonymous writer wrote about forty years after the Saint's death; from which, surely, and from the other words or judgments of others about our Saint already adduced, it seems possible not unfittingly to conclude that Bruno, on account of the virtues with which, as well as with incorrupt uprightness of morals, he shone while he lived, left behind him, when he had already died, a plainly excellent fame of holiness; but since the Saint, whom some also call the Great from the greatness of the things done by him piously as well as bravely, was also so learned that, as the writer of the Life of St. John, abbot of Gorze, testifies (see what was said here above at num. 36), he surpassed all of his own time and almost equalled the ancients; since, as Rotger records at num. 9, there was no kind at all of liberal studies in all Greek or Latin eloquence which escaped the vivacity of his talent; since he joined sacred learning to profane; and finally since, as Rotger likewise records at num. 49, he excelled in the preaching of the word of God and in a rare subtlety in explaining the sacred Scriptures, did he not, as he transmitted to posterity the fame of the virtues with which he shone, so also transmit some monuments of his talent? Our biographer Rotger reports at num. 12 that he was both most intent on producing learned works and most acute in composing whatever things are most honourable; but he names specifically no learned work at all which he either dictated or composed. Of the synodal letter sent by Bruno to Pope Agapetus II when he had been ordained bishop, he makes only mention at num. 40, no words at all of which it consisted being adduced.

[231] [He also transmitted to posterity Commentaries on the four Gospels and on the Pentateuch.] He also records at num. 42 a very short letter, or rather a note, notable for nothing more than for the extreme laconism with which it shines, by which the Saint, being in Lotharingia, exhorts Christian, abbot of the recently built monastery of St. Pantaleon, to virtue, transcribing also the few words of which it consists. The same biographer of ours supplies besides, at num. 65 and the three following, the address which the Saint, now close to death, gave to his own, reciting also each and every word in which it was conceived. It is a monument in which eloquence, learning, piety, faith, hope and charity advance almost with equal step. These things which I have already mentioned, and no more, does Rotger supply concerning the monuments of talent left by our Saint, unless perhaps one should wish to add to those already mentioned the address, brief indeed but weighty and apt to move, which he recites at num. 26 and following and which he says Bruno used in order to bring back into the way his nephew Liudolf, rebellious against his father; but can no greater and clearer knowledge of them be acquired from elsewhere than this slight and almost null one? Sixtus of Siena, in the Bibliotheca Sancta, edition of the year 1610, book 4, page 217, has thus: Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, published Commentaries on the four Gospels not to be neglected, whose beginning is: "After the Pentateuch of Moses, that we might join the new to the old." They are extant in the library of the Preachers at Bologna. He also testifies that he wrote on the Pentateuch.

[232] Thus he, concluding what he says here, that Bruno testifies of himself, from the words alone, unless I am mistaken, that the latter of these is kept at Bologna, Vossius, with which he asserts that his Commentaries on the four Gospels begin, and at the same time affirming that these, but not also the Commentary which the Saint wrote on the Pentateuch, are extant at Bologna in the library of the Dominicans. But Vossius, who, when about to speak of Bruno's learned works, either did not read Sixtus of Siena at all or certainly did not do so with sufficiently attentive mind, makes no mention at all of Commentaries on the four Gospels composed by Bruno, and, transferring what Sixtus of Siena says of these in the words just recited to the Commentary composed by the Saint on the Pentateuch, or the five books of Moses, reports that this is kept in the library of the Dominicans at Bologna. Hear how he speaks in his Treatise on the Latin Historians, book 2, chapter 40. Bruno, he says, archbishop of Cologne, son of the emperor (rather, king of Germany) Henry the Fowler, was the brother of the emperor Otto I. He, besides a Commentary on the Pentateuch, which is cited by Sixtus of Siena and is extant at Bologna in the library of the Dominicans, also recorded some lives of Saints.

[233] Du Pin fell into the same error as Vossius here, having found a follower also in Du Pin, wrongly affirms, when he admits, asserting it of the same Saint's Commentary on the Pentateuch, that very thing which he ought to have asserted of our Saint's Commentaries on the four Gospels. Wherefore there seems to be reason why one might not undeservedly suspect that this bibliographer, without inspecting Sixtus of Siena, here only blindly pressed the footsteps of Vossius. However that may be, one must stand with Sixtus of Siena, who says that not the Commentary which the Saint composed on the Pentateuch, but the other, which he composed on the four Gospels, is kept at Bologna in the library of the Dominicans. But since this is by no means to be despised, or, as Sixtus of Siena says, neglected, it may seem strange why learned and laborious booksellers, who have published by the benefit of type so many other learned works of ancient writers, have not likewise hitherto granted this learned work of our Saint the public light. Indeed both that Commentary of our Saint on the four Gospels and the Lives of some Saints which, as Vossius adds, he also composed would be turned over with the very greatest pleasure by students of sacred things, even for this sole reason, that they are the offspring of so celebrated a prelate; but did Bruno in fact compose Lives of some Saints?

[234] Since Vossius, by whom alone this is affirmed, that our Saint's Commentary on the Pentateuch, or the five books of Moses, is kept at Bologna,

wrongly reports this, from what has already been said, [and even so makes it doubtful whether, as he says, Bruno also wrote some lives of saints.] it seems that it can be called into doubt not altogether undeservedly whether he does not likewise wrongly assert that some Lives of Saints were written by Bruno. Besides, if St. Bruno devoted himself to writing some Lives of Saints, these were very probably, as the Writers of the Literary History of France judge, tome VI, page 310, no other than those whom he had chosen as patrons, or whose sacred remains he had obtained; and such were the martyrs SS. Patroclus, Gregory, Privatus, Christopher and Pantaleon; but if he wrote anything on either the Acts or the elogia of these, it either no longer exists or has wholly fallen out of men's knowledge. Something indeed still survives of the Acts of St. Privatus; but it is older than the 10th century; and as for what concerns the rest of those Saints, concerning some of them nothing at all is found recorded, and concerning others nothing that is worthy of Bruno. Thus, nearly, the writers just cited, and since they seem to assert nothing here except what agrees exactly with the truth, there is surely reason why it can not undeservedly be doubted whether one must assent to Vossius, who says that some Lives of Saints were written by Bruno, if the things which bear on it are maturely weighed.

§ XVIII. Some sacred relics which he sought out from everywhere are listed, the order of the time at which he did this or translated them being kept.

[By Bruno, whose deeds have hitherto been related in chronological order where this could be done,] Although hitherto, while I have treated of the deeds of our Saint, I have almost always accomplished it, where it could in any way be done, keeping the order of time in which each thing happened, yet I have deferred to this place the treatment of the relics of Saints received by Bruno from everywhere and translated to Cologne, although meanwhile their translation is prior to the Saint's death, which has already been dealt with; and it seemed good to do this because, although it had been determined to treat of those sacred remains likewise keeping the order of time in which each was either obtained by Bruno or translated to Cologne Agrippina, yet it was desired to exhibit to the reader in an uninterrupted series each and every thing that bears on this subject, and this, if I had mixed in with the other things, done, as we have seen, at more than one time, and yet to be said of the Saint and further already said, also the things which were to be said of the relics of Saints either procured by him or translated to Cologne Agrippina, and which had not all been done at the same time as those, could by no means have been done, as will be evident to one who considers it. Why say more? Having said this by way of preface, and having already spoken above of the relics of St. Pantaleon, because what was to be said of them was too closely connected with the subject treated in that place, let us now, with this premised, undertake to list the other relics of some other Saints which St. Bruno obtained, keeping the order I have mentioned.

[236] the relics of the Saints who are here listed by Rotger Rotger at num. 46 has thus of our Saint: Bodies and relics of Saints and memorials of every kind … he collected from everywhere; for them he prepared places and services more abundantly with every expense and furnishing. Concerning each of which more would have to be said, if the promised brevity permitted. These are indications of unconquered faith, because he sought not his own things, but the things which are Jesus Christ's. With what diligence, with what fervour, with what joy he brought to Cologne the staff and the chain of St. Peter, the one from Metz, the other from Rome, all know; in whose honour he wonderfully enlarged his most honoured house, which from beautiful he made most beautiful. The renowned martyrs of illustrious fame, Patroclus, Eliphius, Privatus and Gregory, whose deeds are most magnificent, whose merits are glorious, whose patronage is safe; the precious relics of Christopher and of St. Pantaleon, as has already been said, to whom as patrons he more specially entrusted himself, as most pleasing gems and sweetest pledges, he drew with wonderful effort from various places to the most holy see of his church. What was done by the dispensation of this pious Provider concerning the translation of blessed Evergisl, third archbishop of the same see, is known to very many; whom, deposited in the church of the blessed virgin Cecilia with hymns and the celebration of divine praise, the religious people so venerates and honours that you would believe him present, repaying their daily services with more abundant benefits.

[237] Of the Saints whose relics St. Bruno is narrated by Rotger in these words to have sought out from all sides, namely of St. Evergisl, in the year St. Evergisilus, or, as he is called by others, Evergislus, bishop of Cologne in the 5th century, who is mentioned last by this biographer of our Saint, comes to be mentioned by us here in the first place, because his sacred body, from what is now to be said, was translated to Cologne before the relics of the other Saints mentioned by Rotger in the words just recited, if you except St. Pantaleon, already dealt with above, were translated there by Bruno. He was, as his Life in Surius at the 24th day of October teaches, sprung from the city of Tongres, and when afterwards, having become archbishop of Cologne, he had returned by divine admonition to his fatherland in order to root out the tares which the enemy of the human race had sown there in the Lord's field, he was slain there by certain wicked men and had been entombed in the church of St. Mary. About five hundred years had already elapsed from the time at which that deed had been done when St. Bruno, having removed the sacred body of that Saint from there, translated it to Cologne. How the matter was done the anonymous writer teaches us who put into writing, not later, as appears, than the 9th century, the Life of St. Evergisl which I have just cited and at the same time the translation, inserted in the Life of our Saint in the cited Surius, num. 27, adding at the same time also some things which contribute not a little to determining the time at which the translation of that Saint to Cologne was made by Bruno. His words bearing on this and extant, as I have already hinted, in the Life of our Saint in Surius, num. 27, I set before the reader's eyes.

[238] They are these following: When he (namely Bruno) was journeying to the West for the sake of holding a conference on the state of the kingdom with the princes of that region, as partly from the Life it chanced that on his return, the kingdom having been pacified, he came to the town of the Tungri, which preserved the venerable ashes of the relics of St. Evergisl. For, sins requiring it, long antiquity and the storm of wars had wholly destroyed the whole city together with its name, and novelty had transferred the episcopal see elsewhere; and when the supreme prelate (so he undoubtedly calls Bruno, because he was archbishop) was spending the night there, and this greatly moved his mind, that so sacred a place was now almost coming to nothing, in that very night St. Evergisl appeared to him, as if cloaked in a torn chasuble, who spoke to him such words: Do you see how my vestments are neglected and consumed by the moth? Since you will light my lamp, lighten my darkness. For here I shall be snatched away and in God I shall leap over the wall. Without delay the bishop, released from sleep, turned the matter over in silence. And when morning came, he ordered Folcmar, the steward of good memory, to come to him, whom he was wont to have most closely joined to him in every business, and he announced the matter to him in order and asked him to give counsel openly. He presently said at his first reply that St. Evergisl ought to revisit his own see.

[239] and the History of that Translation, The bishop, rejoicing, announced to all his own that he wished by his imperial power to restore the relics of so sacred a body to his own see. And they, hearing this, proclaimed that it would be desirable to them, and almost all wept for joy. Without delay the bishop with all devotion went with his men to the place where the holy body lay, and from behind a certain altar, out of a certain structure already consumed with age, he raised it with all veneration, and, the inhabitants weeping much, he carried it back with his men to Cologne [*]. When they came to the most holy see, the clergy assembled with the nuns, both sexes ran together, the whole city exulted with new joys, and thus with every celebration of divine praise it was honourably deposited on the fifth day before the Kalends of April in the church of St. Cecilia the virgin. St. Bruno, as I showed above from Flodoard's Chronicle, coming in the year 959 into Francia, which is situated at the Western quarter of the diocese of Cologne, held a conference at Compiègne there with his sister Queen Gerberga and his nephews, who were at variance with one another, and when, peace having been made between them, he had returned to Cologne, Lothar, king of the Franks, with his mother Queen Gerberga came to him in the days of Easter, which feast fell in that year on the third day of April.

[240] and partly is elicited from Flodoard, Wherefore, since our Saint, on the journey undertaken toward the West of which the author of the Translation of St. Evergisl speaks in the words just given, held there a conference on the state of the kingdom with the princes of that region, and thence, the kingdom having been pacified, returned to Cologne on the fifth day before the Kalends of April, or the 28th of March, carrying with him from Tongres the relics of St. Evergisl, that journey is very probably no other than the one just mentioned from Flodoard; and since this is so, and it therefore took place in the same year 959 as that one, it follows that our Saint brought the relics of St. Evergisl from Tongres to Cologne both in that year and indeed on the 28th of March. Of this translation of St. Evergisl, bishop of Cologne, made by Bruno, there treat also not only Gelenius, On the Greatness of Cologne Agrippina, book 3, syntagma XI, but also Chapeauville in the Deeds of the Pontiffs of Liège, tome 1, page 67 and following, who, although he distinguishes Evergisl, bishop of Cologne in the 5th century, from Ebregisus or Evergisus, who about the beginning of the 7th century ruled the church of Liège in the office of bishop, and pronounces that it was only from the affinity of the names that some confused the latter with the former, yet does not dare to determine whether Bruno did not translate to Cologne the body both of Ebregisus of Liège and of Evergisl of Cologne.

[241] 959, Nor indeed undeservedly, considering the reasons which he alleges: and yet, since those who first said that the body of St. Ebregisus of Liège was translated by St. Bruno to Cologne seem to have done so only, as appears, because, deceived by the affinity of the names, they thought that he was the same as St. Evergisl, whose body our Saint truly, as we have already seen, translated to Cologne, someone may also not altogether rashly, as appears, judge that hence it afterwards came about that others, although they rightly distinguished Evergisl of Cologne from Evergisus of Liège, yet, seeing that it was recorded by some of the body of Evergisl of Cologne and by others of the body of Evergisus of Liège, wrongly brought themselves to think that the body both of the latter and of the former was translated to Cologne by Bruno. However that may be, not a few indeed call into doubt whether the body of St. Ebergisus of Liège was translated to Cologne by Bruno, and since the contrary, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said, with regard to the body of St. Evergisl, archbishop of Cologne,

holds place, it appears beyond doubt that this one at least, if not likewise the other, was translated by Bruno to Cologne, and indeed, from what has already been said, in the year 959.

[242] I proceed to the sacred relics of St. Patroclus, already brought into our Work at the 21st day of January, but those of St. Patroclus, through the man here mentioned, which Bruno likewise acquired. Our Saint restored Ansegisus, bishop of Troyes, in the year 960, as we showed above, to his see, from which he had been expelled by Count Robert, and while, after he had done this, he was still staying in Gaul, and indeed, as appears, at Troyes, our Saint obtained from the said prelate of this city, in which the body of St. Patroclus lay buried, that sacred pledge to be carried away to Cologne, as the words of the anonymous writer who committed to writing the Translation of that holy martyr in the 11th century, as appears, transcribed here above at num. 170 from the Life of our Saint in Surius, attest. But since meanwhile certain Lotharingians, and among them Immo and Robert, as I showed above from Flodoard, had risen against Bruno, and he was therefore compelled, business pressing, to return in great haste from Gaul into Lotharingia, he did not himself take with him from there the sacred relics of St. Patroclus to carry them to Cologne, but sent to do it Evercharus, bishop of Liège, whom some call Euracrus, others Eraclius, and others finally Everadus or even somewhat otherwise. Since Balderic, the immediate predecessor of Euracrus in the see of Liège, departed from among the living in the year 959, as documents of more approved credit report, he who, as Folcuin puts it in chapter 26, was made bishop of the people of Liège with Bruno's consent, was very probably promoted to this dignity either in the year 959 or in the following. However that may be, Everacrus, diligently carrying out what had been enjoined on him, brought the sacred body of St. Patroclus to Cologne.

[243] How the matter was done the cited anonymous writer of the Translation of St. Patroclus sets forth in the Life of our Saint in Surius, num. 29, in these following words: as it is recorded by the author of his Translation in the words here mentioned When, he says of Bruno, he rejoiced that he had earned this welcome gift (namely the body of St. Patroclus) from the bishop with the consent of the clergy and of the whole people (namely of Troyes), he himself, lest he should leave anything unfinished, being still occupied with very many matters, sent to receive the relics a man worthy of all praise, Evercharus, bishop of Liège, and with him clerics and religious monks. Among whom a multitude of the faithful people, not the least, flocked together on account of the praiseworthy spectacle; and when they had come to the appointed place, seeing there a marble pavement laid down, but recognizing no certain sign of the hidden treasure, some indeed worshipped, but some doubted. Then, the bishop admonishing and exhorting those who had assembled, a prayer having at length been solemnly offered first, they undertook with confidence the work for which they had come. And as soon as they opened the earth with hoes, wonderful to tell, all were filled with a most powerful odour, than which they had never perceived anything sweeter; and the nearer anyone was to the tomb, the more he testified that he was affected by the sweetness of the odour. Whence it came about that all the religious then desired to be diggers, so that they might receive more abundantly the wonderful power of the divine fragrance.

[244] it is recorded, the bishop of Liège, No one, however, who had been within the walls of the same church was found without a share in this sweetness, nor was there anyone who confessed that he had ever smelled anything so sweet or like it. The delightful air therefore increased more and more until they came to the body of the holy Martyr. Then indeed all were so breathed upon in a wonderful manner that they seemed to themselves filled in every way with what they had perceived, and yet, as though thirsty, they still strove to draw in more… The relics of the holy Martyr were therefore raised from the stone sarcophagus, and thence, with a prosperous course and a concourse of exulting people, were translated to Cologne. Thus he; but although Everacrus, from what has already been said, was bishop of the people of Liège already from the year 960, yet it seems possible to doubt whether he translated the body of St. Patroclus from Troyes to Cologne by Bruno's mandate in the very year 960 in which Bruno had obtained it from Ansegisus, or in the following. Denis de Sainte-Marthe, in Gallia Christiana enlarged, tome 3, col. 843, writes thus of Eraclius, bishop of Liège: At the command of Otto Augustus he accompanied Bruno of Cologne into Francia, whither he was being sent to bring help to his nephew Lothar. Bruno, passing through Troyes (rather indeed, very probably still staying there, Ansegisus having already been restored to his see), obtained the body of St. Patroclus from the bishop, but, compelled to return by pressing business, committed the whole matter to Eraclius, who, carrying it out diligently, brought the sacred deposit to Cologne; and since Bruno, as is indicated in these words, had Eraclius or Euracrus joined to him as companion on the journey on which he obtained the body of St. Patroclus at Troyes in the year, from what has already been said, 960, and charged him to bring that sacred pledge to Cologne, it is at the same time, as appears, hinted that it was translated by Euracrus from the city of Troyes to Cologne in the said very year 960.

[245] more probably in the year, as the things adduced here suggest, But since Bruno sent not only Euracrus but also, as the writer of the Translation of St. Patroclus teaches at the beginning of the words which I have just recited, clerics and religious monks with him to carry that sacred pledge from Troyes to Cologne, and very probably did not have at hand there, when he was staying at Troyes in the year 960, any clerics and religious monks of the diocese of Cologne to whom he could have given that business, it truly appears more likely to me that these were sent together with Euracrus by Bruno, when he had already returned to Cologne from the said journey from Francia, and therefore not sooner than the year 961, from Cologne to Troyes, to receive there the body of St. Patroclus and to carry it thence to Cologne; and although this is so, there is yet no reason why anyone should perhaps suspect that this was done still later. For it appears altogether alien from the appearance of truth that Bruno allowed even a year to elapse before he took care that the sacred treasure, which he had most desired and obtained with many prayers, should be translated to Cologne. Bollandus indeed, at the 21st day of January, among the things which he judged should be added to what had previously been said of St. Patroclus, has thus: That the relics of the holy Martyr (namely Patroclus) were carried from Cologne to Soest in the year of Christ 963 is clear from the Soest monument of Frederick I, archbishop of Cologne, in which the year of Christ 1118 is numbered as the 155th from the translation of St. Patroclus, as Aegidius Gelenius, a most renowned man, signified to us out of his kindness.

[246] For although the body of St. Patroclus was translated from Cologne to Soest (see the notice of this city in Bollandus, on St. Patroclus, at the said day of January) only in the year 963, 961, it by no means follows from this that it had not been brought from Troyes to Cologne somewhat earlier. Nor can this be concluded either from the Additions of the Charterhouse of Cologne to Usuard, in which these following words are read on the fifth day before the Ides of December: In the town of Soest of the diocese of Cologne, the Arrival of St. Patroclus the martyr, translated thither from the city of Troyes by Bruno of holy memory, archbishop of Cologne; for although the body of St. Patroclus is said in the said Additions, not falsely (for anything is rightly asserted to have been conveyed elsewhere not only from the places in which it last was, but also from those in which it first was), to have been translated to Soest, whither, from what has already been said, it was carried in the year 963, from the city of Troyes, yet that it was brought to Cologne Agrippina before it was carried to that city of the diocese of Cologne in Westphalia is certain from the words just transcribed here of the anonymous writer who committed to writing the Translation of St. Patroclus; and since this is so, nothing prevents it from being believed that that sacred pledge was translated in the year 961 by Euracrus, bishop of Liège, from the city of Troyes to Cologne to Bruno, and thence by him, by whom it had meanwhile been religiously and honourably kept there, to Soest in the year 963.

[247] Nor likewise does there seem to be reason why anyone should suspect with Gelenius, in the Sacred and Pious Fasti of Agrippina at the 9th day of December, that the body of St. Patroclus was translated from Troyes by Euracrus but not some years later, to Cologne, not before he, some years having elapsed after the year 961, miraculously freed by the help of St. Martin of Tours from a most hostile and foul kind of cancer, which they call lupus, betook himself to the tomb of this Saint for the sake of fulfilling a vow; for besides the fact that a suspicion of this kind is destitute of all foundation, the things which Foullon brings forward in the History of Liège, tome 1, page 186 and the two following, make one not undeservedly suspect that this miraculous healing of Euracrus through the patronage of St. Martin, on the occasion of which they say the collegiate church of this Saint at Liège was founded by Euracrus, is alien from the truth; and the Diploma of the foundation of that church cited at num. 215 contributes not a little to increasing the suspicion, as being one in which Euracrus, no mention at all being made of St. Martin, declares only that he turned his mind to founding that church at Bruno's exhortation. And now, since this is so, and further the body of St. Patroclus was translated to Soest only in the year, as is established from the document cited by Bollandus, 963, and had very probably been brought from Troyes to Cologne in the year, from what was said above, 961, it follows that it was very probably kept in this city for about two years before it was carried thence by Bruno to Soest.

[248] that they were afterwards carried thence to Soest, The author of the Translation of St. Patroclus, after the words transcribed here above, in which he relates that the body of this Saint was brought from Troyes to Cologne by Euracrus, bishop of Liège, having first said that the city of Cologne, which he praises highly, was truly a worthy place to guard in its bosom the body of the holy martyr carried to it, immediately adds these following other words, from which it is established that it was translated from Cologne to Soest by Bruno: But the solicitude of the supreme Pontiff (namely Archbishop Bruno), thinking that nothing should be neglected, watched in every way that he might make all perfect things greatest out of great ones, supply imperfect ones, and magnificently illustrate neglected ones. Wherefore he judged it right that he ought to adorn with these pledges of St. Patroclus, and in some manner initiate into the sacraments of future salvation, a certain place of Saxony (namely Lower, or Old, which formerly also comprised Westphalia), Soest by name, opulent in the things of the world, full of people, with the nations of the Saxons placed round about far and wide, nonetheless most well known to the peoples of the provinces, but still almost ignorant of religion, acting confidently in this and believing that that aromatic smoke, which at the manifestation of his holy body, as we said above, was invisibly sprinkled and sensibly perceived, would profit many through the fame of his merits. Whence it came about that the body of the blessed martyr, led from Cologne by the venerable Archbishop Bruno, was brought with great honour and joy to Soest, where it was deposited with divine praises in the church which the same pious Prelate had founded and enriched with suitable gifts.

[249] it is established, were translated, The church here mentioned, in which Bruno deposited the body of St. Patroclus at Soest, is undoubtedly no other than that in which there is, as Georg Braun writes in the Theatre of Cities, a magnificent college of canons, sacred to St. Patroclus, who is both patron and tutelary of the city. The college of canons with which the church of St. Patroclus at Soest is distinguished undoubtedly drew its origin from the canons or clerics whom St. Bruno established to serve that church, having built not far from it a monastery in which they should lead their life in common according to the rule of the canonical life prescribed by the council of Aachen in the year 816. So I suppose, because most other colleges of secular canons also have arisen, through the relaxation of discipline, from clerics or canons leading their life in common according to the rule of the canonical life prescribed by the same council in monasteries (for so the houses which they inhabited together were then wont to be called), and because St. Bruno truly established clerics or canons of this kind at Soest, as is to be gathered from the Testament of the Saint to be given below, as being one in which he, bequeathing his goods to various sacred places, speaks thus toward the end: For the monastery and cloister to be founded at Soest, a hundred pounds; for the altar six vessels, as many palls, one of the larger carpets, two bench-covers, a cope and a chasuble from ours. Besides, the estate which Wodilo gave at our entreaty; that also which the lord Poppo acquired for us quite diligently at Richildinchusen and Arutte. Since the monastery here mentioned was not yet wholly founded in the year 965, or when the Saint was dying, as appears from these words of his, it does not shrink from the appearance of truth that both it and the church of St. Patroclus, which it had joined to itself, first began to be founded by Bruno when the relics of this Saint had been brought to Cologne in the year 961, and that these were carried thence to Soest, which from what has been said happened in the year 963, when both of those buildings were already much advanced.

[250] But let these things now suffice on that subject. Now with the things which have hitherto been said of the relics mentioned by Rotger, [and this, as regards those of St. Odo, which Rotger does not mention, after the year 961,] some things must also be mixed concerning relics not mentioned by him. In our Work St. Odo, bishop of Canterbury in England, has been dealt with at the 4th day of July, on which he died; and there, in the Commentary preliminary to the Acts of that Saint, num. XI, there occur these following words, which bear on our purpose: Not unfittingly does the often-cited Alford seem to have referred the beginnings and propagation of the cult (of St. Odo) to St. Dunstan, moved by the indication of the dove, of which Capgrave treats, and our apograph, chapter 3. "Hence," says Alford, "grew the opinion of holiness, which fame carried even to foreign nations. Whence the Germans ambitiously sought the relics of his body. So Bruno, bishop of Cologne, who had known him familiarly when alive, honoured him when dead, his bones having been translated to Cologne." Aubert Miraeus, in the Belgian Fasti, page 320, on the occasion of the miracle wrought at the prayers of our archbishop for the confirmation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, begins a discourse thus about the same: "The bones of this blessed man Bl. Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, to whom Odo had formerly been familiar, translated to Cologne, and thence some were brought to Boxtel"… The same is testified by Raissius in the Supplement to Molanus. Since St. Odo, bishop of Canterbury, departed from this mortal life, as may be seen in the Commentary just cited, preliminary to the Acts of that Saint, num. 9, in the year 961, and I am treating here of the relics of Saints translated by Bruno to Cologne after the year 960, it therefore seemed good to begin a discourse here in this place on the bones of St. Odo translated to Cologne by our Saint, although meanwhile it very probably happened not in the very year 961 in which Odo died, but in one of the following years, that those bones were translated by Bruno to Cologne.

[251] I add no more, but carry forward the discourse to the relics mentioned also by Rotger in the words recited at num. 236 and as regards the relics of St. Eliphius, which he also mentions, and likewise brought by Bruno to Cologne. St. Gerard, bishop of Toul, received the church of Toul to rule in the office of bishop in the year 963, as I have already shown above, from Bruno, or certainly with our Saint either taking care of it or consenting. From him, when already bishop, our Saint received relics of St. Eliphius the martyr, slain by Julian the Apostate, and venerated among the people of Toul and of Cologne on the 16th day of October, at which therefore the matters concerning him can be examined with us. Widric, already cited above, teaches this with us in tome 3 of April, in the Life of the just mentioned St. Gerard, bishop of Toul, num. 13, in these following words, which he supplies after first speaking of the relics of SS. Aper and Apronia: He (St. Gerard) also translated with religious devotion the relics of the venerable martyr Elisius; of which he conferred no small part, namely the larger bones, on the aforenamed archprelate Bruno, who carried them to Cologne with the greatest devotion, and there they are honoured with the devout veneration of the peoples. Since Gerard, from what has been said, was made bishop of Toul only in the year 963, and did not translate the relics of St. Eliphius, a part of them being given to Bruno, before he had been raised to that dignity, our Saint certainly did not carry this part to Cologne before the said year 963, and, since he departed from among the living in the year, as we have already seen above, 965, he did it not much later, but about the said year 963. Gelenius, when he narrates in his Work which he entitles On the Greatness of Cologne Agrippina, book 3, syntagma XIII, § III, that the relics of St. Eliphius were translated by Bruno to Cologne, adds that they were deposited there in the abbatial basilica of Great St. Martin.

[252] and the staff of St. Peter, it took place about the year 963, In about the same year 963 in which, from what has already been said, Bruno brought the relics of St. Eliphius to Cologne, he very probably also brought there the staff of St. Peter the Apostle, received at Metz, as Rotger teaches in the words recited at num. 236. Why this opinion is settled with me I explain. Of that staff of St. Peter, by whose touch St. Maternus is believed to have been recalled to life, there has been treatment with us in the whole § XV of the Commentary on this holy bishop at the fourteenth day of September, on which he stands inscribed in the sacred Fasti; and there Perier, the author of the Commentary, having first said at num. 150 of it that it is uncertain how that staff came to Metz, at the following number not undeservedly concludes, from the words of Rotger recited above, without doubt, that that staff was translated to the people of Cologne between the years of Christ 953 and 965, and indeed, since it is established from these that it was done by Bruno, who occupied the see of Cologne from the year 953 until the year 965. But since from the year 953 until the year 965 thirteen years run, both extremes being counted, and so it remains altogether uncertain in which of these thirteen years the matter was done, let us try to determine a little more nearly the time at which it happened. The Saint, as I showed at num. 198, administered the vacant church of Metz in the office of bishop from the year 962 until the beginning of the year 965, and since therefore he then enjoyed supreme power there both in sacred and in political matters, I think it more likely that he then, making use of it, in the year 963, in which, as everyone will gather from the Life of St. Gerard, bishop of Toul, cited above with us, he was staying in Upper Lotharingia, which comprises Metz, took the said staff from there and carried it away to Cologne; and finding nothing which suggests that the matter must certainly be tied either to the said year 963 or to another determined one of the thirteen mentioned above, I turn my discourse to the Chain of St. Peter, which Rotger says in the words recited above that Bruno likewise brought to Cologne, not from Metz, but from Rome.

[253] [and the chain of St. Peter, which is preserved at Cologne even today, from the emperor Otto, from Italy] Gelenius, who admits that it, preserved at Cologne even today, was received from Rome, yet calls into doubt, in the Work which is called the Precious Hierotheca, page 65, whether it was brought thence by Bruno; and he does this chiefly for the reason that, since Bruno, as long as he was bishop of Cologne, is nowhere read to have set foot in Italy, he certainly could not then have brought the Chain of St. Peter to the people of Cologne from Rome, where he was not. But what one does through another he is reckoned to do through himself. What then if the emperor Otto, at the request of his brother Bruno, when he was staying at Rome either in the year in which he was crowned emperor there, 962, or in one of the two following, took care that the Chain of St. Peter, or at least a part of it, should be imparted to him, and then in the year 965, returning from Italy into Germany, gave it to Bruno, who came to meet him as far as Worms? Gelenius indeed says that the emperor is read only to have carried with him bodies of Saints from Italy; but although Otto is not read to have carried out of Italy any other bodies of Saints than those which he sent to Magdeburg, yet he expressly affirms in his already mentioned Treatise, page 63, that Bruno undoubtedly received from his brother, returning from Rome about the year 965, the relics of Saints which Rotger mentions in the words recited at num. 236, those of St. Pantaleon only excepted, which he had already received before from Rome together with the pallium, as we saw above, through Hadamar, abbot of Fulda; and although he thus undoubtedly strays from the truth as regards the relics of St. Eliphius, as what I have just adduced about these clearly shows, yet he rightly thought that from the fact that writers speak only of the bodies of Saints sent by Otto to Magdeburg, it cannot be inferred that no body of a Saint was brought by him from Rome which he gave to Bruno.

[254] For although Dithmar, whom afterwards the Saxon annalist and others followed at the year 965, returned into Germany in the year 965 supplies in book 2 of the Chronicle only these words, The emperor (namely Otto) sent many bodies of Saints from Italy to Magdeburg by Dedo his Chaplain, and so makes mention of no body at all which Otto brought from Italy in the said year 965 and gave to his brother Bruno to carry to Cologne, yet it is the common opinion, which Gelenius also, as I have already hinted, followed, that the body of St. Gregory, who is called of Spoleto by Trithemius in the Chronicle of Hirsau and by Miraeus who followed him, was then brought from Italy, or Rome, by Otto and given to Bruno. Nor indeed, as appears, undeservedly. Certainly that opinion is not a little confirmed by the fact that, when Bruno died in the year, from what has been said, 965, Gregory's body had only recently been brought to Cologne, as is understood from the testament of our Saint then made, in which these following things,

which bear on this, are read: In the West let there be made a church for the blessed Gregory the Great, martyr, who has recently been brought, where his most sacred body may be laid up; for founding it let a hundred pounds be bequeathed.

[255] And now, since it is to be believed from what has already been said that the body of St. Gregory of Spoleto, brought together with some other relics, and to Bruno, although Dithmar and other writers have not mentioned the matter, was brought by Otto from Italy in the year 965 and given to Bruno to carry to Cologne, why should we not also be able to believe that the Chain of St. Peter was then brought by Otto from Rome and given to Bruno, although likewise Dithmar and other writers have not mentioned the matter? To me surely it appears that this not only can be believed but altogether must be, even from this, that it is certain from Rotger that the chain of St. Peter which is preserved at Cologne was brought there by Bruno from Rome, nor can a way by which the Saint received it from Rome easily be assigned, unless it be said that it was granted to him by Otto, by whom it had been brought from Rome into Germany. Gelenius indeed declares, in his treatise cited above, page 64 and the two following, that he thinks the chains of St. Peter which are preserved at Cologne even today were formerly sent from Rome by Pope Gregory to Charles Martel, whom he wrongly calls king of the Franks, and that, since they had been left by him at Jupille near Liège, where he very often stayed, they were then translated about the year 954 by Ratherius, promoted to the see of Liège by Bruno's work, to him for the sake of testifying a grateful mind.

[256] it appears it is to be believed was given to him, who deposited them at Cologne. But since Pope Gregory, who is recorded by Gelenius to have sent the chain of St. Peter, or at least a part of it, to Charles Martel, was undoubtedly, as may be seen with us at the 29th day of June, on which SS. Peter and Paul have been dealt with, in the Analecta, § X, Gregory the second, and he was wont, as is shown in that same place, to send to princes only filings or scrapings of the chains enclosed in keys, it follows that, since the chain of St. Peter which is preserved at Cologne even today comprises several hooks or rings, it is certainly not that which Gregory II had formerly sent to Charles Martel; and since this is so, and nothing suggests that it was brought from Rome into Germany either before the year 965 or by anyone other than Otto and imparted to Bruno, it remains that it be believed that this was in fact done by this prince. Nor indeed does it appear unlike that at that time also the sacred pledges of SS. Privatus and Christopher, also mentioned by Rotger, were brought thence (for nothing suggests that they were brought to Cologne, where they are kept even today, either from elsewhere or by anyone else) by the same by whom, as we saw above, the body of St. Gregory of Spoleto, kept even today at Cologne in the metropolitan church, brought from Italy in the said year 965, was conferred on Bruno, and imparted to Bruno to be carried to Cologne.

* Coloniam

§ XIX. Whether the Saint, seeking out sacred relics from everywhere with the greatest zeal, did not exceed measure in this matter.

[That Bruno attempted to steal the Nail kept at Trier, by which Christ is believed to have been fixed to the Cross,] Brouwer, in the Annals of Trier, book X, num. 5, having narrated the death of St. Bruno and added a brief elogium of him, immediately adds: But since we have here paid the last rites to Bruno, I cannot pass over in silence a signal prodigy which I find handed down and noted in writing by our ancestors concerning him. The people of Trier keep among the chief ornaments of their church a most sacred nail, by which the most holy right hand of Christ our Lord is believed to have been fixed to the Cross and pierced through; Bruno, as he was seeking out relics of the Saints from everywhere with the highest and most watchful zeal and was most desirous of them, wished above all to carry this off and transfer it to Cologne to his church; and since the ways by which he might effect this did not easily occur at the moment, at length he resolves to corrupt the keeper of that treasure with largess, and that the blow which could not be struck openly must be attempted secretly. The keeper, enticed to this by prayers and price, did not hesitate, a counterfeit having been substituted, to take the true nail; and, having laid it on a fine and thin veil, he was going to carry it off to Bruno, who was present; but behold, while the sacrilegious man was setting his foot out of the sacred threshold, that august pledge immediately poured forth so great a force of blood that, flowing abundantly from the keeper's bosom, it copiously sprinkled and bloodied the cloth and the very bosom of the man, in which he had hidden the nail, and indeed his very undershirt. At this sight he, terrified and at the same time stunned by the blow of the sacrilege, repentance coming over him, returned to himself, freely confessed the crime, and took care that the stolen nail of Christ should be restored to its place forthwith.

[258] Thus he, who besides indicates in the margin that he received this narrative of his from a Trier manuscript, is narrated by Brouwer from a Trier manuscript and in the Life of St. Agritius; adding meanwhile nothing from which either the author or the age of that manuscript might become known. In our Work at the 13th day of January, sacred to St. Agritius, bishop of Trier, there is extant the Life of this holy prelate, who flourished in the 4th century; and in it, at num. 19 and 20, is related exactly the same prodigy which I have just narrated in Brouwer's words, clothed with plainly the same circumstances as by that writer, and augmented besides with others which both determine the day on which it happened and seem born to win credence for it. Behold the very words in which these latter circumstances are set forth in that place, num. 20, by the writer of that Life, who appears probably to have flourished about six hundred years ago. By which thing, he says (namely by the miracle of the blood flowing from the nail), the faithless keeper of the nail, who had taken it away, confounded, was compelled to confess publicly his own guilt and that of the bishop (namely Bruno); and presently an assembly of all having been made, whom the long-continued sound of the bells and the unwonted rumour of so great a miracle, not heard from of old, could call out, the same wicked thief being set in the midst, the bloody cloth being spread out before all and the most sacred nail itself, the pourer-forth of this blood, one voice of all praising God is raised. When this, with frequent repetition, had been sounded long and much, by the common counsel of all the more prudent who were present there a sentence of penance befitting so signal a sacrilege was pronounced on that wretch, not to say keeper.

[259] The very day also on which these mercies of God were divinely celebrated with us [but since in other Trier documents Theoderic, bishop of Metz, is related to have attempted it,] was at once noted in the Martyrologies, the twelfth day before the Kalends of July. And if anyone, which God forbid, hesitates to lend the ear of belief to this unheard-of miracle of the Lord, he can still see both the same cloth bearing the marks of blood and the same counterfeit nail in the house of St. Peter (if it is permitted). Thus far he; but although indeed the miracle by which he narrates that blood flowed from the nail taken away does not seem to be denied or rejected as certainly false, yet it can be doubted, as appears, first indeed whether the day on which it had happened was at once, as he says, noted in the Martyrologies, and then whether Bruno impelled the keeper of the nail to do what he reports that he did. For among the ancient Martyrologies of the church of Trier I find none at all in which mention of that miracle is made at the twelfth day before the Kalends of July, or the 20th day of June; nor does it seem to have been noted in all the ancient documents of the people of Trier that the keeper of the nail was induced by Bruno to do what the ancient Trier manuscript which Brouwer cites and the biographer of St. Agritius say that he did. For Brouwer himself, who, as I said, narrates that History in book, as I said, 10 of the Annals of Trier from a Trier manuscript, seems to indicate in book 4, num. 12, from ancient documents of the church of Trier, that the theft of the most sacred nail related above was attempted not by Bruno but by Theoderic, bishop of Metz, who was a contemporary of Bruno and, as Rotger teaches, stood by him as he died, when, having said something about the multitude of the nails by which Christ is believed to have been fixed to the Cross, he adds: Who would deny that some also (namely nails), fashioned in imitation of the pattern, have earned the honour of the prototype? Certainly it is ascertained by us from the record of the Old Annals that Theoderic, prelate of the Mediomatrici, when he was preparing to carry off this genuine one (namely the nail of Christ) from Trier, had with him another very like it and its twin, which he might substitute at once.

[260] nor that that theft was attempted either once by Bruno and once by Theoderic, Since therefore the theft of the most sacred nail kept at Trier is noted in the old Annals, by the testimony of Brouwer, as attempted by Theoderic, bishop of Metz, and these, as being those from which that writer would otherwise not have been about to pronounce, as he does, that the matter was ascertained by him, do not seem to be reckoned of worse credit and note than the manuscript cited above by the same Brouwer and the Life of St. Agritius, in which it is asserted that Bruno attempted that theft, or, which comes to the same thing, induced the keeper of the nail to steal it for him, it surely seems that it can not undeservedly be called into doubt whether our Saint did this. It can indeed be replied that ancient documents of approved credit which conflict in appearance are not to be set against each other but, if it can be done, reconciled, and therefore, in order that those cited above, of which some report that the theft of the Trier nail was attempted by Bruno and others by Theoderic, bishop of Metz, may be brought into concord, it must be said that the theft of the same nail was attempted twice, namely once by Bruno and once by Theoderic, bishop of Metz; but if the matter was so, it will surely be altogether necessary, since Bruno, from what has already been said, died in the year 965, and in this very year Theoderic, as I showed above from the continuator of Regino, was created bishop of Metz, that that theft be said to have been attempted first by Bruno and afterwards by Theoderic, bishop of Metz; and since the theft of the nail, when Bruno attempted it, if credence is to be given to the two ancient documents cited above, was prevented by the plainly signal prodigy related by them, and God had thereby most clearly manifested that it by no means pleased him that that sacred treasure should be snatched from the people of Trier, who would bring himself to think that Theoderic, who undoubtedly had that prodigy well known, as having been announced, as soon as it had happened, with the greatest noise to an innumerable multitude of the people, as the words transcribed here above from the Life of St. Agritius attest, still dared afterwards to attempt the theft of the same nail?

[261] or simultaneously attempted by those two bishops, would appear probable, It must therefore be said that the theft of the nail, if it was attempted by Bruno, was not attempted afterwards by Theoderic, or on the contrary, if it was done by Theoderic, it was not done before by Bruno, and therefore that of the documents cited above either those which note that the theft of the nail was attempted by Bruno, or the others which note that it was attempted by Theoderic,

is alien from the truth in this matter. Nor can you still reply that the theft of the nail was attempted at the same time both by Bruno and by Theoderic, bishop of Metz, and that hence of the documents cited above some noted that it was done by Bruno and others by Theoderic, bishop of Metz; for since in the year 965 Bruno both died and Theoderic was first made bishop of Metz, it must be that, if both attempted the theft of the nail at the same time, they certainly did it, as will be evident to one who considers it, in the very year 965 already mentioned; and since, from what was said above, either the theft of the nail was attempted or certainly the miracle by which it was prevented happened on the twentieth day of June, and it is in no way probable that Bruno, who, as we saw above, in the year 965 celebrated Pentecost, which then fell on the 14th day of May, at Cologne Agrippina with his brother Otto, and, the great assembly which he likewise then held with him there having been finished about the 15th day of June, presently went thence to Compiègne, was then on the 20th day of June at Trier, where nevertheless he is asserted to have been when he attempted the theft of the nail or the miracle mentioned above happened, it is likewise in no way probable that the theft of the nail was attempted at the same time both by Bruno and by Theoderic, bishop of Metz.

[262] Wherefore, since the cited records, of which some note that the theft of the nail of Trier was attempted by St. Bruno, [that narrative, as regards the bishops by whom it says it was attempted, is uncertain and doubtful,] others by Theoderic, bishop of Metz, can be brought into concord by no sufficiently probable reason at all, as appears, and their authors flourished, as appears, not at the very time at which the matter was done, but at least a century after, I would believe that they indeed found it committed to writing that the theft of the nail was both prevented by a miracle and attempted by its keeper, impelled to it by a certain bishop, but that, since they did not at the same time find that bishop expressed by name, hence it came about that some believed by conjecture that the theft of the nail was attempted by Bruno, and others by Theoderic, bishop of Metz, or, which comes to the same thing, that the keeper of the nail was induced to steal it, and further put it into writing. And those indeed who wrote that the theft of the nail was attempted by Bruno probably did so by a conjecture made from the fact that they had it ascertained from elsewhere that he had sought out sacred relics from everywhere with the greatest zeal, and that Bruno had translated to Cologne the staff of St. Peter, snatched from the people of Metz themselves, who are not very far removed from the city of Trier. And now, since this is so, their narrative must be held as uncertain and doubtful as regards Bruno, and indeed as regards both the bishops by whom they write that the theft of the nail was attempted. Furthermore, from a conjecture not unlike the one just mentioned it perhaps partly came about also that the anonymous author who wrote the third Life of St. Audomar, bishop, then venerated, inserted in our Work at the 9th day of September, believed that St. Bruno also tried to carry off the relics of this holy prelate.

[263] Certainly he, having first said at num. 35 and the two following that the relics of that holy bishop were translated by the canons of St. Audomar, [nor the other narrative, by which St. Bruno is reported to have meditated carrying off the relics of St. Audomar, brought to Nijmegen,] to whom he ought also to have added some monks of St. Bertin, as far as Nijmegen, where that prince was then staying together with his brother Bruno, in order that the emperor Otto, moved by the presence of so great a Saint, might order certain possessions, long since unjustly taken from his church, to be restored, and might restrain their unjust possessors, continues at num. 38 in the following manner. And when the aforesaid king (namely Otto) heard that the relics of so great a father had arrived, filled with immense joy he gave thanks to the Almighty. But his brother, archbishop of the church of Agrippina, Bruno by name, having heard the causes of this arrival, breaking out into madness of mind, devised that he would seize the holy treasure and treat it with worthy service of veneration in certain places of his own, and send the clerics away into foreign regions. But the merciful Lord, who knows all things before they come to pass, did not permit St. Audomar to be exiled from that place which, while he lived, he chose for himself by divine disposition. For in the same night, on whose morning these things were to be carried out, the omnipotence of the Lord terrified the same archbishop with a wonderful fear; for after he had gone up to his bed from supper, sound and lively, to rest in his accustomed way, an intolerable pain and languor suddenly invaded him through all his limbs, and much blood also, dripping through his nostrils, threatened the nearness of death before midnight came.

[264] St. Bruno is reported to have meditated carrying off, At length the prelate, remembering what he had devised against the Saint and his men, presently began to wash away the impurities of his heart with the lamentations of penance, promising also with a pure and simple heart that he would obtain from the king for him and his [*] all the things for which blessed Audomar had come, if he should be restored to his former health through the intervention of his merits. At this the bishop immediately recovered, and, leaping from his bed, hastened to prayer prostrate with downcast face, to render thanks to God and to St. Audomar. And on the morrow, approaching his brother and indicating to him the outcome of the whole matter, he began to intercede for the affairs of the Saint. And the king, rejoicing exceedingly at his brother's recovery, did not delay to fulfil whatever the archbishop had asked. He therefore restored to St. Audomar the lands long taken from him, and appointed two advocates, Wichmann and Hermann, to be an impregnable shield for the Saint and his servants against all attacks. Thus he; but, says our Stilting in his notes on the just recited words of the said Life of St. Audomar, Bruno, brother of the emperor Otto and archbishop of Cologne, was a man outstanding in piety, as is established from his Life. Wherefore the things which are asserted here about his schemes are not probable, especially since Folquin does not touch them with even a word.

[265] more certain credence, as the things here Folcuin or Folquin, deacon and monk of Saint-Bertin, and therefore undoubtedly distinct from Folcuin, abbot of Lobbes, very often cited above, although he flourished in the same 10th century as the latter, collected with the greatest fidelity, as the Writers of the Literary History of France teach, tome VI, page 384 and following, all the Charters given from the foundation of his monastery until the time at which he flourished, together with other records bearing on it, into one volume, which is therefore entitled the Cartulary, and, having arranged them in Chronological order, illustrated them also with annotations which comprise the history of each of the abbots of the monastery of Saint-Bertin; and since in that Work, to which he set his hand in the year, as the same writers say in the place cited, 961, he records the translation of the relics of St. Audomar narrated in the third Life of St. Audomar just cited, and made, as Stilting observes, between the year 961 just mentioned and the year 954, and yet nowhere, while he does this, makes mention of the schemes which are attributed in that Life to St. Bruno, Stilting rightly judged that this is indeed a very strong argument that there was no place for them. And indeed that Bruno, a most gentle man, thought of sending away into foreign regions the canons and monks, or those who had brought the relics of St. Audomar to Nijmegen, shrinks from all appearance of truth.

[266] Stilting indeed adds to his words just transcribed here: added, suggest, deserves. Yet, if anything true perhaps underlies them (namely the things which are said about Bruno's schemes in the said Life of St. Audomar), Bruno may have thought that unjust things were being sought, and disapproved that sacred relics should be removed so far from their own church for that purpose; which surely appears more to be wondered at than to be imitated in our time; but I can scarcely even suspect that anything true underlies the things which are recorded there about the Saint's schemes. For since neither Folquin nor the writers who composed the two earlier Lives of St. Audomar have mentioned them, the cited writer of the third Life, who, as Stilting teaches in the Commentary prefixed to the Lives, num. 7, received now and then from popular tradition the things he writes, probably drew from a tradition of this kind, to which, because he had it ascertained that Bruno sought out sacred relics from everywhere with the greatest zeal, he gave credence more easily than was right, the things also which he records about the Saint's schemes; and since popular tradition does not seem sufficient for us even to suspect that Bruno thought of banishing the canons and monks who had brought the sacred relics to Nijmegen, I would not dare to give credence in that matter to the cited writer of the third Life of St. Audomar, who, as appears, records from this alone both that and that Bruno meditated carrying off the relics of St. Audomar, and who did not flourish before the 12th or 13th century, especially since it by no means appears credible that the Saint would have gone as far as he says in order to acquire sacred relics. St. Bruno did indeed snatch the staff of St. Peter from the people of Metz; but when he did so, he was administering the vacant church of Metz in the place of a bishop, as I showed above, nor is it established from anywhere that he snatched that staff from the people of Metz altogether against their will. There will perhaps indeed be someone who will suspect the contrary from the fact that there were formerly even pious men who thought it lawful for themselves to steal sacred relics in order to venerate them; but it appears in no way probable that Bruno, a surely most learned man, was in that false opinion.

* that is, for him and his ministers

LIFE,

By the Author Rotger,

From our Codex, formerly of the Vallicella, PMS. 159, collated with the editions of Surius and Leibniz.

Bruno, archbishop of Cologne. (S.)

BHL Number: 1468

By Rotger.

PROLOGUE.

The author sets out the cause of his writing.

The author, in order to obey Folcmar, not unwillingly the deeds, To the lord most blessed in the grace of Christ and most perfect in every splendour of wisdom, Archbishop Folcmar, ^b Rotger, the last of his servants, the everlasting glory of true brightness. The reverence of your holiness has laid upon my head a burden heavy indeed, but, according to the capacity of my littleness, sweet and pleasant, namely that I should describe, with what faculty of speech I could, the Life of the wonderful and magnificent Archbishop Bruno, upon whom virtue conferred a praise which the office of my pen could not fulfil as he himself deserved. Yet to speak of him in any manner whatever was delightful to me, because you commanded it: who from the beginning was so minded that he thought himself born no more for his own sake than begotten for ours and for the commonwealth. He did altogether very many and almost infinite things which were worthy of everlasting memory: but let the hearer not expect all these things to be set forth either by me or by anyone whatever.

[2] [done by Bruno, to the writing of which he thinks others also are giving themselves,] For if anyone should promise to do it faithfully and truly, he would mark each of the years which he lived after passing childhood with its own codices, and those certainly spacious ones. I judge, therefore, that many far and wide are occupied with this industry, so that his deeds, even for those who are to come after, partly

by writing, partly by commemorating, may hand them on. For he did not do his business in one province or in one kingdom: he sought the salvation of all whom he could reach by the commerce of his benevolence and of his labour and zeal. Nor are there lacking very many who could carry this out handsomely and prudently, since, even if no others could be found such, among his ^c alone almost every kind of studies and eloquence, his memory being still fresh, so flourishes through many places of the earth that it suffices not merely to narrate but also to adorn the greatest distinctions of his deeds. How many and how great bishops do we know from among the pupils of so great a Man, how many most approved in every discipline of the ecclesiastical profession, who both knew him more familiarly and could more perfectly declare his life by illustrious monuments ^d.

[3] But who am I, that I should have dared to go against your wishes, most excellent of lords? I have done, therefore, what I could, not presuming upon knowledge, but retaining such confidence as I have in obedience. [He declares that he has comprised them in writing in some fashion, and asks that the style in which he did it be excused.] In which, although it seemed to me less possible to fulfil what I undertook, yet I brought my mind always so to venerate and embrace the dignity of your precept that, forgetful of my incapacity, I am wholly in your hands in eyes and mind. Hence, therefore, I beseech your bountiful piety that what is lacking to this Work of mine in the pomp and ornament of speech may be supplied in your ears by the commendation of him whom you loved so sweetly for the merit of his virtue. May almighty God deign to preserve your Beatitude unharmed and in good health for a very long time for our salvation.

ANNOTATA.

CHAPTER I.

The noble lineage of the Saint, his birth, his education at Utrecht with Bishop Balderic, his manner of life there and afterwards at court.

Divine grace, which is given to men by measure, works in them in diverse ways. It is indeed the part of wisdom to know whence comes the gift which one receives, and not to think that one has it from oneself: or from God indeed, but as owed to oneself. For if we ask what is owed to us, we find nothing except punishment. But the mercy of God has bestowed grace on us beforehand, that he might have those to whom he might render grace for grace, and this too should be owed, because God willed it, not because man deserved it. For what have you, says the Apostle, that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it ^a? By the ineffable providence of God's goodness, therefore, it is granted to his elect both that they are enriched freely with copious gifts of grace, and yet that they in a manner merit through grace that very thing with which they are rewarded: one in this way, another in that, each according as one and the same spirit works in him, dividing to each as he wills ^b. To the only-begotten alone God gives the spirit not by measure. For in him, as the Apostle says, dwells all the fulness of the godhead bodily ^c: to his members he distributes according to his will for each: to whom he gives all things abundantly to enjoy, namely himself, that God may be all in all ^d.

[5] [St. Bruno shows that one man surpasses another, joining all the highest things with humility.] This unequal brightness and the diverse largess of gifts is now a wonderful question, and will one day be a wonderful beauty and the adornment of the house of the Lord, of which it is said to God: Holy is your temple, wonderful in equity ^e. It has recently been ascertained by very many in the venerable archbishop of the church of Cologne, Bruno of pious memory, and sufficiently understood by the more prudent, what one man surpasses another in. Whose words and works most of those who knew him more familiarly could not sufficiently admire. For there were in that one man things very dissimilar: nobility of birth, dignity of honours, a knowledge, which is wont to puff up, so great ^f that there was nothing above it; but a humility of mind and bearing, as far as could be discerned by the more sagacious, such that you would think there was nothing below it: the middle things were laid level with charity. All things smiled upon him that might supply pride. These he had always most zealously driven away from himself with the watchful hand of discretion: thus he exhibited one thing to the eyes of men, another to the witness of hearts. By the example of whose way of life we believe that very many can be wholesomely instructed, if we go back over it briefly from his boyhood. For in it the middling and the humble have whence to grow strong, the proud and the rich on the other hand whence to be astonished.

[6] He, the kingdom at length having been pacified by his father King Henry The ancestors of his ancestors, as far back as the memory of men, were all most noble ^g: no one in their stock is easily found obscure, no one degenerate. Yet he surpassed them all, saving the excellence of emperors and kings, altogether most clearly in the grace of his features, the glory of the arts and every kind of industry of mind. He was born at the time when his father Henry, the glorious king, having thoroughly subdued the savagery of the barbarians, having also repressed the danger of intestine calamity, was rebuilding with great zeal what had been destroyed, and was ruling a willing people with the reins of justice in a most secure and at length most desired peace ^h. Thus the time of his birth already bore before it, as it were, the future marks of his good will. For since he always most eagerly desired everything that is good, he more solicitously sought the gift of peace, as a kind of nourishment and ornament of the other virtues, which he foreknew would profit all good men. For in a time of tranquillity virtues ought to be nourished and made solid, so that, when any disturbance whatever falls upon one, they do not allow a man to be softened from the vigour of his state.

[7] It is too long to pursue how the aforesaid king, pacified, born, the father of this great Man of whom we treat, came to that serenity of so welcome a peace, when he himself had found all the spaces of his kingdom shaken and atrociously vexed both by the continual incursions of the neighbours and by most grievous dissensions among the citizens, even kinsmen ⁱ. For on one side the savage nation of the Danes, powerful by land and sea, on the other the hundred-cleft rage of the barbarian Slavs bristled, gnashing: the cruelty of the Hungarians nonetheless followed, having crossed the boundaries of the Moravians, which impious licence had usurped for itself not long before ^k, and laid waste far and wide very many provinces of his kingdom with sword and fire ^l. The day will fail the narrator before the matter of this evil. Beyond the Rhine toward the West all things were in rebellion against us ^m. The very princes of the still august kingdom were certainly raging almost irremediably against their own vitals. All of which no one could either cut away, as also narrate ⁿ, except one endowed with eminent virtue and singular industry. But after some time so great a fear, through divine grace, invaded the outsiders that nothing was ever more formidable to them: so great a love bound together those at home that nothing ever seemed more united in any most powerful kingdom whatever.

[7] At that time the noble offspring of kings, being about four years old, [and about four years after, sent to Utrecht to be imbued with letters, with the greatest pleasure in these] to be imbued with the liberal studies of letters, was sent to Utrecht to the venerable Bishop Baldric, who still survives ^o. Where, since he made progress with keen talent in a disciplined way, as a boy of good disposition, the hated tyranny of the Northmen [p] somewhat cooled through such a hostage, and the churches and other buildings, of which scarcely ruins had remained, were at length restored on this occasion. Thus he passed no spaces of his age without advantage to the holy Church of God. For through him, though still unknowing, the Christian people, free from enemies, already exulted in the praises of God. Then, when he had grasped the first rudiments of the art of Grammar, as we learned from himself, who often ruminated on this to the glory of almighty God [q], he began to read the poet Prudentius, his master teaching him. And he, as he is both catholic in faith and intention, and eminent in eloquence and truth, and most elegant in his metres and books, soon pleased the palate of his heart with such sweetness that he drew in, with greater eagerness than can be said, not only the knowledge of the outward words but the marrow of the inmost sense and, so to speak, the most limpid nectar.

[9] Afterwards there was no kind at all of liberal studies in all Greek or Latin eloquence which escaped the vivacity of his talent. Nor indeed did either the abundance of riches, as is wont to happen, [and he applies himself with no less progress, eager also to preserve the books he uses;] or the assiduity of crowds clamouring around him, or any distaste creeping in from elsewhere ever turn his mind away from this noble leisure, so that continual meditation and the unwearied zeal of continuous exercise testified to the purity of his heart, when every affection of this kind was now passing wholly into a habit, as it is written: By his pursuits a boy is known, whether his works be pure and right [r]. To this is added [s] that, as he did not suffer the fervour of his mind to be extinguished by the sloth and levity of others, or to be corrupted by superfluous and vain conversations, so he bore it altogether most grievously that the books in which he studied, or whatever he had before his eyes, should be carelessly broken, or corrected [t], or handled less diligently in any way whatever, thinking surely that nothing in the things which pertained to him should be neglected, since, as Solomon says, he who neglects small things falls little by little [u].

[10] [his father having departed this life, he is summoned to court; there wholly himself] Therefore, after his father, the empire having been founded and pacified to a nicety, departed from human affairs, Otto, his elder son, increased by the blessing of the Lord and anointed with the oil of gladness, began to reign with great good will and consent of the princes in the one hundred and eighty-eighth lustrum,

in the sixty-third cycle of Indictions from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ [x]; a man on whom the spirit of God conferred a singular gift of truth and faith. If I should promise to narrate his virtues, I should presume too much for myself and should by no means be endurable. For his praise and glory exceed whatever even Cicero himself might promise himself in eloquence [y]. He summoned his brother Bruno, dedicated to God, while still a youth, honourably, as was fitting, from the schools into the palace, a place, namely, fitted to so most brilliant a mirror, where he might in his studies bring more clearly to light whatever was misshapen throughout almost the whole world. For hither flowed together from all its borders everything that seemed to itself to be something. Nonetheless this was the one asylum sought by all who were oppressed by any calumny whatever. There an exemplar of wisdom, piety and justice stood forth beyond the memory of men. Those who a little before had seemed to themselves most learned at home, returning thence marked with a blush, set about the rudiments of the arts, saying as it were, Now I have begun. He in whom nothing leapt in the left part of the breast thenceforth modestly kept himself away from this as from a lofty tribunal.

[11] [he devotes himself to searching out the opinions of philosophers and other doctors,] The Lord filled that vessel of his with the spirit of wisdom and understanding. Nor did it suffice him to gather into the treasury of his heart what he had at hand: he hired besides foreign enigmas, and whatever he perceived to be philosophical and most remote from earthly senses, this he drew together from everywhere. The seven liberal arts, long obliterated, he himself wove anew. Whatever new and great things the Historians, Orators, Poets and Philosophers sound abroad, he most diligently searched out with doctors of whatever tongue, and where a master excelled in quickness of talent, there he showed himself a disciple in humility. Often, among the most learned of the Greeks and Latins disputing about the sublimity of philosophy or the subtlety of any discipline flourishing in it, he himself sat in the middle as a learned interpreter, and satisfied the disputants, to the applause of all, which he had loved less than anything. For he did not chastise a wicked examination in that balance, nor did he seek glory outside, but he judged that the testimony of his conscience sufficed him. This was very frequently watched by a judge who knew not how to be deceived in such things, the greatest king of the world: and he who strengthened his kingdom outwardly by the vigour of fortitude and counsel clothed it inwardly with such splendour. Of these things God the creator himself was also a spectator, by whose mercy every gift that he bestows is guarded.

[12] For who would keep off arrogance from so great and so incomparable a height, [and, not puffed up by knowledge, he meanwhile protects the wretched and teaches not a few without haughtiness;] unless he himself in his piety applied his guarding? Israel, a bishop of Scottish birth, under whose teaching this most illustrious man of whom we speak testified that he had made very great progress, being asked about his morals by certain persons, whom we ourselves have heard ruminating this very thing very solicitously and holding it as an oracle, answered that he was an exceedingly holy man [z]. A sufficiently praiseworthy and wise testimony of a teacher about a disciple. The Greeks, whom he likewise used as masters, were amazed at so great a grace, and indeed carried home to their citizens worthy problems concerning him, whose zeal is said formerly to have been either always to hear something new or to find it [aa]. Meanwhile a thousand times a day he was compelled to protect the calamitous, to counsel the afflicted, to bring help to the wretched. All of which he so administered that he seemed to have become a refuge for all the needy. Thus, when he was at leisure, scarcely anyone seemed more in business: nor, when he was in business, did he ever cease from leisure. Most intent on producing learned works, he was most acute in composing whatever things are most honourable. Latin eloquence he rendered polished and illustrious not in himself alone, where he excelled, but also in many others. And he did this with no haughtiness, but with homely charm as well as urbane gravity.

[13] After meals, when others, and even greater men, as we have heard, he never passes time idly, carries his library about wherever he must go, act a little more slackly, he gave himself more attentively to reading and meditation. The morning twilight he sold at no price, nor did he then in any way trust himself to sleep soliciting him. The scurrilous and mimic things which are produced by various characters in comedies and tragedies, at which some, sounding them out, shake themselves with infinite laughter, he himself always read seriously: he reckoned the matter as of least account, the authority in the composition of the words as of greatest. He used moving schools, quiet indeed not in body but in mind. For wherever the royal tents or camps were carried about, he carried his library about, like the Lord's ark, bearing with him both the cause of his study and its instrument: the cause in the divine books, the instrument in the gentile books, as a learned householder who knows how to bring forth from his treasure new things and old [bb]. Nor was there place for sloth on the journey itself. In a crowd, which is the gift of few, he was as if alone. For he either conversed about something most useful with anyone whatever, or meditated on that very thing in anyone whatever.

[14] When it came to the divine office, he bore an attentive mind, he attends the divine Office attentively, is called by others into counsel, commending himself to the Lord in prayer brief indeed but pure. Those with whom he lived he sometimes satisfied in habit and gesture while doing something else in mind. For not otherwise would he have been so truly popular, nor would he have persuaded so many to better things. Whatever great thing in religion any of the priests of the Lord or of the perfect men undertook at that time, he leaned on him as on a kind of sole companion: nor did he think his own authority sufficiently strong by itself unless he knew that this man, as it were a reserve, was supporting him in the divine battle line. And the Servant of God made no mean progress in what he had begun. He held the rumours of the common people for nothing, and foresaw not only what was before his feet, but also many things for the future. Hence it is that concerning his brother, named after his father, and concerning Cuno, taken into royal affinity [cc], when he saw too great a familiarity of conversation between them, and this especially at the time of the Masses, he is reported to have said with a prophetic spirit: O, into what a bitterness of enmities will these companionships, ill-gotten at this tremendous time, be dissolved. The outcome of the matter not long after gave credence to the words.

[15] [the monasteries which, though still young, he had received to administer, he heaps with benefits,] The first stewardship was entrusted to him while still a youth in certain monasteries, in which he constrained those dwelling there, with the fitting testimony of the Church, partly by will, partly by force, to the regular life, knowing that good things are bestowed even on the unwilling. And these places consecrated to God he after a little while, with the assent of royal liberality, restored to their former privileges and immunities, reserving to himself or his own no benefice from them by right, except so much as the fathers of the monasteries had spontaneously offered for the sake of charity. Among these stands Lorsch, a place ennobled by the munificence of kings, still retaining in memory of so great a Man both the prerogative of liberty and the monuments of religion [dd].

[16] [and while he advances as much as possible in virtue, a huge disturbance of affairs arises.] Then, when he was going from virtue to virtue with giant, so to speak, strides, and wherever he directed his foot always advanced in the will of the Lord, there suddenly arose a tempest of dissension in the church, Jesus sleeping, I believe, in the breasts of the watchmen keeping guard before the doors of the house of the Lord, so that certain companions of Satan, distended with the spirit of envy, tried to extinguish the emperor himself, through whom there was salvation for the people, namely the light of the world [ee]. Why this, unless that their evil works might not be reproved? For by the witness of Gospel truth, everyone who does evil hates the light [ff]. This counsel, conceived through the serpent's hiss, having therefore been brought to nothing through the mercy of God, they poured the venom of their wickedness through the vitals of his whole kingdom. Which, although everywhere it threatened both the silence of the laws and the ruin of the people through slaughter and rapine, yet nowhere seethed more atrociously than in the parts of the West. There the princes, accustomed to violence and plunder, the peoples desirous of revolution, all intent on civil calamities, preferred to grow rich from the miseries of others [gg].

ANNOTATA.

that it was composed is manifest. Nor is it less manifest that Baldric was bishop at the time when Bruno was sent to him at Utrecht to be imbued with letters, and that this happened about the year 929. Go to the preliminary Comment., num. 23 and 24.

p. The edition of Surius and Leibniz: Tyrannis.

q. That his biographer was also familiar with Bruno we have elicited partly from this, in the preliminary Commentary, num. 13.

r. Proverbs 20, verse XI.

s. Surius and Leibniz: Huc accedit.

t. The same: Corrugari be wrinkled.

u. Ecclesiasticus 19, verse 1.

x. In Surius it is read: Otto … began to reign in the nine hundred and thirty-seventh year from the Incarnation of the Lord; but the edition of Leibniz agrees with our codex; and that the reading of Surius did not proceed from Rotger is clear even from this, that he, as the things which I discussed in §2 of the preliminary Comment. clearly prove, joins to the year of Christ 965 the thirtieth year of Otto's reign, which, if Otto began to reign only in the year 937, would have been joined, as will be evident to one who reckons, not with the said year of Christ 965, but partly with the year 966 and partly with the year 967. The words of the Surian edition just given, in which it is asserted that Otto began to reign in the year 937, therefore undoubtedly proceeded from the same anonymous interpolator who brought into the Life of our Saint in Surius the History of the translation of St. Evergisl (see the preliminary Commentary, num. 15); for he, seeing that that history began with these following words (consult the Life of our Saint in Surius, chapter 27), In the one hundred and eightieth eighth lustrum of the Lord's Incarnation (that is, in the nine hundred and thirty-seventh year), in the sixty-third cycle of Indictions, Otto began to reign, and thinking that he would do best if he explained the one hundred and eighty-eighth lustrum assigned by Rotger to the beginning of the Ottonian reign in the same way as the author of that History did there, did in fact do so, and so marked that Otto began to reign not in the one hundred and eighty-eighth lustrum of the Lord's Incarnation but in the year 937, not noticing that by Rotger the thirtieth year of Otto is joined with the year of Christ, as I have just shown, 965, and that hence it follows that this biographer of our Saint takes the beginning of Otto's reign not from the year 937 but from the year 936. A lustrum is a space of five years, and since therefore 188 lustra from the Lord's Incarnation bring us down to the year 940, and the last of them comprises the years enclosed between the year 935 and the year 941, and therefore both the year 936 and the year 937, the one hundred and eighty-eighth lustrum from the Lord's Incarnation, from which Rotger here takes the beginning of the Ottonian reign, does not prevent it from being believed that he took it not from the year 937 but from the year 936; and since this is so, and therefore the text of Rotger in which it is asserted that Otto began to reign in the year 937 certainly arose, as I have already shown, from interpolation, it is in no way at all to be doubted that this biographer of our Saint takes the beginning of Otto's reign from the year in which Henry the Fowler, his father, died, 936. He does not indeed do so, as strictly speaking he ought to have done, from the very day of the year 936 on which this prince died, the 2nd of July, as may be seen in the preliminary Comment., num. 8 and following; but he followed the custom, used also in some Diplomas of Otto, in which the years of this prince's reign are numbered not from his father's death-day but from the beginning of the year 936 in which it fell, as I noted in the preliminary Commentary in the place just mentioned, and as the Benedictine authors of the New Diplomatic rightly observe, tome 5, page 751.

y. That Otto I, deservedly honoured with the appellation of Great from the greatness of his deeds, was a prince perfect in every respect, no one surely will fail to confess who has turned over, even cursorily, the history of the 10th century, in which he reigned from the year 936 until the year 973, in writers commonly to hand.

z. Since Rotger clearly indicates that he heard what he here narrates that Israel the Scot (see what was said of him in the preliminary Comment., num. 31 and following) answered concerning our Saint from the very persons to whom that answer had been given, he thus again not obscurely declares that he was not far removed from the age of our Saint; so that I wonder more and more that it is asserted by Surius that he flourished only in the year 1040.

aa. Acts 17, verse 21.

bb. Matthew 13, verse 52.

cc. Cuno, duke of Lotharingia, who is more frequently called Conrad, had been joined in marriage to Liutgard, daughter of Otto; to Henry, duke of Bavaria, brother of Otto and Bruno, with whom he had at one time been even too familiar, as is indicated here, he afterwards became most hostile, as may be learned from what I discussed in various places in the preliminary Comment., and by name at num. 50.

dd. Of the monastery of Lorsch or Laurisham, here expressly named, which, founded formerly in the Rhine district, is four leagues distant from Heidelberg and two from Worms, and of the other monasteries which Bruno, though very young, received to administer, I discussed in the preliminary Comment. from num. 37, and at the same time examined whether the Saint was a monk, having first spoken at num. 40 of the prerogative of liberty which Rotger here indicates was granted to the monastery of Lorsch through Bruno's action.

ee. The dissension of which the biographer here speaks was the foul conspiracy against Otto; on what occasion and for what causes his son Liudolf and his son-in-law Conrad entered into it against this prince, I set forth in the preliminary Commentary from num. 50, chiefly from Widukind, Dithmar and the Continuator of Regino, who, although they report that Liudolf and Conrad then contrived many things against Otto, yet do not declare that either they or their followers went so far as to try to kill Otto, as Rotger seems to hint here and as Otto himself seems to have suspected in him below at num. 31.

ff. John 3, verse 20.

gg. Rotger is speaking here of the kingdom of Lotharingia; and that there, as he hints, the face of affairs was most wretched about the middle of the 10th century, is known from Widukind and other writers of the middle age commonly to hand.

CHAPTER II.

He is created bishop of Cologne; he tries to bring back to his duty his nephew Liudolf, who, having entered into a conspiracy with Duke Conrad, was bearing arms against his father; and he is set over Lotharingia by his brother Otto.

[By the unanimous consent of all he is elected to succeed Wicfrid, the deceased archbishop of Cologne.] Then Wicfrid, pastor of the holy church of Cologne, for a long time very feeble, yet faithful enough to the royal majesty and to his country, having at length left behind his wearied earthly limbs, was joined to the spirits on high ^a; and the people, destitute of a pastor, attempting nothing doubtful, nothing variable in the very confusion, chose for itself the one solace uniquely desired in the lord Bruno, a magnificent and most approved man, following the counsel of the magnates and of the whole clergy. He, mature in morals in a youthful body ^b, was humble and gentle amid the greatest pride of nobility; in the sublimity of wisdom which he had received he brought his mind not to be more wise than it behoves to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety ^c: in royal affluence he was sparing to himself, rich to his friends. In that election Bishop Godfrey first flourished above the rest ^d; but who preceded another in his wish, no one could easily explain. By this one thing they were carried in doubt between hope and fear, that, measuring the dignity of the honour and the glory of the Man, they feared that what they were preparing for him with so much effort would be unworthy of so great a sublimity. And indeed, if there were in this whole kingdom any place more august, or certainly more elegant in clergy, people, churches and every furnishing, this would be thought more worthy of the reception of so great a Pastor by all who knew him.

[18] and, sent to Cologne by his brother Otto, assenting to his election, All therefore agreeing and thinking the same in Christ, while they still looked upon the body of his predecessor of good memory, not yet buried and set before their eyes according to the custom of the place, there were chosen by the most holy senate four eminent men and the same number of laymen, all exceedingly learned, who should carry all these things to the palace and, after the mourned destitution had been made known together with the unanimity of the election, should demand the aforesaid solace for the desolate ^e. Why say more? It pleased (thanks be to God) the imperial authority so to consult both the time and the place that it sent in haste the visitor sought with such constancy to the guarding of the destitute flock. Sent at length from the camps of the earthly empire, he entered into the tabernacles of the heavenly King, to fight against spiritual wickednesses ^f, bearing with him the arts and exercises of the virtues, bearing before him the arms of faith. In him his new companions soon saw both what charmed and what terrified. For he showed himself very affable and mild, and, although nothing escaped his industry in things to be done, he yet inquired very solicitously from every quarter what he ought to do, on what customs he ought to rely.

[19] [he is honourably received there, and, placed with solemn rite in the episcopal see,] He had a gravity seasoned with accompanying humility, so that he appeared moderately cheerful to the crowd flowing together, and wonderful in all things. They came to the most sacred see, prepared for this pious provider by the almighty Lord before the times, presented in time itself. There was a huge concourse of the people, an infinite excitement of the common folk: the city exulted with new joys. The clergy assembled from the monasteries, the multitude of nuns ran together, every condition and both sexes came together more than usual to the rejoicing. The Church, joyful, weaned her offspring, until then nursed at the maternal breasts, now grown up in the grace of Christ, on the day of so great a solemnity, and established him spiritually to be a mother, who should afterwards bring forth for her with sweetest affection little sons in whom Christ might be formed. And the bishops, who were present in numbers, and the Senate of this holy Clergy, all acclaiming with the voice of exultation and salvation, made the Man elected by God and men sit upon the pontifical chair, and all together sounded forth praise to God with such clamour as each could, nonetheless also with organs and cymbals and every sign of joy.

[20] he strove thereafter diligently to fulfil all the parts of a bishop, Thenceforth all his intention, all his zeal was either for the defence or for the adornment of mother Church; she was to be defended, namely, outwardly, to be adorned inwardly: to be defended in secular things, to be adorned in spiritual. He loved before all things the beauty of the house of the Lord and the place of the dwelling of his glory ^g. That he burned with this desire he clearly showed in many ways, which it is not necessary to touch upon here in writing, since indeed the memory of his illustrious deeds is fresh ^h, nor will anyone among his people who loves truth and faith cease to speak of him. Some of these things however, as we proposed,

are not to be covered with silence, for the example and instruction of very many writers. For it is impossible to unfold the deeds of so great a man through his daily advances in virtue, and with worthy praises of his deeds fittingly to extol his great merits, which he had gathered far and wide, after the manner of the most prudent bee, so that he might be the good odour of Christ, by doing good and by sustaining the need of the oppressed.

[21] This indeed was to some unto life, to others unto death. [and presently, by the enemies of peace, who took it ill that their counsels contrary to it were disturbed by the Saint's election,] For those who, inflamed with the zeal of bitterness, ignorant of good arts, tried by detraction and cursing to pervert pursuits most unlike their own deeds, which they could neither change ⁱ nor knew how to venerate, were procuring for themselves death and perpetual woe, according to the threat of the prophet who says: Woe to them who call evil good and good evil; putting darkness for light and light for darkness ^k. But he who follows me, says the Lord, does not walk in darkness ^l. He truly does not judge before the time, nor easily condemn anyone whatever by his own sentence. It is therefore the purpose of the good to displease the worst: whence they measure their life not by the vanity of popular talk but by the truth of conscience. Before this Man, learned in the law of the Lord, ascended the pontifical platform, the seditious citizens of our commonwealth, whom the spirit of Satan inflamed to rise against the Lord's anointed, had a certain hope of getting possession of Cologne ^m.

[22] Thus they thought that the magnanimous people of the Lotharingian kingdom could either be bound to them by a covenant of peace, [assailed with calumnies; by his brother, besieging Mainz, then occupied by the rebels,] or be terrified by the frequent onset of war, on account of the advantage of the place. But after this son of peace, the ever-watchful guardian of the churches of God, entered it, it cannot be said with what grief all who were enemies of peace in this kingdom were afflicted, with what despair of accomplishing their undertaking they were overcast. Hence blasphemies, curses, insults and manifold inventions of impiety. Surely iniquity lied to itself, so that, because they knew that the pastor could neither be corrupted nor seduced in any way, they might at least turn the flock away from love of him by these portents of lies, if any course of fraud of this kind should be granted. For learned and great men know how to earn envy, but do not wish to have it. At that time Mainz, a noble and opulent city, was besieged by the emperor and his army ⁿ. For it was crammed with enemies and plotters against the kingdom ^o: and where sincerity of religion was wont to flourish, there flowed together the greatest bilge of dissension.

[23] About the archbishop of the place the talk of the princes, and likewise of the common people, was various. about whose bishop the opinion of all was not one. Some carried his innocence to heaven, proclaimed his virtues, said that the things which were being wrongly done everywhere, and especially in those parts, through civil evil, were hateful to him above all: indeed they testified that he execrated factions. Therefore he withdrew from the midst, cared very little to whom the city lay open, whom the soldiers obeyed. This was nearly the opinion of those who, leagued in an impious conspiracy, boasted that they relied in all things on his continual help and counsel: defending their cause by this alone, that it could by no means be reprobate when such a man was willing to share in it. But others, and almost all into whose hearts divine grace breathed, venerating the power ordained by God, following the emperor with all devotion, the protector of wealth, the avenger of crimes, the bestower of honours: they also to whom their household affairs at home, their wives and children were a care, or to whom their own peace and safety had in any way been sweet, judged the merits of this man far otherwise [p]. Let us meanwhile leave these things to the judgment of God, and return from the digression to our purpose.

[24] being summoned to the camp while besieging, he is called into counsel, The emperor therefore invited the new guardian of the city of Agrippina and designated prelate to a new council, having experienced what he could do in mind and tongue before this charge was laid upon him. There the favour of those assenting on either side was various, and it was almost uncertain to whom credence should deservedly be given. This was to be heard rather frequently even from those who were serving in the royal camp: they praised the bravery of the opposing party, preferred in them the innocence of their cause, because they took this labour upon themselves compelled and very unwilling: and since not even among the enemies was anyone found so mad as to blaspheme the royal majesty, they turned back all the blame and malice of the cruelty begun upon Henry his brother, duke of the Bavarians and renowned marquis, formidable to the barbarians and to all the nations of those places, even to the Greeks themselves [q]. But in truth, the better anyone was, and the readier to keep faith with the emperor and his kingdom, the more hateful they held him.

[25] [and judging that the minds of the rebels should first be tried by gentleness, their leader Liudolf] Into this hatred of the impiously plundering and perjured party Bruno, the glorious prelate desired by the people of God, threw himself spontaneously and willingly, giving occasion to no one either with a double heart or with deceitful lips, either to dissemble what he wished or to feign what he did not wish. Thus he brought his mind neither to deceive another nor did he himself consent to be deceived by another. First, however, he tried the hard hearts of the rebels, whether by any means they could be cured by any fomentations of his salutary persuasion and teaching, deferring the last medicine of cautery until with pious solicitude he should more diligently learn what this unbridled audacity promised itself. The chief in that conspiracy was the emperor's son Liudolf, a youth singularly famous and distinguished, who would have been sufficient not only to preserve but also to adorn the monuments of his country's victory, if he had by no means believed his seducers, and had wished to be an heir, not a traitor. But since, hastening to be enriched, he did not deserve to obey his father's counsel, it befell him according to the truthful sentence of Solomon that the inheritance to which he hastened in the beginning should lack blessing at the last [r].

[26] [coming out of Mainz, the pledge of security having been received through hostages, with an address weighty] And the excellent man, full of counsel, the future and, as we have said, already designated priest of the Lord, grieving over the contempt shown his brother and over the ruin of his nephew, having received a pledge through hostages, took aside, as they say, from the crowd the same nephew coming into the camp with a beastlike spirit [s], and addressed him thus: You do not know, most famous of all the youths whom the earth has borne, how much you will have profited yourself and your own if you let the words of my admonition sink into the secret places of your breast. For you, the greatest care of your most glorious father, our glory, what do you leave us to hope if you take yourself away from our wishes? Do you not regard the venerable grey hair of your pious father, whom it is not expedient for you to sadden, on whom it is not expedient for you to inflict injury? Do you not remember his fatherly affection toward you from boyhood? You offend God, believe me, when you despise your father. There is nothing for you to excuse yourself with. Whatever new thing you contrive against this kingdom without his will looks to his injury. You treat your cause with your enemies, which contrariwise it would have been fitting to treat with friends. For they seek not you but their own things in you: they make little of your welfare: they measure all things by words, not by the truth of things.

[27] This is not to be wise. See, I pray, whither they lead you. as well as apt to move, he approaches him, You who were the joy and crown of your father, the hope and delight of the whole kingdom, how have you been turned into bitterness? Cease at last to be Absalom, that you may be able to be Solomon. Think who exalted you so greatly, who bound all the princes of this kingdom to you by the faith of oaths [t]. Why did he do this? Was it that you might prove ungrateful? Was it that you might learn to be a traitor? Truly they are mad who wish to deceive you thus. Fear your father's daily sobs, dread his frequent groans, shudder at his tears. He would bear it less grievously that the whole kingdom should be snatched from him by enemies than you, for whom he keeps the kingdom. Your innocent heart, alas! has been seduced by poisonous blandishments: the bosom of fatherly affection lies open, in which there is no guile. The pious father grieves that his son has been snatched from him by the impiety of corrupters: he will rejoice at his return. If he is somewhat angrier with your seducers, he will soon grow gentle when he has received you, his delight: nor will he judge that this was done by crime but by error, when he perceives that you, whom he has loved even more than himself, have been restored to him.

[28] These and similar things the lord Bruno, a good man skilled in speaking, very solicitous for the welfare of the most handsome youth, pleaded at length. and thus, having tried in vain to bring him back into the way, But he, as one whose mind a fury had goaded to the crime begun, by no means allowed the ear of his heart to be moved by admonitions of this kind: he scarcely drew near with the outward hearing, lest he should seem too insolent. For he thought it more honourable to seem innocent of the misery of this dissension than to be so. His youthful mind was moved by the anxiety and fear of his most elegant companions, who, had they not been infected or sprinkled with the plague of that impious conspiracy, could have been an ornament and delight even to the imperial dignity. Then indeed it would have befitted so desirable, so strong of hand, so excellent an offspring of his to be surrounded by this troop, to glory in this chosen excellence of youths. There was above all in his mind as it were a kind of goad, Cuno, a little before a most valiant duke, but then a most audacious brigand, even with the glory of riches and of a kingdom acquired, as they boasted: but in truth sterile labour instead of tranquillity, ever anxious solicitude instead of security. For he, in whose hands, so to speak, all things were, by acting to have more, brought it about in every way that they had nothing.

[29] Meanwhile, however, they contended in every way, no less by guile than by force, rested neither day nor night, [by Otto, who, in order to consult for Bavaria, imperilled by the machinations of his enemies,] sometimes made their adversaries suspected, left nothing untried, nor held anything of account, provided they brought it about that they might by whatever device get possession of the greatest cities within the kingdom, and those the most opulent, thinking that from there they would easily rule all the borders of the kingdom. And lest anything at all should be done without fraud, they secretly, with infinite promises, recalling besides an old hatred, worked upon Arnold, a man vigorous above all, to whom the chief direction of affairs in the land of the Bavarians had been committed at the same time, that, perjured, he should renounce to Duke Henry first himself, then the famous city of Regensburg, and finally that whole kingdom [u]; so much strength did envy and hatred claim for themselves among them. At the same time they were soliciting the Hungarians, the ancient pest of the country, to invade the divided kingdom itself, thinking that in this way the anxiety by which they were pressed could be either wholly removed or in some measure lessened.

[30] [to consult, he raises the siege of Mainz, is appointed governor of the West, or Lotharingia, and by him,] The emperor, moved by this matter, as being so sudden and unforeseen, and grieving more for their misery than for his own loss, gave up the siege of Mainz, the agreement which was being asked for having at length been accepted [x], and arranged to set out in haste from the camp toward the East with those whom he held faithful, to take counsel for those parts, leaving his brother Bruno in the West as guardian and provider and, so to speak, archduke in so dangerous

a time [y], to whom he gave such charges: That we have always thought one and the same thing, and that our wishes have never disagreed in any business whatever, it cannot be said, dearest Brother, how much I delight in. And this it is which most consoles me in my bitter affairs, when I see that through the grace of almighty God a royal priesthood has been added to our empire. For in you both priestly religion and royal fortitude are strong, so that you both know how to render to each his own, which belongs to justice, and are able to resist either the terror or the fraud of adversaries, which belongs to fortitude and justice [z]; nor have I long since judged to be absent from you the very mother of the liberal arts and of true virtue, philosophy, which has trained you to this moderation and greatness of mind.

[31] who, into Bavaria, having bitterly complained of the perversity of his enemies I know therefore, my Brother, I know that no one will persuade your prudence that it is no concern of yours how much the perverse glory in the ruin of the good, with whatever honesty of words they may veil what they intend. They will say perhaps that these things must be settled by wars, which do not pertain to you, which do not befit the dignity of your ministry. You see how many the prelate of that metropolis has enticed into the madness of civil calamity by fraudulent boasting of words of this kind, who, if he wished to withdraw himself from the dissension, as he pretends, and from the danger of wars, so that he might live in religious leisure, would surely have better given back to us and to our commonwealth what we conferred on him by royal munificence than to the enemies [aa]. Enemies I call them, as almost all think, wicked robbers of the citizens, betrayers of their country, wasters of the kingdom, deserters of the army, who would certainly wish, with sacrilegious audacity, that I myself had been slain (I believe) by their own hands, or had perished by any the most bitter kind of death whatever, from whom they have taken away my son, whom they strive to deprive of brother, of kingdom, of children, and of my sweet wife herself, and finally of life itself [bb]. You alone are at last for me a solid, faithful and firm solace, who from your earliest age have made such progress in good deeds that to do well and to look round on all things with the greatest diligence has now passed for you from custom into nature.

[32] and having complained of their ingratitude If, while you are safe, I shall enjoy you pleasantly and wholly, as my mind always demands, my desire asks, my soul implores, then dignity, then glory, then honour will be present. We have protection enough and to spare, lest [*] we be wanting to ourselves; but this must be cared for above all. You are my witness, you, I say, with how much care and how much benevolence I would cherish, protect and embrace these whom I now suffer as so cruel, whom yet I would still most gladly heal, if they themselves would spare themselves. Ah, with what importunity they hasten headlong to perish, and turn my offspring, innocently brought up, together with themselves to all crimes. So difficult is it to restrain in positions of power those who through ambition prefer not to be upright but to seem so. You know, dearest, what indeed I recall with grief, that those have frequently been harder and more faithless to me whom I cherished more, whom I loved as most closely bound to me in many ties of kinship, whom finally I thought most closely joined to me. This was grievous to endure, a double misery. But what presses on me outweighs the former evils, when he whom I begot, snatched from me, has learned to lie in wait against his father's love.

[33] Strive therefore, Man devoted to God, not as at first, [and having exhorted the Saint to restrain these, he departs; departing, he betakes himself to Aachen.] but now above all strive, I beg, with that counsel of yours, in which you are most skilled, according to place and time either to dissuade from arms or in some way to restrain them. Absent from you in body, wherever I shall be, may I rejoice for you, congratulate your providence and moderation. Let it please me to reckon as my own what you shall have done, let it likewise please you what I shall have done. I wish and desire abundantly that this may be the sum of our wishes and delight, to provide good things for one another not only before God but also before men, and, if it can be done, to have peace with all. Then, after they had rushed into kisses, parting from one another not without tears, the emperor sought the East, his Brother the West. And presently he hastened to the palace of Aachen: there he met the princes of the kingdom whom it concerned, instructed them in various and many ways; and he dealt with them chiefly on this, that they should not believe the seducers or their vain promises, should not fear threats, should put no promises before the royal majesty and their own fidelity, pledging himself that he would always be ready, before the time and in the time, to restore the violated peace of the Church, if it were so necessary, even at the peril of his own life [cc].

ANNOTATA.

c. Romans 12, verse 3.

g. Psalm 25, verse 8.

k. Isaiah 5, verse 20.

l. John 8, verse 12.

p. The archbishop of Mainz of whom Rotger speaks here was Frederick, promoted to that see in the year 937. He, who seems more than once either to have openly joined himself to Otto's enemies or certainly in some way to have favoured them, had handed over his city to Conrad and Liudolf, and thence, when he had understood that Otto would certainly come to besiege it, had withdrawn to the castle of Breisach, the lurking place, as the continuator of Regino puts it at the year 953, always of those rebelling against God and the king, to await there the outcome of events. This manner of acting which Frederick held can scarcely or not even scarcely be excused, as appears, nor indeed does Rotger seem to have approved it, as the things he writes here sufficiently declare. Eckhart meanwhile, in his Animadversions on Schannat's Diocese and Hierarchy of Fulda, num. 63, strives to excuse the things which Frederick did against Otto during the whole time of his episcopate; but although Frederick indeed seems to have excelled in piety and austerity of life, deservedly

yet, when all the things which both Eckhart himself and Widukind and the others cited by Eckhart write about him have been duly weighed, he seemed, I think, as is pronounced by the continuator of Regino at the year 954, at which he narrates the death of that archbishop, Reprehensible, in that wherever even one enemy of the king emerged, he at once placed himself second to him.

q. Why they did this can be gathered from what the continuator of Regino writes at the year 951.

r. Proverbs 20, verse 21.

s. What Rotger narrates here of Liudolf coming into his father's camp, a pledge having been received through hostages, is very probably that very thing which Widukind reports of Ekbert, given as a hostage to the besieged in order that free access might lie open from the city of Mainz, besieged for about two months, to Otto's camp. Go to the preliminary Comment., num. 54.

t. Namely Otto, who, his former wife Edith, Liudolf's mother, having been taken from among the living in the year 947, had appointed Liudolf his heir, as Widukind teaches at the beginning of book 3, and had also caused fidelity to be promised to him by oath by his magnates, as Flodoard testifies in his Chronicle at the year 953.

u. The Arnold of whom discourse is made here was the son of Arnulf or Arnold, duke of Bavaria, surnamed the Bad, who died in the year 938; he, since he was hostile to Otto because his father's duchy had not been conferred on him, easily joined himself to his enemies, abusing the power which he had received over Bavaria, as its count palatine, from Henry, duke of Bavaria, when the latter departed from Bavaria to Otto, about to besiege Mainz, with auxiliary forces of the Bavarians, and occupied in Liudolf's name several cities of Bavaria, which is distinguished here by Rotger with the name of kingdom, and above all the very famous one on the Danube which is called Ratispona or Reginoburgum, in the vernacular Regensburg. See the preliminary Comment., num. 57.

x. Of what kind was the agreement which Otto is here said at length to have accepted I nowhere find set forth; but I think that one of the conditions of the agreement was that Otto, having departed across the Rhine, should permit Liudolf free exit from the city of Mainz. This opinion is settled because, since Widukind disagrees, in the manner in which the siege of Mainz was raised, with Rotger and the anonymous writer of the Life of St. Ulric, as may be seen from what I adduced in the preliminary Comment., num. 57 and the two following, nothing at all seems to remain by which these two latter may be brought into any kind of concord with Widukind, except that it be determined that Otto, when he had understood that Regensburg and other cities of Bavaria had been occupied for Liudolf by Arnulf, raised the siege of Mainz, and followed thither Liudolf, who, having then come out of that city and been increased by the Bavarians who were falling away from Henry, had taken the road into Bavaria to join himself there to Arnulf.

y. Rotger here declares that Bruno was appointed by Otto after the siege of Mainz, and therefore, as I showed in the preliminary Comment., num. 60, in the year 953 about the beginning of September, not only duke or governor of Lotharingia but also as it were archduke or supreme governor; but although this is so, Bruno not only did not ascribe to himself, as appears, the title of archduke, but not even, contrary to what I thought in the preliminary Commentary, that of duke. Certainly in two ancient Charters signed with Bruno's name, of which one is extant in Martène, tome 2 of the ancient writers, the other in the same Martène, tome VII of the Most Ample Collection of ancient Monuments, our Saint assumes for himself the title of archbishop, but not either of duke or of archduke, nor have I been able to find any diploma or ancient monument in which he does otherwise; and since this is so, there was surely no reason why Meibom should infer, from the fact that the author of the Great Belgian Chronicle and other ancient writers attribute to Bruno the title of archduke, that it was used by our Saint himself, as I showed in the preliminary Comment., § V, proving at the same time that Bruno is not deservedly blamed by Meibom because he received the kingdom of Lotharingia to govern, and is wrongly traduced as the first of the bishops who allowed a duchy, or the office of a political prince, to be committed to him. Bruno indeed, whereas the bishops of Cologne had previously used not the right of the sword but only the jurisdiction of the pastoral staff, both obtained political power and the right of the sword over his diocese and transmitted them to his successors; but the bishops of other dioceses had already before enjoyed equal power and right over these, as may be seen in the already mentioned preliminary Comment., § V.

z. Surius and Leibniz also have justitiae, but the former of them thinks prudentiae should be read, while the latter would prefer constantiae.

aa. So Otto here of the prelate of the metropolis of Mainz, clearly declaring that the manner of acting which he held toward him was by no means approved by him.

bb. Rotger here honours Bavaria with the title of kingdom, of which, as it is permissible to gather from the words of Widukind recited in the preliminary Comment., num. 57, the enemies strove to deprive Henry, Otto's brother, set over it with the title of duke, and to inflict on him the other evils of which Otto here complains.

cc. On this exhortation of Bruno delivered to the magnates of Lotharingia see the preliminary Comment., num. 74 and following.

* perhaps ni

CHAPTER III.

He is ordained bishop, excellently orders the clergy and monks, procures peace in Lotharingia while the Hungarians meanwhile break into it, sends a synodal letter to Pope Agapetus at Rome, receives the pallium from there, and is zealous in seeking out sacred relics.

[Ordained bishop, he surpasses his predecessors by zealously doing whatever belongs to a bishop.] This done, he returned joyfully to Cologne. The time of ordination and the salutary joy of anointing were awaited. This done ^a, the joy of the people was renewed, and the Priest of the Lord the Saviour shone forth in the sight of all who had assembled, adorned with the stole of gladness. Afterwards the precious nard gave forth its odour, in the midst of the Church he opened his mouth. The sound of him entering into the house of the Lord God was heard according to the legal ordinance ^b. He was made an example and a lesson for all who obeyed him unto salvation. But what he did, how he taught, how he spent himself for the peace of the churches of God, is wonderful in act, difficult in the telling. For his daily works so surpassed the distinctions of his predecessors that everything he had done in enlarging or restoring churches, in translating relics and bodies of Saints into his diocese, in constructing public or private buildings, in ordering households and the affairs of the family of the holy Church of God, seemed almost beyond comparison with the works of others. For, as he understood above all who taught him, so he directed the keenness of his heart, the sharpness of his talent, the vigour of his mind to greater works of wisdom and virtue.

[35] Concerning religion first, and the worship of God, which the Greeks call Theosebeia, doing, he surpasses. according to the wisdom given to him, following canonical and Apostolic authority, he ordained that the multitude which was in the various congregations belonging to his honourable see should be of one heart and one soul: that superfluity of garments, inequality of morals, and whatever seemed effeminate and unbecoming in his church should be most diligently cut away by true spiritual circumcision, which is the beginning of wisdom: that all whom it concerned should live most intently for the divine ministries according to the rule prescribed to them, and should by no means reckon any other cause of their salvation. These and similar things he frequently treated with the venerable fathers and the elders of his clergy, and solicitously admonished them to keep watch together with him in the guarding of the Lord's flock. And because he was pressed by the fault of the times to treat these things with them more rarely than he wished, he burned more solicitously absent no less than present, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord. Without were fightings, within fears. He fought against the rage of the wolves desiring to lay waste the Church of God: he feared for the simplicity of the Lord's sheep, as the Apostle: I fear, he says, lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his cunning, so your minds be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus ^c.

[36] and at the same time vigorously, as duke or governor Thus with a trained breast he was most robust against all adversities, and in prosperity too such a mind by no means wavered, teaching all subject to him, by deeds as well as by frequent exercises, to be solicitous to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. He seemed by that singular agility of his mind almost to have exceeded that general saying that the mind, when it is divided among many things, becomes less for each. At the compulsion of imperial authority he undertook, as has already been said, to handle the business of the kingdom among the Lotharingians, and, although he distributed to each of the princes and magistrates his own burden ^d, yet there was nothing which he did not himself attend to, providing with the greatest vivacity of counsel what would be expedient for all. Some perhaps, ignorant of the divine dispensation, complain why a bishop handled the affairs of the people and the dangers of war, when he had undertaken only the care of souls. To these the fact itself easily gives satisfaction, if they have any wisdom, when they see so great and so unaccustomed a good of peace, especially in those parts, propagated far and wide through this Guardian and Teacher of the faithful people ^e; lest on this account they stumble, as it were in darkness, any more where the light is present. Nor indeed was a government of this kind new, or previously unused by the rulers of the holy Church of God; examples of which, if ^f he should seek them, are at hand.

[37] with the greatest good of the commonwealth, the affairs of Lotharingia, Let no one therefore call him culpable on this matter, since we read that holy Samuel and several other priests were at the same time also judges, and we read that the prophet Daniel condemned two elders to death ^g. But we, hastening to other things, leave to each one's own judgment what he may say of this pious Man, knowing that no one of sound mind strives to darken a most evident good with any reproach of cursing. For everything that he did was honourable and useful to our commonwealth. Nor did he by any means set this end for his deeds, that they should fly only through the mouths of men catching favour: but he so lived, so tempered his works before men, that he was a horror to the worst, an honour to the good. To all of these it became openly known that he desired a good work in the episcopate, in which he could not easily be reproved even by his envious rivals, except that this very thing advanced more to his praise, that he displeased such men. Held therefore by this wonderful occupation, the watchful workman of the supreme householder and supreme prelate, bearing in his hands a burning lamp, namely the exemplar of good work, led some willing, dragged others unwilling, to the things that are God's. But amid these things the ancient pest of the human race did not cease to scatter far and wide the venom of its envy through the works of the pious teacher, already sprouting in good hope.

[38] For as soon as the people of the Lotharingian kingdom, at length scarcely induced by the manifold exhortation of this great Man, into which meanwhile the Hungarians, about to lay waste Gaul, break in, were trying the blandishments of peace, very unaccustomed to them, and were for the most part refusing to give assent, to their own ruin, to those who promised themselves some safety only from civil dissension, the savage nation of the Hungarians, and such a barbarism as our land never felt, enticed by perverse citizens, having passed through Germany and very many provinces of Gaul, in which the noble people of the Franks long ago settled, poured itself wholly in, to lay waste everything with sword and fire ^h. In this battle line Cuno, who had previously been an excellent duke, served with his followers: whether in order to satisfy by this foul cruelty his hatred which he had conceived against the man of God Bruno, surely most gentle to the good, or in order to help whom he could in so great a danger, is uncertain: but the former was spread abroad more widely by opinion. For before also he had attempted all kinds of harsh things fraudulently against him, because his strength had failed, so that he invaded by guile the most opulent city of Metz ⁱ, made himself suspected by Cologne itself and the other fortresses of the kingdom, hurled insults, poured out threats. And afterwards he remained for some time in this same savagery in which he had long been: he left nothing untried by which he thought he could dissolve the covenant made among our people through the wisdom of its leader.

[39] For he was a man a little before of the highest fortune [administering, he often, despising dangers, restrains by piety alone those whom no force had been able to break:] and the highest power, but ignorant how it befitted to use prosperity. Since, after he abused it, he lost it, he raged beyond measure, impatient, against the good, but he was always so repulsed from his wicked attempts, God so disposing, that he repented not lightly that he had undertaken a great crime with such levity ^k. But the merciful and compassionate Lord spared in all things his Priest and the pious Provider of his people, and so ordered all things that very great dangers were often allayed without war and human ruin. Amid which he himself frequently, unafraid, either read intent on himself, or disputed about all the greatest matters, as if unaware of the pressing cares. It became known to nations and peoples at Trier, and in Alsace, with what constancy and security of mind he refuted the inconstant and rash movements of his adversaries, when he showed that those who boasted themselves most brave in the affairs of others were so feeble in their own ^l. And indeed those whom no battle line ever, no unhappy ^m harshness, made unwarlike and timid, the piety of this Man made so. For he was to be feared by counsel and by the multitude of good men, not by savagery, and because no one of the enemies watched so keenly for ruin as he himself for safety. And he was moved very little by fame and the judgment of the multitude: he used his own judgment for himself, and in what he approved as right, he wished to please not himself but God.

[40] he informs Pope Agapetus of his election, Accordingly, to comprise much in few words and to omit more: within and without, at home and in the field, the unwearied Warrior of the Lord, with the strength of mind more than of body, contended so long against the pestilent and restless, often even at the peril of his own life, that, as far as the fame of his name reached, he allayed wars, formed peace, strengthened zeal in all good arts, enlarged the grace of holy religion and of salutary quiet. Since, therefore, this humble lover of Christ and ardent emulator of the better gifts, the servant of the Lord Bruno, ought, according to the dignity of his see, to be distinguished also with the privilege of the Roman see and of apostolic blessing, and to be united with those who preserve ⁿ the sound doctrine handed down by blessed Peter the apostle, in the integrity of the Catholic faith, in true confession and the inviolable truth of preaching, he directed [r] his synodal letter ^o through Hadamar, the venerable abbot of the monastery of Fulda [p], to Rome to Agapetus, a Pope of wonderful holiness [q], in which it became known whose spirit he was of, and that he was a pastor chosen by the sheep, sent by the Lord [s], and he was there called the concordant fellow citizen of the Apostles, the chief and propagator of the precepts of the Lord. The envoy, returning thence with great alacrity of mind, then brought to the pious Pastor, to whom before this had been granted by grace, according to the prophet, the oil of joy for mourning [t], the pallium for the spirit of grief.

[41] [he receives the pallium from him through his envoy, and, relics of St. Pantaleon having been brought to him at the same time by him,] For the Spirit of God divinely inspired the wise-hearted man, intent more on the magnificent virtue of this sacrament than on the things that were visibly done, to raise his heart to spiritual hope or joy, lest he should be saddened in the labour which he felt to be imminent. For the heart which knows the bitterness of its own soul, a stranger will not intermeddle in its joy. These are the words of Wisdom [u]. The envoy, therefore, as we began to say, returning from Rome, hastened to bring good news to Cologne, bearing the sacred vestment sent by the universal Pontiff [x], which displays the sweet yoke of the Lord and his light burden, and that humble ministry itself which is dispensed under it, which the words of the Lord attest, who says: He who is greater among you shall be your minister; bearing at the same time relics from the very body of St. Pantaleon the martyr [y], and a privilege handed down by the authority of Apostolic sublimity, by which the priest of the Lord was permitted, contrary to custom, to be clothed with the same pallium as often as he wished [z], and, all things which were asked having been granted, he himself, for the greatness of his virtue and wisdom, was admitted into a share of his work, and almost into a sharing of so great a dignity. The joyful city hastened to meet him, the multitude ran together jubilant from every side, they assembled in the suburb near the ancient place where the church of the same precious martyr was still neglected and close to ruin. There the welcome burdens were laid down, then each was put back in its own place.

[42] [not long afterwards he founds a monastery distinguished by the name of this Saint,] That festive meeting at the same place, which afterwards in a short time, alas! became funereal, warns me to linger here a little. There this venerable vesture was received first, there last, once with a joyful, once with a mournful song. For the body of the religious priest, worthy of God, to be buried there, did not lose the insignia of his office [aa], which yet, as we believe, the soul carried with it spiritually, and therefore happily. By the secret counsel of almighty God, therefore, it was provided that the same place should be made illustrious on this first occasion for declaring the merits of the holy martyr, and should become such that this peaceable and wonderfully humble man of the Lord should choose it above all to await, lifeless, under the patronage of the same pious martyr, the day of the tremendous judgment and the glory of the future resurrection [bb], and, being more removed from the trouble of the city's unrest, he established there brothers watchful and solicitous in the divine praise, under the rule of monastic discipline, to serve the Lord [cc]: over whom he set an abbot named Christian, namely a steward of his own profession, and exceedingly learned in the law of the Lord, as befitted this order. To him, when ordained, he wrote this brief admonition from the parts of the West: Take care to be what you are called; do not degenerate into heathenism. Triumph earnestly in this, that it be not made antiquated, as before, but strive that one go from virtue to virtue.

[43] He was never so detained by the occupation of civil business (to which not his own desire but the need of the people drew him) that he did not flourish with that mind most lively for all things, [he gives himself wholly to religion and reading, holds luxury and pleasures in hatred,] intent especially on religion and on reading, in the study of which he seemed to die. To do this he kindled by his example and frequent admonition almost all whom he had before his eyes. But at those who did not so love this he grieved vehemently, and removed them, although otherwise they were his familiars, from the secret and friendly place of his grief, where he was wont to unfold himself to himself more freely, and therefore more diligently. The breast of the wise-hearted man was weary of royal luxury and of the enticements of jests and pleasures customary for the powerful, especially at this time. Whence, if ever, compelled in some manner by his own, he paid what he ought not, he generally wiped away this moderate excess with more abundant weeping. He feared the present and sweet life, and experienced it as bitter: but of the life which knows no care and languor there is no doubt that he thought very much before all things, who so clearly and many times discoursed of it both with his familiars and before the people committed to him.

[44] Young as he was, and surrounded by every pomp, I dare to say, he wished to be dissolved, only that he might be with Christ. he frequently indulges pious affections breathing the love of God, Hence assiduous tears, almost continual sighs, stolen prayers and sobs, sounding more clearly even in his very bed, as those testify from whom he could less conceal it even when he wished to lie hidden. How often did he set the day of death before the sight of his heart? How often did he break forth to this also with the office of his voice, which he had devised in his heart? How often have we heard him with vehement groaning prefer that which he hoped would come, yet not without grave trepidation, that, safe in the mercy of God alone, he might have escaped the stormy shipwreck of this world and might stand at last on the shore of inmost security [dd]? He was thought in some manner about to escape, so that he might flee as it were from death the whole of what flattered him in the delights of this world. Very many witnesses of his way of life survive: as often as they had perceived him in secret with contrite heart and humbled spirit, they could wonder more than imitate.

[45] For that popular man often lived as if solitary. [even at feasts abstemious, he shows himself a good example to all, meanwhile fleeing vain glory,] Wonderful to say: among the most joyful guests he himself, more joyful, frequently abstained. Soft and delicate garments, in which he had been nourished and brought up to manhood, he many times declined even in the houses of kings. Among his ministers and soldiers [ee] clad in purple and shining with gold, he himself put on a cheap tunic and rustic sheepskins. He vehemently spurned the delights of a soft bed. In the baths, with those washing and seeking brightness of skin, he scarcely ever washed. Which is the more wonderful because from his very cradle he had been brought up in such elegances and in royal pomp. And these things he did according to time and place, now openly, now more secretly, so that he might both escape human praise and yet, by doing this, offer an example to his subjects. For many profit by words, most by examples more. Among the mild and humble no one was humbler, against the wicked and proud no one more vehement. Him, as a terror, whoever could not be bound by benefit feared, native and foreigner alike, and by a right and most fitting order everyone to whom the fame of his greatness came was wont first to fear him, afterwards to love him.

[46] he seeks out sacred relics from everywhere with the greatest zeal Bodies and relics of Saints and memorials of every kind, that he might heap up patronage for his own,

and might by this celebrity spread the glory of the Lord through many peoples on this side and that, he collected from everywhere; for them he prepared places and services more abundantly with every expense and furnishing [ff]. Concerning each of which more would have to be said, if the promised brevity permitted. These are indications of unconquered faith, because he sought not his own things, but the things which are Jesus Christ's. With what diligence, with what fervour, with what joy he brought to Cologne the staff and the chain of St. Peter, the one from Metz, the other from Rome, all know; in whose honour he wonderfully enlarged his most honoured house, which from beautiful he made most beautiful [gg]. The renowned martyrs of illustrious fame, Patroclus, Eliphius, Privatus and Gregory, whose deeds are most magnificent, whose merits are glorious, whose patronage is safe; the precious relics of Christopher and of St. Pantaleon, as has already been said, to whom as patrons he more specially entrusted himself, as most pleasing gems and sweetest pledges, he drew with wonderful effort from various places to the most holy see of his church [hh]. What was done by the dispensation of this pious Provider [ii] concerning the translation of blessed Evergisl, third archbishop of the same see, is known to very many; whom, deposited in the church of the blessed virgin Cecilia with hymns and the celebration of divine praise, the religious people so venerates and honours that you would believe him present, repaying their daily services with more abundant benefits.

[47] [and at the same time he takes care that these be duly honoured by those to whom they came.] The other delights and gifts of salvation which he conferred in so short a time on the sons of his church cannot be weighed, cannot be estimated, which he gathered with religious affection and mind from almost all the regions and borders of the world, as if conjecturing what was to be, that, in view of the shortness of his days, he might confirm perennial gifts to the flock committed to him. Yet he took care of this with such zeal above all that both for those from whom they were carried away desire, and for those to whom they were brought joy, should be increased: so that both, provoked by the good odour of Christ, who is in the martyrs, nay rather which they themselves are, though by different affections, the former might seek more eagerly what they had neglected, and the latter might perpetually venerate what they rejoiced had been translated to them. For he who does not know how to love the good which he has, if it has been taken away from him, will perhaps learn to love the good which he lacks: and will have it, while it is absent, more fruitfully in memory, which he had uselessly for himself when present. In this way was fulfilled that word of the Gospel by which it is said: To everyone who has shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him who has not, even what he has shall be taken away from him [kk].

ANNOTATA.

b. Exodus 28, verse 35.

p. Namely from the year 927 until the year 956, as Brouwer teaches in the Antiquities of Fulda, page 284 and following.

q. He occupied the Roman Chair of St. Peter from the year 946 until the year 955.

r. Not only in the year 955, as Pagi contends in the Critica, but, as I showed in the preliminary Comm., § VI, in the year 953.

s. That is, he signified.

t. Isaiah 61, verse 3.

u. Proverbs 14, verse 10.

x. The pallium, distinguished here by Rotger with the appellation of the sacred vestment sent by the Pontiff, and wont to be sent by the Roman Pontiff to archbishops as a sign of the jurisdiction conferred on them, is described by Durandus, book 3 of the Rationale, chapter 17, num. 3, and from that writer by du Cange in the Glossary of middle and low Latinity; and concerning that sacred vestment, proper to the supreme Pontiffs, patriarchs, primates and metropolitans, Thierry Ruinart composed a historical Dissertation, inserted in his posthumous Works, published in the year 1724.

y. Of this holy martyr there has already been treatment with us at the 27th day of July, and the Commentary which we prefixed there to his Acts can be consulted, num. 43 and following, as I have already noted in the preliminary Comment., num. 118.

z. Thus surely no common privilege was imparted to Bruno, since it is read to have been granted only rarely to archbishops honoured by the Pontiff with the pallium that they might use it whenever they wished.

aa. For archbishops were to be buried with the pallium, with which, as an insignia of their dignity, they had been presented by the Pope.

bb. In Surius and Leibniz these following words, Not long afterwards there, as in a more secluded place, are found interposed between the word praestolari and the conjunction & which follows it, and since they are altogether required in order that the sense may come out complete, there is no doubt that it must be ascribed only to the carelessness of the copyist that they are absent from our codex.

cc. When Bruno did this I defined in the preliminary Comment., num. 119 and following.

dd. That Rotger also was a familiar of Bruno I showed partly from this text of his in the preliminary Comment., num. 13.

ee. The name miles here signifies the same as nobleman.

ff. How true this is everyone will easily understand who has turned over the Testament of the Saint, to be subjoined to his life.

gg. The church of St. Peter, of which Rotger speaks here, is even today the metropolitan and electoral church of Cologne.

hh. From where and when our Saint translated to Cologne the relics of most of the Saints here mentioned, and likewise of SS. Evergisl and Odo, I set forth in the preliminary Comment., § XVIII.

ii. The things which are still read after this word in this number are not extant in Surius, but in their place is put we have not thought it should be suppressed in silence, and then there follows a lengthy description of the translation of SS. Evergisl and Patroclus, omitted here by us on account of the things which have been said in the preliminary Comm., num. 14 and the two following, and chiefly because it is absent from the Life of Bruno inserted in our codex.

kk. Matthew 25, verse 29.

CHAPTER IV.

He founds and restores sacred places, diligently cares for his flock and the commonwealth, brings his nephew Liudolf back into favour with his father, calls the best men into counsel, and sets such men also over vacant churches.

[Monasteries, to which he prescribes the rule of the canonical life, he either prepares himself in various places or causes to be prepared by others,] Meanwhile, in many places, through the parishes of his bishopric, this faithful and prudent Servant of the Lord eagerly erected churches, monasteries and other buildings fitted ^a for the Lord his God and for the honour of his Saints, some from the foundations; some previously founded he nobly enlarged, others formerly destroyed he repaired ^b. In each of these he arranged with the provident art of his talent men who should serve almighty God under the rule of the canonical life ^c: and lest anything should be lacking to them according to the measure of their way of life, he provided by arranging it liberally. The monuments of which work and most wholesome zeal endure more lasting than bronze, established in the places where they were done, so that, to the praise and glory of Jesus Christ, they will never allow the memory of so great a Man to be obscured by any age. The same he transfused to foreign nations, and in the kingdom delegated to his providence he spread it abroad, partly by example, partly by his own work, partly by the varied quality of persons and by frequent admonition ^d. For he did not allow any of his own either to be occupied in vain or to grow torpid in inert leisure: laying down, as he was wont to say, that the idle herd must be kept away from the mangers, and, according to the Apostle, that he who does not work should not eat either ^e. All the good things which he did, which he taught, which he loved, cannot be written down one by one. So much matter will always remain over for those who attend to it that they themselves will surely have ceased, wearied, before they have completed what they undertake.

[49] he favours those leading the solitary life, Now indeed, in the preaching of the word of God, and in the subtlety of disputations on the sincerity of the scriptures, of what kind and how great he was we can admire, we cannot define: which things he poured out so copiously, in the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the doctrine which is according to piety, that no one hearing this and rightly understanding it doubted that he was full of the wisdom of God, through which all things were made. And that the keen searcher of the things which are Jesus Christ's might leave untried nothing that pertained to the use of divine worship, if he found any, either within the folds of his sheepfolds or outside, who, about to fight against the devil in single combat, sought the solitary life, these he received with all veneration and, fortified also with the charitable consolation of his exhortation, enclosed them in various cells of monasteries ^f, with the fitting testimony of the Church and with religious office, as was becoming, singly in some places, two together in others: to whom, however, no access to one another lay open except by speech only and sight. To these he solicitously ministered supplies, and whatever seemed necessary for human frailty, through the most faithful vicars of his administration, and especially on the feasts of the Apostles, as many as occurred in the year, he visited them individually with fitting gifts. Thus, according to the clear norm of Apostolic doctrine, he took care to provide good things not only before God but also before men ^g: so that men of whatever affection or condition, if they sought God, could either be proved or be instructed among his disciples.

[50] Concerning the handmaids of God who had been devoted to divine religion in the monastery of St. Mary, against some who censured his manner of acting here mentioned in certain and concerning the canons transferred to the church of St. Andrew the Apostle ^h, and whatever things of this kind there were, he did indeed leave no small scruple, but to those whose keenness of mind is not so vigorous that they are able to perceive clearly his sincere intention in his various works. Who surely, if they adverted that men are not chosen by God for the sake of the place, but the place for the sake of men, and, since obedience pleases God above sacrifice, would perhaps know that the sheep ought to hear the voice of the shepherd, and that that will be more ratified and acceptable to God which they follow through obedience than what they follow through their own will. But where there is zeal and contention, says James the Apostle, there is inconstancy and every evil work ⁱ. Likewise in this, that he expelled from the kingdom, as a plague of the good, certain wicked robbers of the country and of the citizens, where they would not be quiet and peaceable, and compelled them to go into exile, he surely consulted for them, though they knew it not. For the longer a worthless man lived, the heavier and longer the punishment he was preparing for himself.

[51] But when would the good be at rest, if no one resisted the fury of the wicked ^k? his manner of acting censured, is defended, God surely spared those to whom by his great patience and goodness he permitted this, that, absent, they should hear of the peace and state of their country what, present, they would never wish to see. Happy, if they came to know their good things at least in exile, and desired the country from which they cannot be expelled: where blessed are all the peacemakers, since they have been called sons of God. Such, therefore, through the grace of almighty God, was this man, that he was in no way roused either by hatred or by envy to persecute those who were such: nor was he held back by any hardness or cruelty from pitying or sparing the wretched: but as a solicitous pastor and truly a leader of the people of God he sought the salvation and advantage of all in every business, and strenuously fought that those whom he himself had led and taught in the way of God should not be seduced by the perverse and sent into error. And he was so far from savagery that for those also on whom he necessarily inflicted something bitter according to the quality of their deeds, he himself frequently wept bitterly: thus he was wont to rejoice with those who rejoiced, to weep with those who wept. For he too who said this ordered a certain man to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.

[52] When therefore the supreme day and the inescapable time were already near, [he laboured to strengthen the peace made at Arnstadt, and while into Bavaria again the Hungarians,] in which almighty God, propitious to the land of his people, avenging the blood of his servants, would render vengeance on their enemies: for ^l was beyond measure and altogether intolerable the pride of the most ferocious nation of the Hungarians, seduced (I believe) by the success of the previous year ^m. Since, as has been most truly said, before ruin the heart is exalted ⁿ, there fell all who work iniquity. This pressure impending on the Church was forestalled by the peace, agreed upon entirely in the royal palace which was held at Arnstadt ^o, and already in great part confirmed through the wisdom of our emperor and his brothers. And indeed it became known to tribes and tongues that God is not of dissension but of peace [p]: so great a salvation did he work for his people at the beginning of this. The emperor's spirit indeed was agitated within him, because he had no time to gather an army: but he had confidence through Christ toward God, who is able to save by few as by many [q]. Cuno was there, no longer a duke but a soldier, converted, as was thought, with his whole mind to peace, which a little before he had atrociously assailed, taming his limbs with haircloth, beseeching God with groans, as is reported, that, if such were his holy will, victory being granted to our king and his army, he would permit him to be slaughtered by the impious, to whom he had previously joined himself, so that he might be freed for ever from their company.

[53] against whom Otto moves arms with most happy outcome, The emperor ordained that a fast be proclaimed on the very vigil of St. Lawrence the martyr, which then was, through whose intercession he besought God himself to be a refuge for himself and his people. The purpose of the work undertaken refuses to set forth the war, undertaken at the first dawn of the holy festival, completed happily enough scarcely by evening twilight, God mercifully disposing it and fighting for his own; the pitiable death of Cuno after the victory, the most glorious triumph of the emperor, the very king of the barbarians, their dukes and princes captive, trophies most numerous throughout the whole breadth of the kingdom itself, right up to the borders of the same nation: all of which await the industry of a work of their own, to the praise and glory of the name of almighty God [r]. Let us, that we may return to our purpose from which we have turned aside a little, discuss what meanwhile the pious archbishop Bruno, always hating all malice and the untiring executor of justice, did.

[54] [they break in, he tries to soothe and raise up his nephew in order to provide for the country,] When he saw that he could not meet his lord and brother the great emperor with auxiliary forces on the appointed day, and at the same time was anxious lest perhaps the barbarians, avoiding battle, should turn aside into Gaul, the province committed to his jurisdiction, thinking that thus he would provide for the kingdom and thus serve the emperor's wishes more fully, he met Liudolf, the royal offspring, his nephew, soothed his troubled spirit with blandishments sweeter than honey, and promised him his former state, if he would attend more carefully to what was his own. After he perceived that the medicinal antidotes of his words and exhortations were not, as before, turned aside by him with oblique evasions, but were tasted with more than usual eagerness and received into the inmost parts of his breast, he soon invited him very pleasantly to the venerable place of his bishopric, namely Bonn [s], received him more pleasantly still, and, not unmindful of the royal dignity, regaled him with every pleasure worthy and suitable for both and most agreeable to all who were present. While they were still together, they received messages concerning the things which were done in the warlike expedition, or rather by divine power. The uncle pressed on to console his nephew more fully.

[55] [and afterwards he takes care that Italy be committed to him by his brother, who comes to Cologne and holds an assembly there,] And it came to pass in a short time, at the prompting of this counsellor, that the emperor delegated the whole of Italy to his son, who had been lost and was found, and, which was greater, bestowed upon him most firmly his paternal affection. There, while he most pleased the people and aspired to the way to Olympus, suddenly that most perfect flower and most secure strength of the kingdom departed from the midst [t]. But his father, the emperor and ever magnificent conqueror, having received consolation after mourning, joined his old intimacy with his brother by a new familiarity. He came to Cologne. There he delighted himself not so much in fraternal delicacies as in mutual sight of him,

in conversations, and in all the most pleasant intercourse altogether. Nor was there lacking there the stern censure of judgment against the wicked and troublesome citizens of the kingdom, and likewise the gentle liberality of a pious lordship toward the good and mild. Concerning the state of the kingdom and concerning its affairs, to be defended and extended, counsel was taken in common diligently and vigorously; it was provided with the greatest counsel that matters to be sanctioned should be dealt with, and others cut away, most cautiously [u]. Meanwhile the pious pastor Bruno, asserter of truth, propagator of the Gospel, sought out with the greatest diligence active and industrious men, who should each in his own place defend the commonwealth with fidelity and strength, and he diligently took care that neither counsel nor resources should be lacking to them.

[56] As many also of the princes and regional chief men, [diligently caring for the commonwealth and his flock, he calls the best men into counsel,] and of the others whom the ordering of the kingdom concerned, as had with full faith consented through his most wholesome admonitions to a covenant for the common advantage of all good men, these he himself held among his chief and intimate friends, and reconciled them especially to the emperor his brother, weighing what was said not rashly by a certain wise man: "The good man, where you neglect him, becomes more sluggish, or the bad man more wicked." Henry, archbishop of Trier, a man of great merit and the highest uprightness, who succeeded Rutpert, the magnificent prelate, who died at Cologne in a grievous pestilence when the emperor too was there [x], and William also, an archimandrite of illustrious and most welcome excellence, his nephew, the successor of Frederick, prelate of Mainz [y], both excellent, both perfectly instructed in the law of the Lord, most closely joined to the emperor, the one by kinship, the other by uprightness, both by familiarity, he himself also honoured above all with the highest veneration. These men, therefore, so illustrious, so certainly wise and religious, and learned in all good arts, he frequently called into counsel, lest perhaps he himself by himself, as human things are, should anywhere stray from the path of truth: these we have seen together with him not only in reading, counsel and disputation, but also in the battle line, providing good things not only before God but also before men.

[57] For there was in the Western borders of the Lotharingian kingdom as it were an untamed barbarism, and setting such men also over vacant churches, that which seemed the offspring of the Church, envying the happiness of others no less than its own salvation, despising the blandishments of fatherly exhortation, scarcely feeling the terror of power. Who, if they were left to their own right, would seem perverse to their own and most evil to themselves. But he before all things used a provident government of discretion, so that, according to the quality of places and times, in the preferment of pastors at the command of our most wise emperor, he might consult for the peace and tranquillity of the Lord's flock: preferring indeed those to the rest to whom it was by no means unknown what is the office of a pastor, what is the vice of a hireling, what is to be done or hoped in a ministry undertaken, what in forced service: some, that as it were curtains of hyacinth they might adorn the inner parts of the house of the Lord: others, that as it were cloaks of haircloth they might keep off from without the violence of tempests. It is pleasing to recall a certain pious and praiseworthy deed of this pious Father, which he is known to have accomplished in the very beginnings of his priesthood, so that, instead of mourning and the spirit of grief, he might rouse hope of salvation in the hearts of the oppressed: although this very thing, through the lack of those who divide rightly, was exposed to the calumniating tongue. For what does envy not pervert, than which no madness seems greater?

[58] [that Ratherius be created bishop of Liège, and, cast down from that see a little later,] For Ratherius, ordained prelate at Verona, which is a city of Italy, when, from some slight suspicion, as is the custom of that nation, he had been expelled from the honour of his own see, was incardinated by his great industry, according to the statutes of the canons, in the vacant chair of Liège [z]. Which indeed, on account of the abundant learning and copious eloquence with which he seemed to flourish among the most wise, was thought likely to be very profitable not only to the same church over which he presided, but also to many others round about. At the same time, because in those parts, through zeal and contention, whence inconstancy and every evil work are wont to arise, even certain priests of the Lord very often, which is shameful to say, trusting more than was right in earthly power, scandalized the unskilled people: the lord Bruno, often mentioned and often to be mentioned, upon whom the care of administering the whole kingdom already lay, thinking, as was true, that this man, previously cast out and neglected, would by so great a benefit be brought into that covenant of faith and truth so that he could be seduced by no one, believed that he could at last stop the mouths of those speaking hostile things if no occasion of scandal could be found in their Bishop. But the sinister party prevailed to its own ruin; whatever was done for their salvation, this they reckoned pestilential to themselves. Why say more? They erred, they raged, nor did they cease until they had satisfied their cruelty and wickedness by his expulsion.

[59] [he takes care that he be restored to the see of Verona, from which he had previously been driven,] All hope of his restoration was taken away. For a most grievous conspiracy was made, which it seemed could not be appeased unless he were both entirely removed from here and Baldric, who was sprung from the lineage of the magnates of that land [aa], were substituted in the same place. To this bilge innumerable tempests flowed together from every side; the ship of the Church tossed, the oarsman labouring; the helmsman himself could not bear the onset of the stormy tempest. He yielded therefore, he yielded, lest he should be overcome by evil, but that he might overcome evil with good. He yielded to the will of his adversaries, that he might slay them with their own sword for himself. They bound themselves of their own accord by the faith of Oaths that, if they deserved to receive the bishop whom they were asking for, they would thenceforth defend with unconquered firmness the authority of the Church and the imperial right [bb]. But lest anything should remain unfinished in business of this kind which might stir a scruple in the curious investigations of others' affairs, he brought it about with the emperor his brother that the ancient see of the church of Verona should be restored to Bishop Ratherius, who had now twice been deprived [cc]. There are many other things, and almost infinite, which in a short time he most vigorously wrought in the things of God and for the salvation of the whole people, not only among the people of the Lotharingians, which he had taken up entirely to govern, and which also, as is seen at present, he rendered from uncultivated and wild pacified and gentle, but also throughout the whole kingdom of his most glorious emperor. For he had a care altogether in common with his lord and brother, each of whom deservedly gloried in the other in the Lord.

[60] Moreover Lothar, his sister's son, sprung from the ancient lineage of kings, when he was vehemently oppressed by his cousins, [he helps Lothar, his sister's son, and tries also to mitigate the barbarism of the Northmen.] he wonderfully rescued and exalted, and did not cease until he had established him as king in the place of his father, and laid prostrate under his yoke the sons of Hugh, greater and more powerful than he, and all the princes of that kingdom, so providing for all that under the governance of one rule all alike might be both safe from enemies and at peace with one another [dd]. There threatens that kingdom, which must not be passed over in silence, a savage calamity, the nation of the Northmen, than whom none are more practised in piratical robbery. To these the people, accustomed to dissension and civil ruin, had already in great part been a prey. What had survived them they had consumed among themselves in domestic sedition; but the provident dispensation of our Ruler brought it about, who, since he understood that he was a man, thought nothing human alien to himself, brought it about, I say, that all who loved quiet and peace fled to him as to a most secure harbour; he also mitigated the savagery and long intolerable ferocity of the barbarians themselves, since at the same time their king Harold too, with a great multitude of his nation, submitting his neck to Christ the King of kings, rejected the vanity of idols [ee].

ANNOTATA.

g. Romans 12, verse 17.

place of Rotger it appears; and I think that of their number were those who, as we saw in the preliminary Commentary, num. 133, said that Reginar, count of Mons, was banished by Bruno not to provide for the commonwealth and religion but to serve the interests of his sister Gerberga.

p. 1 Corinthians, chapter 14, verse 33.

q. Book 1 of Kings, chapter 14, verse 6: It is not difficult for the Lord to save either by many or by few.

r. The battle mentioned here by Rotger, in which the Hungarians were laid low with a huge slaughter, was fought at the river Lech not far from the city of Augsburg on the 10th day of August, and therefore on the very day, as Rotger here records, sacred to St. Lawrence, in the year 955.

s. This is the very well-known city on the Rhine, even today the seat of the archbishop and elector of Cologne.

t. Namely in the year 957, as Hepidannus and others record.

u. Rotger here indicates a placitum held by Otto at Cologne, and that is undoubtedly no other than that which Flodoard declares in his Chronicle Otto held there in the year 956 after Easter.

x. The continuator of Regino writes thus at the year 956: At that time a grievous pestilence was raging through all parts of the kingdom, which carried off everywhere an innumerable multitude of the people. Of which there died Robert, called here by Rotger Rutpert, by others also Rotbert, archbishop of Trier, and Hadamar, abbot of Fulda. To whom Henry succeeded in the bishopric and Hatto in the abbacy.

y. To Frederick, archbishop of Mainz, taken from among the living about the end of the year 954, William was appointed successor by the vote of all in the assembly of Arnstadt, a plainly excellent man, son of Otto, not by Queen Edith, but by a Slavonic mother. Consult the preliminary Comment., num. 89.

z. In the preliminary Comment. I treated of Ratherius first at num. 33 and following, and then of his promotion to the see of Liège at num. 80 and the two following, and the things which I adduced there prove that this happened in the year 954, to which it is tied also by the Saxon chronographer; and although there seems no doubt that Ratherius was canonically promoted to that see, yet Rotger, when he writes here that he was expelled from the see of Verona only on account of a slight suspicion, declares that he had not sufficiently ascertained the reason for which this was done. For Ratherius, as Liutprand reports in book 3 of the History, chapter 14, had been cast into exile from Verona to Pavia or Ticinum by King Hugh in the year, as the Saxon chronographer teaches, 933, because he had called the Bavarians into Italy, and he himself confesses, in his letter to Pope John XII in d'Achery, tome 1 of the Spicilegium, edition of the year 1723, page 372, that he was thrust by him into a certain little tower at Pavia not without his own fault.

aa. Sigebert makes Reginar, count of Mons, his uncle, and it is agreed among all that he was born of a most noble family.

bb. Almost all that Rotger narrates here of Ratherius from num. 58 up to this point is related again, but in chapter 23, in almost the same words in which he does it, by Folcuin, abbot of Lobbes. Therefore Mabillon pronounces, in Benedictine Century V, page 481, that it is uncertain whether the latter drew what he writes from Rotger or, on the contrary, Rotger from Folcuin; but see the Annotations which I subjoined to chapter 3, at letter h.

cc. This was done, as appears, in the year 963 or the following.

dd. How the things which Rotger writes here of Lothar and of the sons of Hugh the Great, count of the Parisians, are to be understood I set forth in the preliminary Comment., num. 173 and following.

ee. The Northmen and their king Harold, mentioned here by Rotger, about whom I discussed some things in the preliminary Comment., § X, I showed in the same place are not to be confused with the Northmen whom, together with their princes, the Saxon chronographer and annalist report Bruno took care to have baptized in the year 957; but it remains that I should now examine here in a few words, which I did not do there, who and of what kind these latter Northmen were. Liutprand, in book 4 of the History, chapter 7, beginning a discourse on the three sons of Henry the Fowler, writes thus: The third … Bruno by name, whom his holy father, because the Northmen had altogether destroyed the church of Utrecht, wished to fight for its recovery; but since Bruno, when his father Henry the Fowler died, had scarcely entered, from what was said above, the twelfth year of his age, it is not probable that he wished what is reported in the just recited text of Liutprand, nor do the things which Rotger writes above at num. 8 and the two following permit it to be believed that Bruno fought against the Northmen while his father was living and willing it; and since these things are so, I think that an error crept into Liutprand's text through the carelessness of a copyist, and that for the word Pater the word Frater should be substituted, and so too Molanus seems to have thought today in the Birthdays of the Saints of Belgium. No ancient writers different from him anywhere record, indeed, that Otto wished what Liutprand says in the words transcribed here above; but not all the things which Otto did have been committed to writing, and in order that both what Liutprand says in the place just cited and what, as has been said, the Saxon chronographer and annalist write of the Northmen washed in the sacred waters through Bruno's care may be understood to be consonant with the truth, it seems altogether to be required that it be believed that Bruno, when, the city of Utrecht, which had been destroyed by the Danes, having already been restored, and King Harold having been converted to the faith with his Northmen, other Northmen, perhaps Norwegians, had again in the year 957 broken into the neighbouring region, moved arms against them, his brother Otto willing it, and, when they had been compelled to yield, took care that no small number of them, as well as their magnates, converted to the faith, should be washed in the sacred waters.

CHAPTER V.

He sends auxiliary forces to Otto, who had set out for Italy; he goes forth to meet him returning thence, celebrates with him an assembly and Pentecost at Cologne; having set out for Compiègne to reconcile his nephews, he dies at Reims, and, carried to Cologne, is buried in the church of St. Pantaleon.

[To Otto, set out for Italy after his son had been commended to him, he sends auxiliary forces,] The emperor had a son, still very young, of most delicate disposition and most upright pleasure ^a, a hostage of peace and the glory of the people; him, commended to the archbishops, his Uncle and his brother ^b, the emperor had left for the guarding of the Cisalpine kingdom, as he was about to set out for Rome and to order the affairs of all Italy; being himself about to be Caesar, he established him as king, elected with the highest consent by all the people, and Archbishop Bruno, William and Henry and the other priests of the Lord anointed Otto, his father's namesake, as king in the palace of Aachen ^c, and the people exulted with the greatest rejoicing, saying: May the king live for ever. The brothers were then separated from one another, a pair ever unconquered: and while the emperor crossed the Pennine Alps ^d, there remained on this side, admired and longed for on both sides with incredible affection, the pious pastor and archbishop Bruno. Not long after, because it was not permitted to go himself in person, he sent to his lord and brother auxiliary forces, not light-armed troops, from the people of the Lotharingians. Over these presided Duke Godfrey, whom he himself had brought up, a wise and religious man, most loving of peace, most observant of equity, serving the emperor at that time to his wish, pleasing to all ^e. He at the same time was seized by a fever and expired in great hope of future rest. Of whose innocence the pious father Bruno, as it were the witness and confidant of his life, being in some manner secure, when there was talk of money to be dispensed for the relief of his soul, asserted that he did not greatly need such things.

[62] Moreover his brother awaited the emperor's return anxious night and day, [he goes forth to meet him returning thence, and, Pentecost having been celebrated with him at Cologne,] and joyfully went to meet him as he returned in all glory ^f. For he judged that with him were brought back his eminent virtue, his dignity, and his faithfulness and continence in the business which he had carried on: and at the same time with him the hope of leisure and tranquillity of minds, judgments, laws, with the concord of the people, the authority of the king and of the princes. In all whose counsels, since he himself thought of nothing else day and night but the salvation of the people, he took part, and excelled among the first. He was for him a most weighty author for establishing, a most faithful ally for procuring, a most valiant helper for perfecting the commonwealth. When therefore, in most holy zeal, the emperor was in the thirtieth year of his reign, his Brother in the twelfth of his pontificate, having scarcely yet passed the fortieth of his age, celebrating holy Pentecost together at Cologne, than which no greater glory has been granted to mortals, they were present to one another amid the holy Offices of the solemn days, together with their divine mother, their sister the queen, their nephews, and their sons the kings, and all that family beloved of God, and all the senators of the kingdom [g].

[63] For it is established that no place ever flourished with so great a celebrity, he sets out for Compiègne to bring his nephews into concord, with so great a splendour of every kind of men, ages and orders. This conjunction, therefore, of the most glorious Caesar Augustus and his brother, the supreme and incomparable man Archbishop Bruno, faithful and pleasing to God in every will and work, this agreement in administering and conducting well every advantage and honourable thing, this most pleasant fellowship of life and of all duties, cruel death, horrible death, death, I say, alone sundered. And indeed, although nothing seemed more atrocious, yet there could be nothing that would have sundered it more innocently. When therefore the supreme prelate Bruno had left the company of his lord and brother, going toward the East ^h, first rushing into kisses and weeping abundantly, and had looked upon all things pacified and quiet within the bounds of the kingdom entrusted to him, giving thanks to God, he again and again admonished all his own, clergy and people, of the things which were to be done, and presently to Compiègne in the West

[64] Intent on this business he began to be ill, and, detained in the city of the people of Reims by grievous bodily trouble, on the fifth day at length after the sickness invaded him, it came upon him ^k. During which days, on the road no less than in lodging, he falls ill, and, detained at Reims by the trouble of the disease, he was refreshed by assiduous reading, with almost no other food. And being asked familiarly by Bishop Wicfrid, as he himself is witness, by the heaviness of what illness he was pressed, he answered that it was not illness but the dissolution of his body. The bishop of the aforesaid metropolis ^l, therefore, received him most worthily, treated him most kindly. And on the festival indeed of St. Remigius, which then fell ^m, he was somewhat easier, so that his dependants and companions had hope of his recovering his health. But he himself, having called the bishops who had come together with him, Theoderic and Wicfrid ⁿ, asked that they would grant him the opportunity of making his testament and would lend him their help. When they excused themselves very sorrowfully and tearfully, promising the desired health in a short time, he, with the energy of mind with which he always flourished, resisting on the contrary, said: While there is time, let this be done: many other things remain for us to do after this.

[65] there, his testament having been made, and his confession, of whose kinds Then the infirmity grew heavier and prevailed: and now his breathing, the passage of the throat being closed, showed beforehand the weariness of the vital parts. Then, a notary having been called, before the aforesaid witnesses he himself dictated his testament: all the things which he had he alienated from himself, while he still lived in good hope, he dispersed, he gave to the poor: and what he had gathered for ordering the outward buildings of the churches of God, he shortly, according to the wisdom bestowed on him, his surety having been made and confirmed, divided fittingly and worthily of his profession. Whoever seeks to read this himself will have it at hand written below ^o. His talent, which, polished with a clean heart and continual exercise, he rendered illustrious by the gift of God, had not failed him at the last, as clearly appears in his words [p]. After this the poor man of Christ, having gathered the strength of his mind, again called the bishops apart. When they were sitting by him, and the inner doors had been closed, he poured forth these words with overflowing groaning and flooding weeping: There seem to me to be three kinds of confession, by which the heart of man lays itself open to the Lord his God, the searcher of hearts: not that he, who knows everything [q], should know himself more truly, and either praise God in good deeds or accuse himself in evil deeds.

[66] he speaks some things, Since this ought always to be done (for so we are commanded to watch, lest the thief coming creep in upon us when unwary to bring us loss), then, when the Lord of the house knocks through the trouble of infirmity, it is necessary that the mind should raise itself with what strength it can: with what intention it may, should rise up to its judge as he approaches, earthly desires being lulled to sleep, should burn with hope toward things above, and though it has not merited eternal good things, should by no means despair: should distrust itself, trust in the Lord. Behold, beloved brothers, as you see, the door of my breast is being knocked upon: I am called to render account of my work; if you can do anything, I beg, bring help, stretch out the hand of your prayer. Uncertain, I am borne between hope and fear, so that I am not inclined more readily to either side, and this indeed must be striven for. But what is my strength? I await the remedy of mercy, I am in the hand of my Creator, I wait that what pleases him be done concerning me. It is good to confess to the Lord: confession and magnificence are his work. For nothing good can be done except by his working. And there is a certain confession, not deploring sins, yet imploring mercy, of which it is said by the Psalmist in the person of the Lord: The sacrifice of praise shall honour me [r], and there is the way by which I will show him my salvation [s]. This salvation, that is, the Lord Jesus, I confess with the mouth, and I believe with the heart that God raised him from the dead. In him I recognize all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden.

[67] No one can say this Lord Jesus except in the Holy Spirit. having been uttered and the sacred Viaticum received, Before him is all my desire, and my groaning is not hidden from him. I said, I will confess against myself my injustices to the Lord, which is the second kind of confession, lamenting in sins. The third, which the blessed James the Apostle commends: Confess, he says, your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be saved [t]. This I wish to do with you, my lords and brothers, this I anxiously seek. And I hope, because we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation for our sins. Then, after he had poured himself out wholly before the Lord with these words, he sought the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood, not unaware of the power of the same Sacrament. When it had been brought, that Man of the Lord showed, prostrate in body, what he felt in mind. And refreshed by this vital nourishment, stronger in hope, he was put back on his bed, and after that he remained for not fewer than five days in the same languor of body and fervour of spirit.

[68] And when the solemn day of the blessed martyrs Gereon and his companions [u] was already turning, [after an address delivered to his own, in the night after the feast of St. Gereon] suddenly rapt in an ecstasy of mind, he roused huge mourning among the bishops, dukes, counts, and all who were present, because they thought that the dissolution of his most beloved body was presently at hand. He, as he was wont, recovering a little, quieted the tumult with his hand, soothed the weeping and roaring of those standing by, called by name the greater and those more worthy of this last address, saying: Do not, do not, brothers, be saddened at this my lot. By the judgment of divine reproof this condition has been imposed on all mortals. It is not permitted to be unwilling for what the Almighty has decreed inevitable: to these sad things joyful ones shortly succeed. Thither, life not consumed but changed for the better, I go, where I shall soon see men far more numerous and more illustrious than I have ever seen. Having spoken no more than these words, he presently laid back his weary limbs on the bed. A little after, while the light was still whole, he completed the accustomed Office of evening praise, and, the night being already deep, Compline, himself with the brothers; he commended himself more attentively to the Lord his God and to the prayers of his Saints, as one about to go presently, fortified his journey with that great Viaticum, namely the holy and unique pledge of our redemption, and sealed with a blessing the bishops, and himself, and those who were present.

[69] Thus with an intent mind he awaited the tremendous hour of his dissolution at the command of his Creator. midnight being past, he departs from among the living; and to Cologne Then [x], midnight being past, turning with what effort he could to Bishop Theoderic, his nephew [y], Lord, he said, pray; and presently, amid those chanting psalms to the Lord and praying and weeping exceedingly, he breathed forth his spirit [z]. What could not die in him was given back to the Creator: but his lifeless body, as he himself had ordered while alive, his unwearied companions, lifting it on a bier on the same day, that is, the fifth day before the Ides of October, and carrying it, arrived on the ninth [aa] day afterward at Cologne, the august metropolis of his see. Of whom some still testify, with an oath and affirming it in a wonderful manner, that on that long journey they felt almost no weariness or trouble of labour under so great a burden. And whence they went, wherever they went, whatever nations, whatever lands they touched, all, wonderfully, esteemed, with what faculty each could, the merits of this Man worthy of God, to use their words, toward the commonwealth, toward the emperor, toward kings, toward princes, toward all the people, as eminent.

[70] carried, and there, amid the greatest mourning of all, And now, when the funeral procession of such a kind was approaching Cologne, and fame spread this all too hateful news through the whole people of the Lotharingian kingdom, all were so undone, especially the nurslings of that most holy see and Church, as though the departure and death of so great a Pastor were the funeral of the Church itself. For according to the amplitude of the former consolation, then the force and greatness of the grief prevailed. All wept, most until the tears were dried up in them: many, stunned with frozen limbs, forgot that they themselves lived in so great a misery of this bereavement. Before all, he afflicted himself with mourning and tears, but more with the inner grief of his heart, who loved this Father of the country beyond the rest, Folcmar [bb], a deacon of memorable uprightness and industry, and the prudent and faithful protos [cc] and steward of this holy Church, by which name the father himself was wont to honour him, as being his vicar and most closely joined to him in every business [dd]. On him alone then the mouths, eyes and minds of all the desolate were turned: by the will and desire of all of whom he had certainly already been elected prelate, though not yet designated. To him, absent, the pious father, because he knew him by name, delegated with the greatest care all his goods to be distributed to the needy and to the churches of his bishopric, foreknowing (I believe) the future succession [ee].

[71] deposited for a time in the suburban church of the Holy Apostles There is near the walls of the city a church, humble indeed in structure and work, but distinguished by the name of the Apostles, in whose veneration it is said to have been consecrated. In it they covered the lifeless body of their Pastor, deposited there, with the insignia of the priesthood: to which access lay open to few, except bishops and certain priests of the second order. Thence presently lifted up, the clergy and people, redoubling song and lament mingled together, carried it into the church of the most blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, where the venerable see was [ff]. That night they passed sleepless, most solemnly in vigils and psalmodies, their bodies scarcely refreshed. And when morning came, the whole city assembled, and an innumerable multitude of those who, terrified by the sudden news, had come from various provinces and kingdoms. The archbishop of Trier was present, and the prelate of Liège [gg]. There came forward into the midst the bishops Theoderic and Wicfrid, witnesses of his last sanction and of the message which he sent to his sons serving God there.

[72] on the following day, his testament having been read, in St. Pantaleon's His testament was read in the venerable presbytery before the altar of most holy Peter: there were also recounted those things which he had asked and commanded with a mind pious indeed and solicitous in the things of God, but had not thought fit to have written: namely that throughout that whole year on each never less than a whole pound should be paid out for the uses of the poor [hh]. Then, according to the request and desire of his heart, with which he burned in his last moments, the most holy clergy was persuaded to permit with a willing mind his body to be transferred to the monastery of monks which, in honour of the holy martyrs Pantaleon, Cosmas and Damian and Quirinus, outside the walls of the city, he not only then built, but even until now builds by his counsel and providence, and does not cease to order, God governing the insignia of his good will through the merits of the Saints, whose relics also he brought thither [ii], and whose patronage he provided for himself by religious and sedulous supplication. All assented with most ready will to all that he commanded:

that alone was persuaded with the greatest difficulty, that his lifeless body should be led away from the chief place of his most sacred see.

[73] They mourned as though destitute a second time, not daring, after long deliberation, as it bore, the church, he was buried on the 19th day of October. to resist his most glorious will even in this. The Pastor was therefore led away from his sheep, with what laments and complaints cannot be told, and was buried in the church of the blessed martyrs on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of November. Where even to this day it is clearly shown how great he was in the eyes of all good men. After they lost him, good and bad recognized more clearly what he had been. They frequent the place of his burial, they vie in recalling what he did, what he taught, how he lived, how he died. Now they pray for him, now they ask that he himself would deign to pray for them: they do not seek signs, they attend to his life, they recall his teaching, they promise themselves or their posterity something great in him to come [kk]. Finally, all are roused by his monuments to the praise and glory of God, as formerly through him living, so now through him dead.

ANNOTATA.

p. Indeed, if one regards the words in which the Saint's testament is conceived, both as it is extant in our codex and as it has hitherto been published, it can by no means, as everyone by whom it has been read through will easily recognize, be an argument that our Saint had a talent much polished by continual exercise; but the variant readings alone which occur in all its exemplars give a handle for suspecting that this ancient instrument, by which the Saint declared his last will, has been miserably disfigured and dislocated by copyists in its very words.

q. In this place these following words, may know more clearly, but, as he who knows himself little, are inserted in Surius and Leibniz, and since they are altogether required in order that the sense may be complete, they were undoubtedly omitted in our codex through the sole carelessness of the copyist.

r. The things which are interposed here between the word honorificabit and the words a mortuis are not extant in our codex; but since it is manifest that they were omitted by a yawning copyist, I have supplied them from Surius and Leibniz.

s. Psalm 49, verse 23.

t. James 5, verse 16.

u. These are venerated on the day immediately preceding, at which they have therefore already been brought into our Work.

x. Leibniz: and in; but Surius agrees with our codex.

y. That is, unless I am most vehemently mistaken, cousin. For a cousin of Otto

was Theoderic, bishop of Metz, of whom discourse is made here, as the continuator of Regino clearly declares at the year 965, and Theoderic himself expressly makes himself Bruno's cousin in a Charter which is recited in full by Meurisse in the History of the bishops of Metz, page 326.

z. In what year of Christ and in which year of Bruno's age and episcopate, and likewise on what day, this was done, I showed clearly, unless I am mistaken, in the preliminary Commentary, num. 221 and the four following.

aa. The Surian and Leibnizian edition has octavo eighth; and that nono ninth is wrongly marked in our codex, in which, no differently than in these two editions, the Saint is asserted to have died on the fifth day before the Ides, or the 11th day of October, is clear even from this, that, as is reported both in both those editions and in our codex itself, the Saint was buried at Cologne Agrippina on the 15th day before the Kalends of November, or the 19th day of October, after he had been brought there the day before, and this could not be true if he had been brought to Cologne only on the ninth day after he died, even if it be determined that he was brought there on the ninth day after death, the very day on which he died being counted in. The matter will be evident to one who reckons.

bb. This is that very Folcmar to whom Rotger above in the Prologue inscribed the Life of our Saint, composed by him at the request of this immediate successor of Bruno in the see of Cologne.

cc. This word, as it seemed to du Cange in the Glossary of middle and low Latinity, signifies here the same as primicerius, concerning whose dignity in cathedral churches see the same du Cange at that word.

dd. That Folcmar was most closely joined to Bruno in every business is declared also by the History of the translation of St. Evergisl, brought by the interpolator into the Life of our Saint in Surius, chapter 27.

ee. Bruno therefore appointed Folcmar executor of his testament.

ff. Namely the chair of the episcopal church of Cologne.

gg. Namely Thiederic, or Theoderic, and Euracrus, of whom the former had succeeded Henry in the see of Trier about the beginning of the year 965, the latter Balderic in that of Liège about the year 960.

hh. Surius and Leibniz read better: That throughout that whole year on each day never less than a whole pound of Denarii, etc.

ii. Bruno therefore enriched the monastery of St. Pantaleon, of which we dealt in the preliminary Comm., num. 118 and the four following, not only with relics of St. Pantaleon but also of other Saints.

kk. Thus Rotger not obscurely declares that Bruno, who is honoured by some writers also with the appellation of Great on account of the greatness of his deeds, left behind him among many no slight fame of uprightness and holiness.

TESTAMENT

From our Codex, formerly of the Vallicella, PMS. 159, collated with the editions of Miraeus and Leibniz.

Bruno, archbishop of Cologne. (S.)

BHL Number: 1468

By Rotger.

Bruno, servant of Christ, to his sons at Cologne serving God. The things which I have brought my mind to concerning the dispensing of the goods which the divine Munificence has committed to me, I have judged it most fitting to have strengthened by your judgment and supported by your testimony ^a, if God should not permit me to communicate these things to you in person, by a writing carried to you ^b.

[2] Wherefore, by the judgment of our brothers Theoderic and Wicfrid ^c, who are themselves also your nurslings, resolve all things, rightly, God willing, transact all things [*] ^d, and ^e whatever of treasure has been brought into the church by our wealth, whatever is guarded under the keys of this Evizo, an illustrious man, Keimeliarch ^f of St. Peter, except if anything has not yet been brought back by the ministers, lest anything should seem to have been separated from the church, under the witness of Christ and of the Church before the altar of St. Peter, openly, in the presence of the lord Poppo, protos [g] and steward of our church, having been gathered together and inspected with diligent reckoning, the golden vessels and all the more precious things, let them be consecrated in perpetuity for perpetual use in the ministry of the holy Mother of God Mary and of Bl. Peter the Apostle in the church itself.

[3] The golden cup ^h, the seal ⁱ and the Greek dish [k] which are with us, to blessed Pantaleon. Besides, the daily candlesticks which are in our service, the silver horseman given by the archbishop of Mainz, ten best palls, ten silver vessels of the better ones, a hundred pounds for completing the cloister [l], three hundred for enlarging the Church, the wider curtain, three table-cloths ^m, three carpets, as many bench-covers ⁿ, thirty napkins.

[4] Besides, whatever of mares we shall have had, those excepted which were found to belong to the Church, the estates [*] which I have acquired for our church, Langalon near the Rhine, Werebetti, Heingilon, Lidron, Wishem, which the Meuse washes; the house also of our Cousin the bishop of Metz, and the estate of Bavingan; besides, whatever he holds of the property of our church, I hand over ^o. Let there also be given for the use of the monks the third part of this year's produce worked up for our uses.

[5] Let a Jerichomium [p] be set up in a fitting place at the abbot's nod not far from the monastery, to which I confer whatever estate we have at Deutz [q], Jeresfelt besides in Saxony up to the site [r], and whatever Gevehard, formerly provost of Bonn, is known to have had near the Moselle; and, that this may be done with the good leave of our lord [s] and successor, for the relief of both of us, let him use as he pleases Ruothinge, which has been added to the Church's property by our work [t].

[6] After the likeness of the oratory which we built for blessed Privatus near the altar of St. Martin in the West of the church, let one be made for the blessed Gregory the Great, martyr, who has recently been brought [u], where his most sacred body may be laid up. For founding it let a hundred pounds be bequeathed.

[7] Golden cups [x] to our brothers at St. Peter's, twenty pounds, a curtain, two table-cloths, as many bench-covers.

[8] To the altar of St. Gereon, large ewers, two palls, a carpet of the larger ones; to the brothers, ships [y] and twelve pounds, a table-cloth and two bench-covers [z].

[9] For completing the altar of St. Severinus, four pounds of gold; to the brothers eight pounds, two vessels, a table-cloth, two bench-covers.

[10] To St. Cunibert [aa] two dishes; to the two Saints Ewald three palls; to the brothers two vessels, eight pounds, a table-cloth, two bench-covers, one carpet.

[11] To St. Andrew [bb] thirty pounds, four palls, as many vessels, two candlesticks; to the brothers six pounds.

[12] To blessed Eliphius the martyr; to St. Martin the confessor [cc] as much. Besides, the estate of Solagon, acquired for our church by precaria [dd].

[13] To the altar of St. Mary, two vessels of the better ones; for completing the monastery and cloister, a hundred pounds. A curtain, two bench-covers, as many napkins.

[14] To the altar of St. Cecilia three pounds of gold, a curtain, two candlesticks, two vessels, one carpet, two bench-covers; for completing the monastery, fifty pounds. To the community of that monastery ten pounds, a table-cloth.

[15] To the Holy Virgins [ee] two vessels, two candlesticks, two palls, a curtain, one carpet, two bench-covers; to the nuns ten pounds, a table-cloth.

[16] To the altar of the holy martyrs Cassius and Florentius two pounds of gold, the basins [ff] which are with us, two cups [gg], as many palls; to the brothers ten pounds.

[17] To St. Victor [hh] and the community as much.

[18] For the monastery and cloister to be founded at Soest, a hundred pounds; for the altar six vessels, as many palls, one of the larger carpets, two bench-covers, a cope and a chasuble from ours. Besides, the estate which Wodilo gave at our entreaty, that also which the lord Poppo acquired for us quite recently at Richildinchusen and Aruite [ii].

ANNOTATA.

This reading is certainly faulty; but since it at least has Villas in place of the word Villis, and the sense of the text just given here, if, in it as it stands in our codex, a comma being placed after the word exceptis, the word Villas be substituted for the word Villis, will be complete and also, as appears, free of fault, the Leibnizian reading, although faulty, makes me think that in the said text, as it stands in our codex, the word Villas should in fact be substituted for the word Villis.

p. This word is formed from the Greek word γηροκομεῖον, which signifies a place destined for maintaining old men, and it ought therefore to be written Gerocomium.

q. Tuitium is a village situated on the farther bank of the Rhine opposite Cologne Agrippina. Leibniz has here, but, since Miraeus agrees with our codex, undoubtedly faultily, Whatever estate has been guarded for us.

r. Miraeus reads Jeresvelt besides in Saxony up to the site, and both these words and those which correspond to them here in our codex are omitted in Leibniz.

s. That is, of the Lord.

t. That is, has grown.

u. Namely in the very year of the Saint's death, as I taught in the preliminary Commentary, § XVIII; and although I added in the same place also that it does not seem unlike the truth that the relics of St. Privatus were likewise brought to Cologne by Bruno at that time, yet whether this was truly done then can not undeservedly, as will be evident to one who considers it, be called into doubt, if the Saint, close to death, said in his testament not that he was building but that he had built the oratory in which he was to lay up the relics of St. Privatus, as the reading which our codex here exhibits bears, contrary to the reading of Miraeus as well as of Leibniz.

x. The number of the Cuppae, of which word and of two others occurring last here I have already given the signification above, is not here determined, and since all are expressed in the accusative case without a verb that requires it, either something is lacking to the text, or certainly a verb governing the accusative must necessarily be understood.

y. That is, small vessels fashioned in the form of a little ship, destined for keeping incense or any other things whatever.

z. Here, as also after each of the donations which presently follow, understand: let them be bequeathed, or conferred, or another verb of like signification.

aa. It is a collegiate church of canons at Cologne, distinguished by the name of St. Cunibert and by the sacred bodies of the two SS. Ewald, of whom we have already treated in our Work at the 3rd day of this month.

bb. This too is a collegiate church of canons at Cologne.

cc. It is a distinguished abbey of the Order of St. Benedict at Cologne Agrippina, in which, or in whose church, St. Bruno had placed the relics of St. Eliphius, brought by him, as I taught above, from the city of Toul to Cologne.

dd. That is, under the burden of permitting to him who granted the estate the usufruct of it for his whole life.

ee. St. Mary's, St. Cecilia's, and that of SS. Ursula and her Companions are three distinguished churches at Cologne which have noble canons and canonesses.

ff. That is, vessels or basins.

gg. Leibniz reads cappae, but Miraeus agrees with our codex.

hh. That is, to the collegiate church of Xanten, distinguished by the name of this Saint, of whom we treated in our Work on the preceding day.

ii. Soest, commonly Zoest, a town of the electorate of Cologne, has a collegiate church of canons, both founded by St. Bruno and enriched with the relics of St. Patroclus, after whom it is therefore named. See the preliminary Commentary, § XVI.

* read transigite

* read villas

EPITAPH

From the editions of Surius and Leibniz collated with each other.

Bruno, archbishop of Cologne. (S.) ^a

Pour forth, O hearts, your prayers, send forth your tearful voices:

Behold, the Father of the fatherland is laid in stone.

Royal offspring, to be remembered through all lands,

Bruno the peaceable, a man good and pious.

Arch-prelate, whose bright [b] see was Cologne,

He was seen everywhere dear to all the good.

The most living light offended the foul darkness,

The envious tongue is silent, true praise alone now pleases.

This world was not worthy of so rare a gift:

Snatched from this blemish [c], he now enjoys the Lord.

On the fifth day before the Ides of October, a prelate of twelve years ^d,

He departed from life; hope was his kindly companion.

ANNOTATA.