ON ST. DEODATUS OF VIENNE, OR THEODATUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN GAUL,
About the year 707.
SYLLOGE.
The memory of the Saint in the sacred fasti, and his cult: the time of his see, and of his death.
Deodatus or Theodatus, bishop and confessor, at Vienne of the Allobroges in Gaul. (S.)
BY M. S.
Vienne, a city in the Dauphiné of Gaul, as it venerates various prelates reckoned in the number of the Saints, In various, and those not recent, this holy Prelate so it has willed that today's day, on which he is believed to have been taken from among the living, be dedicated to the memory of St. Deodatus: hence this Saint is had inscribed in various Martyrologies, and those not so very recent, although he is passed over in the genuine Ado and Usuard; for a MS. Martyrology of St. Ado celebrates him in these words: At Vienne, of St. Deodatus, bishop. With these agrees Mosander, having thus: At Vienne, of St. Deodatus, bishop. Which words Rosweyde and most recently Dominicus Georgius repeat, but relegate to the Appendix on the evidence of the more approved Codices: and of the Auctaria of Usuard recorded by Sollerius, Greven announces our Saint today in this way: At Vienne, of St. Deodatus, bishop and Confessor. To these I add our MS. Florarium: At Vienne, of St. Deodatus, bishop. As also an old MS. Calendar of the church of Vienne: 15th of October, of St. Deodatus, bishop, confessor. With which agrees Castellanus, noting in the margin that our Saint died about the year 710. But more prolix than all these is Saussay, as also the MS. Martyrology of the Holy and ancient church of Vienne, published by Le Lièvre, which, however, mixes in certain things needing correction, as we shall see below.
[2] is announced on this day in the Martyrologies, Saussay indeed exhibits the following elogium of our Saint: At Vienne, of St. Theodatus, bishop and Confessor, who, put in place of St. Gregory, or rather George, restored the extinguished light of piety with a new splendour of virtue. For with a wonderful contempt of perishable things, abstinence and every austerity of life, rigour of justice, affection of mercy, of religion
and zeal, he excelled in his age. At length, rich in every work, the pastoral office having been fruitfully discharged, he was called to his reward according to his merits. An elogium of this kind could indeed be composed for any holy prelate whatever, if only Saussay had not added the following, restored the extinguished light of piety with a new splendour of virtue; for since the cause or occasion of this extinguished light is kept silent in him, and since at that time a holy bishop succeeded none but a Saint, whence this part of the elogium became known to him must be left in doubt, or we must suppose that he added it of his own. What the MS. Martyrology relates about St. Deodatus is contained in these words: On the same day (it had placed first Bl. Philippa, called de Campo-Milano, whose Acts will be given below) the birthday of St. Deodatus, archbishop of Vienne, a man of outstanding holiness, and of singular abstinence. He flourished at Vienne in the reign of Theodoric, king of the Franks, while the most glorious pontiff Claudius ruled the church of Besançon, St. Ouen that of Rouen, Omer that of Thérouanne, Amatus that of Sens, Damian that of Paris, Theodore that of Canterbury, and Mansuetus that of Milan. At length, full of age and of miracles, he fell asleep in the Lord, and was entombed with his forebears. So the cited Martyrology of Le Lièvre, with which the MS. Series of the Saints of Vienne, as also the History of the Antiquities of Vienne published by the same Le Lièvre, agree, with a very few things changed.
[3] by which he also obtains ecclesiastical cult at Vienne: For the rest, as regards the ecclesiastical cult of St. Deodatus, which we have seen from the Martyrologies just cited, there is scarcely anything to be said specially: that his annual memory was celebrated from a long time ago, and is still celebrated, is established from the Breviary printed in the year 1522, which brings forward the following Rubric about our Saint fol. 388 verso.: Of St. Deodatus, bishop and Confessor. Let it be done as in the common. Prayer. Grant, we beseech thee, almighty (whose words further run) God, that the venerable solemnity of blessed Deodatus, thy Confessor and pontiff, may increase in us both devotion and salvation. Through our Lord. The MS. Martyrology cited at no. 2 asserts indeed (which is apt to promote ecclesiastical cult excellently) that this prelate died full of Miracles, but it does not enumerate particular ones, and since older as well as more recent writers are silent here, nothing whatever was granted me to find by which I might establish what the Martyrology says in this part. Whence, leaving these things, let us proceed to others, and since the things which this Saint did before his episcopate are wholly in obscurity, the chronological order seems to require that we now inquire when he began to govern the diocese of Vienne.
[4] he began to rule this church as bishop All those whom it was possible to inspect who treat of the prelates of Vienne, if you except one MS. Catalogue in our possession, have numbered our Saint among them: the earlier place among these is occupied by Ado in the Chronicle which we have published: but, as we observed in vol. VI of Oct., on the 14th day, in the Sylloge on SS. Agratus and Casturus, no. 39, the things which the prelate of Vienne noted in the cited Chronicle about the times of St. Deodatus are not so clear; meanwhile he writes strikingly that our Saint governed the diocese of Vienne under Theodoric, that is, the third of this name (whom, wrongly, on page 204 of the Paris edition, he asserts held the kingdom of the Franks while Philippicus was reigning, or rather ceasing to reign): Among the Franks, he says, Theodoric was still reigning. Deodatus, bishop of Vienne, a man of great frugality, was flourishing. To these Ado subjoins, but in no chronological order, the things which pertain to the reign of Philippicus, and which happened in the years, as we said at the place cited above, 711 and 712, and closes his period with these words: Theodoric, king of the Franks, died, who reigned 19 years. Further, it is admitted among historiographers that Theodoric by no means reached the times of Philippicus; for Theodoric III died, as Pagi rightly proves at the year 688, §§ III and IV, and as we shall say more fully below, in the year of Christ 691, which year, as Pagi too points out, is expressly noted in the Chronicle of Hermann the Lame published in Canisius, volume III, Part I of the Antiqua Lectio p. 238. Basnage edition, in these words: 691, among the Franks king Theodoric dies in the 19th year of his reign.
[5] at the end of the reign of Theodoric III, or about Indeed, that Theodoric did not reach the year 711, in which Philippicus began to reign, is made out from Ado himself: for, having narrated the death of Theodoric, he treats of the reign of Anastasius, and, some things interposed, subjoins the following: Drogo, son of Pippin, dies in the winter season in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 708. With Ado, on the testimony of Pagi at this year, § II, agree the Annals of Lorsch (Nazariani), of Tilius, of Petau, and the Chronicle of Saint-Denis, as also most recently the Benedictines in L'Art de vérifier les dates, and in the Chronology of the kings of the Franks. Hence the chronological order, which also gave others occasion to stumble, manifestly appears inverted and disturbed in Ado: for it is agreed among historians that Philippicus came to the empire when the eighth century was advanced beyond its first decade, and that Anastasius in the year 713, on the feast of Pentecost, the 4th of June (see Pagi at this year, and the Benedictines in the cited Chronology L'Art de vérif. les dates, vol. I, p. 421.), ascended the summit of the empire, with which the marginal numbers marked in Ado's Chronicle agree sufficiently closely. From these, therefore, it follows that St. Deodatus, when Theodoric's reign was ending, for among the Franks Theodoric was still reigning, and about the year 690 or the following, according to Ado's mind, was crowned with the fillets of Vienne. We have now seen the source; let us look for a little at the rivulets, especially since they disagree with the source: Bosco, whom Chenu almost copies, in the Historical Elenchus p. 41., contends that our Saint flourished under Anastasius, the successor of Philippicus in the empire, and Theodoric, whom he makes contemporaries. Here are his words.
[6] about the year 690 or the following; this beginning indeed, After him, namely George, the bishop of Vienne was St. Deodatus, in order, as he notes in the margin, the 38th, a man altogether abstemious, in the reign of Anastasius, and with Theodoric still reigning, and Pippin under Sigebert, king of Austrasia, mayor of the palace; who had in this mayoralty as successor Grimoald, his son, who failed in prison under Clovis, at which time St. Leodegar, afflicted with various punishments by Ebroin, was lastly beheaded, and Gerinus his brother and others were afflicted in various ways. He departed on the Ides of October. So Bosco, but admitting various errors here: for, as we have just seen, he wrongly confuses the times of Anastasius and Theodoric: and what moved him to add this chronological note about Pippin I do not see; for Pippin of Landen, Grimoald's father, and Mayor of the Palace under St. Sigebert, died in the year 640, as Henschen teaches us, wishing to correct Bolland (who had written in the Commentary prefixed to his Life on the 21st of February that the same Pippin died in the year 646) in the Exegesis prefixed to volume III of April p. VI.: indeed Pagi At the year 639, § XV., as also the Benedictines in the cited Chronology L'Art de vérif. les dates, vol. I, p. 545., contend that Pippin rightly, as may be seen in them, died in the year 639. Nor do the things which Bosco records about St. Leodegar and his brother Gerinus, although they happened in Theodoric's reign, make any more to the point; since the Martyrdom of these brothers without doubt preceded the episcopate of St. Deodatus: for Gerinus suffered, see the Prelim. Comm. on the Life of St. Gerinus, § XIII, nos. 197 and 198 At the 2nd day of Oct, p. 403., in the year 676: while Leodegar died, and was killed by Ebroin in the year 678, as Bye learnedly proves in the cited Comm., § XVI.
[7] but less fitly, some judge it should be deferred. It is clear hence that the things which Bosco brought forward, and Chenu almost adopted, cannot carry a torch before us so that we may perceive when our Saint flourished: nor do the Sainte-Marthe brothers show themselves fit sureties here; for although they add no chronological notes to our Saint, they relate that his predecessor George Gall. Christ. Antiq., vol. I, p. 796. flourished in the year 699 from Ado: for although the marginal numbers marked in Ado's Chronicle favour this opinion of the Sainte-Marthe brothers, the things which we brought forward above from the very text of Ado overturn it sufficiently strikingly, as they do also Maupertuy, a historiographer of this century, who asserts that our Saint received the fillets of Vienne in the year 701. More conformably than these, Le Lièvre, otherwise neither exact nor sparing in adding chronological notes, writes in French only the following, as regards the kings of Gaul, in the history of the Antiquities of Vienne: St. Deodatus, 38th archbishop of Vienne, a man of wonderful austerity and abstinence, in the reign of Theodoric, king of the Franks. Which we also saw above at no. 2. The consequence, therefore, from these is that St. Deodatus began to rule the church of Vienne when the reign of Theodoric III was verging to its end, or about the year 690 or 691, as we said at no. 5. But was he contemporary with those most illustrious prelates enumerated by Le Lièvre in the Martyrology cited at no. 2? Let us now see this in a few words.
[8] Some illustrious prelates were contemporaries of this Saint, The Acts of seven of these illustrious and holy Pontiffs our Elders illustrated with Commentaries in various places of our Work, and of the first indeed, Claudius of Besançon, on the 6th of June Vol. I of June, p. 644., Henschen judges the year of death to be 581; Le Cointe, however, defends with all his strength that the death of this prelate is to be tied to the year 698 (see him at the said year), which Chifflet in the Illustrationes Claudianae, in our volume Ibid., p. 692., judges should be deferred as far as the year 703. That Ouen of Rouen arose to the seats of the heavenly ones in the year 683 is asserted by Cuper in volume IV of August At the 24th day of August, p. 799., that Omer of Thérouanne about the year 670 by Stilting in volume III of September on the 9th day, Amatus of Sens in the year 690 by Trentecamp in volume IV of September on the 13th day p. 120., Damian of Pavia in the year 710 by Henschen in volume II of April on the 12th day p. 91., Theodore of Canterbury in the year 699 by Clé in volume VI of September on the 19th day p. 55., finally Mansuetus of Milan in the year 689 by Henschen in volume III of February at the 19th day p. 135.. Let it suffice to have reported these things, for there is no leisure to look more deeply into the intricate questions about some of them, nor is this the place to examine the things which are disputed more prolixly elsewhere about these prelates or their years of death. It follows, therefore, from what has just been said, that these prelates (Henschen excludes Claudius, and Stilting Omer), while Theodoric III was reigning or ceasing to reign, discharged the episcopal office gloriously, and hence, if not all were bishops contemporary with our bishop, yet they flourished not far removed from him, since St. Deodatus took up the diocese of Vienne to govern when Theodoric's reign was verging to its end.
[9] adorned with most outstanding virtues: Among the illustrious virtues of our Prelate the writers especially extol his abstinence and frugality; for Ado, whom most of those who discourse on the prelates of Vienne follow, with a compendious
elogium celebrates him thus: Deodatus, a man of great frugality, was flourishing. But Saussay more explicitly, in that encomium which we saw at no. 2, asserts that this Prelate was adorned with the most illustrious gems of virtues, and wonderfully extols him not only for abstinence or frugality, but also for justice, mercy, zeal for religion, and, to say it in a word, all the virtues: and although we said that these virtues are common to any holy prelate, it was by no means my mind to deny on that account that they shone remarkably in our Saint. The other things which St. Deodatus did as bishop are hidden from us, and are in obscurity: Le Lièvre asserts indeed that while our Saint was living a synod of Rouen was celebrated under St. Ansbert, but that our Saint was present at it he neither himself hints, nor does his name appear among the other subscribed names of prelates: here are the words of Le Lièvre, which, after enumerating the above-mentioned bishops, he subjoins: Then there was celebrated at Rouen, under St. Ansbert, successor of St. Ouen, a council, whose acts are in darkness. But although it is agreed among authors that this Council (for what survives of it see Sirmond Conc. Gall., vol. I, p. 509., and in our Work, vol. II of February At the 9th day of Feb., p. 352, no. 26.) was celebrated under Theodoric III, there is nevertheless no small dispute among them about the year in which it was celebrated, as we are now about to see, investigating its more probable date in a few words.
[10] who at the Council of Rouen, whose more probable Henschen, on the 1st day of February, in the Commentary prefixed to the Life of St. Sigebert, § XII, no. 99, contends that this synod was held in the 13th year of Theodoric, of Christ 691, or the following: let us hear him: The see of St. Ansbert, he says, who we said succeeded St. Ouen, who died on the 24th of August of the year 689, is made famous by the Synod of Rouen held by him, and indeed in the 13th year of the glorious king Theodoric, as the printed Acts express it, and the MSS. of Rouen and of Fontenelle, which are most of all to be trusted. That year is the year of Christ 691, or certainly the next, 692. And in no. 100 the same Henschen contends that Theodoric reigned 14 years and died in the year 693: he writes similar things at the 9th day of February, sacred to St. Ansbert, § III, nos. 17 and 18; but these displease other learned men, and not undeservedly: and first of all Cuper, volume IV p. 799., following Le Cointe and Mabillon, establishes the year of death of St. Ouen as not 689, but 683, on the 24th day of August, and notes at no. 31 that Le Cointe (whom, however, Valesius, as also Pagi at the year 684, in which they contend St. Ouen died, oppose) investigated the times of Ouen accurately. As for what concerns the times of Theodoric, as we have already seen above, there is sufficient agreement among chronographers, contrary to what Henschen thought: let us hear Bye clearly asserting this in the Commentary on SS. Leodegar and Gerinus, on the 2nd day of October, § VIII, no. 120: To this argument of Pagi, he says, discoursing about the last year on earth of Dagobert III, I am pleased to add the following.
[11] date is investigated, It is sought from the time at which Theodoric III died, and at which he held the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy. Here it is. Theodoric III, king of the Franks, died in the year 691, as Pagi strikingly shows at the year 688, nos. 3 and 4, and he held the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy for nineteen years, as Erchanbert in the Breviary of the kings of the Franks and of the mayors of the palace, the author of the Deeds of the kings of the Franks, older than Erchanbert, chapter XLIX, and Ado in the Chronicle affirm. Add the Chronicle of Hermann the Lame cited at no. 4. Wherefore, since up to the year 691, in which, as has been said, Theodoric died, the nineteen years, even only incomplete, during which we have taught he reigned in Neustria and Burgundy, cannot be found if Theodoric began to reign in Neustria later than the year 673, it follows that he began to reign in Neustria earlier than the year 674. But in what year of Theodoric III was the Synod of Rouen now celebrated? And was St. Deodatus at that time prelate of Vienne? To define these things is not so readily possible: let us begin from the former, and see the records of each opinion: Henschen contends that the thirteenth year of Theodoric must be retained for these reasons: this year is expressed by the printed Acts of St. Ansbert, as we shall presently see from Pagi. The same year is had by the MSS. of Rouen and of Fontenelle, which, says Henschen, are most of all to be trusted.
[12] and which seems to have preceded his episcopate Now let us hear Pagi, who tries to prove that the sixteenth year of Theodoric should be read; he adduces the following here at the year 682, § VIII: St. Ansbert, he says, bishop of Rouen, is made famous, among other things, by the Synod of Rouen assembled by him, but its date has been called into great controversy, and that it may be resolved, the chronological marks must be reported here with which it is recorded in the Life of St. Ansbert: under the year of the Lord's Incarnation 682, indiction X, which was the 13th year of the aforesaid glorious king Theodoric and the fifth of the pontificate of the aforesaid venerable prelate. But the former is added, because at this time, at least in public Acts, years of the Incarnation were not used by the Franks, as is now beyond controversy. Wherefore that mark was not noted by Aigradus, monk of Fontenelle, author of that Life, almost contemporary with St. Ansbert, but thrust in by later men. Pagi adds that Vincent of Beauvais, in the Speculum historiale, book XXIII, chapter C, has XVI instead of the year XIII, as also read Sirmond in a MS. Codex of the monastery of St. Michael in the sea, situated in the diocese of Avranches, and Mabillon, in the second Benedictine century Act. SS. Ord. Bened., vol. II, p. 1048., exhibiting the Life of St. Ansbert compared with MS. codices (note). Pagi proceeds, and tries to indicate in what way, by conjecture as it seems, XIII crept in in place of the number XVI: The copyist, he says, when the lines of the number V had been worn away in the lowest part, read XIII in place of XVI, which error not rarely occurs. Wherefore, since the 16th year of Theodoric began in the year 688, and the first of Ansbert starts from the year 684, in which he succeeded St. Ouen, the Synod of Rouen was certainly celebrated in the year six hundred and eighty-eight, or eighty-nine, namely in the current Indiction I or II, and therefore Indiction X was no less stuffed into the Life of St. Ansbert.
[13] he seems not It is clear hence that each brings forward no slight foundations for his opinion; but the following make Pagi's method of arranging the chronotaxis appear to me more likely: first of all, Henschen by no means grasped the years of Theodoric III, as we have seen above, and deferred the death of Ouen, on the testimony of Cuper and the authors cited by him, more than was just, namely by six years according to Le Cointe, or five years if we follow Valesius and Pagi; hence he must also have deferred the Synod, which Aigradus, his Biographer, expressly affirms St. Ansbert celebrated in the fifth year of his episcopate, which Henschen passes over untouched. As for what concerns the MSS. of Rouen and Fontenelle, although I will not deny they are of greater weight, they are perhaps depraved by the fault of an unskilled amanuensis, as Pagi asserts, which I conjecture the more willingly, as I see that, notwithstanding these MSS., the palm is given by Sirmond, Mabillon and Pagi to the MS. of St. Michael, and the other MSS. which lighted Mabillon's way; indeed, since, as is today agreed among chronographers, Theodoric began to reign in the year 673, if we add thirteen to this year, the Council would have been celebrated in the year 686 or 687, since the month of the year, whether XIII or XVI, in which the Council was celebrated is not expressed, neither of which coincides with the fifth of St. Ansbert, and not in 691 or 692.
[14] to have been present at: From these, further, the consequence is that the Council of Rouen was more probably held in the 16th year of Theodoric, and the year of Christ 688 or 689, as Pagi thinks, to which Bouquet Recueil des Hist. de Fr., vol. III, p. 618. and the above-cited Benedictines in the Chronology of the Councils come very near, and establish that the Council of which we treat was celebrated in the year 689. Hence it further follows that it cannot be defined for certain whether our Saint governed the chair of Vienne as bishop at the time of this Council; for although we have shown above clearly enough that he was created Prelate about the end of Theodoric's reign, whether he anticipated the death of Theodoric as Bishop by three or four years I candidly confess I have nothing by which to prove; indeed the Council of Rouen, although this cannot be clearly made out, seems more truly to have preceded the prelacy of St. Deodatus: for the number of the prelates of Vienne multiplied at this time (see what we said on that matter on the preceding day in the Comm. on SS. Agratus and Casturus, § III, no. 37) requires that the beginnings of St. Deodatus in the episcopate be placed about the end of Theodoric's reign and about the year 691, or at most 690. Further, since the other things which St. Deodatus, as I said at no. 9, did in the episcopate are hidden from us, I betake myself to designating, as nearly as can be done, the time of death of this prelate.
[15] this Saint died, and with the heavenly Some things pertaining here we touched on beforehand in the Commentary on SS. Agratus and Casturus, § III, nos. 39 and 40, and said that the death of our prelate should not be separated much from the year 707: for since Ado's Chronicle asserts that about the year 708 Blidramnus (whom, however, we taught at no. 36 in the place cited flourished in the preceding century, and we supposed that the times assigned to him by Ado fit St. Agratus) wore the fillets of Vienne, it follows that, according to the mind of Ado, St. Deodatus left the chair of Vienne before the year 708 to his successor, whoever he was. [The age of Blidramnus, namely, is made uncertain by a charter of Theodoric III, king of Neustria and Burgundy, given in the middle of the month of September of the 5th year of his reign, or, as they interpret, of the year 677 of the common era. (Cf. Pagi, Crit. Baron. at this year, § VIII.) In that Charter there are cited as Metropolitans Genesius of Lyon, Blidramnus of Vienne, Landebercht of Sens, Ternisius or Ternasius of Besançon, and Chadunus of uncertain see (perhaps of Aix or Arles), bishops. If indeed its credit stood firm for the diploma, Blidramnus would without doubt have to be placed before our St. Deodatus. This charter, cited by Mabillon, De re Diplom. Book VI, § X, is impugned by our Barthélemy Germon, and he is confuted by Giusto Fontanini, Vind. Antiq. Diplom. p. 190.. Certainly if Ado's Chronology were clearer, there would be something by which to attack the cited diploma most strongly: but as things now are, it can scarcely be decided whose credit is to be preferred.] Here are the words of Ado, although hardly chronological: Blidramnus, he says In Pertz Monum. Germ., vol. II, p. 318., bishop of the church of Vienne. Liutprand, king of the Lombards, at the admonition of the venerable Pope Gregory, confirmed the donation of the patrimony of the Cottian Alps, which king Heribert had made, but he had reclaimed. Drogo, son of Pippin, dies in the winter season in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 708.
It is clear hence that the successor of St. Deodatus had already then been raised to the see of Vienne in the year 708, in which Ado expressly noted that Drogo, son of Pippin, departed from this life, with which the Chronicle of Fleury in Bouquet Rec. des Hist. de Fr., vol. III, p. 315., that of Limoges in the same place Ibid., p. 316., as also Pagi and the Annals cited by him, agree. Nor do the things about Liutprand which precede the death of Drogo in Ado's Chronicle stand in the way, since these are long posterior to these times. For Heribert, king of the Lombards, completed this donation in the year 707, on the testimony of Hermann the Lame and Pagi.
[16] is presented with glory Here are Pagi's words at the year 704, § II. The Cottian Alps, of which Baronius speaks at this year, were given to the Roman church in the year seven hundred and seven, as Hermann the Lame has it in the Chronicle according to the Canisius edition Antiq. Lect., vol. III, part I, p. 239. Basnage edition. In the year 707, are the words of the Chronicle, at this time Heribert, king of the Lombards, restored to St. Peter and Pope John, by a privilege written in golden letters, the possession of the Cottian Alps, long since taken and held by the Lombards. Indeed Leutbrand, or as others say Liutprand himself, obtained the kingdom of the Lombards only in the year 712 (see Pagi at the said year, § VIII), and the cities which he himself had taken away two years before he restored in the year 742, as Pagi shows from Anastasius at the year 741, § X, to Zachary, successor of Gregory III, so that hence these things either seem less conformable to the truth, or, if they are to be understood of those four cities restored by Liutprand, are by no means noted in due order. The successor of our Saint, therefore, was acting in the chair of Vienne in the year 708; but whether in that year, or in one of the years immediately preceding, St. Deodatus flew from the prison-house of the body into heaven does not appear clearly from Ado, although I am strongly impelled to suspect that he was alive in the preceding year, or 707, in which we placed the beginning of St. Agratus, and that he ceased on this day, as is agreed among all.
[17] about the year 707. For although it cannot be manifestly proved from Ado's Chronicle that St. Deodatus died in the year 707, yet that he did not survive beyond the fifteenth day of the month of October seems sufficiently conformable to the truth: for Drogo, whom Ado notes died in the winter season of the year 708, is said in the Annals of Petau, and in a certain short Chronicle conformable to them, to have died in the spring season: In the year 608 (are the words of the Annals in Bouquet Rec. des Hist., de Fr., vol. II, p. 641.) when Drogo died in the spring season. And the Chronicle conformable to these has this in the same place Ibid., p. 644.: 708 when Drogo died in the vernal time. It is clear hence that Ado's words are to be taken of the winter season at the beginning of the year 708, and the consequence is made that our Saint did not reach the month of October of that year, since Drogo himself did not reach it. Castellanus, therefore, in his Universal Martyrology is convicted of having deferred the death of our Saint more than was just, since he places it about the year 710. Although, therefore, I myself cannot define in what determinate year this holy Prelate departed from among the living, and his holy soul, shining forth with good works and adorned with every kind of virtue, entered the heavenly tabernacles, yet that the same prelate was not among mortals beyond the year 707 seems sufficiently conformable to the truth, as is clear from what has been said.