Agratus and Casturus

ON SS. AGRATUS AND CASTURUS, OR AGRICIUS AND CASTURIUS, BISHOPS AND CONFESSORS,

AT VIENNE OF THE ALLOBROGES.

ST. AGRATUS ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY, AND PERHAPS ABOUT THE YEAR 711. ST. CASTURUS IN AN UNCERTAIN CENTURY.

HISTORICO-CRITICAL SYLLOGE.

Agratus or Agritius, bishop, confessor, at Vienne of the Allobroges. (S.)

Casturus or Casturius, bishop, confessor, at Vienne of the Allobroges. (S.)

BY M. S.

§ I. The episcopate of Vienne is vindicated for St. Agratus; his memory and that of Casturus in the sacred calendars; as also their ecclesiastical cult.

What our elders have already several times brought forward about the dislocated and wrongly arranged chronology of the bishops of Vienne would here deservedly have to be repeated, were I not doing what has been done, and above the rest those things which Sollerius adduces at the 1st of July in the Acts of St. Martin, bishop of Vienne; for the same Sollerius testifies that the same can fittingly be done at the 1st of August, sacred to St. Verus, likewise bishop of Vienne: Uncertain is the chronology of the bishops of Vienne, Not carelessly, he says, have we weighed how little founded is the series of the first bishops of Vienne, and how ambiguous, accordingly, the whole history of that time, no old monument surviving on which one may safely rely, while the more recent writers are so entangled (which we shall see below brought forward aptly to our purpose) that you do not easily understand what can be drawn out of them. Le Cointe agrees with Sollerius, inserting in volume 3, page 507, various things pertaining more closely to St. Agratus: for at the place cited he treats of the prophecy of St. Clarus, abbot of St. Marcellus, whose Acts Bolland illustrates at the 1st of January, page 55, and there at no. 10 presents the entire text of the prophecy, just as Le Cointe does: and the words which bear more than the rest on our purpose are these: My brethren, according to the saying of the Apostle, through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God; what has been revealed to me by the Lord I will not keep silent. This our city, namely Vienne, will have six bishops governing the church of Christ in a time of peace; after they have fallen asleep, under the seventh bishop there will be a most grievous persecution of the pagans, and this city, by the just judgement of God, will be handed over to them to be scattered.

[2] as also their catalogues, To these, after some things interposed, Le Cointe adds: It seems that we must treat here of the six bishops who, after St. George, in whose time Abbot Clarus departed from life, governed the diocese of Vienne peacefully and happily, before Austrebert became bishop, in whose pontificate that calamity fell. The catalogues of the bishops of Vienne are various, and the epochs diverse, and not free from faults. In Demochares, between George and Austrebert, these five pontiffs sit in the see of Vienne: Deodatus, Blidranus, Eoldus, Gerardus and Bobolinus. In Bosc, Agratus is substituted for Blidranus, or, as he calls him, Blidianus, and Gerardus, whom Demochares had mentioned, is omitted. Chenu and Le Lièvre followed Bosc. Severt presented the same bishops in that place, but put Eoldus before Blidianus and Agratus, of whom we below; Robert named only four, Agratus being struck out; the Sainte-Marthes did the same. Chorier, book 9, chapter 18, relates that Abbot Clarus died under the pontificate of Caldeoldus. But wrongly, as will be clear to anyone inspecting the Life of St. Clarus at the place cited; since, after the miracle done at the petition of Clarus as a boy in calming the waves of the Rhône, the biographer of St. Clarus immediately subjoins in chapter 3: There was at that time a vigorous man, pleasing to God, bishop of the church of Vienne, Cadoldus. Nay, in the following chapter Clarus is still called a boy by the biographer, and since the prophecy we are treating of was uttered when the end of St. Clarus's life was at hand, it seems truly to be judged more likely, with Le Cointe, that it happened not under Cadoldus, or Caldeoldus, but under George.

[3] some of which, Hence Chorier, adds Le Cointe, wrote that the six immediate successors of Caldeoldus were Landalenus, Bobolinus, Deodatus, Blidranus, Agratus and Eoldus. In so great a discrepancy of writers, receive in a few words what we think of that matter. What follows, since it does not pertain to us, we do not think should be transferred here; but we give warning beforehand that there is an equal discrepancy in the catalogues of Villars, in Chenu, page 479, and of Maupertuy, of which the former numbers four, and the latter five, bishops between George and Austrebert. Tillemont moreover confirms these things, volume 3, note 3, page 620 and following, learnedly heaping together various things from which it is clear how wavering and how little founded is the chronotaxis of the bishops of Vienne: nay indeed, not only is the chronotaxis of these bishops doubtful, but it is also uncertain with some, nay false, that our holy bishops ever held the mitre of Vienne, which in the case of Casturus I shall concede without difficulty: Saussay, our Sollerius, and certain catalogues in which Agratus is lacking (for Casturus is absent in all) deny it. Saussay indeed announces our saints in this manner in the Supplement of the Gallican Martyrology: 14th of October. At Vienne of the Allobroges, of SS. Agratus and Casturus, bishops, prelates of an uncertain see, and confessors of conspicuous holiness. But Sollerius, whose words press more than the rest, and for whom the Sainte-Marthes lighted the way, adduces the following foundations, in volume 2 of July, page 484, in the Acts of St. Eoaldus, to deny St. Agratus his place among the pontiffs of Vienne.

[4] as also Ado, omit St. Agratus: Him, namely Eoaldus, he says, the Sainte-Marthes set fortieth in order, after Claude Robert, rejecting Agratus, or Algratus, whom Chenu numbers forty-first, putting our saint back in the forty-second place. The catalogue of Demochares is more imperfect. For Agratus stand Bosc in the Bibliotheca Floriacensis, Le Lièvre and Chorier; but since he seems to have been altogether unknown to Ado, the negative authority of the latter in this part far prevails over those more recent writers copying one another, so long as the existence of that Agratus for that time is not proved from certain monuments which are to be compared with the Chronicle of Ado. The Appendix to Ado's Martyrology, where Agratus is mentioned on the 14th of October, does not yet prove it. Thus Sollerius, who certainly did not defer so much to Ado at the 1st of July, page 14, in the Acts of St. Martin: for when at no. 1 he had related that the age and deeds of the first bishops of Vienne were not sufficiently exact, he adds this: The authority of Ado would perhaps dispel all those doubts, at least suppress them, if his Chronicle survived pure and entire; for that which we have published is so little chronological that no one hitherto has been able to arrange the series of the bishops of Vienne rightly from it. Notwithstanding these things, I candidly confess that the argument of Sollerius has its weight, since Ado flourished only a century and a half removed from the times of St. Agratus; but I think that it will be in some way solved, and that I shall satisfy him, as Sollerius hints, if I oppose a positive to the negative.

[5] but others more rightly There exists in our possession a copy of a manuscript calendar of Vienne, at the head of which these words are read: From an old calendar of the Vienne Missal or Breviary, in which, the word Vien. being placed before, the following saints are indicated: which, enumerating almost only bishops of Vienne, at the 14th of October

has this: Of Agratus and Castulus, bishops, confessors. In conformity with which the Breviary of the year 1522, which our elders also mentioned on the preceding day among the Passed Over, prescribes these things bearing on our matter: Of St. Callixtus, pope and martyr, and of SS. Agratus and Castolus, bishops. At Vespers, chapter Justi in perpetuum, ℣. Exultent justi. At the Magnificat, antiphon Beatus (but pertaining entire to St. Callistus). Prayer: O God, who seest that we fail through our own infirmity, mercifully restore us to Thy love through the examples of Thy saints. Through our Lord. Plainly the same prayer as is prescribed for Callistus alone in the Gregorian Sacramentary in Pamelius, volume 2 of the Liturgies, page 347, as also in the Tournai Missal printed at Paris in the year 1498, and the rest. Invitatory: Regem Martyrum. Antiphon: Beati pauperes. As in the Common of Many Martyrs. That the laurel of a saint under the Common of one Martyr fell to our saints I seek elsewhere in vain; hence I think that the Office of Martyrs was prescribed on account of St. Callistus the martyr, customarily venerated on the 14th, who obtains the chief parts in the solemnity, although our saints did not end their life by martyrdom. Further, although the aforesaid calendar does not express in plain words that our saints were bishops of Vienne, nothing can be concluded thence against us, since it does not do so for the other prelates of this city either. But whether this calendar is older than Ado I am not able to prove; nay, since Ado himself is also listed, last indeed, yet in his own place, unless this name was added afterwards, it might perhaps seem that it should be judged more recent than he: hence, if that calendar does not plainly satisfy, and does not entirely weaken the argument of Sollerius, behold another, as it appears, sufficiently valid.

[6] of the bishops of Vienne There exists among our manuscripts, in codex S 19, a catalogue of the holy bishops of Vienne, presenting a continuous series of forty-one bishops of Vienne inscribed in the sacred calendars, among whom St. Agratus occurs thirty-eighth in order; and since the series of saints ends in Austrebert, this catalogue seems originally to have reached only to him, and, if these things are so, precedes the times of Ado by more than a whole century. And that these things are so I think from the following: this catalogue proceeds in a constant and the same style up to Austrebert, namely by expressing the name of the holy bishop and adding one chronological note in most cases: as St. Nectarius under Constantine, Julian, Jovian; St. Agratus under Childebert. But having passed Austrebert, Vilicarius and Bertericus, who are named in Ado and other catalogues, being omitted, it continues in this manner: Commemoration of Proculus under Pippin. Of Bernard, though a saint, commemoration, a man of skilful intellect and learned. But when the catalogue reaches St. Ado, it expresses most clearly the time of his see, which is done nowhere else, in these words: St. Ado, bishop, a man of wonderful holiness, in the year 885 ruled the church for 16 years, buried in the church of the Apostles. Which discrepancies, if they do not clearly indicate the additions of a more recent hand, nevertheless supply plausible foundations for suspecting them. Nay, after the words just cited, which hints at another addition, in as it were one breath the commemoration of eight bishops together is listed in this manner: Of Otrannus, Bernomus, Ragenfredus, Alexander, Sobo, Theubaldus and Leudegarius, commemoration. Further, how faithful this catalogue is, and how conformable to its autograph, will be clear from the following. In the autograph Simplicius was lacking as successor to Nicetius, which the author of our copy noticing adds this: After him, namely Nicetius, was Blessed Simplicius, bishop, to whom Blessed Pope Zosimus wrote, who however in the catalogue, we know not for what reason, is not placed. From these things, therefore, I trust that the said opinion has not undeservedly settled with me.

[7] ascribe him to the number, To these is added, as we shall see below in the Appendix, the Martyrology of Ado, as also other things to be cited presently, and various catalogues of the bishops of Vienne, of rather light chronotaxis indeed, but certainly not of such light authority that I could suspect that their writers invented bishops at will, nor could the sole silence of Ado induce me to suspect it: nay, since these authors assert that they took their material from ancient and authentic monuments, even if the chronotaxis is confused, not even Sollerius himself, I think, would deny that they at least found the names of the bishops whom they enumerate. But someone will perhaps say here that I seek in vain a support for Agratus from the martyrologies of Ado and others, since I myself put little trust in them: for they constantly note that Casturus, equally with Agratus, sat as bishop at Vienne, notwithstanding which, as I myself concede without difficulty, it remains in the highest degree doubtful whether Casturus ever ruled the diocese of Vienne as bishop. But plainly some monuments stand for Agratus, others for Casturus: for not even in one catalogue does Casturus occur, nor has it been given me to find anything (except the martyrologists, the calendar and breviary cited above) whence I might attribute to him the government of the see of Vienne with even a shadow of reason. On the contrary, there are various things which, as we have just seen and shall see below, assert and confirm that Agratus sat as bishop at Vienne; and if to these we join the martyrologies, and those not so recent, they contribute not a little to breaking the negative argument of Sollerius. These things, I think, would suffice for Sollerius to judge that a place among the bishops of Vienne should no longer be denied to St. Agratus; but if he did not yet acquiesce in these, I would reply to him like for like; for two Simpliciuses, Simplides, or Simplidases sat in the see of Vienne, the former being eleventh in order, and the latter sixteenth bishop of Vienne; the first Ado himself also acknowledges, the other you will seek in vain in him; notwithstanding which silence of Ado, Bolland granted a place in our work to both as bishops of Vienne, commenting on the Acts of the former at the 11th of February, and of the other at the 3rd of the same month, as may be seen on the cited days.

[8] [although in varying order: concerning Casturus the matter is plainly uncertain, but] Further, St. Agratus has been allotted a varying order in the catalogues of the bishops of Vienne: for the manuscript cited above presents him thirty-eighth in order, Bosc, Chenu, Le Lièvre and Maupertuy assign him the fortieth place among the pontiffs of Vienne; but Severt, in volume 3 of the History of the Bishops of Lyon, page 201, asserts that he was bishop forty-third in order: but there is deep silence among all of these about St. Casturus; wherefore I would not dare to assert whether he truly sat as bishop at Vienne: for on the one side most martyrologists hold him as such, on the other the catalogues of the bishops of Vienne, as many as I have inspected, omit him; nor have I found anything whence that constant and undivided connection among the martyrologists (except Castellanus) of Casturus with St. Agratus may draw its origin; nay, if you set aside the name and the episcopal dignity, I do not remember to have found even a word about this saint among the ancients as well as the more recent: hence, being unable to determine whether he truly comes into the number of the bishops of Vienne, I have nevertheless preferred to present him as such in the title, the martyrologists in some way requiring it, and his true see being unknown. However the matter stands, both the Breviary which we saw above at no. 5 and the martyrologies which I shall bring forward prove that his cult, equally with Agratus's, is legitimate. For the rest, I trust that the faith pledged concerning the episcopate of St. Agratus, which the reader finds given among the Passed Over on the preceding day, is redeemed by what precedes!

[9] the cult of both, as is clear from the various sacred calendars in which The Martyrology of Ado, from the manuscript of St. Lawrence at Liège, likewise a manuscript, announces these saints today in the following manner: At Vienne, of St. Agratus, bishop and confessor, and of St. Casturus, bishop of the same city. The same words recur in Mosander, who also has them as Ado's genuine words; but Rosweyde discovered from three older Mosandrian codices that they are not his, cutting the cited words off from the pure Ado and relegating them to the Appendix at this day, with whom also, most recently, Domenico Giorgi agrees in the Martyrology of Ado published in type at Rome in the year 1745. Our manuscript Florarium: At Vienne, of St. Agratus, bishop and confessor, and of St. Casturus, bishop of the same city. Moreover, as was observed among the Passed Over on the preceding day, the same Florarium of ours had mentioned our saints, but with names somewhat dislocated, in this manner: Of SS. Agricius and Casturius, confessors, bishops. But I do not doubt, continues Bye in the cited Passed Over, that the saints are designated who by others are called Agratus and Casturus, or Castulus or even Castolus, and are announced on the following day by Greven, and on the day after in the Lübeck-Cologne Auctarium of Usuard in Sollerius. Nor does anything occur whence I may prove them other than today's, since I have sought those names, as the Florarium expresses them, elsewhere in vain. Ferrarius in the Topography, at the word Vienna: 14th of October. Agratus and Casturus, bishops. Greven, in Sollerius among the Auctaria, has similar words: At Vienne, of SS. Agratus and Casturus, bishops of the same city. And more prolix than all these, but certainly not truer, the manuscript Martyrology of the holy church of Vienne (these are the words of the title), lately reformed, and chiefly arranged by St. Ado, archbishop of the same church, restored by the labour and study of John Le Lièvre, doctor of sacred theology, canon of the same church, and abbot of St. Ferreolus, has the following eulogy of our saints: At Vienne, of St. Agratus, archbishop of Vienne, who in the time of the most blessed Louis, king of the Franks, flourished in holiness at Vienne as the 44th bishop, at which time four councils were held for the peace and good estate of the Church, namely at Mainz, Lyon, Toulouse and Paris. On the same day, the birthday of St. Castulus, archbishop of the same city of Vienne, as is said in the Martyrology, and confessor, who however is uncertain among approved authors. However much this martyrology may be called Ado's, it is more truly Le Lièvre's; since our saints were altogether unknown to Ado, whether in the Chronicle or in the Martyrology, as Sollerius rightly observed, and moreover the inept chronotaxis of Le Lièvre, which we shall see below, shows it.

[10] these saints are inscribed, is altogether certain. Almost the same things in as many words has the Order and Series of the Saints of the holy and ancient church of Vienne, metropolis of the Allobroges in Gaul, as they are arranged in the Martyrology, extracted, says Sollerius in the Acts of St. Martin cited above, by the care of the Reverend Father Peter Francis Chifflet, which Papebroch, being at Vienne in the year 1661, copied entire under this title: Martyrology, etc., as we saw in the preceding number, as also the History of Le Lièvre on the antiquities of the people of Vienne. But the language of both is the same, continues Sollerius, the same the sense, and since they were compiled by the same Le Lièvre, author of the History of the Antiquities of Vienne, it is truly no wonder if both the Martyrology and the History devise the same things in both places, with very few exceptions, which the curious reader will easily observe for himself. Let it suffice to have noted this here, so that, when Le Lièvre's chronotaxis comes up below to be refuted, it may not be necessary to take these things up again in vain. But the Martyrology of the monastery of St. Nabor of Hilariacum Saint-Avold, as also the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard in Sollerius among the Auctaria, announce these saints on the following day in this manner: On the Ides of October, are the words of the Martyrology

of St. Nabor, at Vienne, of St. Agratus, bishop and confessor, and of St. Castulus, bishop of the same city. And the Lübeck-Cologne edition: At Vienne, of SS. Agratus and Castulus, bishops of the same city, confessors. Castellanus, in his Universal Martyrology, mentions today St. Agratus alone, as we also warned above at no. 8, in these words: Near Vienne in Dauphiné, of St. Agratus, confessor, saying nothing of the episcopate.

§ II. The time of the see of St. Agratus, variously arranged by writers, is investigated.

[Inquiry is made into the time in which St. Agratus flourished, which is unknown of St. Casturus;] We must now inquire at what time our saints flourished; and first, as regards the age and the time of life of St. Casturus, as I have just said, nothing occurs whence I may determine them: hence in what century this saint existed in the nature of things, as also his episcopate of Vienne itself, are to be left altogether in uncertainty until a greater light shines. But this does not hold in the case of St. Agratus, since various writers bring forward various arguments of chronotaxis, the chief of which I subjoin: the catalogue cited at no. 6 indicates the age of St. Agratus in these words: St. Agratus under Childebert. With which Chenu agrees, having this on the matter at page 472: St. Agratus was substituted for Blidranus, of whom Bolland treats at the 22nd of January among the Passed Over, Childebert being king of the Franks. He died on the Ides of October. Let Bosc follow Chenu, who more clearly asserts this to our purpose in his Historical List, page 41: St. Agratus, bishop of Vienne, was substituted for Blidianus, who lived while Leo was emperor and Childebert was ruling the Franks through the vigorous Grimoald. In whose time the emperor Anastasius, captured by Tiberius and bound by an oath, gave his name to the clergy. He died on the second day before the Ides of October. These, then, say that our saint flourished under Childebert, that is, the third of this name: and Childebert held the kingdom, as Henschenius testifies in the Exegesis prefixed to volume 3 of April, page XI, no. 28, until the year 711. Bouquet agrees with Henschenius, and Du Four, in Bouquet, volume 3, page 697, asserts that there is a wonderful consensus of chronographers in fixing this last year of Childebert; with this chronotaxis the very age of Grimoald, namely the son of Pippin of Herstal by Plectrude, who was slain in the year 714, according to Henschenius and most chronographers, plainly agrees.

[12] the chronology of Bosc for indicating this But what the cited Bosc further adds, although he arranged the order and times of Blidianus, following the authors at hand, less happily indeed, as will be clear from what is to be said below in § III, Le Cointe explains and corrects in this manner, volume 4, page 454: There died also, he says, about this year, namely 707, Blidramnus, or Blidianus, bishop of Vienne … that Agratus was to be substituted for St. Badianus we have proved (but where he proved it I seek in vain in him), of whom John Bosc thus in the Antiquities of Vienne: was substituted, etc. What we saw in the preceding number. He further continues: On that day, in the Supplement of the Gallican Martyrology, that is, of Saussay cited above, at Vienne of the Allobroges the memory is celebrated of the holy bishops Agratus and Casturus, prelates of an uncertain see, and confessors of conspicuous holiness. But the see of Agratus ought not to be held uncertain: for Agratus sat in the see of Vienne, and deservedly claims for himself a place in the catalogue of the bishops of Vienne between SS. Blidianus and Eoldus. Blidianus ruled the church of Vienne under the kings Clovis II and Childebert III; Eoldus was already bishop in the year of Christ seven hundred and fifteen, when the Saxons burst into the region of the Hattuarii, as we shall observe at that year, in which King Dagobert, third of that name, closed his life. And from this we gather that the pontificate of Agratus fell, as in the later years of King Childebert III, so also in the earlier years of King Dagobert III.

[13] But Bosc is deceived when he says that the pontificate of Agratus fell in that time is emended by Le Cointe in which Anastasius laid down the purple and Leo put it on; for before Anastasius abdicated the empire, Eoldus succeeded Agratus in the episcopate of Vienne, and, Anastasius having been deposed, not Leo was immediately substituted, but Theodosius, for whom Leo was afterwards substituted. In another place we shall examine the chronology of these emperors. Meanwhile correct the text of Bosc thus: St. Agratus, bishop of Vienne, was substituted for Blessed Blidianus, who lived while Childebert and Dagobert were ruling the Franks through the vigorous Grimoald; he died on the second day before the Ides of October. Grimoald, mayor of the palace, lived until the year of Christ seven hundred and fourteen, nor did Bishop Agratus survive and remain among the living beyond this year. And what Le Cointe relates about the irruption of the Saxons into the region of the Hattuarii, that it happened in the year 715 itself is certain from the Annals, as may be seen in him in the volume cited, page 550, of Petau, of Tilius, of Fulda, and from the Chronicle of Saint-Denis. Le Cointe further subjoins to the words just cited: Ado in his Chronicle adds that Bishop Eoldus presided over the church of Vienne when the Saxons burst into the region of the Chatuarii. But Ado, or whoever added marginal notes to him, relates this as noted in the margin not at the year 715 but at 717, at least in the editions of Paris of the year 1561 and of Basel of the year 1568, which I use. to which Maupertuy, but The text of Ado will return below.

[14] These things having been in some way digested, Maupertuy, however, the most recent writer on the affairs of Vienne, who lighted my way, opposes, and writes that our saint sat as bishop in the year of Christ 715 under Gregory II: let us hear him speaking in his History of the Holiness of the Church of Vienne, published in French; on page 88 of it, then, he gives this in the margin: St. Agratus, 40th archbishop, in the year of J. C. 715, the second of Pope Gregory II, under the mayoralty of Charles Martel. But in the catalogue prefixed to his History he asserts that this saint flourished in the year 716; for the rest, conformable to what has been said, he assigns in both places to our saint's successor Eoaldus the year of Christ 718. Further, Gregory II sat, as pleases Baronius, from the year 714, but more truly, as Papebroch, Le Cointe and Pagi have it, from the year 715. Hence, if St. Agratus flourished in the year 715, the second of Gregory II is wrongly alleged; or if in the second year of the latter, Maupertuy ought to have assigned the year of Christ 716 in both places; as regards the mayoralty of Charles Martel, Henschenius places its beginning in the year 716 in both genealogical stemmata prefixed to volume 3 of March and 3 of April; which year, although the Annals of the Franks do not express it as his first, they nevertheless openly hint that he was mayor of the palace in it; nay, that Charles began that office in the year 715, and that this is sufficiently agreed among the learned, he opposes with no solid reason; our elders have just observed, as may be seen in volume 2 of October, pages 536 and 537, in the Acts of St. Magdalveus, notes i and cc.

[15] From these it follows that the chronotaxis of Maupertuy, if you regard the mayoralty of Charles Martel, would be sufficiently conformable to the truth, provided our saint had flourished under him: but this saint could not have reached those times, as we shall see more clearly below, to which Ado also is opposed, who writes on page 207 that Bishop Eoaldus, successor of St. Agratus, governed the diocese of Vienne when the mayoralty of Charles was beginning, or in the year 715: we must therefore desert the writer of Vienne in this matter; nor ought it to move anyone that Maupertuy asserts at the front of his History that it was put together from authentic and original monuments received from the archive of the bishopric and of the chapter; for this all the rest also, although discordant in almost innumerable things, confidently announce at the head of their works, so that hence someone may suspect that the very fountains are turbid, and may feel that place must here be denied to the common adage, waters are drunk more sweetly from the fountain itself. But someone will perhaps say, in favour of Maupertuy's chronotaxis, that Ado in his Chronicle, page 207, mentions Eoaldus only at the year 717; hence St. Agratus, who is unknown to Ado, seems to have reached those times. But although Ado made his first mention of Eoldus, as he calls him, only at the year 717 noted in the margin, yet he does not put him forward as the first of his see; and, granting that this was Ado's mind, it would matter little, since that whole Adonian period, wrongly arranged there, is to be transferred to the year 715: for in that year Charles, son of Pippin, escaped from prison; in that year the Saxons devastated the land of the Matuarii, that is, the Haltuarii; which, however, if we believe the marginal note of Ado's Chronicle, happened only in the year 717.

[16] but Le Lièvre Let us now hear Le Lièvre, whose most unskilful method of distributing times, says Sollerius deservedly at the 1st of July in the Acts of St. Martin, bishop of Vienne, shows sufficiently evidently how uncertain among the people of Vienne is the reckoning of the first, nay also of the later, as we have already seen and shall see below, of these bishops. Le Lièvre, then, in the History of the Antiquity and Holiness of the City of Vienne, published in French, writes this bearing on our matter on page 178: Our St. Blidianus dies on the second day before the Kalends of January, to whom St. Agratus succeeded in the church of Vienne, in the reign of Louis I, surnamed the Pious, son of Charles the Great, who was a vigorous defender of the Apostolic See. For he protected Leo III from his enemies, and received Stephen V himself in Gaul, by whose hands he was crowned together with Queen Irmingard his wife… St. Agratus dies on the third day before the Ides of October; while he sat, the said King Louis caused four councils to be held for the peace of the Church, at Mainz, Lyon, Toulouse and Paris. Thus he. Which truly are distant from the reckoning of the rest by more than a whole century: for the four councils which Le Lièvre asserts were celebrated while our saint sat, Baronius and Pagi, Labbe, Hardouin and Mabillon have rightly placed in the year 829, as may be seen in them at the year cited.

[17] he blunders shamefully, as from other historiographers But that Le Lièvre wrote these things at will, what I shall bring forward clearly shows: for in the general letter in Labbe, volume 7 of the Councils, column 1590, which the emperor Louis the Pious sent from the assembly of Aachen concerning the councils of bishops to be gathered in four parts of the kingdom, the emperor himself, enumerating the metropolitans, as J. Sirmond aptly notes in Labbe, volume cited, column 1667, ordered the bishops of Lugdunensis Prima, Viennensis, the Maritime Alps and Narbonensis Secunda to assemble at Lyon. And the king expresses the names of these metropolitans in this manner: Where, that is, at Lyon, Agobard, Bernard, Andrew, Benedict, Agericus, with their suffragans, shall likewise assemble. And the bishop of Vienne present at the council of Lyon, whose Acts have perished, was St. Bernard, whose Life Bolland illustrates in volume 2 of January, at the 28th day, page 544, whom, however, Bolland, and Henschenius Agobard, volume 1 of June, at the 6th day, page 748, did not observe to have been present at the council of Lyon. And Bernard, or Barnard, was bishop fifty-second in order according to Severt's catalogue, fifty-first according to Chenu, fifty-ninth according to Le Lièvre, Maupertuy and Villars, according to the Sainte-Marthes

fifty-eighth. Further, Maupertuy testifies that the same man was present at the council of Lyon: At the council of Lyon, he says in French, page 107, there were present with their suffragans five metropolitans: Agobard of Lyon, Bernard of Vienne, Andrew of Tarentaise, Benedict of Embrun, and Agericus, whose see is unknown. Nay, it is Aix according to Pagi, as we shall presently see. The Sainte-Marthes agree with him: Bernard, they say in the edition of the year 1656, is named in the council of Lyon, 828; nay, 829.

[18] is shown, nay seems to have indulged in dreams, Pagi confirms what has just been said in his Critica on Baronius at the year 828, in which the most eminent annalist had made mention of the councils as to be celebrated in the following year; behold Pagi's words, volume 3, page 535: But thirdly, he says, at Lyon, where Agobard, archbishop of Lyon, Bernard of Vienne, Andrew of Tarentaise, Benedict, Agericus, with their suffragans, shall likewise assemble. These two archbishops can be no others than those of Aix and of Embrun. With these the times of Agobard aptly agree, whose friendship with St. Bernard Le Lièvre himself also mentions; for Chenu writes in the catalogue of the same bishops that he presided over the see of Lyon from the year 815 until the year 840, although these things do not appear so firm in every respect to Henschenius. But let us look at Le Lièvre somewhat more deeply, and see whether he played the part of a sincere historiographer, or whether, on the contrary, he is to be judged to have indulged in dreams, nay to have studied to entangle chronology, which Sollerius elsewhere reproaches him with: for on page 177 these are his words: Charles the Great died at Aachen in the month of January, in the year 814, inscribed in the catalogue of the saints by Paschal III, although a schismatic; for the Church, on account of the wonderful deeds of this great monarch, tolerated this canonization. To these he subjoins the excellent admonitions of the dying emperor to his sons, and the words related by us from him at no. 16, all of which, by Le Lièvre's own testimony, happened in the years 813 and 815, since he cites Baronius at these years; whether they truly stand I do not inquire, intent solely on the chronotaxis of our saint, a manner of which I wish the reader to be forewarned.

[19] Further, on page 178 there follows, as the immediate successor of St. Agratus in the see of Vienne, St. Eoaldus, since, without discrimination, he assigns chronological notes or, as he himself writes, Edoaldus; and while Le Lièvre proclaims his praises, he subjoins this on the following page: This excellent and pious pastor received in his time a gift of precious relics, which Pope Constantine sent to him in the year 713, together with the following rescript, which he also brings forward. Behold, the successor precedes the predecessor by a whole century; and lest you suspect an error of the printer in the numbers, the following, which he produces on the same page, see to it: Ado of Vienne, he says, narrates that Pope Constantine was a Syrian by nation, a most benign man, excelling in humility, and in charity especially in succouring the poor in a time of dearth. He died holily in the year 714, nay 715, in which Gregory II (see no. 14), his successor, began to sit. Moreover, he makes St. John Damascene nearly contemporary with St. Edoaldus, whose hand he asserts was cut off in the year 727 on the testimony of Baronius. To this Edoaldus succeeds St. Bobolinus; but let us hear Le Lièvre himself discoursing: St. Bobolinus, he says, is numbered the 42nd archbishop of Vienne, in the time of the same Leo the third, the heretic, Dagobert II reigning as king of the Franks, when the good and just prince Grimoald was slain at Liège, whither he had come for the sake of visiting his father.

[20] to the bishops of Vienne, Le Lièvre plainly imitates the tortoise, and, if he goes on so, he will shortly arrive in retrograde order at the times of St. Paul, as he imagines, the first bishop of Vienne. For Dagobert II, if Le Lièvre believes Henschenius, was slain in the year 680; but this error in Le Lièvre is plainly tolerable, if indeed it can be called an error, since only after his times did that celebrated question among historiographers about the three Dagoberts begin to strike the ears of the learned: hence that he meant to indicate Dagobert III, who died in the year 715, is clearly evident from the time of Grimoald, slain, as we have just seen, in the year 714; but even hence palpable parachronisms are not yet lacking: for on the preceding page Le Lièvre had written that Pope Constantine died in the year 714, whom, as he says in the same place, Edoaldus, the predecessor of St. Bobolinus, survived by some years: how, then, could Bobolinus have presided over the see of Vienne in the year 714, the last of Grimoald, according to Henschenius, Pagi and perhaps the whole crowd of chronographers? How, moreover, could this St. Bobolinus, according to Le Lièvre, have sat forty-second in order under Dagobert II (that is, III), whose last year was 715, and our saint, according to the same, fortieth in order as bishop under Louis I, son of Charles the Great, who flourished almost a whole century later than Dagobert III? Meanwhile Le Lièvre continues to weave his catalogue in his own manner, until at length, in St. Volferus, he seems to wish in some way to return to a sounder chronology, and, as if forgetful of what he had written on pages 177 and 178 to indicate the times of St. Agratus, he repeats, and is compelled to repeat, almost the same things in order to explain when Volferus flourished.

[21] But Le Lièvre confounds himself even more clearly, and condemns himself of drowsiness, and himself betrays that he acts as a writer of little sense on page 195, when he praises St. Bernard, the immediate successor of Volferus in the see of Vienne, in these words: There follows St. Barnard, the 49th archbishop, a man sublime in virtue, piety and learning; he is consecrated archbishop of Vienne after St. Volferus, at the beginning of the reign of the emperor Louis, son of the said Charles. Behold the very same epoch which he had placed above at the beginning of St. Agratus, the terms scarcely varied. He ought to have mentioned only the councils which were truly celebrated while Barnard, or Bernard, sat, and the chronological notes which he ineptly adduced above to indicate the times of St. Agratus would have suited St. Bernard in every respect. Let these suffice as a specimen, so that the reader may pass judgement on Le Lièvre's work; meanwhile, if anyone has leisure, he will easily detect more anachronisms of this kind, and will find them detected in various places of our work; but it displeases me to dwell longer on these inepties; and so, having rejected him, we hasten to Severt, another writer on the affairs of the people of Vienne, whose meaning I scarcely understand. Behold his entire period on St. Agratus, accurately transcribed from volume 3, page 201.

[22] XLIII. St. Agratus, according to Chenu and Le Lièvre, Severt, no better than Le Lièvre, who Demochares and Villars being silent, sat later, according to the more just reckonings that followed the premises, than the times of Childebert II, king of the Franks, dying at the beginning of the cited year seven hundred and fifteen, allow, and wrongly alleged by Bosc and Chenu, with the whole course of Agratus, who truly sat as bishop from the year 716, contemporary with the aforesaid King Dagobert II, and also with almost the middle years of the 26 in which Leo III the Isaurian, the heretic, ruled, beginning in the cited year. On that account Agratus lived until about the year seven hundred and twenty at least, even according to the somewhat reformed mind of others. So far, then, as I grasp Severt, he treats of Childebert and of Dagobert, both the third of this name, although he wrongly ties the year of Childebert's death to the year 715, all the chronographers opposing, which was such for Dagobert: for to Childebert III, as we saw at no. 11, the year 711 was the last. These things, then, being laid down, Severt criticizes Chenu and Bosc, and charges them with error, because they asserted that St. Agratus flourished under Childebert: and to prove this error he proceeds subtly, as it seems to him, yet imprudently; for he moves Eoaldus, our saint's successor, from his place and puts him before Agratus and Blidranus, led, as far as I can make out, by this reason.

[23] This Eoldus, he says, certainly precedes Blidrannus, he wrongly inverts the catalogue of the bishops of Vienne, because Pope Constantine wrote to him, sending him holy relics for the cathedral church of Vienne, then recently built; which pope, by the chief note of this place, did not pass beyond the year seven hundred and fourteen (nay, as we have just several times seen, he died in 715) while he at least reached it, according to Génébrard. Whence we have been compelled, by a safer way, to put this bishop before his followers Blidrannus and Agratus, who however in other writers precede, those not scrutinizing the times more exactly. In which matter no lighter account is to be taken of the confused emperor Leo and Dagobert II (that is, III), king of the Franks, whom those authors with crass Minerva insert in the time of this bishop, although they by no means concur with him, but reigned later. But I would wish that he himself had also brought forward a more exact reason for this inversion of the catalogue at his own will: for that he so arranges the times of the predecessors that, if Eoaldus remains in his place, he cannot reach the year 714, let him impute it to himself; since he generally distributes the times of the bishops at pleasure, and prefers a blind guide, namely Le Lièvre, to Baronius and Ado in the case of St. George, the thirty-ninth bishop, and perhaps elsewhere. For if, the year 714 running, as Le Cointe thinks, St. Agratus died, why could not Pope Constantine, whose last year was 715, have given letters to St. Eoldus, or Eoaldus, the successor of St. Agratus?

[24] But by what reasoning Severt asserts that the emperor Leo and Dagobert II (that is, III) reigned later than the episcopate of St. Eoaldus I do not see: Leo indeed entered upon the empire in the year 716, and he slips in chronology. and consequently, in Severt's opinion, later than Eoaldus: but Dagobert III assumed the royal diadem in the year 711, and laid it down at his death in 715; and since, according to Severt, St. Deodatus, the fortieth bishop, occupied the see of Vienne in the year 713, Eoaldus in 714, Blidrannus in 715, it follows that St. Eoaldus, in Severt's opinion, was synchronous with Dagobert, and flourished while he reigned: nor are the reigns of the two princes to be confused, since Dagobert, having died in the year preceding these things, did not reach the beginnings of the emperor Leo. Nay, not even the authority of the rescript which gave the chief handle for inverting the order is beyond doubt, as we shall see below: Sollerius treats of it somewhat timidly: if it is true, he says in the Acts of St. Eoaldus, no. 1, the letter of Pope Constantine to him, to be cited below. And at no. 4: These things … from the letter of Pope Constantine which Bosc brings forward, a faithful investigator, I think, of such monuments. The same Bosc, in the cited List, pages 42 and 43, brings forward two similar rescripts, one given by Pope Gregory, the other by Pope Zachary, to Austrebert, bishop of Vienne; but Le Cointe, at the year 719, page 617, asserts that both are fictitious; for rescripts of this kind are wont to find little credence among critics. It therefore follows from this that Severt had not sufficient foundation for inverting the order; moreover, all the catalogues, as many as I have inspected, constantly place Eoaldus after Agratus, or, if he is absent, after Blidranus or Blidianus, although this bishop, as we shall presently see, flourished in the preceding century; and their authority ought greatly to prevail over the assertion of Severt, confirmed by no reason. As for his asserting that other authors neglected to scrutinize the times more exactly, I shall freely concede it to him; but what he blames in others he himself does not avoid either.

§ III. The time of the immediate predecessors of St. Agratus is investigated: at what time St. Agratus began to sit, and died,

is determined in some way.

Of the bishops of Vienne immediately preceding St. Agratus, One thing still remains which seems most of all to oppose the chronotaxis arranged at no. 11: namely, that so many bishops assumed the mitre of Vienne, and laid it down when assumed, within so small an interval of time; for Sollerius, volume 2 of July, at the 7th day, page 484, reviewing the Acts of the latter, numbers from Ado these bishops between Caldeoldus and Eoaldus, Agratus being excluded: Dodolenus, Bobolinus, George, Deodatus, Blidranus; I add Agratus; and Sollerius, following Ado, admits that these pontiffs flourished from the year 696 until 718, nay, by his own opinion, 715, or, as he asserts at the place cited, no. 2, at most 716; Sollerius indeed confesses repeatedly that the periods of so many bishops are very short, and insinuates that he embraces these things reluctantly: But since, he says, nothing more certain can be drawn from the Adonian Chronicle, we must hold to these so far, until more distinct things are dug out. But I, judging that it is no longer to be doubted that an error lies in Ado's Chronicle and in its copyists, thought that the times of these bishops should be investigated more deeply, and more ancient monuments consulted more laboriously, from which, not unhappily, as I think, I dig out the times of some, would that of all. But before I set them out more distinctly, we must see those things which chiefly impelled Sollerius to admit these shorter periods of the bishops; behold, then, the reasons of Sollerius brought forward at no. 2: Although, he says, I have already mentioned many who have written about the bishops of Vienne, no one hitherto has arranged an exact chronological series of them.

[26] and the number of the subsequent ones in so small a time, Bolland had brought back the age of Chaldeoldus from Ado's Chronicle to the year noted there by I know not whom, 696; on which account I have already said that many bishops sat at Vienne in a short time, even when the beginnings of St. Eoaldus were placed at the year 718 marked in the same Chronicle. Meanwhile, if all things are rightly considered, the saint seems not only not to have assumed the mitre then, but not even to have reached that year. St. Eoaldus is interposed in Ado between two not unknown epochs. Gather the first from the words of the Chronicle, page 207: "Charles, son of Pippin by another wife, when he was held captive by Plectrude, formerly Pippin's wife, escaped with the Lord's help." These mark the year 715; "and then," says the Chronicle, Eoldus was already held bishop of Vienne … a little after … it adds: "King Dagobert, having reigned five years, died." These lead us to the year 716, to which at most the death of St. Eoaldus can be put off. Since, then, Sollerius had nothing, as I myself have nothing, to oppose to these two epochs, he judged, not undeservedly, that one should hold to them, and consequently rightly determined that the death of St. Eoaldus is to be fixed about the year 715. But neither Bolland nor Sollerius, adhering to him, attained the age of Cadeoldus, the thirty-fourth bishop in order. Bolland indeed, in his Commentary on Cadeoldus at the 14th of January, page 975, does not express the year of this bishop's death; yet in the margin, in our accustomed manner, he notes that this bishop died about the year 696, which he confirms not obscurely at no. 3: for when, from Bosc, he had related that, while Cadeoldus was administering the church of Vienne, Justinian held power in the East, and among the Franks Clovis, son of Dagobert, and Theoderic, he subjoins this: But he seems to be deceived in the case of Clovis: for Clovis, son of Dagobert, died in the year 660, when Cadeoldus, successor of Edictus, had not yet obtained the episcopate. He ought rather to have written Clovis III, son of Theoderic: for he was raised to the kingdom in the year of Christ 690 … and held it until the year 694.

[27] admitted by Sollerius, though reluctantly, Further, Bolland asserts at no. 4 that the same Cadeoldus sat at the year 685 and following, from the letter of Pope John V recited by Bosc; but let us hear Le Cointe discoursing on it; first, however, let us see for what reason Le Cointe treats of the cited letter, since it pertains to the matter: Le Cointe, volume 3, page 508, not knowing how conveniently to find the six bishops between George and Austrebert, of whom we spoke above at no. 2, seems to have adopted this plan, that he should determine that Caldeoldus, as he calls him, and Edoaldus were different bishops; and the reason which seems fundamental to him is this: Caldeoldus is venerated on the 14th of January, while Edoaldus is inscribed in the sacred calendars on the 19th of the same month; since, then, the days on which they are venerated are different, it is to be judged that the saints who are venerated are without doubt different. But besides the fact that in no catalogue, nor in Ado's Chronicle, is each set down distinctly as bishop, that double announcement is truly of light moment, and common among martyrologists, as will become evident to anyone inspecting those Passed Over and referred to other days in our work. Hence nothing prevents us from judging, with Bolland, that Cadeoldus and Edoaldus or Edaldus are the same: the case is plainly otherwise with St. Eoaldus or Eoldus, successor of St. Agratus, whom Sollerius, illustrating his Acts, teaches at the 7th of June is to be distinguished from St. Cadeoldus. Let us now hear Le Cointe discoursing on the cited letter: Bosc, he says, at the place cited, no. XXI, who drew both into error, was deceived by this fictitious letter, which Pope John is said to have transmitted through Felix the priest to Edaldus, bishop of Vienne. Then, having recited the letter of Pope John, he continues in this manner.

[28] That letter Bosc attributes to Pope John the fifth with this little note in the margin: since it relies on spurious documents, it is rejected, and "This was John V, who began to sit in the year of the Lord 685." Saussay agrees with Bosc in the Panoplia Clericalis (which I may not inspect), part 1, book 3, chapter 1. The reckoning of time is opposed. For Caldeoldus, whom those authors confuse with Edaldus, held the pontificate much earlier. Therefore some have recourse to John the fourth, who could have been contemporary, not indeed with Edaldus, but with Caldeoldus: for he began to preside over the Church in the year of Christ six hundred and forty, and closed his life in the year of Christ six hundred and forty-two. But the letters recited above are of no authority, because they grant Edaldus the title of archbishop and the use of the pallium, and testify that one of the disciples of St. Paul was the first bishop of the church of Vienne. Add that the letters which are contained in the little book of the Antiquities of Vienne in Bosc, if they treat of the beginnings and prerogatives of the church of Vienne, we believe to be supposititious, or certainly of very suspect credit; and John de Launoy has already taught that they are to be so held, chapter 2 in the Discussion of the Response to the Dissertation on the Two Dionysiuses. Le Cointe's censure is certainly to the point, since the name of archbishop began to be in common use only when the ninth century was verging to its middle part; and so ancient an origin, as our elders assert in the Acts of St. Metropolus, October, page 211, no. 5, not only of the churches of Trier, Cologne and Tongres, but also of many others in Gaul, is today by the learned generally either called into doubt or plainly rejected. Dismissing these letters, then, let us arrange from elsewhere the times of the above-said bishops, as far as is permitted through these darknesses.

[29] of certain bishops of the same city The first, then, who meets me of the seven bishops enumerated by Sollerius is Dodolinus, called by another name, as Le Cointe testifies, volume 3, page 183, Landalenus; Bolland went before Le Cointe, illustrating the Acts of this Dodolinus at the 1st of April, and, according to the opinion of more recent writers, asserting that he is to be identified with Landalenus, yet with some fear, since he adds these words at the end: Whether Landalenus and Dodolinus, or Dolinus, are to be set down as different, let the people of Vienne inquire; meanwhile we too think him the same, yet we set him down not as the successor of Cadeoldus, but as his predecessor; whether rightly or otherwise let the reader judge from what follows: Landalenus was present at the second synod of Chalon, held under King Clovis II, but in what year of his, says Bolland, just cited, is not clear. It is referred by Sirmond to the year 650, who teaches in the notes that it was held at least before the year 658. But Pagi, whom see, learnedly in his manner, volume 3, page 39, proves that this synod was celebrated before the year 653, and asserts that Le Cointe's conjecture, by which he determines that it was celebrated in the year 644, is light. It follows, therefore, from what has been said, that Landalenus governed the diocese of Vienne before the year 653. Nay, writers commonly relate that the same synod was celebrated in the year 650, and the title ascribed to the council confirms it in these words: Council of Chalon; Sirmond, volume 1 of the Councils of Gaul, page 489: celebrated at the summons of Clovis II on the eighth day before the Kalends of November in the city of Cabilonum (Chalon-sur-Saône) about the year of Christ 650, in the year of Pope Martin, the second; of the same King Clovis, the sixth. Labbe transcribes the same title, but Hardouin, deliberately, as it seems, kept silent about the sixth year of Clovis.

[30] the order of the bishops Further, how many years before and how many after the same synod Landalenus flourished I am not able to say: this one thing is admitted, that St. Landalenus was present at the council of Chalon, celebrated under Clovis II at Chalon in the basilica of St. Vincent, and added his vote to it after the bishop of Lyon in these words: I, Landalenus, bishop of the church of Vienne, have subscribed these constitutions. But Le Cointe will have it that this council took place in the year 644, others commonly, as we have said, in the year 650: the disagreement arises chiefly from this head, whether the sixteen years in which Clovis II reigned are all to be begun from the death of his father Dagobert, or rather six years earlier, in which he reigned with his father; concerning which consult Pagi, Le Cointe, de Valois and others: for it suffices us that the council of Chalon was certainly celebrated before the year 653, according to Pagi's testimony. There now follows Cadeoldus, successor of Landalenus; but whether immediate? Bolland denies it at the 14th day of January (see there the various names of Cadeoldus), treating of the same, and, relying again on the spurious letter (for it labours under the same vices as that cited above) of Pope Agatho, or of his successor Leo, to Edictus, in Bosc, he determines that the same Edictus was the predecessor of Cadeoldus. But since, this letter being rejected, nothing is at hand whence I may define that this Edictus sat at this time, I rather suspect that he sat before the times of Landalenus; or, if he was truly bishop between Landalenus and Cadeoldus, the time of his see must have been short, as will be established from what is to be said.

[31] is investigated, Among the various public instruments to which Cadeoldus is read as subscribed, the first that occurs, in Sirmond, volume 1, page 495, is the Privilege of liberty granted to the monastery of St. Denis by Landeric, bishop of Paris. To this privilege first Landeric himself subscribes, then Munemundus, the name of his see being unexpressed, as the other bishops also do: but since Munemundus (called Aunemundus by Mabillon and Pagi, Annemundus by Chenu and Severt in the catalogue of the bishops of Lyon) succeeded Candericus, who for Chenu and Severt is Gaudericus, subscribed to the council of Chalon, he is without doubt to be understood as bishop of Lyon. There follows, further, subscribed to the privilege, Gauualdus or Gouvaldus, who in the confirmation of the same privilege, as I shall presently say, is read as called Chaoaldus; and although I do not find either formation of this name among the names of Cadeoldus brought forward by Bolland, they are so akin, namely Caocaldus,

Caldeoldus, Caldeolus, Cadeolus, that it plainly appears that a few letters were dislocated according to the custom of that time or by the carelessness of copyists. Sirmond writes that this privilege was given, and agrees in the notes, in the year 658, of which presently; in him the privilege concludes with this clause: The privilege being made on a day of July, in the 15th year of the reign of the most glorious king Clovis. There follows next, in the same Sirmond, page 497, the assembly of Clichy, in which King Clovis ordered a precept of his authority concerning the same liberty of the monastery to be written, in the year of Christ 659, the 3rd of Pope Vitalian, the 16th of the same King Clovis. Cadeoldus, who here is called Chaoaldus, was present at this assembly, and subscribed in that precept of Clovis, which Mabillon presents from the autograph in the De re diplomatica, book 6, chapter 7, in these words: In the name of Christ (these words are lacking in Sirmond) I, Chaoaldus, consenting, have subscribed.

[32] in Ado, But in what year this assembly was celebrated there is no small dispute among the learned: Sirmond, at the place cited, having taken account of the years of Clovis, asserts that it was celebrated in the year of Christ 659; with him agree Labbe, as also Hardouin, placing the same year in the margin of the precept. But Le Cointe, discoursing at length on this precept at the year 653, page 374 and following, asserts at no. XXXI that, according to the opinion of others, it is reported to have been issued in this year by King Clovis for the monastery of St. Denis. Pagi adds his vote to this opinion, volume III, at the year 662, page 39, no. 2, and corrects Baronius in this manner: The precept of Clovis, namely, is said to be "given on the tenth day before the Kalends of July, in the 16th year of our reign, at Clichy"; and therefore Baronius wrongly mentions it at this year, since that 16th year of Clovis fell in the year of Christ 653. Henschenius, however, at the 10th day of June, in the Acts of St. Landeric, on which he did not put the finishing touch, being seized with paralysis, Papebroch continuing them, asserts that the privilege of the same Landeric (of which in the preceding number) was granted in the year 651, and the assembly celebrated in the following year; behold his words: That privilege, he says at no. 4, was made in the 15th year of the reign of Chlodovech, therefore of Christ 651; and in the following year the same Landeric subscribed the precept of the same Chlodovech concerning the same liberty of the monastery of St. Denis, granted in the assembly of Clichy. Nor is only the year of the given privilege and of the precept of Clovis called into doubt, but both the privilege and equally the precept of Clovis (see Germon, Disceptation 2, part 3, chapter 2, page 180 and following; Le Cointe at the year 652, no. XXIX and following) are attacked by the learned.

[33] and the catalogues at hand But the reader will not take it ill if he hears the words of Sirmond, treating of these things learnedly as well as compendiously and modestly hinting at their genuineness: he has, then, in Labbe, at the end of the above-said privilege, volume 6, column 489, the following: Furthermore, he says, that privilege, for some years now, just like that of Saint-Germain, of Saint-Médard, of St. Martin of Tours and others of the same kind, very learned men have attacked and defended, whose writings are in the hands of all; nor is it ours to settle such great disputes among them. I shall subjoin only this utterance of the most holy pontiff Celestine, consecrated by the approval of all ages, and strengthened by the suffrages of Vincent of Lérins and of very many most wise writers: "Let novelty cease to assail antiquity, strengthened by the firm and peaceful succession of very many years, and fortified by the charters of many Roman pontiffs and of our own, of the most Christian kings of France and of other princes, again and again renewed: let restlessness cease to disturb the quiet of the churches," etc. Thus he. If these things are so, in whatever year the privilege may be determined to have been given and the assembly celebrated, it does not hinder our opinion; since it is agreed among all that the council of Chalon, at which Landalenus was present, preceded the privilege of Landeric and the assembly of Clichy: let us hear Henschenius discoursing in the Acts just cited, at the same no. 4: The above-mentioned predecessor, he says, was Autbert, or rather Audobert: in the place of which bishop Landeric himself also subscribed the council of Chalon, held under Clovis II; but in what year of his is not known. But, by the leave of that most learned man, I would say that in the place of Audobert not Landeric but Germoald subscribed; for Sirmond, Labbe and Hardouin constantly note that Germoald subscribed in the name of Audobert, in these words: I, Germoald, abbot, in place of Audobert, bishop of the church of Paris, have subscribed.

[34] arranged, Further, that the same council of Chalon preceded in time the privilege of Landeric, which is our sole concern, is hinted, among other things, by the 6th year of Clovis, which is joined to the council, and the 15th, which is joined to the privilege of Landeric; nay, Candericus or Gaudericus, bishop of Lyon, was present at the council, while Munemundus, by others called Aunemundus, successor of the same Candericus, subscribed the privilege; it follows therefore that Landalenus, subscribed to the council, was by no means the successor, but truly the predecessor, of Cadeoldus, or Chaoaldus, who, as Mabillon testifies, book 6 of the De re diplomatica, page 467, is Caoëldus of Vienne in the published Martyrology of Ado. Nay, and what presses more, Cadeoldus continued to govern the diocese of Vienne under Chlothar, successor of Clovis II; for he subscribes the most ample privilege granted to the monastery of Corbie by Bertefrid, bishop of Amiens, in the 7th year of Chlothar III, and he is called by Bertefrid Ethoaldus, but subscribes as Chaoaldus: of which Le Cointe thus, at the year 662, no. XXV: Of the bishops whose names are recited at the beginning of the privilege the sees also are known; for there presided over the church of Reims Nivo or Nivardus, over that of Lyon Genesius, over that of Vienne Ethoaldus, or Edoaldus, or Eualdus, or Edoldus… But the dioceses of the bishops who subscribe the privilege cannot be so easily distinguished… Vienne was ruled by Ethoaldus, who seems to have been written Chaoaldus by the fault of a copyist. But I think that the fault lies, if it is to be called such, in Ethoaldus rather than in Chaoaldus, since he constantly signs in this manner in other instruments also.

[35] from more ancient But concerning the year in which this privilege was given, Sirmond and Le Cointe disagree: for Sirmond, volume 1 of the Councils of Gaul, page 502, notes the year 664 and the 4th of King Chlothar III, perhaps by the fault of the printer, since VII is expressly had in the privilege. But Le Cointe relates that it happened in the year 662, as may be seen in him at the year cited, no. XX: and since, according to Henschenius in the genealogical stemma most recently revised and prefixed to volume III of April, and Le Cointe and Pagi, Chlothar was raised to the kingdom in the year 656, and indeed, according to Pagi's testimony, when it was advanced to the middle of November (for Clovis II, as Pagi asserts at no. XVII, was still living in the second week of the month of November), and since the privilege is noted as given on the eighth day before the Ides of September, it will follow that this happened in the month of September of the year 662. Further, how many years Chaoaldus, or Cadeoldus, survived after the privilege was given, and whether George succeeded him, I have nothing whence to define; Le Cointe indeed asserts that George sat at the year 660, but that this does not stand, what we have just seen shows clearly enough; let us return, then, to Ado, in whom Dodolenus is reported at the year 696 as the successor of Cadeoldus, whom we have just seen is to be identified with Landalenus and set down as the predecessor of Cadeoldus. There follows at the year 699 Bobolinus, whom George immediately succeeds; behold the words of Ado, page 202: Bobolinus, an excellent bishop of the church of Vienne, was renowned. After whom George, a bishop of great virtue, is appointed in the same city. To George at the year 706 succeeds Deodatus, and at the year 714 Blidramnus, Blidranus or Blidianus to Deodatus.

[36] monuments here adduced But here again the order of Ado, which the rest follow, is disturbed; for Blidramnus bore the mitre of Vienne not when the eighth century was advanced beyond its first decade, but in the preceding century. Behold the reason of the assertion. Blidramnus was present at the judgement of Theoderic, son of Clovis, concerning Chramlinus, bishop of Embrun, deposed in a public synod, and the faculty granted him of retaining his goods after his degradation. For the cited charter, presented from the autograph by Mabillon, book 6 of the De re diplomatica, page 469, mentions Blidramnus about the middle in this manner: Whence, Genesius, Chadune, Blidramnus, Landoberchtus and Terniscus, who are seen to be metropolitans, or very many other bishops, judging him in our presence, he was cut off and cast out of the above-said episcopate. And the year of the given charter is, for Mabillon at the place cited, 678; and the clause of the charter is this: Given in the middle of the month of September, in the 5th year of our reign, at Marlacum, in the name of God, happily. Hence Pagi, dissenting from Mabillon, more rightly contends that the charter was given in the year 677: The fifth year, he says at the year cited, no. VIII, of King Theoderic is to be understood in that place as beginning. For since Childeric ceased to be among the living in the year 673 in the month of July, in the same year Theoderic, lately deposed, was drawn out of the monastery, as the Benedictines of St. Maur most recently teach us in the Art of Examining the Notes of Times, in the chronology of the kings of the Franks; for they have these things on page 531 in French, which I render in Latin: In the year 673 Theoderic was drawn out of the monastery, and although he was not proclaimed king immediately after the death of his brother, he nevertheless numbered the years of his reign from his brother's last day. It follows, therefore, that in the year of Christ 677, in the month of July, Theoderic completed the fourth year of his reign and, as Pagi contends, began the fifth.

[37] is corrected, and But how highly Mabillon valued the cited charter, although meanwhile it is not equally approved by all the learned (see Germon, Disceptation 2, chapter 7, page 254), let us see from himself: Remarkable, he says, book cited, page 470, is this charter concerning the deposition of Chramlinus, bishop of Embrun, which was hitherto unknown, nay Chramlinus himself unknown. Here five metropolitans subscribe: Genesius of Lyon, Blidramnus of Vienne. See the rest in him. Now there follow, as we said at no. 35, Bobolinus and George; if anyone should arrange these bishops in inverted order, he would aptly find those six bishops designated by St. Clarus, counting George, as the words of the prophecy seem to hint, namely George, Bobolinus, Deodatus, Agratus, Eoaldus and Bobolinus II: but since it is not agreed among the learned about what time, under what bishop, Clarus died, and what desolation he pointed to, nor can anything whence you may make it out be beaten out of the biographer, I do not think that one should dwell on these any further. Further, Ado's Chronicle hints that the governments of these bishops Bobolinus and George were brief, and testifies that they flourished when the seventh century was verging to its end; but since it also asserts that they held the mitre of Vienne while Theoderic III was ruling, it must follow that George laid it down about the year 690 and left the see to his successor Deodatus; for while Theoderic was still living, whose last year, according to Pagi at the year 688, nos. III and IV, and the Benedictines of St. Maur in the cited chronology, was 691, Deodatus himself also, George's successor, governed the diocese of Vienne as bishop, as may be seen in Ado.

[38] [and] To draw together into a compendium, then, what has just been said: the chronological order of these bishops of Vienne, taking its beginning from Landalenus or Dodolinus, so far as I can make it out from the charters or privileges, [is] almost the following

manner, I judge, stands: in the year 650 Landalenus subscribed the council of Chalon, and held the mitre of Vienne; and since the beginning of his promotion to the episcopate, as also the time of his death, are hidden, it must follow that he left the mitre to his successor Cadeoldus, or Chaoaldus (unless perhaps Bishop Edictus sat in between for some months), who before the year 653 subscribed the privilege of liberty granted by Landeric to the monastery of St. Denis; further, Cadeoldus persevered in the episcopate until the year 662; for in that year he signs the most ample privilege granted to the monastery of Corbie by Bertefrid, bishop of Amiens, in the 7th year of Chlothar III: but what was the last year of his life I should divine in vain, as also whether there were bishops between Cadeoldus and Blidranus, who in the year 677 was present at the judgement of Theoderic, son of Clovis; but if there were not such, as I am not able to show from ancient monuments that there really were, these bishops bore the mitre of Vienne from the year 677 until the year 691: Blidranus, Bobolinus, George and Deodatus; for the last was bishop while Theoderic reigned, as Ado testifies, as we shall say more fully on the following day, sacred to him, and accordingly began his episcopate before the year 691, or at least in that year.

[39] is emended; but the holy bishop Deodatus, then, the predecessor of St. Agratus, entered upon the mitre of Vienne about the year 691; for Ado's Chronicle (however wrongly the years are arranged in the margin) proves it: Among the Franks, says Ado, page 204, Theoderic was still reigning. Deodatus, bishop of Vienne, a man of great frugality, was flourishing. But for what number of years did this bishop, whose deeds come to be illustrated on the following day, govern the diocese of Vienne, and in what year at length was our saint substituted for him? Here I stick, nor do I have whence I may solidly make it out: for the chronological notes of Ado, which he subjoins to the words just cited, are confused and inverted; for he begins his period with these words: The emperor Philippicus, one year, six months. And having narrated certain things which pertain to Philippicus and happened in the year 711 and the following, as Pagi testifies, he closes the period in this manner: Theoderic, king of the Franks, died, who reigned 19 years. But Theoderic died, as we have just seen, in the year 691. Nor are the things which are subjoined to these clearer, as may be seen in Ado: and as regards the other writers on the affairs of Vienne, neither is it agreed among them in what year our saint was raised to the episcopate: for Maupertuy writes in the catalogue 716, in the work 715; Severt, that St. Agratus sat as bishop in the year 716 and persevered until the year 720: but Le Cointe contends that he flourished under Childebert III, whose last year was 711, and under his successor Dagobert III. Le Lièvre strays by more than a whole century. The manuscript catalogue, Bosc and Chenu assert that he held the mitre of Vienne under Childebert: what determined year, then, amid such great discrepancies, destitute of every monument of antiquity, shall I choose? Let the people of Vienne themselves, if the glory of their saints or the love of antiquity has any weight with them, bring forth genuine monuments, if they possess any, and what is now lacking we shall gratefully supply elsewhere.

[40] [Agratus seems to have flourished about the beginning of the eighth century, and to have died about the year 711,] Meanwhile, until that volume of the enlarged Gallia Christiana appears which must comprise the archbishops of Vienne, with the instruments added according to custom, we think, with the cited manuscript catalogue, Bosc and Chenu, that St. Agratus flourished about the beginning of the eighth century and governed the diocese of Vienne, for this reason: Deodatus, the predecessor of St. Agratus, was flourishing when the rule of Theoderic was verging to its end, or about the year 691, while Eoaldus, our saint's successor, was sitting as bishop at Vienne in the year 715, as we saw above from Ado and Sollerius. Hence it will follow that St. Agratus flourished in the time intermediate between these two epochs, sufficiently aptly arranged in Ado, and wrongly attributed to Blidramnus, as we said at no. 36, and perhaps, as Le Cointe would have it, sat in the year 707, and shone before the people of Vienne with the splendour of virtues of every kind. Since, then, for want of monuments I have nothing more to say about the beginning of his episcopate, I betake myself to determining in some way its last year, equally obscure. Severt, in the series of the bishops of Vienne, contends that St. Agratus was born into the seats of the heavenly ones in the year 720, but without doubt wrongly, since our saint's successor Eoaldus was flourishing at the year 715 (see what we said at nos. 23 and 24); hence Le Cointe asserts that St. Agratus yielded to fate in the year 714, but adduces nothing whence he may solidly make it out; wherefore it might not improbably be conjectured that our saint laid down the mitre about the year 711, lest the times of his successor, whose last year, as Sollerius teaches, was 715 or perhaps 716, be too much narrowed; might be conjectured, I say, for no old monuments, at least that I have seen, define it, nay, they indicate nothing whence the year of St. Agratus's death might be dug out sufficiently nearly; hence, in a broader manner, I noted above in the margin his passage to those above perhaps about the year 711, uncertain whether he reached that year, or whether, having passed beyond it, in the year 712 or the following he rendered into the hands of his Creator his soul, clean from every blemish and laden with many sheaves of good works.

[41] As regards now the day of his death, it too is uncertain, not unlike the rest, as was observed in our work on the preceding day among the Passed Over. on a day uncertain, though the 14th of October appears truly more likely. For authors dispute about three days: Bosc contends that today was his last; Le Lièvre contradicts, who determines that St. Agratus ceased to live on the preceding day, and Chenu, on the day following the fourteenth; nor do they adduce anything whence they may prove their assertions; and since St. Agratus is constantly announced today everywhere in the sacred calendars, if only we except the Martyrology of St. Nabor and the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard, and since he enjoys ecclesiastical cult at Vienne of the Allobroges, being customarily venerated today together with St. Callistus, as we saw from the Breviary cited at no. 5, and since no one hints anything about a translation, as is often wont to happen otherwise, I think that our saint yielded to fate and laid down the mitre of Vienne today, or on the day before the Ides of October, rather than on another of the days cited by Le Lièvre or by Chenu: for although certain saints died on another day than that on which they are chiefly venerated in the Church, yet much more frequently, and almost daily, it happens that the day dedicated to the ecclesiastical veneration of the saints is altogether the same as that on which they also inserted their happy soul into heaven; which, since Le Lièvre and Chenu bring forward nothing to the contrary, seems able to be believed not rashly of the feast-day of St. Agratus. More about these holy bishops I have not to say for want of monuments; but before I furl the sails, I wish the reader to be forewarned of this, that in this § I have inverted the order of certain bishops rather by way of inquiry than of resolution; hence, if anyone shall have proved that the order found at hand in Ado and the catalogues, and the shorter periods of those bishops admitted by Sollerius, though reluctantly, are to be retained, we shall correct what we have brought forward here by way of inquiry, with prompt retractation and a grateful mind.

ipsum.*

Judicantes.*