Anastasius

ON ST. ANASTASIUS, MONK AND HERMIT, IN GAUL,

About the year 1085.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Anastasius, hermit and monk of the Order of St. Benedict, in Gaul. (S.)

BHL Number: 0406

§ I. On the Saint's cult, his biographer, and his deeds in Normandy.

[St. Anastasius was formerly venerated in the diocese of Rieux, but not at Venice, his native place.] Mabillon, who first of all published the Life of St. Anastasius, writes in the preliminary Observations, num. 5 Acta SS. of the Order of St. Benedict, Saec. VI, part II, p. 487., that the name of this holy man is shown in no Martyrology, so far at least as he knows, not even the Benedictine: to which annotation we are obliged to subscribe, since we have nowhere found this Saint designated, not even in the Auctaria of Bede, Ado, Usuard. His cult, however, is certain: so much so that after Mabillon Claude Chastelain inserted him into his Martyrology in these words: "St. Anastasius of Devota (de Doyde), hermit in the diocese of Rivi (Rieux), died about the year 1086, or rather 1085." To the present day too the enlarger of Ferrari assigns him, as being a Venetian by nation, in the Hagiology of Italy Vol. II, at the 16th of Oct. Ed. 1773.. At Venice, however, he has no cult; indeed he is scarcely or not even scarcely known: the foundation of which assertion for me is that in the vast work of Flaminio Cornaro, a Venetian senator, which is named: Ecclesia Veneta antiquis monumentis illustrata The Venetian Church illustrated by ancient monuments, mention is indeed made of a certain St. Anastasius; but he is the Persian who, having suffered under King Chosroes, is venerated on the 22nd of January, and whose body, translated to Venice, is religiously preserved there in the chapel of the Holy Trinity Eccles. Venet., Vol. IV, p. 356 and 358.; of St. Anastasius the hermit there is complete silence there. But while he obtained no celebrity in the city in which he was born, in the place in which he died he was already long ago devoutly venerated: which Mabillon testifies in these words Acta SS. of the Order of St. Benedict, Saec. VI, part II, p. 487.: "He is venerated in the parish church of Saint Martin of Doyde, or, as the author of the Life has it, of Devota, in the diocese of Rieux, where his whole sacred body was preserved up to the 16th century." What was done with the Relics thereafter will be explained in another place.

[2] His Life was written, not ten, Now if the pen is turned to the Acts of St. Anastasius, there is scarcely anything in them which does not give birth to many doubts: and first indeed Walter, who inscribes himself as their author, was otherwise unknown to Mabillon, in the preliminary Observations to the Life n. 1, to Ceillier in the History of Ecclesiastical Writers Vol. XX, p. 697. and to the authors of the Literary History of France Vol. VIII, p. 428.. These historiographers write of him thus in French: "Walter, biographer of St. Anastasius, monk and hermit, who died about the year 1086, seems to have finished his writing nine or ten years after this Saint's death. This opinion is suggested to us both by the reading of the little book itself and by the fewness of the miracles. The author is weighty, but unknown. Nevertheless he seems to have been a priest, and indeed parish priest of Devota; at least he addresses his little work to Peter, subdeacon of Devota. And the parish of Devota, situated in the diocese of Rieux, had the Saint's sepulchre. He narrates in quite an easy order and is brief; which brevity, however, did not at all force him to omit the more important deeds of the Saint." So, nearly, the said Benedictine associates, often to be praised by us; likewise Mabillon, judging from the context of the Life, calls Walter a weighty man, and reckons that he wrote not long after the death of St. Anastasius. We think that Mabillon's judgement is to be acceded to in every respect. But the lapse of time, namely ten years, which the aforecited historiographers assign from the death of St. Anastasius to the writing of his Life, is too short: for, to pass over that St. Anastasius was a stranger and unknown in the village at Devota, and that nevertheless in this his Life he is honoured with the title of Saint, Confessor and most glorious man, and that a quite celebrated cult had been paid to him when his deeds were described (which are not to be presumed to have been done so immediately after his death); these things, I say, being passed over, another argument can be sought from the death of St. Hugh, sixth abbot of Cluny, insinuated in the Acts of St. Anastasius; by which it becomes probable that about twenty years are to be added to those ten which the writers of the Literary History admitted.

[3] but at least thirty years after his death. For the praised historiographers Hist. litter. de Fr., Vol. VIII, p. 164., with Mabillon and others, admit that St. Anastasius died about the year 1086; and on the other side it is established that St. Hugh departed from among the living in the year 1109; but when the Life of St. Anastasius was written, this holy abbot had already flown away to the heavenly ones: which is indicated quite clearly in the Life itself at num. 4, where these are the words: "The venerable abbot, Hugh by name, who at the same time presided over the monastery of Cluny"; which manner of speaking is applied to a dead man, not at all to a living one. But not many more than thirty years seem able to be admitted: for in the whole Life of St. Anastasius St. Hugh is called only a venerable man, nowhere a Saint. And at the beginning of the year 1120, as is drawn from a charter of which mention is made at this year, num. 96, in the Benedictine Annals Vol. VI, p. 43. Paris ed., he was solemnly canonized by Calixtus II, who governed the Church from the year 1119: hear on this matter Hugh the monk writing to Pons, abbot of Cluny: "He (Calixtus II) returned to Cluny a second time, and there devoutly kept the feast of the Lord's Circumcision and of the Apparition *. And while among other things he treated more often of the life and miracles of Blessed Hugh, he did not attend to the little writings of anybody set down on these matters more profusely, but gladly received authentic persons presented in the midst of the chapter of Cluny, attesting the more strongly what they had seen and heard of the Saint. And the bishops and cardinals likewise assenting, the Pope decreed that to the praise and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ the birthday of so great a Confessor, approved by so many and so great virtues, should be made a feast." Which words, since they indicate the solemnity and splendour of this canonization, have seemed fit to be copied out in this place from the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis Col. 464.. But since this solemnity was so great, and St. Hugh was exceedingly well known in all the Gauls, it cannot be that it was hidden from the writer of the Life of St. Anastasius, who must have had very much commerce with the monks of Cluny in order to write this little work of his; wherefore, since he calls Hugh only Venerable and not at all a Saint, it must be said that he wrote in that interval of time which flowed between the year 1109 and 1120. And so much concerning the year of writing.

[4] His biographer is rashly called a priest or parish priest of Devota. But whence the historiographers of French letters drew out that the biographer of St. Anastasius was a priest and perhaps parish priest of Devota, I confess that I am entirely ignorant. For it is not at all indicated in the Life itself: Walter says indeed in the prologue that he is a friend of Peter, subdeacon of the church of Devota, and of his brother Bernard; that he writes in order to satisfy their petition and to provide for the edification of posterity; but nothing besides which bears on this matter.

And indeed I wonder whether the very beginning of the prologue does not indicate the contrary: for what man of Devota, treating of his own village, would be silent about being a fellow-villager, and would write thus baldly: "Walter to Peter, subdeacon of the church of Devota, and to his brother Bernard, prosperity in all things"? What parish priest would write the Life of the patron of his parish, and nowhere hint that he shared in this patronage? Wherefore I prefer with Mabillon to leave in suspense the dispute about the writer, rather than, setting down something certain, to throw with the cited historians a die perhaps full of error. Of Walter, however, it can certainly be said that he was not a monk of Cluny, since he speaks of St. Hugh as of a man foreign to himself; but that it is almost beyond doubt that he was taught most of the deeds of St. Anastasius by the monks of Cluny, I trust will be manifest to him who notices that scarcely anything is related in this Life which is not connected with the deeds of St. Hugh. For the rest, with how much care Walter finished that little work he indicates at the end of the prologue in these words: "I ask therefore, and earnestly beseech, that if through carelessness I have sought out too little, or through the poverty of my wit have passed over anything," etc.; which formula of a lowly mind is wont to disclose the investigations made by the author. To these it will help to add from Mabillon in what way this Life first saw the light: which he himself explains thus in the preliminary Observations n. 1: "This Life we owe to the most illustrious prince of the church Antoine Pierre Bertier, prelate of Rieux, who most kindly communicated with one of ours the MS. codex in which it is contained, received from the parish church of Saint Martin of Doyde, which he at once copied out and transmitted to us, to be inserted in the Acts of the Saints of our Order." Which fortune we too pray for with regard to other Lives of the Saints. Now concerning the deeds of our Saint; and first indeed concerning his boyhood.

[5] St. Anastasius, liberally educated, For determining the year of St. Anastasius's birth, suitable instruments are not at hand. It may however be affirmed without danger that he was born at the beginning of the eleventh century, perhaps about the twentieth year, since this shines out from the whole series of his life. His native place was Venice, and his family noble according to the dignity of this world, as Walter nearly says. His liberal education was of great care to his parents; which indeed was the easier for them, the more nobly studies were at that time beginning to flourish in Italy, where nevertheless not so long before all their vigour and grace had been neglected. They were therefore no longer prodigies who joined a knowledge of Greek to skill in the Latin tongue. For about the year 1085 Landulf the elder wrote in the History of Milan [Book III, chap. XXI and XXIII, in Muratori, Writers of Italian Affairs, Vol. IV, p. 108 and 110.] that the archdeacon Guibert was a master of both tongues, and that Ambrose Biffi was learned in Latin and Greek letters and therefore called biffarius. The same lot befell our Anastasius, of whom his biographer discourses thus at num. 2: "From his earliest age he was given over by his parents to literary studies; in which he applied such care that he seemed to be imbued to a nicety with all letters, Greek as well as Latin." For the rest, since Muratori has woven a not unlearned commentary on the State, neglect and cultivation of Letters in Italy from the invasion of the barbarians up to the year 1100 Antiq. Ital. Medii Ævi dissert. XLIII, Vol. III, col. 809 and following, it will be enough for our purpose to have referred the reader to him. It must be noted, however, that nothing is brought forward by Muratori which regards the Venetian schools more nearly: which defect, as regards this century, is not supplied by those who have written expressly on Venetian letters, so far as they are known to me. It is doubtful to us, therefore, whether St. Anastasius left the Venetian land to be taught humane letters elsewhere. For the rest, there will recur later a more suitable place for speaking of his love of good letters or his commerce with the learned.

[6] [he embraces the monastic life at Mont-Saint-Michel-in-Peril-of-the-Sea; at what time he did so is uncertain.] His studies completed, Anastasius prepared himself for the monastic life, applying serious effort to taming the body and exercising the spirit in prayer. He then travelled through all Gaul, seeking for himself a monastery where he might live more closely joined with God, until at length he came to the British sea, to the borders of the diocese of Avranches in Normandy, where the solitude of the Mount of Saint Michael at the Tomb, or in Peril of the Sea (Mont-S.-Michel), seemed suitable for fulfilling his wishes. But the year in which this was done is wrapped by Mabillon in almost inexplicable tangles: for in the preliminary Observations to the Life he writes thus: "We learn from the Life itself that Blessed Anastasius withdrew about the middle of this eleventh century into the monastery called Saint Michael in Peril of the Sea, namely at the time when an abbot infected with the stain of simony, whose name he kept silent, presided over the same monastery. And we conjecture that this happened about the year 1058 or the following, because in these two years no abbot is found mentioned in the catalogues or old instruments of the monastery of Saint Michael, since perhaps, branded with simony, he did not merit a place among the abbots of the same place. And indeed we do not read that the other abbots who presided over the same monastery in this century were touched by the pest of simony." So he in this place; and he goes on to blame Arthur du Monstier, who wrongly mixed a certain Fulk into the catalogue of abbots at this time. But altogether different things occur elsewhere: for writing the Benedictine Annals, at the year 1048, § XLIII Vol. IV, p. 455., he speaks thus: "There is no slight suspicion that in the time of Abbot Suppo Anastasius, a noble Venetian learned in Latin and Greek, came to the Mount of Saint Michael and there put on the monastic habit: where he is said to have found a great congregation of monks excelling in religion, except that the abbot had crept in by simony." By which words Mabillon hints that St. Anastasius came to the Mount of St. Michael at least ten years earlier, since Suppo in the year 1048, after fifteen years of government, was forced to lay down the crozier and to withdraw to his former monastery of Fruttuaria, which was situated in the diocese of Eporedia (Ivrea), as Mabillon has it Vol. IV, p. 152. and Lubin Brev. Notit. Abbat. Ital, p. 151., not in that of Vercelli, as Robert of Torigni wrongly states Chron. of Robert of Torigni, in Pertz, Monum. German., Vol. VI, p. 515..

[7] We are to prove that this was done by him under Abbot Suppo, Twofold, therefore, is Mabillon's opinion, writing one way in the Acta Sanctorum and another in the Annals of his Order; which the learned have well known to have happened sometimes to that most celebrated man. The later opinion was embraced by his associates in the Literary History of France Vol. VIII. p. 163.; and we too judge that it is to be held, both because the uprightness of Suppo was not such as to be beyond all suspicion, and because many reasons persuade that this happened neither before nor after the times of Suppo: and the weight of these reasons must now be explained. First of all, it is easy to prove that it is not rightly stated by Mabillon in the Acta Sanctorum of his Order that Suppo is not read to have been touched by the pest of simony. Namely, in the Chronicles of a domestic writer, Robert of Torigni, abbot of St. Michael in Peril of the Sea in the 12th century, we find the following Pertz, Monum. German., Vol. VI, p. 515.: "Relics (of SS. Lawrence and Innocent, Martyrs) and part of the body of Saint Agapitus, Martyr, namely the flesh with four ribs, Suppo, abbot of the Mount, brought from the monastery of Saint Benignus of Fruttuaria, where he had formerly been abbot, both by prayer and by PRICE, to the monastery of Saint Michael." Whence it is clear that it was not so abhorrent to Suppo to acquire sacred things for a price, or simoniacally. Moreover in another Chronicle of Mont-Saint-Michel, edited by Labbe in the Bibliotheca nova MSS. Vol. I, p. 351., we read some other things about Suppo which are less favourable to him: "In the same year (1023)," says the chronographer, "Suppo, abbot of Fruttuaria, received the gift of the abbey of Saint Michael. And while he was labouring at the renunciation of the monastery of Fruttuaria and at the entire acquisition of the Mount, two abbots ruled the abbey of St. Michael, namely Almodus, abbot of Caesarium" (Cerisy in the diocese of Bayeux Mabillon, Ann. Bened., Vol. IV, p. 355, and Gall. Christ., Vol. XI, col. 409.), "the other Theoderic, abbot of Jumièges," who however held the abbatial crozier not together but successively, as may easily be understood from the Gallia Christiana Vol. XI, col. 515. and from canon law itself, which forbids a two-headed government. Now Suppo laboured a whole decade before he became master of his wishes, as is clear from these words of the Chronicle: "In the year 1033 Suppo was ordained abbot, the monks not willing it, but Robert, duke of Normandy, compelling Almodus, who was openly recognized as abbot [Compare the diploma of Alan, duke of Brittany, which is in Mabill. Annal. Bened., Vol. IV, app. n. L, p. 668.], to withdraw," as we have from the Gallia Christiana Vol. XI, col. 515.. "He conferred many goods" (namely Relics Ibid. l. c. and sacred vessels Mabill. Annal. Bened., Vol. IV, p. 455.) "on the abbey," as the cited Chronicle speaks, and he acquired two monasteries from the princes for his monastery, as is taught in the Gallia Christiana Vol. XI. col. 515.; but, as the Chronicle of the Mount again testifies, the enmity of the monks against him persisted, so that "on account of the hatred of the monks he withdrew, and returned to his own soil." The Gallia Christiana Ibid. loc. cit. attributes that hatred to the squandering of the goods of the monastery, indicating no witness, but more probably using the MS. History of Mont-Saint-Michel written by Dom Huynes, a Benedictine monk, and now, as Paul Marchegay relates Archives d'Anjou, p. 230., preserved in the public library of Avranches. But he who increased his abbey by two monasteries could scarcely incur this charge in any other way than by selling what he had first bought, in order to pay the price of his purchase. If to these things you add that Cisalpine Gaul, or Lombardy, was Suppo's own soil, as the Chronicle has it, and therefore that it would be very strange if Norman monks had gone so far to seek an abbot for themselves; then that those words of the Chronicle, the gift of the abbey received by Suppo, savour of nothing canonical; and finally that there can be no doubt that he crept into that monastery of St. Michael contrary to the laws of the Church, since he laboured twelve years to snatch the abbatial staff from the hands of another; it becomes beyond doubt that Walter's words fit Suppo.

[8] before the year 1048, We said next that that simoniacal abbot can be placed neither before nor after the times of Suppo. For as regards the earlier times, the whole series of the Life of St. Anastasius, as is plain to the reader, altogether does not allow that that Saint, before the thirty-third year of the 11th century, in which Suppo was made abbot,

came to the Mount of St. Michael. Nor do the later times assigned by Mabillon in the Acta Sanctorum of his Order, or the two years after the year 1058 in which the catalogue of abbots is empty, run into a lesser difficulty. Namely, since real simony, of which there is question here, cannot exist unless one is the seller and another the buyer; and in the present supposition that seller must be said to be either William the Bastard, or the Conqueror, to whom by right of his predecessors the Mount of St. Michael belonged [Compare the Chronicles of St. Mich., Labbe, Bibl. MSS., Vol. I, p. 347 and following, and Gall. Christ., Vol. XI, col. 512.], or the monks themselves; it is easy to show that neither William nor the monks can be accused of this crime. For the very Life of St. Anastasius, n. 3, vindicates the monks, where it relates that in Peril of the Sea there was found by our Saint "a great congregation of monks, religious in all things, except that the abbot had crept in by simony." Likewise, unless one should please to convict of error William of Poitiers, a contemporary writer and chaplain of William the Conqueror himself, who studied to set out without doubt what he had seen with his own eyes (as Orderic speaks of him Dom Bouquet, Rec. des hist. de Fr., Vol. XI, p. 75.), this blemish cannot be cast upon William the Bastard: let then William of Poitiers be heard: "For from this point he began with the greatest zeal to patronize the Churches of God, to protect the causes of the powerless, to impose laws which would not be burdensome… For there was everywhere, as we have shown above, excessive licence in unlawful things. Finally he began wholly to remove from his familiarity those whom he discerned to be unskilled or wicked; and to use the counsels of the wisest and best men, to resist external enemies bravely, to exact powerfully the due services from his own." Such was William already before the year 1046, which is clear from the subsequent words of his biographer: "Since these beginnings were already restoring its splendour to Normandy and the tranquillity of its former state …" Read the rest in Dom Bouquet Ibid., p. 76..

[9] but not between the year 1058 and 1060 Orderic Vitalis explains these things more clearly and declares much more openly what William thought of simony. It is not irksome to report a few things from him, since Christian Lupus [Decrees of general and provincial Synods, preliminary dissert. II on Simony, Vol. IV of his Works, p. 63.] falsely wrote that the scab of simony was resumed by William the Conqueror: Orderic speaks thus Dom Bouquet, Vol. XI, p. 242.: "He called together the prelates and abbots and other wise counsellors; and by their counsel he searched out with the greatest diligence who seemed better and more useful in divine as well as secular things for ruling the house of God. Finally, him whom the provision of the wise chose for the merit of his life and the learning of his wisdom, the benevolent king appointed steward and ruler of the bishopric or abbey. This observance assuredly he kept for 56" (according to William of Malmesbury, 52) "years, during which he held the government in the duchy of Normandy or the kingdom of England;… He abhorred the simoniacal heresy in every way; and therefore in choosing abbots or bishops he considered not so much the wealth or power as the holiness and wisdom of the persons." Consonant with which are these words which that most vigilant Pontiff, St. Gregory VII, wrote in the year 1081 to his legate in the Gauls, Hugh of Die Book IX, epist. V. Labbe, Councils, Vol. X, col. 281.: "The king of the English, although in certain things he does not conduct himself so religiously as we wish, yet in this, that he neither destroys nor sells the churches of God, … shows himself sufficiently more worthy of approval and more to be honoured than the other kings." Whence it is made evident how gravely Christian was deceived; and in fact the example which he brings of the bishop of Coventry as a prop of his opinion happened, not in the year 1077, as Lupus will have it, but several years after the death of William the Conqueror: concerning which example the curious reader may see the Annals of the English Church at the year 1093, number 42 [Alford, otherwise Griffith, Fides regia, or Annals of the Eng. Church, Vol. IV, p. 126.]. And from these things indeed it sufficiently appears that William the Bastard, or Conqueror, is not the one who may be called the sacrilegious trafficker: for which reason the opinion of the Benedictine hagiographers, and of their followers Ceillier Hist. des Aut. Ecclés., Vol. XX, p. 696. and Butler in the Lives of the Saints at the 16th of October Vol. XVI, p. 12. Louvain ed., who state that our Saint came to the Mount of St. Michael in the year 1058, is altogether improbable to me. And this assertion of theirs is the more improbable in that the foundation on which it rests is altogether fallen. For that the catalogue of abbots is empty from the year 1058 to 1060 is nothing for us to wonder at, still less that we should believe a simoniacal abbot to have been struck out, as we saw Mabillon supposing at n. 6; since nothing urged the oft-mentioned William, duke of Normandy and afterwards king of England, who kept in his own hands the right of designating the abbot of St. Michael, to use that right as soon as possible, since provision had been made for the government of the Mount in such a way that Ranulf is designated abbot in the Chronicle of the monastery from the year 1053 Chronicles of St. Michael, Labbe, Bibl. nov. MSS., Vol. I, p. 351., although he was only filling the place of Abbot Ralph, who died only in the middle of the year 1058 on a journey to Jerusalem. After his death, therefore, Ranulf could easily continue the government of the Mount; which, for the rest, he ruled with the title of abbot from the year 1060 up to 1085 [Compare the cit. Chron., p. 348, 350 and following, and Gall. Christ., Vol. XI, col. 515.]. And from these things we think it can quite probably be established that St. Anastasius came to Peril of the Sea before the year 1048, in which Suppo went away, and withdrew thence after one year.

[10] [Although it is certain that St. Anastasius was truly a monk on the Mount of St. Michael,] The second question which deserves to be raised concerning our Anastasius while dwelling in Normandy is this: was he only a novice on the Mount of St. Michael, or did he rather make profession of the religious life? But that he was not a novice only but also a professed monk there is not only probable but certain: for what Walter writes does not stand in the way, namely that he grieved that he had almost fallen into the snare of the wicked enemy; since that expression easily admits of several explanations. And that he was a true monk is deduced from this, that Walter clearly says that he received the desired habit there, and further on Anastasius himself is said to have told St. Hugh how on account of simony he had gone out of the place in which he had received the habit, etc. Now the monastic habit, at least up to the twelfth century, was not assumed in Gaul before profession: for, even leaving aside the rule of St. Benedict, which in chap. LVIII openly declares this, canon XXXIV of the council of Aachen of the year 817 prescribes the same in these words Hartzheim, Concil. German., Vol. II, p. 5.: "Let the novice neither be tonsured nor change his former garments before he promises obedience." Which law indeed was so much in force in the time of St. Anastasius that his contemporary St. Peter Damian in opusculum XVI does not hesitate vehemently to assail the bishop Maurus, who had asserted that a certain man was not obliged to keep the habit which he had assumed in sickness; which opinion he overthrows completely from the sacred canons: "Behold," he says, "according to the sentence of the Gelasian decree, on whatever occasion, even if no delay of probation intervenes, whoever has once been clothed in the religious habit is wholly denied leave to return to the world": which he presses much more sharply still further on; whence it is clear that the monastic habit was assumed at that time only when someone, after completing some time of probation, promised obedience.

[11] [as is proved by a twofold argument, his departure, however, to the neighbouring Tombelaine is not surprising;] Although St. Anastasius spent only a year on the Mount of St. Michael, the very manner in which Walter relates this is another argument: for when he writes that it came about after a year had revolved that he heard of the abbot's simony, he sufficiently hints that he had already completed his novitiate; since the rule of St. Benedict prescribes only one year of probation, unless the conversion of manners be not yet such as may be called worthy of a monk; which cannot be presumed in Anastasius. But I hear those who ask, why then did he go away? why, leaving the monastery, did he begin to remain alone in a certain basilica of Mary, Mother of God, at the very entrance of the sea, namely on Tombelaine, near the Mount of St. Michael, giving himself to fasts, vigils and prayers? The answer is ready: there existed at this time various opinions about the manner in which simoniacal superiors were to be held by their subjects; one of which, put into practice by St. Anastasius, was this, that simoniacs, as open heretics and more harmful than pagans, were to be avoided. And this Cardinal Humbert drew out at length in three books, edited by Martène in volume V of his Thesaurus Anecdotorum; in which he also teaches openly and sharply that simoniacs are not to be tolerated by catholics, not only until they are synodally deposed, but not even for an hour.

[12] Robert of Tombelaine seems to have followed him there. Whence it is easily understood how it could happen that St. Anastasius believed that the Mount of St. Michael was to be fled by him. The same opinion, perhaps at the persuasion of our Saint, seems to have been embraced by Robert of Tombelaine, of whom a little more below, and whom Mabillon does not hesitate to call the brother from whom St. Anastasius learned that the abbot was simoniacal: "Certainly," he says Acta SS. of the Order of St. Benedict, Saec. VI, part II, p. 489., "at this very time both (Robert and Anastasius) were living in the monastery of Saint Michael"; indeed it is most probable that Robert gave himself as companion to St. Anastasius when he entered a certain island at the very entrance of the sea, and was to remain alone in a certain basilica of Mary, Mother of God. For that these last words are not to be pressed so as to exclude all companionship, but that by them it is stated that the holy man embraced the hermit's life when he was previously leading the cenobitic, everyone will readily concede: further, as we shall see below from the common interpretation of certain writings, Robert enjoyed the society of St. Anastasius, and moreover the name "of Tombelaine" seems to have attached to Robert from his dwelling on this island. For that the island honoured by the abode of St. Anastasius is Tombelaine, Tumbella or Tumbellena, cannot be called into doubt, since no other is found there at the entrance of the British sea; next, that Robert is said to have received his surname Ceillier has the contrary, Hist. des Aut. Eccl., Vol. XXI, p. 46. by inhabiting it is so probable that another reason cannot easily be found. In the following century indeed Bernard, abbot of St. Michael, instituted some priory there; but even at that time that rock was so deserted that, although the Mount of St. Michael scarcely admitted a few inhabitants, still more

Tombelaine favoured the solitary life: for the Gallia Christiana relates Vol. XI, col. 518. that some little cells were erected there by him with this intent, that, withdrawing there sometimes with chosen brethren, he might give himself more attentively to prayer. Whence it is sufficiently gathered that this little mount was first inhabited by hermits and monks, no less than the Mount of St. Michael [Beaunier, Rec. des archevêchés, etc., Vol. II, p. 726. Compare annot. f to the Life of St. Anast. below.], and therefore it cannot be presumed that Robert was surnamed from it because he had been brought into the light there by his parents. Nor is there reason for anyone to object against these things that the basilica which was there, dedicated to the Mother of God, presupposes that inhabitants then lived there: since it is well enough known that the name of basilica was very often given to little cell-oratories: for the rest, the very Life of St. Anastasius, by which we know that he lived there alone, sufficiently shows that no other inhabitants had their seat on that small rock.

[13] St. Anselm desires to share in the friendship of St. Anastasius and Robert; How holily both lived there may be gathered from epistle III of book I of St. Anselm Complete Works, p. 312 and following. Ed. 1675., inscribed: "To his most beloved lord, the reverend monk Robert, brother Anselm of Bec, only the least among those living holily"; which the common opinion of the learned holds as certain to have been addressed to Robert of Tombelaine: to establish which it will suffice to cite Mabillon in the Annals At the year 1048, § XLIII, Vol. IV, p. 456., the writers of the Literary History Hist. litt. de Fr., Vol. VIII, p. 163., Ceillier Hist. des Aut. Eccl., Vol. XXI, p. 46., Butler in the Life of St. Anastasius, etc. How well founded this conjecture is, any one will easily see who has examined the circumstances of places, times and persons: wherefore we too in no way doubt that our Anastasius is praised in the following words of St. Anselm's letter: "Come then, man venerably lovable and lovably more venerable; be certain, while I live, of this our will, and be careful to perfect in me the charity which shall be yours. For if you pray for your neighbour, I know that it is true that it will be repaid to you… That you may effect this more efficaciously, I pray, I beseech, that by commending me to that holy man Anastasius, whose desirable society you enjoy, you make me known, so far as you can in my absence, so that you may both share that friend of yours with me and give me, your servant, a share with him. So that from this day, while we live, through you and with you I too may venerate him as a second friend Robert; and he may possess the same servant Anselm. For because I am not worthy, I dare not ask what nevertheless I presume to wish; that I, as another Robert, may make use of the same Anastasius, and he may enjoy me as another Robert: whose good odour, already sweetly diffused through many of this country, the more delightfully it is fragrant to my soul, the more ardently does my soul burn for his friendship and acquaintance. Which, from the time I heard of his life, I already have and embrace as much as I can; and I pray that he too pray with me that they may grow for us as much as they can grow in God. Fare well, both, most dear ones. I beseech you, in Babylon be of one mind, that in Jerusalem you may share together in the same. I do not say this as fearing that discord may at some time come to you; but truly desiring that concord may never depart from you." So St. Anselm to Robert of Tombelaine; who will be still better recognized from the following number.

[14] [Robert, at the exhortation, as it seems, of our Saint, writes a commentary on the Song of Songs;] For this is the Robert who until the year 1066 was a monk either on the Mount of St. Michael or afterwards on Tombelaine, whence he was taken up to the provostship of St. Vigor of Bayeux, and who, when Odo, bishop of Bayeux, was suffering the grief of prison in England, set out for Rome; where, honourably detained by Pope St. Gregory VII, he faithfully served the Roman Church until the death of that Pontiff, as Mabillon Annals of the Ord. of St. Bened., book LXIX, § XLIV, Vol. V, p. 345. and the Gallia Christiana Vol. XI, col. 404. relate from Orderic Vitalis, book VIII of the History, at the year 1087 Compare Dom Bouquet, Vol. XII, p. 626.. Moreover Robert, as the same Orderic declares Ibid., l. c., among the other proofs of his skill, "left in the Church a brief and lucid Exposition, profound in sense, on the Song of Songs": which regards our Saint somewhat. But indeed how much this Exposition has already been disputed may be seen in very many writers, especially in Oudin in the Commentaries on ecclesiastical writers Vol. II. col. 768 and following. Now, however, the opinion prevails among the learned Compare Hist. litt. de Fr., Vol. VIII, p. 338. that the Exposition which was long circulated under the name of St. Gregory the Great, which Oudin published again, and whose prologue Mabillon had already before made public in the Analecta p. 128 of the later ed. under the name of Robert of Tombelaine, is really the offspring of this Robert. But what pertains more nearly to our matter is that Mabillon, in publishing the Life of St. Anastasius, suspected that this exposition was written at the persuasion of our Anastasius, since the prologue has these words: "Yet believe me, your friend, that this little book which I send you I began when asked, and finished when admonished many times. The lord Anastasius, my most beloved brother and lord, asked me: and many others with him admonished me, weighing not so much my inborn folly as loving that some skill, whatever it might be, in such secret words should shine forth for them." What Mabillon had proposed so timidly in the Acta Sanctorum he afterwards affirmed more boldly in the Annals at the year 1048 Vol. IV, p. 456., and after him the writers of the Literary History of France Vol. VIII, p. 163.. With whom we think it right to agree.

[15] but St. Anastasius himself But there also exists a certain writing which by many is attributed to our Anastasius himself: here is how Ceillier Hist. des Aut. Ecclés., Vol. XX, p. 697. sets out a great part of this controversy: "St. Anastasius left us a small treatise on the Eucharist, which has the form of a letter. For some time it was attributed (namely by d'Achery in the notes to Lanfranc p. 21. and by Dupin in the Library of ecclesiastical writers Bibl. des Aut. Eccles., Vol. VIII, p. 11.) to a certain monk of St. Sergius of Angers, for two reasons: I, because the MS. codex from which d'Achery copied it was kept in the monastery of St. Sergius; II, because this treatise was inscribed to Gerard, abbot of St. Aubin of the same city. But it must be noted that the name Gerard is not read whole in the MS., but only the initial letter G appears, and in another MS. codex W is read in place of G; which denotes Willelmus or Guillelmus rather than Gerard. Wherefore Mabillon in the Annals, book LIX § LXXX Vol. IV, p. 471., reckons that the little book was written to William, abbot of Cormeilles, formerly a monk of Bec, and perhaps from this time known to Anastasius. But a third opinion, which the Benedictine associates who published the works of St. Anselm followed, ascribes that work to St. Anselm, and they interpret that G. as Gilbert; but this interpretation conflicts with the MS. codex of which Mabillon speaks, and that the whole letter is not such as St. Anselm would have written to Gilbert will be perceived by everyone who attends to their age and their familiar and respectful intercourse; which is easy to do from the letters of St. Anselm."

[16] does not seem to have written the Letter on the Holy Eucharist. Yet we are not therefore such as hastily to follow Ceillier, Butler, and the writers of the Literary History of France. For their readiness displeases us, by which they reckon themselves followers of Mabillon, while nevertheless they plainly affirm that St. Anastasius composed that little work, although Mabillon here again adopted a twofold opinion, in the Analecta p. 129. Later ed. in very truth ascribing this little book to St. Anastasius without doubt, but in the Annals Book LIX, § LXXX, Vol. IV, p. 471., where he is wont to be much more accurate, speaking most cautiously on this matter, and conjecturing only as probable, as it seems, that this writing is St. Anastasius's. Nor is the argument certain which the writers of the Literary History draw from the enumeration of the Holy Fathers whom the anonymous author adduces as witnesses of the catholic faith; they say, namely, that this specimen of erudition, if it is compared with the praise of learning which his biographer bestows on our Saint, and the circumstances of places and times are weighed, leaves no room for seeking another Anastasius to whom this little work may be assigned. But since it is wholly gratuitously supposed that Anastasius is designated by the letter A., whatever is built upon such a foundation is also wholly gratuitously denied. And besides, if it is noted that St. Anastasius spent only one year on the Mount of St. Michael, and then remained alone on the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, as his biographer speaks, it is not understood how he could ever have prefixed to any letter: "To the lord G., abbot, formerly MY DEAREST SON, now by God's favour venerable father, brother A." Wherefore on account of the very title we think that this letter can be adjudged away from our Saint, which is the 105th of book IV of the letters of St. Anselm Works of St. Anselm, p. 452. Ed. 1675., and which may be read in d'Achery in the notes to Lanfranc p. 21. and in du Boulay in the History of the University of Paris. Now if it is asked whose it is after all, I prefer to confess ignorance rather than to be less than prudent. It will suffice to have said that that little work was written by a learned and orthodox man to a certain abbot, of Normandy as it seems, who had ordered him to disclose to him whatever he believed concerning the body and blood of the Lord. The monk wrote to him the testimonies of eminent doctors, so as to satisfy the abbot that he believed either very well or had investigated these things "either with skilful vigilance or with sagacious searching." Which words induced d'Achery, du Boulay and Dupin to reckon that this little work was the abjuration of a former error. They would perhaps have followed a happier opinion if they had supposed that the anonymous author was in doubt what his venerable father intended, whether he wished to inquire into his faith, since the name of Berengar resounded everywhere, or rather to hurl some new weapon against his followers: which indeed may be elicited from that letter, but nothing which savours of an abjuration of errors. And so much concerning the deeds which are attached to St. Anastasius while living in Normandy. It remains for us to inquire when he withdrew his foot from there.

[17] [St. Anastasius probably remained on Tombelaine up to the year 1067 or a little later,] But since from his biographer Walter, n. 4, we know only that the blessed hermit shone for some time on Tombelaine by a life of exceptional conversation, until Hugh, abbot of Cluny, visiting his monasteries, passed that way, it is clear indeed that the knot of the present question would be untied if it were known from anywhere in what year St. Hugh visited the monasteries of Normandy; but the life of St. Hugh, although it is bound up with very great affairs transacted in the latter part of the eleventh century, has been so written by many that almost no chronological arrangement can be composed from it. Hildebert indeed, prelate of Le Mans, wrote in chap. III of the Life of St. Hugh: "For the sake of consolation the devout father had been accustomed to visit the places which belong to the monastery of Cluny" Works of Hildebert of Le Mans, col. 921.; and that already in his time there were monasteries, or at least possessions, of the monastery of Cluny in Normandy St. Hugh himself declared in the Deprecatorium which he wrote in the last times of his life, and which the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis contains Col. 493 and following. But in what year he acquired them I have not been able to find in my investigation, nor therefore can any mark of time be sought from it.

[18] as is attempted to be drawn out from the Lives of SS. Anselm and Hugh The pen must therefore be turned elsewhere: from the letter of St. Anselm, which we reckoned above to have been written to Robert of Tombelaine, it is certainly drawn out that St. Anastasius was in the vicinity of the Mount of St. Michael in the year 1059, since in it Robert is said to enjoy the desirable society of Anastasius and both are bidden farewell. Further, Anselm could not have called himself the least among the monks of Bec (as he inscribes himself) before the aforesaid time, since he entered Bec only at the end of that year, as will be plain without delay to anyone turning over the chronology of the Life of St. Anselm. Wherefore he will not find me dissenting who suggests that that letter was written in the year 1060 or later, provided, however, that it does not exceed the year 1066, in which Robert of Tombelaine was taken up to the provostship of St. Vigor. Indeed about these times St. Hugh seems often to have come into the territory of Poitou, when the establishing of the New Monastery was being treated, as is clear from what was set out at length in the Commentary on SS. Amandus and Junian, num. 19. Whence he could easily make an excursion into the monasteries of Normandy and Armorica, not so far apart. And no more suitable space occurs, since in the catalogue of abbeys and priories inserted into the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis col. 1751. no monastery comes my way which St. Hugh must have visited, or is known to have visited, before the year 1070, at which time there is no doubt that St. Anastasius was already living at Cluny.

[19] [] That we must go back, however, at least to the year 1067 or another nearer it, is gathered from this, that about this time William the Bastard, duke of Normandy, had not yet seen St. Hugh, although he desired very much to see him: which twofold assertion is sought from the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis Col. 453.. For there it is related that this duke received with incredible reverence the blessing of St. Hugh, which Abbot Warmund was bringing to him as legate, before he had been able to enjoy the conversation of the holy abbot of Cluny. And since Warmund, who is there called abbot, was made abbot of Dol about the year 1067, it follows thence also that the journey of St. Hugh and the departure of our Anastasius to Cluny seem to be deferred to these times. And from this it becomes probable that St. Anastasius lived about twenty years on the island of Tombelaine, since we showed above that he went away from the Mount of St. Michael before the year 1048. Nor can this space be much longer, since we shall see below that Anastasius was sent into Spain about the year 1073; which seems not to have been done before he had prolonged his stay at Cluny some years. Likewise the beginning of his hermit's life is not to be put off much before the year 1048, since otherwise, when he came to the Mount of St. Michael, the memory of the government entered upon by Suppo could not have been so lulled that Anastasius should hear of it only after a year.

[20] [Why St. Anastasius did not return to his abbey after Suppo's expulsion. Chronological recapitulation.] But that St. Anastasius, after the departure of Suppo and the coming of a better abbot, did not return to his former monastery, but prolonged his hermit's life, the reason without doubt is that in these times the hermit's life was held holier and better; of which opinion, then prevailing, Ceillier Hist. des Aut. Ecclés., Vol. XX. p. 530. says that St. Peter Damian himself, book VI, epist. XII, is a witness, and his biographer relates Acta SS. of the Order of St. Benedict, Saec. VI, part II, p. 379. that Blessed Simon, count of Crépy, followed it. To contract all which in a few words, it is supremely probable that St. Anastasius, born at Venice about the year 1020 and most laudably instructed in good letters in his native land, came to the Mount of St. Michael before the year 1048, under Abbot Suppo, and thence, not long after completing the year of novitiate and taking the monastic habit, withdrew to the neighbouring rock of Tombelaine with his friend Robert; where, while he lived, St. Anselm wrote his praises to his companion Robert and asked for his friendship; and Robert, at his friend's exhortation, composed the Commentary on the Song of Songs; but Anastasius himself, who seems to have gone from there to Cluny about the year 1067, by no means wrote a certain little writing on the holy Eucharist, as some writers have wished. So far concerning the former part of the life of St. Anastasius.

* understand Epiphany

§ II. St. Anastasius goes to Cluny; it is asked in what year and why he was sent by Pope St. Gregory VII into Spain; whether to preach to the Saracens? The death and Relics of St. Anastasius.

St. Anastasius is sent from Cluny into Spain, When therefore St. Hugh had come into the tract of Normandy about the year 1067 or a little later, and had told St. Anastasius for some days about the life and conversation of the brethren of Cluny, he at length persuaded him to go with him to Cluny. And when he had exercised himself for several years in this arena of holiness, as shines out from Walter's manner of narrating, following the rule exactly and adding to it many fasts, vigils, genuflexions and night prayers, "at the command of our holy father Pope Gregory VII and by the threefold persuasion of the venerable man, his abbot Hugh, he entered Spain, to preach," says Walter at num. 5, "to the Saracens"; in what sense which is to be understood, or at what time it was done, must now be investigated. And since in this place we must again dissent from the Benedictine Hagiographers, what the aforepraised writers thought on these matters must be recorded, lest they be judged unheard: "We have detected," they say at num. 3, "another mark sought from the life of Blessed Anastasius, namely from his journey into Spain, which the same author of the Life testifies was undertaken by him at the command of Gregory VII, supreme pontiff, and sent by Hugh, abbot of Cluny. This journey we assign to about the year 1074, namely a little after the restoration of King Alfonso, when Gregory had already reached the second year of his pontificate. For we do not think that Anastasius was one of those whom St. Hugh afterwards sent into Spain to restore monastic discipline there. These namely remained in the Spains, intent on building various monasteries anew, or certainly on restoring old ones; most of whom were also raised to the episcopal mitre. But Anastasius had gone there only to announce the Gospel of Christ to the Saracens; hence, when he had noticed that he was labouring in vain, he returned to the Gauls." How true these things are it will not be useless to have weighed, since I think that some light can be shed from it on a part of the monastic history in Spain, or, if you prefer, of ecclesiastical history itself.

[22] where some monks of Cluny had already long been living. There is no need, however, for us to call into examination the whole series of the dispute which Fr. Juan Francisco Masdeu has already agitated at length in the Critical History of Spain Historia critica de la España. Vol. XV, p. 252 and following. For the assertion of certain persons, by which the monastic life is declared to have been first brought into Spain at the beginning of the eleventh century by the monks of Cluny, is too absurd to be refuted. Whether at this time, namely in the reign of Alfonso the Elder, those most celebrated monks occupied certain monasteries there, since this too is disputed at length by the aforepraised Masdeu, who, maintaining the negative opinion, at the same time brings forward the arguments of his adversaries, it is not pleasing to call into question again: nevertheless, if it is admitted that the monks of Cluny did not come into Spain in the reign of King Alfonso the Elder, let the reader take care, however, not to exclude the monks of Cluny from Spain up to the times of Alfonso the Great, called by others the VI: which is the error of certain recent writers. For the father of this Alfonso, son of the former Alfonso, who by very many is called Fredelannus, but commonly Ferdinand, gave and granted to the monastery of Cluny and to a monk of the same monastery, named Ato, the church of Saint Agatha, to which Alfonso VI afterwards added a monastery, with some money added as an annual census, and the use of estates. Read the instrument itself in the Notes to the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis Col. 163.. But most of all the monks of Cluny were promoted in Spain by the oft-to-be-praised Alfonso VI, of whom Peter the Venerable speaks thus at the end of book I of the Miracles Bibliot. Cluniac., col. 1296.: "Besides these (the annual census) he built two monasteries in the Spains from his own means, allowed others to be built by certain other persons, and helped where they were being built: placing in them monks of Cluny, and bestowing abundantly with royal liberality the means whereby they might serve almighty God according to rule. And he partly repaired in the Spains the almost dead fervour of monastic religion." But now the matter must be looked at more closely.

[23] From the letter of Alfonso VI, king of Castile and León First of all it is certain that in the last years of the pontificate of Alexander II, and especially at the time when St. Gregory VII held the helm of the Church, that is from the year 1073 up to the year 1085, monks of Cluny went into Spain once and again: but lest we run out into too wide a field, it will help to confine within a short space the whole question, which turns chiefly on this: who were the companions of Hugh Candidus when he was deputed by St. Gregory into Spain. Many exclude from the company a certain Robert, and send him into Spain to King Alfonso before the year 1070, although Alfonso was then in prison; others, like Sandoval Chron. general, Vol. XI, p. 100., add Robert and Marcellinus as companions to Hugh, and seem to exclude St. Anastasius, or anyone else. On which matter there seems first to be shown a fragment of a letter which d'Achery published entire Spicileg., Vol. III, p. 407. Later ed.. For in this fragment, which

is a little work written by Alfonso VI to St. Hugh, the hinge of the question so turns that from ignorance of the time at which it was written many errors have necessarily arisen, which still prevail; here is that fragment: "With how great devotion I love you, most glorious father, you yourself, as I reckon, know better than any doctor could write on paper; * Robert, whom I hold more excellent and dearer than all monks, and your most faithful confrere from the inmost heart, knowing how your love has become to me like a fire burning all day and night in my heart; whence if you had given me all things which you can have in the world, I think it would be nothing in comparison with that good, that for my sake you have sent into our parts a small portion of your flock, which you have cherished with a spiritual hand. Wherefore, the grace of the Lord enlightening you, I, servant of the servants of God, wholly subject to your kindness, more and more beseech your paternity that you persevere in the good which you have begun, so that you may deign to send some members of the household of your most holy religion, and that they may fill with your sweetness that place, ours and yours, which you have begun to water from your most holy fountain, while I move in this frail body."

[24] which was written not in the year 1070, Luc d'Achery, who published that letter of Alfonso to Hugh, attaches this writing to the year 1070; which Mabillon with too much confidence admitted in his Annals Book LXIII, § LXXII, Vol. V, p. 29. at this year. But that this reckoning is erroneous is shown first by the very end of the letter, which runs thus: "Concerning the Roman Office, however, which we have received at your command, know that our land is quite desolated; wherefore I beseech your paternity that you cause the lord Pope to send us his cardinal, namely the lord Giraldus, that he may amend what is to be amended and correct what is to be corrected. Farewell." For such things could not have been written in the year 1070; since Giraldus was created cardinal by Alexander II not in the year 1070 but only in the year 1072, as Wion in the Lignum Vitae Vol. I, p. 221., Ughelli in the Italia sacra Vol. I, col. 59., Ciaconius in the Lives of the supreme Pontiffs Vol. I, col. 838., etc. assert with unanimous voice: whence it would at least have to be said that this letter was not written before the year 1072. But we must not stop here, since it is established that it was written even later.

[25] but was written in the earlier part of the year 1073, For in the cited letter of Alfonso these other words also stand out: "Moreover know, most holy father, that the census which my father was accustomed to give to that most holy place of Cluny" (see num. 22 of this Commentary), "I, God granting, will double in the days of my life." But all the biographers of St. Hugh agree in assigning the cause of this doubling to a certain fact and a certain year. Let one be heard for the rest, Hildebert, bishop of Le Mans, whom consult more at length either in his works Col. 917., or in our work at the 29th day of April Acta SS., Vol. III of April, p. 637., or in the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis Col. 419.; we shall abbreviate here. After, then, that biographer has related how Alfonso was told by a bishop sent by Blessed Peter that the day of his liberation was at hand, and Sancho was admonished in dreams by the same Apostle to free his brother from prison; after moreover he has insinuated that these benefits (which however Rodrigo of Toledo [On the affairs of Spain, book VI, chap. XV. Collection of the Fathers of Toledo, Vol. III, p. 130.] ascribed to Count Pedro Ansúrez and to his sister Urraca) were given from heaven at the prayers of St. Hugh, he adds: "So Ildefonsus, restored alike to himself and to his kingdom, implored by letters sent that he might merit to see his liberator and be granted his conversation"; which letters or epistles without doubt regard the letter recited above. Then he continues thus: "The wish of the powerful one is fulfilled… The king exults… And he, lest he should ever seem ungrateful to his intercessors, the paternal census being doubled, arranged that two hundred" (the biographers of St. Hugh vary in this number) "ounces of gold should be assigned yearly to the monastery of Cluny, desiring to have the day of both his departures, namely from prison and from the body, celebrated. So the man of God, returning with the aforesaid money, brought back the Moor," etc.

[26] as, having discussed the chronological order of some deeds of King Alfonso, But these things were not done at one and the same time: for in the year 1070 Alfonso, or Ildefonsus, was captured in battle by his brother Sancho and shut up in prison; yet he did not lie hidden there long: for a little after the mentioned vision of Sancho he was taken out of it, not to be restored to liberty, but to be kept in the monastery of SS. Facundus and Primitivus, and to put on the monastic habit there; "which he did not by purpose but by fear," says Rodrigo. But these empty and less tight bonds did not prevent Alfonso from escaping in the year 1071 and seeking the court of the king of Toledo, with whom he remained until his brother was miserably slain at the beginning, as it seems, of the year 1072. (See on this doubtful date the History of the kings of Castile and León of Sandoval Chron. general de España, Vol. XI, p. 110..) And since only after this slaughter, at the end of the month of October, as Sandoval relates Ibid., p. 120., did Alfonso obtain the kingdom of León and Castile, and could call himself king of the Spains, it is necessary that the aforesaid letter, in which he calls himself king of the Spains, was not written before this time: indeed between the acquisition of the kingdom and the writing of this letter no small interval ran; for it was necessary, first, that the supreme Pontiff, who gave St. Hugh the right of commanding (for Alfonso says: "Which we have received at your command," namely at the command of St. Hugh in the name of the Pontiff), should learn of the slaughter of Sancho and the restoration of Alfonso to the kingdom, then that the pontifical mandate should reach St. Hugh, and finally that he should write to Alfonso, and that Alfonso should attempt to carry out this command and see its fruits; on which affairs at least three months must have been consumed. Which things, taken so strictly, would refer the aforesaid letter of Alfonso at least to the beginning of the year 1073.

[27] of St. Gregory VII The time of this writing can be determined still more accurately, and indeed from those words already recited above, by which Alfonso signifies to St. Hugh that great desolation had arisen in his dominions on account of the introduction of the Roman Office; and that he therefore urgently begs of him that he cause the cardinal Giraldus to be sent by the Pontiff into Spain, to amend what he should find to be amended and to correct what he should believe to be corrected. If these words are compared with the letter of St. Gregory VII given to Giraldus of Ostia and Raimbald the subdeacon on the 2nd day before the Kalends of May in the year 1073, and with another of the same Pontiff given to the same Giraldus on the Kalends of July of the same year, I am entirely persuaded that they can be explained in only one way. Giraldus, namely, had been sent as legate into the Gauls and Spain with Raimbald by Alexander II, who died on the 21st day of April of the year 1073. In the month of May he was staying in Gaul, where he received the former letter of St. Gregory, of which I have just spoken, which is the sixth of book I in Labbe Collect. Conc., Vol. X, col. 9. and in which St. Gregory speaks thus: "Moreover you ought to remember this, that in the letters too of our lord Alexander of blessed memory and by our own embassy you were asked and admonished to insist on adding favour, through yourselves and through the aforesaid abbot (Hugh of Cluny), to the cause of Count Ebles of Roucy; and, the compact being known which he made with us concerning the land of Spain in the writing which we gave him, to procure, together with the counsel of the abbot, that such persons be directed there as would know how to correct the error of the Christians who are found there in spiritual things… And do you on our part ask the abbot that he join to him (Hugh Candidus, the cardinal) such as may accompany him, by whose counsel and help he may confidently undertake that journey and labour, the legation however being placed principally in him. But outside Spain we have never given him (Hugh Candidus) leave to transact any public business of ecclesiastical affairs, without your consent, as long as you shall be in Gaul." The holy Pontiff then commands that Giraldus himself either return to Rome at once, or give a reason for his delay.

[28] and of the legate Hugh Candidus, it is proved, The commands of the Pontiff at once began to be carried out. Hugh Candidus set out for Spain with Robert, a monk of Cluny, and other companions, among whom without doubt was our Saint Anastasius, as will be sufficiently established from what is to be said below. Hugh Candidus and most of the monks of Cluny keenly promoted the work committed to them: whence the minds of the Spaniards (I understand the Castilians and Leonese) were vehemently stirred; but Robert by blandishments bound the king to himself, and at the same time hindered the abolition of the Mozarabic rite: which epistles II and III of book VIII of St. Gregory in Labbe Collect. Conc., Vol. X, col. 252 and following make certain. Meanwhile Cardinal Giraldus was still staying in Gaul, occupied with the affairs of the Gallican Church, and among other things behaving rather severely towards the archbishop of Auch: which we know from the letter of St. Gregory which is the 16th of book I in Labbe Ibid., col. 17.. It was then either the end of the month of May or the beginning of the month of June of the year 1073. And to the same time is to be attached the letter of Alfonso to St. Hugh of Cluny, by which, as we have seen, he asks that St. Hugh see to it that the lord Pope does not refuse to send his cardinal Giraldus, to order better the things which concerned the Mozarabic office. When Giraldus learned this he at once set out for Spain. And this setting out was already known at Rome, through the letters of Giraldus or through the bishops of Gaul whom he had treated rather harshly, on the Kalends of July in the eleventh indiction, that is, in the year 1073: of which assertion the irrefragable argument is the mentioned letter XVI of book I of St. Gregory, in which, after some reproaches that he had not sufficiently declared his doings in Gaul, we have these words: "It is indeed pleasing to us that you have set out for the Spains for the affairs of the holy Roman Church." Probably St. Hugh then accompanied Giraldus, and received from Alfonso the double census of which we have spoken: at least he did not set out for Spain sooner. As regards the time of Giraldus's journey, there is nothing to detain us in Flórez España Sagrada, Vol. III, p. 305. Dissert. on the ancient Mass of Spain, n. 166., who brings Giraldus into Spain in the year 1071 or 1072. For he seems to have been led to this by this one thing, that in the year 1074, in the Roman Council,

he saw that Spanish bishops were present. But St. Gregory himself solves this difficulty when in the letters given to Alfonso and Sancho, kings of Castile and Navarre, on the 14th day before the Kalends of April in the 12th indiction, that is, in the year 1074 Labbe, Conc., Vol. X, col. 52 and following, he writes that the Spanish bishops who had LATELY come to Rome had confirmed by their writings and in his hand that they would do this (embrace the Roman rite). At the end of this chronological arrangement let me be allowed to repeat that in the manner set out above everything agrees well together, but otherwise a labyrinth is created.

[29] [It is established that St. Anastasius set out for Spain in the year 1073 with Hugh Candidus.] Further, that St. Anastasius was a companion of Hugh Candidus and Robert of Cluny setting out for Spain, we have already said above is established for us. And indeed we know from Walter, his biographer, that "at the command of our holy father Gregory VII, and by the threefold persuasion of the venerable man, his abbot Hugh," he "entered … Spain" See below, n. 5.. Now only two commands of St. Gregory VII are known which regard the setting out or the stay of the monks of Cluny in Spain. The former is the same which we reported at num. 27, and by which some monks were to be given as companions to Hugh Candidus; the other exists in letter III of book VIII in Labbe Coll. Conc., Vol. X, col. 253., given in the year 1080 to Alfonso, king of Castile and León, and much more clearly in letter II of the same book Ibid., col. 252., given to St. Hugh of Cluny on the 5th day before the Kalends of July, in the third indiction, that is, in the year 1080. In this Robert is gravely censured for dissuading the Spaniards from receiving the Roman Office, and is barred from entering the church; St. Hugh is moreover commanded to make it also his concern that the monks "unjustly dispersed in the same parts of Spain" return to their own monastery: from which expression, "unjustly dispersed," it is manifest that other monks of Cluny had withdrawn into Spain without the command of the Pontiff, while others had gone there by his mandate, as we have seen; and to these, who set out, as we have shown, with Cardinal Hugh, St. Anastasius must have given himself as companion, as having entered Spain at the command of St. Gregory VII. Wherefore, since the legate, Cardinal Hugh, set out about the middle of the month of May in the year 1073, to this time, not to the following year as the Benedictine Hagiographers would have it, the departure of St. Anastasius is to be attached.

[30] The same Saint seems to have preached to the Mozarabs, not to the Saracens, But the biographer writes that Anastasius was sent, not to abolish the Spanish rite, but to preach to the Saracens. But since Walter undertook his little work at least forty years after the mission of St. Anastasius, how easy was it for him to err in one fact? how much more easily if it happened in another kingdom, especially in Spain, about which, when the French writers of the middle age treat of it, their credit is held almost of no account? Nevertheless I shall not on that account bring myself to assert that nothing true lies hidden under Walter's words; here is what seems probable to me: it was reported to Walter that St. Anastasius had been sent by St. Gregory into Spain to persuade the Mozarabs to bid farewell to their rites; but Walter confused the Mozarabs with the Arabs or Moors, and thence their rites with the impious rites of the Saracens. As for what Walter relates at n. 5, that Anastasius, "to prove the certainty of the faith of the Christians … wished to pass through a burning pyre after celebrating the solemnities of the Mass; but the Saracens would not agree to his condition, namely that if he passed through it unharmed, they would flee to the grace of Baptism," it need not cause the least trouble. For there is great probability that Walter in this place and Rodrigo of Toledo in book VI, chap. XXV of the History of Spain Fathers of Toledo, Vol. III, p. 139. treat of the same fact. Rodrigo relates, namely, that the book of the Toledan office was tested by single combat and by fire. If I assert that Rodrigo was false in narrating the circumstances, I shall have brought forward nothing out of keeping with the opinion of the skilled, since some learned writers have already called the whole testimony of Rodrigo into doubt, or even banished it among fables: on which let the reader see what our Cuper noted in the dissertation on the Mozarabic rite Acta SS., Vol. VI of July, p. 49.

[31] which from the comparison of histories, Yet since the Chronicle of Maillezais edited by Labbe Bibl. nov. MSS., Vol. II, p. 211., whose authority is praised among Historians, agrees with Rodrigo concerning the single combat that took place, Rodrigo, as Cuper persuades, deserves credit when he maintains that same duel. But the archbishop of Toledo is not thought by our Cuper to be received with so much kindness when he alone, the contemporary authors being silent, relates the miracle of the Mozarabic Office untouched by the fire, almost incredible if you consider the occasion, and more incredible if you consider the effects (for Alfonso nonetheless commanded the Roman Office): wherefore I judge that that prodigy is not different from the proof which St. Anastasius is related by Walter to have proposed to his adversaries. Which opinion seems able to be established by an argument drawn from the time. Rodrigo relates, namely, that the proof by fire was made a little after the proof by duel; but he wrongly refers this to the times when Alfonso had Constance as wife: nor is our Cuper to be approved Acta SS., Vol. VI of July, p. 49., who, following Rodrigo, attached the trial by fire to the year 1090, in which Alfonso had already entered into marriage with the said Constance. For the Chronicle of Maillezais, whose authority and antiquity Cuper himself deservedly proclaims to be much superior to the writings of Rodrigo Ibid., l. c., refers these things not at all to the times of the marriage of Constance, who was the daughter of Robert, duke of the Burgundians [Fragment of the Fleury history in Duchesne, Writers of Frankish affairs, Vol. IV, p. 89, and Acta SS., Vol. VI of July, p. 49.], but to the time of the marriage of Agnes, daughter of Guy, duke of the Aquitanians; here are the words of the Chronicle Biblioth. nov. MSS. Labbe, Vol. II, p. 211.: "In these days" (between the year 1068 and 1070) "Hildefonsus, king of the Spaniards, had married the daughter of Guy" (who is the same as William VIII, duke of the Aquitanians) "whom he had by the aforesaid Mateode. On account of which matter there arose a cause and contention about the Roman law. Which Roman law he wished to introduce into Spain and change the Toledan: and therefore a combat was made between two knights, and by falsehood the knight on the side of the Franks was conquered." Whence it is manifest that these things were done in the time of Queen Agnes, and indeed before the year 1075, since Córdoba is related to have been taken in this year, and Lucas of Tuy in his chronicle Hispania Illustr., Vol. IV, p. 100., after he has narrated this victory, at once adds: "Then he took Constance as wife"; and likewise Rodrigo of Toledo, following altogether the same rule, closes chapter XXI of book VI of the History of Spain with these words Collect. Patr. Eccl. Tolet., Vol. III, p. 138.: "Then, Agnes being dead, he married a wife named Constance, from the parts of the Gauls"; and at once he goes on to narrate the death of Almenon, which is said to have happened in the year 1077. These things indeed, approved by Mariana, disagree with the reckoning of many; but I do not see anything certain brought against these older monuments, to which their honour must be given until better ones are produced. It is necessary, therefore, that the proof by fire, of which mention is made in Rodrigo, be confined between the year 1073 and 1075, at which time St. Anastasius was living in Spain: and hence it was easy that, through the interval of time from about the year 1075 up to the time when Walter was writing the Life of St. Anastasius, and then up to the age of Rodrigo of Toledo, a twofold opinion about the same fact should have prevailed.

[32] [from the silence of writers about missions to the Saracens, and from testimonies,] But our adversaries will perhaps cry out: could not St. Gregory have sent monks of Cluny, of whom some should be occupied in abolishing the Toledan rite, others in converting the Saracens? That he could is not to be denied; but that he did so, as being by no means probable, seems in no way to be admitted. First of all, no Spanish writer, although I have inquired into this matter as accurately as I could, comes my way who alludes even in the least to these missionaries to the Saracens; Alfonso VI is indeed praised by some contemporaries for procuring an increase of the faith, but this is more easily referred to the liberation of Christians and the restoration of episcopal sees than to the conversion of the Saracens. Moreover very many letters of St. Gregory VII remain to us which regard Spanish affairs, and not one which touches even in the slightest the conversion of the Saracens; on the contrary very many old monuments exist which persuade the contrary: thus among the letters of Alexander II, who was the predecessor of St. Gregory, are read certain letters of this Pontiff which show that there was no hope in these times of bringing the Saracens of Spain over to Christian rites; it will help to recite a few things from one Labbe, Conc., Vol. IX, col. 1138, and Aguirre, Conc. Hispan., Vol. IV, p. 430.: "Pope Alexander to all the bishops of Spain: The report which we have lately heard of you has pleased us, how you have protected the Jews who live among you, that they should not be slain by those who were setting out into Spain against the Saracens. For they, moved by foolish ignorance or perhaps by blind greed, wished to rage to the death of those whom perhaps the divine kindness has predestined to salvation… For the cause of the Jews and of the Saracens is certainly different; against the latter, who persecute the Christians and drive them from their cities and their own seats, war is justly waged; but the former are everywhere ready to serve," etc. So Alexander, who used as counsellor Hildebrand, afterwards St. Gregory VII.

[33] which rather prove the contrary, And he too often had to deal with the Saracens, since in his time also many Christian princes set out against them. But wholly intent on vindicating the rights of St. Peter, relying on the compact which had been entered into with the victors, he is nowhere attempting the conversion of the Saracens, since, as will be seen below, these attempts were reckoned vain. Let St. Gregory be heard writing to the princes of Spain, in Labbe Concil., Vol. X, col. 10.: "And so Count Ebles of Roucy, whose fame we think is not obscure among you, desiring to enter that land to the honour of Saint Peter and to snatch it from the hands of the pagans, obtained this concession from the apostolic see, that that part from which he could expel the pagans by his own zeal and the help of others joined to him he should possess on behalf of Saint Peter, under the condition of the compact made between us." Likewise in the letter given in the year 1077 to all the princes of Spain Labbe, Conc., Vol. X, col. 173 and following, and in which he applies to himself these words of St. Paul: "Necessity of preaching the gospel lies upon me; for woe is me if I preach not the gospel,"

he treats again indeed of the lands snatched from the Saracens, but you will seek in vain a word that regards evangelizing them. And from these and other things, which may easily be found both in Labbe and in Aguirre, it is clear enough that St. Gregory often thought of expelling the Saracens, but despaired of converting them.

[34] it seems that it can be drawn out. Nor is Alfonso to be reckoned to have attempted this, as we have already hinted above, and as sufficiently appears from his anger when in his absence the Mezquita (Mosque) of Toledo had been changed into a Christian church. But it is no wonder: for from the letter of Alexander II recited above it could already be understood that the conversion of the Saracens was held more difficult than the conversion of the Jews; and that this opinion prevailed through the whole middle age is witnessed by the Extracts from the book which Humbert of Romans composed concerning the things which seemed fit to be treated in the General Council in the year 1274. And there in chap. VI are these words Mansi, suppl. Concil., Vol. III, col. 7.: "The fifth circumstance is as regards the animosity of their obstinacy, because many Jews and heretics and philosophers and emperors and many idolaters have been converted and baptized. For the Vandals, who are also the Poles, and the Huns, who are also the Hungarians, the Goths, who are also the Dacians, have been made Catholics: but of the Saracens none or very few have been converted. The sixth circumstance is as regards their cunning. For as their law has been cunningly contrived, in that against the difficulty in things to be believed, and the austerity in the precepts and divine punishments, it permits carnal, voluptuous, sensible things, and finally teaches as dogma that all are to be saved at the prayers of Mahomet." And from this it is clear (for it can avail nothing against the present argument that this instrument regards the holy war, and that in chap. XV the Saracen subjects are said to be tolerated "because they cannot do harm; likewise because they are useful in many services and are more easily converted"), from this, I say, it is manifest with how great difficulties the conversion of the Saracens was held to be bound up even at the end of the 13th century. And this indeed towards the end of the 11th century must have been held much more difficult, both because war was being waged against them continually, and because the law was more in force among them by which they were wholly to avoid contact with Christians, as if they were contaminated by it, as Ambrosio de Morales speaks, having St. Eulogius as his witness. All which things are somewhat confirmed by the almost total absence of testimonies by which the Saracens are stated to have been brought to the true faith: thus in Baronius in the Annals and Pagi in the Critica you will find only that some in Sicily, being conquered, gave in.

[35] The remaining chronology of the life of St. Anastasius. The remaining chronology, which is easy to make, we copy from the Benedictine Hagiographers, subtracting only one year from their reckoning for the reasons which we have drawn out at length in this paragraph; thus they: "These things then being established, since we learn from the author of the Life that Anastasius, having returned from Spain, spent seven years at Cluny and three others in solitude, we now have ten years above 1074" (rather 1073); "to which if we add one or two, which he spent on journeys or even in Spain applying himself to the preaching of the divine word, we shall conclude that the blessed man departed to the heavenly ones about the year 1086" (rather 1085). "Which year indeed it has seemed good to retain until more certain things occur." Nor have more certain things occurred to us anywhere; indeed it is somewhat troublesome to us that Walter writes that St. Anastasius, having returned from Spain and stayed almost seven years at Cluny, went away with St. Hugh into the territory of Toulouse, and that then the count of the town of Pamiers with his wife and sons was received there by St. Hugh to the conversation of the monastic order. For, as we shall explain a little more at length in the annotations to this place, this conflicts somewhat with other certain historical monuments: for the rest, the error is perhaps only in the name, "count of the town of Pamiers." Be that as it may, from authentic instruments it becomes probable that St. Hugh, abbot of Cluny, was at Toulouse about the year 1081: for there is read in the Gallia Christiana among the instruments of the Church of Toulouse Vol. XIII, col. 10 and following a certain charter by which Isarn, bishop of Toulouse, and Count William handed over the church of St. Saturninus to St. Hugh and to Hunald, abbot of Moissac; which handing over, as being less equitable, is known to have been brought to nothing by St. Gregory VII in the year 1083 Ibid., col. 11 and following. The writers of the Gallia Christiana refer that diploma to about the year 1082; but it is much more probable that an interval of at least two years ran between that handing over and its revocation, as will be clear to anyone considering the whole series of the business: whence the journey of St. Hugh and of his companion Anastasius can easily be referred to the year 1081. The remaining deeds of this Saint either do not admit of commentary or do not require it: wherefore we shall endeavour to surround with what light we can, in the added annotations, the things which are more obscure. And so, as to what remains, we shall now speak of the Relics.

[36] His burial, and the elevation of the Relics, As Walter testifies at the end of the Life, the sacred body of St. Anastasius "was laid in the basilica of Blessed Martin at Devota" (or, as they now commonly say, Saint-Martin-Doydes), "where, in testimony of his holiness, at his tomb, God working, many miracles were very frequently done" in Walter's time. But the fervour and concourse of the people gradually cooled, so that at length the memory of his sepulchre was given over to oblivion: which is plain from the following monument, which was inserted in the MS. codex containing the Life itself, as Mabillon, who subjoined it to the Life, testifies; and it runs thus: "It is known, manifest and most certain, according to the report of trustworthy nobles of the place of Saint Martin de las Devotas, that the body of Saint Anastasius, which was unknown, and where it lay was not known, was revealed on the 7th day before the Kalends of July in the manner which follows. There was a certain devout woman of the said place, who kept many vigils in the basilica of Saint Martin, and a voice from heaven said to her: In the place where you pray, know that the body of Saint Anastasius is, and lies: and this it declared to her once, a second and a third time. Therefore she, sure of the revelation, declared it to the priests and clerics and elders of the said place, who with devotion and confidence dug deep in the place where she said, but did not find it. And again a voice from heaven said to the same devout woman that they should dig the same place deeper, and they would find the holy body. And so it was done, and they found the holy body: of whose revelation in the aforesaid place there was a great solemnity, and it is made daily *, and from the surrounding places they devoutly come together to the same solemnity, to the honour and adornment of the same Confessor and monk, master Saint Anastasius, whose soul possesses paradise."

[37] the circumstances of which are weighed; A few things can be noted on this appendix concerning the finding of the body of St. Anastasius: namely, there is in it no such mark as would suffice to determine the time, nor did Mabillon add any to it from the antiquity of the MS. codex. But that this finding happened at least a century after the Saint's death I am persuaded both by the very oblivion of the sepulchre and also perhaps by the change of names. For Walter, writing at the beginning of the 12th century, calls the village where Anastasius had died and been buried baldly Devotae; but in the monument brought forward the place was already, as it still is, borrowing its name from its patron, and was called the place of St. Martin de las Devotas. But what is most worthy of notice, it is plain from this sheet that St. Anastasius had not enjoyed ecclesiastical cult before that time; since it is clear from the narrative itself that the elevation of the body had not yet been made before, which was the beginning of legitimate cult. Nor ought it to seem strange to anyone that St. Anastasius, as the recited sheet proves, was buried so deep in the earth: for the fame of his holiness required this, which would have tempted thieves of Relics all too much. That men used such contrivances at that time is established from many histories: thus in the Life of St. Berengar, monk and Confessor, who died in the year 1093 and is venerated on the 26th of May, the following occurs [Acta SS. of the Order of St. Bened., Saec. VI, part II, p. 775 and Acta SS., Vol. VI of May, p. 448.]: "His holy body was buried near the entrance of the church as becomingly as possible, as it befitted to bury a saint. But because it was feared that his body would be carried off by theft, his tomb was surrounded with a wall, and brought within the church."

[38] their almost total destruction at the end of the 16th century. At number 1 of this Commentary we have already said, following Mabillon, that the body of St. Anastasius was kept in the former diocese of Rieux in the church of St. Martin of Doyde, or of Devota, up to the sixteenth century: what happened to it thereafter the same writer relates: "In the aforesaid century it was scattered by the raging Calvinist heretics, except some particles of it enclosed in a silver shrine, which were withdrawn by the faithful from their fury and laid up in a safe place. These some years ago the most illustrious prelate of Rieux praised above" (Antoine-François Bertier, who held the bishopric from the year 1662 to the year 1705) "visited, and, having recognized and approved them by his authority, permitted them to be shown to the veneration of the faithful. Not far from that village is seen a spring, commonly called that of Saint Anastasius, with which the holy man is recorded once to have quenched his thirst. And it is frequented by the neighbouring peoples, because by a draught of its water the heats of fevers are said to be allayed, which they relate to be certain by the experience of many." These things were given to the press by the Benedictine associates before the year 1701. But it is worth while to have attempted to assign the scattering of the sacred pledge to a somewhat more certain time. First of all it is certain that this deed of the heretics did not happen before the year 1560, since only in this year, as is gathered from the History of Occitania Hist. du Languedoc, Vol. V, p. 188., did the heretics begin to disturb these parts of Gaul. But what is most probable to me, lacking other instruments, is that the Relics of Saint Anastasius were plundered in the year 1574; which the following things prove to me: since the Barons of Rieux stood keenly on the side of the Catholics, the Calvinists long abstained from their lordship; indeed in the report of the governor of Narbonne, written by order of the king, on the doings of the Ecclesiastical Men, Nobles, etc., of the dioceses of Narbonne, Toulouse, Saint-Papoul, Lavaur, Montauban, Rieux and Comminges, after the places of the other dioceses which are under the dominion of the heretics have been enumerated, these words are subjoined Ibid., Vol. V, preuv. col. 227.: "The rebels possess no place in the dioceses of Rieux and Comminges; yet they occupy Le Mas-d'Azil and the town of Carla, which are neighbouring, and the city of Mazères is also not far distant from there." These things were written in French at Narbonne on the 23rd day of January of the year 1574. But this year did not pass before the Calvinist cohorts had invaded the diocese of Rieux: which is established from the destruction of the Monastery of Salenques,

or of Abundance-of-God, which in the diocese of Rieux, near the church of St. Felix of Salenques, subsisted with splendour up to the year 1574; in which, having been overturned from top to bottom by the Calvinists, the nuns betook themselves to the city of Montesquieu, until in the following century they fixed their seat at Toulouse Compare Gall. Christ., Vol. XIII, col. 142.. It does not seem, therefore, out of keeping with the truth to refer the destruction of the body of St. Anastasius to this year. What was done thereafter with the remaining particles of the sacred body I am not able to relate, as I am still awaiting an answer to our letters.

* Mabillon supplies: ad te remitto I send back to you

* yearly

LIFE OF ST. ANASTASIUS,

by Walter, from the edition of Mabillon.

Anastasius, hermit and monk of the Order of St. Benedict, in Gaul. (S.)

BHL Number: 0405

PROLOGUE.

The causes of the writing, Walter ^a to Peter, subdeacon of the church of Devota ^b, and to his brother Bernard, prosperity in all things, and the bringing of good devotion to effect. You compel me, while you ask more earnestly and urgently, to hand down to memory with the pen, for the edification of those who come after, the life of Blessed Anastasius, confessor. And I do not see that this can be borne by me without difficulty, nor does it fit my strength: lest the life of the holy man should seem, through the fault of the writer's wit, to be worn down rather than celebrated the more. Yet lest I seem to go against your petition, which, although little fitted, I ought to obey in all things, I shall undertake what the dryness * of my wit dissuades, safe in the protection of your command; for if I am anything, if I avail anything, I ought to ascribe it to the Lord. Moreover, since I profess myself your friend, it is not fitting that I omit to serve you in any way, if I can do so in anything; since, as a certain wise man says: Friendship consists only in devotion in asking and in diligent willingness in serving. To this is added a pure devotion, which, even if all the things said above were absent, can compel me to press boldly on to accomplish what you ask. For while you enjoin this care upon me so greatly, you provide for the edification of posterity; while you wish the life of the holy confessor and most glorious Anastasius to be disclosed to the praise and honour of God, that it may be an example to those who come after, and a testimony of the holiness of the same man. I ask therefore, and earnestly beseech, that if through carelessness I have sought out too little, or through the poverty of my wit have passed over anything, or have added over and above anything worthy of being cut away, the reader may not be loath to add what he has perceived to be worthy of addition, or to cut away what he has judged by a stroke of the crossing pen should be corrected. Finally the devotion of those who ask will be able to excuse me, which, as I have already often said, compelled me to dare what distrust of my wit had dissuaded.

ANNOTATA.

* ariditas dryness

LIFE OF THE GLORIOUS ANASTASIUS.

The Saint's native land, his monastic life on the Mount of St. Michael, his hermit's life, his withdrawal to Cluny and into Spain, his return to Cluny, the desert sought again, his death in the former diocese of Rieux.

St. Anastasius, liberally and piously educated, The most glorious Anastasius, Confessor of God, sprung from Venice, shone forth illustrious in family according to the dignity of this world, born of a father and mother not of the lowest; who, regenerated from his very cradle by the wave of baptism, was from his earliest age given over by his parents to literary studies; in which he applied such care that he seemed to be imbued to a nicety with all letters, Greek as well as Latin. He was therefore bright in wit, learned in eloquence, adorned in manners, lovable to all, so that those were called happy who had begotten such a son. But because the man of God had read in the divine books that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, and had heard the Truth itself saying in the Gospel: Unless a man renounce all that he possesses, he cannot be My disciple; he began, not without grace, to call to mind and to turn over within himself that he would suffer a grievous loss if he lost heavenly things for earthly. Turning these things over for a long time, he at length resolved with himself that, in order to do penance for what he had committed, he would commit himself to the monastic habit. But because, having put one's hand to the plough, it is shameful to look back and to make a crooked and useless furrow, the holy man Anastasius wished first to macerate himself with fasts, vigils and prayers; that he might thus prove whether, having taken the habit of monks, he could persist in the step he had proposed, and not spring back: he withdrew from himself, then, first wine, in which is luxury, and on the fourth and sixth day of the week ^a he began to fast, yet so that sometimes he ate meat: he applied himself for the most part to prayer and vigils.

[3] [he prepares himself for the monastic life, and embraces it on the Mount of St. Michael;] And when in this way he had for some little time bridled his flesh, and was now in some measure keeping it on the way of good purpose, he cast away meat foods; and so he began to press on chiefly with vigils and prayers, that he fasted from Sunday to Sunday. And when again for some time he had so bound himself, he was so strengthened that he seemed to himself to be firm also, and sufficient for his purpose. He decided, therefore, to satisfy it and to accomplish his purpose. Having left then his parents, home and kinsfolk, seeking a suitable place where he might receive the habit of monks, he came to the British sea, to the place which is called the Port of Hercules ^b, which by another name is called the Mount of Saint Michael in Peril of the Sea; where, having found a great congregation of monks, religious in all things, except that the abbot ^c had crept in by simony, he received the desired habit. Of the abbot's simony the man of God was wholly ignorant. But it came about after a year had revolved, when he was sitting with a certain brother ^d, and after talk held on the strengthening of the soul and on the life of the holy fathers, that a question was raised between them, and they discoursed thence long and much, and at length the talk was directed to the abbot. The man of God Anastasius learned that the abbot was simoniacal, and had crept into the abbacy through the boundless money which he had given; whence grieving beyond measure, and affirming that he had been deceived by diabolical fraud, since he had sought a place suitable to his purpose and had almost fallen into the snare of the wicked enemy, he withdrew thence, and having entered a certain island ^e at the very entrance of the aforesaid sea, in a certain basilica of Mary, Mother of God ^f, he began to remain alone, giving himself to fasts, vigils and prayers.

[4] whence he departs a little after. And when he had shone there for some time ^g by a life of exceptional conversation, and his fame was spread far and wide, the venerable abbot, Hugh by name, who at that time presided over the monastery of Cluny, went out with many brethren to revisit * the monasteries for the exhortation of the brethren who were serving God in various and far distant places. Whence it came about that he came to the British sea, where, having heard of the life and conversation of the man of God Anastasius, he sent two of the brethren to the island, to the aforesaid basilica, and bade the man of God come out to him for the sake of conversing: for, having heard of his good conversation, he also desired to see him; and he, having heard of the arrival of the venerable man the abbot, came out with great joy; and the abbot received him honourably and inquired eagerly about his life and conversation. And when he had heard everything from him, and how on account of simony he had gone out of the place in which he had received the habit, and had understood his vow, he rejoiced greatly over his good conversation, and strengthened him in the service of God in whatever ways he could. And when for some days the abbot had told him much about the life and conversation of the brethren of Cluny, he admonished the man of God, and asked him much, to go with him to Cluny, where he might both fulfil his vow and give an example of good conversation to the other brethren. The man of God Anastasius, acquiescing in his petition, took the road with him. And when he came to Cluny, he had great love and the familiarity of humility with all the brethren; he loved all with one mind, for he directed all in the service of God by the example of his life. For a long time indeed he led a wonderful life, while he gave himself as a pattern of good conversation. For when the other brethren went to the refectory at the signal given, the man of God remained at prayer, and at night, when all were resting, he rose, and on bended knee prayed almost the whole night; he lived content with bread and water, and even this he took as in a moment. Once a year he went out into solitudes or precipitous places to celebrate the Lenten fasts, and then he macerated himself beyond measure with prayers, fasts, vigils and genuflexions.

[5] He goes to Cluny, whence he is sent into Spain; About the same time, at the command of our holy father Pope Gregory VII and by the threefold persuasion of the venerable man, his abbot Hugh, he entered Spain to preach to the Saracens ^h; where, to prove the certainty of the faith of the Christians and to root out the hardness of cruelty of the Saracens, he wished to pass through a burning pyre after celebrating the solemnities of the Mass ⁱ; but the Saracens would not agree to his condition, namely that if he passed through it unharmed, they would flee to the grace of baptism. But since they would in no way return from the blindness and hardness of their heart, having shaken off the dust of his feet against them for a testimony, he returned to his monastery. And it came about after his return, a space of almost seven years having revolved, that the venerable abbot, at the exhortation of certain brethren, laymen and nobles ^k, who, renouncing the world, wished to come to the habit of monks, wished to go out into Aquitaine. Whence it came about that he took the man of God Anastasius with him; for he was skilled in all the divine scriptures, and strong in the exhortation and edification of the brethren. And when, exhorting the brethren, they had travelled through a great part of Aquitaine, they at length came into the district of Toulouse, where they were to receive the count of the town of Pamiers ^l with his wife and sons to the conversation of the monastic order. Meanwhile, too, the time was now at hand in which the man of God Anastasius had been accustomed to celebrate Lent in solitudes or in precipitous places: whence, since he was much concerned and turned it over within himself day and night, he at length chose the Pyrenean mountains, situated near by, as suitable for this, where he might both celebrate the Lenten fasts and give himself for a time to the hermit's life. To his prayers the abbot, because he was the staff and as it were the pillar of the other brethren, gave his assent unwillingly. But because he knew his constancy in the service of God, he did not wish to delay his good vow. Constrained, therefore, and sad, he granted what he asked. And when they were going down towards each other, the venerable man the abbot, weeping, and falling on his neck with tears and sobs, admonished him to be mindful of him, to intercede with God for him and for the other brethren, and at last bidding him farewell, he returned with the other brethren to the monastery.

[6] having returned to Cluny, he goes back to the Pyrenees, The man of God Anastasius, therefore, who desired this alone, that he might be able to satisfy his vow, took the road to the mountains with great joy: and when he drew near to them, and could now note each place with no obstacle intervening, he chose for his dwelling a very high mountain which was called Abriscola ^m, because in the part where it was situated it towered above the other mountains. Having left, therefore, a certain brother whom he had with him at the roots of the mountain in a certain church, he ascended the mountain alone, having made of leafy branches a quite narrow dwelling and an altar, where he might offer the sacrifice. Then amid continual snows and cold he served God, and applied himself much to fasts, vigils and prayers; and for food he required nothing but bread baked under the ashes and water, which he received only in measure from the brother whom he had left below the mountain. And while he stayed in these things, and his life was heard of round about, many began to visit him, and many to come together to him, that they might hear the word of life from him, and know his life, which he led wonderfully, and might sustain with temporal things him by whom they were refreshed with divine food. But the man of God received absolutely nothing from them for the use of the body: for he did not seek to be invited by the people, who refused even to live by the Gospel. Whatever, therefore, was offered, he distributed through the hands of certain brethren ⁿ to the poor whom he knew to be of good life and judged suitable for this.

[7] where he leads the hermit's life, and is harassed by the demon. But meanwhile, while he sought to please God alone and burned for this with all the ardour of his mind, that old enemy, the artificer of harm, the adversary of the human race, began to envy his good acts, and day and night to seek a way of creeping in to do harm. But when he found absolutely nothing in his acts which he could steal away, and had no power over him, he contrived how at least he might drive him from his cell. It came about, then, that when one day, after finishing his prayer, the man of God Anastasius went out of his little cell and was sitting outside with two brethren who had come to him, the old enemy was present, and set fire to his cell and to the altar which he had made for offering the sacrifice: but the man of God, looking back, when he saw the fire, recognized the snares of the wicked enemy; whence rising and going right up to the cell, he commanded the enemy to depart, and set the sign of the cross against the fire: at whose command the enemy departed, and at the sign of the cross the fire was extinguished. And when this, having been heard, was reported round about, then above all almost all the natives began to come together to him, and to commend themselves to his prayer, and also to seek from him penance for what they had committed: for during almost the three years that he remained in the desert, so many ran to him that often all the mountains round about seemed to shine with tapers, which were lit before his cell by those who came. Often too he had said to those who came that he was unworthy that they should come to him, that he was a monk from whom they were seeking penance, and that he had not leave to preach nor to receive penitents: but what did this avail, since nevertheless they came most promptly, and stirred him to preach with tears and prayers?

[8] He is called back to Cluny, But since God wished to reward his labour and to call him from the prison-house of the flesh, that his crown might be the greater, He willed that his temporal life should be ended in obedience. It came about, then, that the venerable man, the aforesaid abbot of the church of Cluny, burned with the desire of seeing the brother, since as much as his presence availed the other brethren, and as much as his life strengthened them, so much did he recognize his absence; whence he directed to him, by the hands of certain brethren, a letter of this kind, which called him back to the monastery of the other brethren. "To his most beloved son Anastasius, brother Hugh, a sinner, greeting, and in the blessed resurrection the glorious society of the elect. I wonder, dearest son, that for a long time now I have heard nothing of you, have received no knowledge of your life: wherefore I bid your affection, if it seems good to you, to come down to visit the brethren, that, as I have said, your desirable presence may strengthen and exhort them *… … Farewell, and pray for the brethren." And the man of God Anastasius, having received the letter of his blessed father the abbot, rejoiced greatly; and gave thanks to God that He deigned to call him back to his brethren.

[9] he stays at the monastery of St. Antoninus, Having gone out of the desert, then, he came as far as the place which is called At the True Body of Blessed Antoninus ^o, Martyr, which by another name is called Fredelas, where, when he was asked by the people to lay the body of the Blessed Martyr in a new place, and was preparing himself at their petition, a sick man was brought to him who had already for a long time been harassed by fevers; and when he had sprinkled him with holy water which he had blessed, and had imprinted the sign of the cross on his forehead, he was made as sound as if he had never felt sickness. Whomever he sprinkled with the same holy water, by whatever sickness they were held, he restored to health.

[10] he dies on the journey. When therefore the report of his departure was heard, there was a concourse of people from every side, who grieved and lamented that they were left by so great a father, a consoler in tribulation, a protector in adversities, and besought him with tears and weeping not to forsake those whom he had been accustomed to cherish, whom he had not neglected to refresh with the food of the divine word. But the man of God, the reward of whose labour was now at hand, so that by obedience, as we said above, his crown might increase, wished to obey his father the abbot who was recalling him: nor could the sickness of fevers, by which he was gravely held, call him back from this. After an address, then, of divine admonition and exhortation, withdrawing, he came as far as the place which they call Devotae, where, the sickness of fevers now growing strong, he began to be gravely ill, so much so that by this disease he was certain of the dissolution of his body; whence, when he was asked to rest a little to mitigate the pain, and to bathe to cool himself, he refused himself both; adding also that from the time he had known monastic conversion he had used no bath, nor even given water for washing his feet or head. The course of his race therefore being completed, to receive the crown of justice in the fellowship of the Saints, monk, hermit and Confessor, he passed to the Lord on the 17th day before the Kalends of November. And his sacred body was honourably laid in the basilica of Blessed Martin in the same place; where, in testimony of his holiness, at his tomb, God working, many miracles are very frequently done. But lest we seem to bring on weariness if we run through them one by one, let us attempt to set out a few in order, passing over many.

[11] He works miracles after death. A certain virgin was held possessed by three demons, who harassed her so much that they had even made her dumb. She was led through many places of the Saints that she might recover health: and the demons at length gave answer that they would not go out of the possessed body unless they were led to the body of the aforesaid Blessed Anastasius, Confessor. Those, then, who were leading her said within themselves, where they might find him; and they sought the place in which the Saint's body rested; for it was still unknown to many that he had lately passed from the world. When therefore they had heard that it had been laid at the basilica of Blessed Martin at Devotae, they led her there bound with ropes; and as they drew near to the place, the demons cried out with loud voices: "Why dost thou burn us, Anastasius? cease to torment us and we will go out; cease to scourge and we will depart from the possessed body. We have been led through many bodies of the Saints, and by none have we been so scourged and departed; thou alone burnest us, thou alone tormentest , thou alone harmest us." Dragging her therefore with their hands, they thrust her into the church, and stretched her out beside the tomb of the Blessed Confessor. And all who were present, on bended knee, besought with tears that God would deign to show to those standing by the power of His clemency, and in testimony of the holiness of His Confessor would deign to free her. Scarcely had they finished the prayer, and behold the demons went out of that girl. And rising she spoke rightly, and testified that she was freed and suffered nothing evil. A woman too who had remained in blindness for seven years, when she was led there and, after the vigils of the night had been performed, was standing before the tomb of the holy Confessor, received her sight while the Gospel was being read in the very celebration. And a certain cleric who suffered from frenzy was led to the same place, bound with chains and ropes, to recover his health. He, whenever the movement of his brain came upon him, if he could seize anyone, mauled him with teeth and nails; and when he had spent three vigils before the tomb of the Blessed Confessor, he received health, and went away free from all frenzy, nor afterwards did he suffer anything of his former sickness.

ANNOTATA.

have been caught, are overwhelmed." The abbey of which there is talk in the Life of St. Anastasius was occupied at the end of the last century by Benedictine monks of the Congregation of St. Maur; but now, made a prison, it continually holds a great many condemned men.

* revisenda to revisit

* Certain things here could not be read. Mabill.

* cruciare to torment.

* crucias thou tormentest