Balderic of Montfaucon

ON ST. BALDERIC OF MONTFAUCON, CONFESSOR, AT MONTFAUCON IN THE DISTRICT OF REIMS,

BEFORE THE MIDDLE OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Balderic, confessor, at Montfaucon in the district of Reims. (S.)

§ I. The sacred calendars; the historical records that survive concerning St. Balderic.

St. Balderic is venerated at Montfaucon in French Champagne, That there are very many places to which, no less than to the town where St. Balderic is chiefly venerated, the name of Mons Falconis clings, is not hidden from the learned reader; for, to say nothing of the towns and villages of the same name which lie either in Italy, or in Belgium, or in Germany, Gaul exhibits to us sixteen Montfaucons; or perhaps more, unless in the Geographical Dictionary of Gaul of Expilly and in the Universal Geographical, Statistical and Historical Dictionary of Gaul printed at Paris in the year 1804 the series of towns and villages to which that name was given has been exhausted. From this huge multitude of Montfaucons, moreover, has arisen the error of certain people who confuse St. Balderic with St. Galdericus or Gaudericus, venerated with much piety in the southern tract of Gaul. There is no reason, however, for us to review here at greater length which are the Montfaucons to which the annual cult of St. Balderic would wrongly be ascribed; since it is enough to have indicated which place rightly claims him as its patron and inhabitant. Now Montfaucon, which through the care of St. Balderic was made from a forest into a monastery and then a town, lies in the district of Reims (département de la Meuse), five leagues from Verdun, as many from Clermont, about six from Sainte-Menehould, and two from the bank of the Meuse: at the end of the last century it contained about three hundred and forty hearths. More about it may be read in the cited Dictionaries, and we ourselves shall explain below.

[2] as is clear from very many sacred calendars, Now the name of St. Balderic, which among the ancient Germans or Teutons designates a man conspicuous for boldness (Balde denoting boldness, ric rich, conspicuous), occurs among none of the classical martyrologists; but on the other hand the number of Auctaria, or similar calendars, in which he is recorded is huge. First of all, the Auctaria of Usuard of Luxeuil, of Lübeck-Cologne, of Greven and of Molanus give out: At Montfaucon, of the most Blessed Balderic, Confessor, whose merits are declared by frequent miracles, or, to whose sanctity frequent miracles bear witness. The writer of the Canisian Martyrology translated this into the German idiom, rendering Mons Falconis by Falckenberg; but I doubt whether that name, by which Mons Falconis in Belgium (Fauquemont) is wont to be designated, rightly belongs to the town of which we are treating. Martin Weissbacher Legende der H. Petriner, at 16 Oct., wrongly understanding the Lives of the Saints of Fr. Giry, confused St. Balderic of Reims with St. Valdericus, or rather Galdericus or Gaudericus, of Canigou or Mirepoix, of whom we treat below at the present day. The Paris Martyrology of Cardinal de Noailles also records at Reims St. Balderic, priest, brother of St. Bova, abbess, and founder of the monastery of Montfaucon towards Verdun. The Martyrology of Évreux, Ménard, Bucelin, du Saussay, Wion, Schönleben in the Annus Sanctus, Ferrari in the Catalogus Universalis, Antonio de Heredia in the Lives of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict, Trithemius On the Illustrious Men of the Order of St. Benedict, book III, chapter 152 and others refer the feast of St. Balderic to the 16th of October. Claude Chastelain, however, left the beaten path, announcing St. Balderic in his Universal Martyrology at the 8th day of October; which was without doubt done by that most sagacious man because in the Life of SS. Bova and Doda Acta SS., vol. III of April, p. 289 he had found that Balderic, their brother and paternal uncle, died on the 8th day of October: but in the index of Saints he placed beside the name of our Saint that he is venerated not only on the 8th but also on the 12th; which new error seems to have been drawn from a typographical blemish, by which in the History of Reims of Marlot it is perversely said that St. Balderic closed the last day of his course at Reims on the 12th of October, on which his feast is celebrated. I need scarcely mention that the distinguished V. de Saint-Allais, everywhere treading in the footsteps of Chastelain, fell into the same errors. The Martyrology of Auxerre, published by order of Charles de Caylus, praises St. Balderic at the 7th day of October: but in a note it adds: From the Martyrology of D. Chastelain on this day; which annotation seems to be ascribed to an over-hasty pen.

[3] nor is he distinct from the St. Valdricus of the Spaniards. Nor can the limit of errors be fixed here, since I see that on this day there are announced by one and the same writer St. Baldricus, monk, at Montfaucon, and St. Valdricus, Confessor, in the territory of Reims. This is Ferrari, who testifies that he borrowed the former memorial from the Monastic Martyrology, from the additions to Usuard edited by Molanus, and from the Natales of the Saints of Belgium of the same writer; but the other announcement he writes was taken by him from the records of Montfaucon of the diocese of Reims. But that martyrologist is utterly untrustworthy in citing records, calendars, tables, etc.: which general judgment of his accuracy holds clearly here; since Molanus in his Natales does not mention St. Balderic at all, and it is not credible that the records of Montfaucon were seen by Ferrari, in which, contrary to the usage of this region, Valdericus would have been written in place of Baldericus; rather he drew it from I know not what Spanish book: for the Spaniards, as is clear from Antonio de Heredia in the Lives of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict, call our Saint Valdericus, not Baldericus; which custom of changing letters is sufficiently

common to them.

[4] The Life of St. Bova, wrongly faulted, The historical records which their antiquity makes venerable, and which treat of St. Balderic at some length, are five in number. The first is the Life of St. Wandregisilus, the second the Life of SS. Bova and Doda, the third the History of Reims of Flodoard, the fourth a manuscript codex cited by Calmet, the fifth, finally, the Chronicle of Alberic of Trois-Fontaines; it is worth weighing the authority of these writings. For the present, however, I forbear to discourse on the Life of St. Wandregisilus, since in § III a more suitable place for that will recur; this only seems worth noting, that it is evident from it that a Life of St. Balderic was in circulation in the middle of the ninth century or even much later, so that it was well known in the district of Rouen; whence it is clear that those writings are worthy of the greater credit which were composed while that Life was still being read. Now the second record, or the Life of SS. Bova and Doda, which our Henschen published from a manuscript codex of the Queen of Sweden Acta SS., vol. III of April, p. 283, Mabillon pronounces to be of no authority Annales Ord. S. Benedicti at the year 629, no. 10; whether that judgment is more severe than is just must be weighed. In truth this writing is not altogether authentic and has admitted an obvious error; nevertheless, according to the rules of criticism which Mabillon himself and his confrères followed, this Life is to be valued no less than the remaining records concerning St. Balderic cited and praised by that same annalist. Let us hear, namely, what the anonymous writer says by way of preface to his little work Prologue, §2: Let no one wonder if we run risks in many things, setting forth anew the acts of SS. Bova and Doda, Virgins, since the former book, which, published concerning their life, had grown into a large volume, we have neither seen, nor been able to find any man or woman who testified that he or she had seen it. Nevertheless we learned by hearing from several of the sisters that in that same monastery in which the aforesaid Virgins rest there was a certain press, in which very many volumes of books were stored, and at the same time riches of the greatest wealth; namely, silken palls… Among which that very book also, which contained the acts and birth of the Blessed Virgins and the signs of divers mighty works, was burned up by hateful flames. And at the beginning of the Prologue he relates that this task was undertaken by him because he had been often admonished by two nuns of the monastery of St. Peter the Upper, namely Eva and Gertrude, who made known to him the Life of those same Virgins, related to them by several sisters who had died. Now is it not evident that the memory of the deeds of a certain holy foundress and patroness of a monastery could as easily be kept through about sixty years (for more are not to be admitted) as could the things found in certain privileges kept in the archive before they were abolished by flames? And yet Mabillon praises privileges which had had to be renewed on account of burning, when in the work On Diplomatics Book I, chapter 8, no. 6 he discourses thus: Another cause of fabricating originals was to supply the loss of the old ones from wars, fires and other ways. But those who conducted themselves more rightly begged that their privileges and charters be restored by princes or bishops, a general privilege being asked for, in which all the possessions of the church or monastery were confirmed in general, or an accurate enumeration was made of all possessions and rights. And indeed he himself inserted in his works several specimens of this kind; and, trusting too much to the memory of men, he endeavoured in this way to prove that the monastery of Solignac had always served under the Rule of St. Benedict [Compare Annales Ord. S. Bened. at the year 866, §56, and the Acta SS. at the 4th day of October, p. 482 and following]. Further, since the first rule of criticism consists in this, that one be consistent with oneself (on which matter Fr. Honoratus of St. Mary is much occupied in his animadversions on criticism), it must be confessed that a much blacker mark than was fitting was branded by Mabillon upon the Life of SS. Bova and Doda. D. Bouquet and his associates acted much more rightly, inserting part of this Life in the Collection of the Writers of the History of Gaul.

[5] [and written perhaps in the middle of the ninth century, the earlier one having been burned, it records many things concerning St. Balderic.] But if the time at which this Life was written is weighed, it will become plain that this Life is older than the writings of Flodoard, whom nevertheless Mabillon admits as his sole guide when he pursues the deeds of St. Balderic. For this Life was composed when the Relics of St. Balderic, together with the Relics of SS. Bova and Doda, were kept in the monastery of St. Peter the Upper at Reims; which the anonymous himself testifies Life of SS. Bova and Doda, chapter 5, no. 24 in these words: These things, then, concerning the most holy pledges, namely Saint Balderic, and his sister the most Blessed Bova, abbess, and their sweetest niece, namely the most chaste Doda, temple of the living God, were related to us by the sisters of that same monastery, IN WHICH THEY THEMSELVES LIE. But in the year 882, when the Northmen entered the province of Reims, the pledges of St. Balderic had already long been kept elsewhere, as will be explained below by Flodoard himself. Whence it is clear that this writing is older than the end of the ninth century. I do not know, however, whether it would be forbidden to refer it to the eighth century, since the anonymous biographer writes Ibid., chapter 1, no. 5: That that work (he means the monastery of St. Peter the Upper, built by Balderic himself) is now seen to be almost entirely destroyed; and Ibid., chapter 4, no. 20 that the church of the Blessed Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary outside the walls of the city of the Remi (in which church St. Balderic had first been buried) is seen to be utterly destroyed from its foundations on account of the age of years and above all the onslaught of the pagans: which surely could not have so fallen down and been destroyed through age unless one or two centuries are supposed to have flowed by. And the pagans who are indicated here cannot be the Northmen, since, as was just said, they came only after this Life of SS. Bova and Doda had been written: but enough of it so far.

[6] Other writers are reviewed; but the primitive Life has perished. The History of the Church of Reims, written by Flodoard about a century after the mentioned Life of SS. Bova and Doda, almost everywhere agrees with it; and indeed where it departs from it, I am persuaded that for the most part it is not the Anonymous but that otherwise most praised historiographer himself who errs, in that he has drowsily made use of the little work of the Anonymous. Moreover there is scarcely doubt that the Life of St. Balderic, known, as we have said, in the district of Rouen, lit his way also. But what he records concerning St. Balderic is reduced almost to translations of Relics and miracles; that an account of these existed among the people of Montfaucon he himself teaches. And indeed Calmet in the History of Lorraine Vol. I, p. 466 brings forward in testimony a manuscript codex of Montfaucon pertaining to the deeds of St. Balderic; but he relates scarcely anything from it which is not recorded by Flodoard. We sent letters into that tract, that a copy of this codex might be procured for us; but since this little work is reported to have been consumed by flames in the year 1793, this care of ours was useless. The fifth little work in which St. Balderic is treated, namely the Chronicle of Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, was published by Leibniz in volume II of the Accessiones Historicae; but Alberic notes that he made use of the writings of Flodoard. Very many more recent writers have treated of St. Balderic; but since they wrote only a brief synopsis of St. Balderic's deeds, there is no reason for them to detain us much. I will speak of only two: Marlot in the History of Reims Vol. I, p. 262 brings forward from a certain biographer of St. Balderic certain circumstances concerning the coming of the Relics of St. Germanus to Montfaucon in the time of Charlemagne; but who that author is he nowhere indicates. I suspect that it is Fr. F. Dominic of Jesus, of the Carmelite Order; that in his work, the Monarchia Sancta, etc., translated from Latin into the French idiom by Modestus of St. Amabilis, a Life of St. Balderic is found, the Bibliothèque de la France of Fr. Lelong teaches; which work, Langlet du Fresnoy, a severe and indeed often unfair critic of Religious, pronounces to have a fine title prefixed to it, but to be of little worth. But whatever may be said of the value of this work, I easily persuade myself that nothing occurs in it which escaped Mabillon, Le Cointe, Calmet or others, or which was not noted by Marlot, who seems to have used the Monarchia. From a letter of a canon of Montfaucon, whom I shall praise more fully below, it became known to us that in the year 1715, with the licence of the archbishop of Reims, a certain Life of St. Balderic was put to the press, to be of use to the canons and parishioners; which, since it would scarcely teach anything that is lacking in the Ecclesiastical Office, was not sent to us. These animadversions on the historical sources having been set forth, I take my step to the deeds of St. Balderic themselves.

§ II. Synopsis of his life; at what time the monastery of St. Peter at Reims was founded by St. Balderic; the time of St. Balderic's birth; this Saint, no less than some others, is a son of King Sigibert I.

That the time at which St. Balderic lived may be determined, his deeds must first be set forth in a few words; which, for the sake of the investigators of liturgical matters, I prefer to transcribe from the Breviary of Reims of the year 1630, [The deeds of St. Balderic are set forth in a few words from the Breviary of Reims of the year 1630.] where the third lesson is proper, rather than to present a synopsis made by myself: Balderic, priest, with his sister Bova, were sprung from royal stock, namely children of King Sigibert. At Reims they built a monastery of maidens, which from the situation of the place is called the Upper, in honour of Saint Mary or Saint Peter, of which Bova was afterwards made abbess. The monastery having been built, Balderic withdrew to a certain place which they call Montfaucon, covered and rough with dense woods: cutting these down, he founded for himself a dwelling in it by his own labour. There both he served God long, devoutly and quietly, and, some pious and God-fearing persons also conferring their means on the same Balderic, he built a monastery under the honour of Blessed Germanus: these things being accomplished, returning at length to Reims to his sister Bova, he closed there the last day of his course, and, buried, rested for no small time. His body was at length translated to the said monastery of Saint Germanus. These things are gathered from Flodoard; and, if you except certain places of which we are about to speak, they are to be set beyond controversy.

[8] [Since the monastery of St. Peter at Reims had already been built by St. Balderic before the year 596, as from the testament of Romulf,] From what has been recited it is clear that the age of St. Balderic can be known if it has been ascertained at what period the monastery of St. Peter the Upper was founded: now it is certain that it already existed before the year 596, in which Childebert II, king of Austrasia and Burgundy, met his last day.

For Flodoard History of Reims, book II, chapter 4 testifies these things, among many others, concerning Romulf, bishop of Reims: And the estate of Lautiniacum on the river Caltajo he conferred on the monastery of maidens built at Reims in honour of St. Peter, which estate he records that he had bought for a price paid… The page of whose testament is still preserved in the archive of the Church of Reims, with the authority of King Childebert, by which that same king, petitioned by the aforesaid bishop through Sonnatius the deacon, a venerable man (and afterwards bishop of Reims), decreed that he confirmed this testament. Indeed, according to the opinion of Le Cointe, that time would have to be put back at least three years, since he himself Annales Ecclesiastici Francorum, vol. II, p. 406 ties the death of Romulf to the end of the year 593; but on the other hand the editors of the Gallia Christiana Vol. IX, col. 18 find no certain limit of his life except the year 613, in which Sonnatius his successor exchanged certain properties with Queen Brunichild, who died in this year. But I prefer to stand on certainties rather than fight for our case over three doubtful years.

[9] that it treats of this monastery and not of another nunnery of St. Peter Marlot, however History of Reims, vol. I, book II, chapter 33, p. 254, affirms that it can be doubted whether the monastery of which mention is made in the aforesaid testament is that old one over which Susanna presided in the time of Saint Remigius, and of which Flodoard treated in his history Ibid., book I, chapter 24. Which doubt of Marlot Mabillon thus attacks in the Annals of his Order At the year 629, §10: I know that it seems to some that this is the monastery which the abbess Susanna, of whom mention is made in the Acts of Saint Theodoric, abbot, ruled during the pontificate of Blessed Remigius; but with no foundation: indeed rather the contrary is drawn from the testament of Saint Remigius, who, though he confers something on all the churches which were then at Reims, makes no mention of the aforesaid monastery; which certainly the bishops subsequent to Romulf, Sonnatius, Lando and Nivard, whose testaments Flodoard praises, did not pass over. From which it is understood that the Upper monastery of Saint Peter was founded either in the pontificate of Romulf or a little before, that is, towards the end of the sixth century. But I strongly doubt whether this reasoning will please not only those who condemn the testament of St. Remigius, in which those donations are extant to which Mabillon alludes, but also those who approve it, since it is merely negative. In my judgment the matter would be settled if it were established that in the time of Romulf only one monastery of St. Peter existed at Reims, and that this was the same as the monastery of St. Peter afterwards called the Upper.

[10] is proven, St. Balderic was certainly born before the year 570. And indeed it must be admitted either that in the mentioned testament of Romulf it is a question of the monastery of St. Peter the Upper; or, if of another, that this other was destroyed before Sonnatius, who died in the year 631 or certainly before the year 633 Gallia Christiana, vol. IX, col. 20, had drawn up his testament. For from what we shall discuss below concerning St. Wandregisilus it will be more than sufficiently clear that the monastery of St. Peter the Upper was founded before the year 630: now Sonnatius in his testament, which is known from Flodoard Book II, chapter 5, bestowed three gold solidi on the basilica of St. Peter in the city. Now that basilica in this place signifies a monastery is clearly evident from the testament itself, where the same word is quite evidently used several times in the same sense: moreover Valois shows, in a special little work on Basilicas, that this name was very frequently given of old to the churches of monasteries. These things being laid down, I ask whether it is credible that a codicil of a testament would be drawn up by anyone without its being determined in it to which of the two monasteries the donation was made, and it being said merely, the basilica of St. Peter which is in the city, when two basilicas of St. Peter were to be seen in the city? It is clear, therefore, that in the time of Sonnatius only one monastery of St. Peter existed at Reims; and accordingly the foregoing proposition is to be held as certain. But it is utterly averse to likelihood that a monastery which flourished enough for Romulf to have given it an estate by his testament had already been wiped out in the time of his successor. Wherefore it remains that it be established that the Upper monastery of St. Peter was built before the year 596. And lest anyone object that St. Nivard similarly does not distinguish in his testament the monastery of St. Peter the Upper from the monastery of St. Peter the Lower, it is enough to have noted not only that, the name of the abbess being added, this was sufficiently indicated, but also that the monastery of St. Peter the Lower had not yet been founded in the time of St. Nivard, as will appear manifest in a more suitable place against the editors of the Gallia Christiana. To close these things by returning to St. Balderic, let the conclusion be that St. Balderic was born before the year 570, since he must be supposed to have been at least twenty-five years old when, before the year 596, he founded the monastery of St. Peter and set over it his sister Bova, or rather, if usage allowed, Boba.

[11] Several errors are refuted But if it is asked who St. Balderic and his sister St. Bova, and the mother or father of their niece St. Doda, who are said to be the children of King Sigibert, were; again not one and the same opinion meets us. First, it was fixed and settled among many that St. Balderic was the son of Sigibert III, surnamed the Saint; Antonio de Heredia was engaged in this opinion, and before him many others, of whom Mabillon speaks in the Benedictine Annals At the year 629, §10. But that way of thinking falls with its whole weight; since, as Fredegar witnesses Chronicle, chapter 59, in the eighth year of his reign (the year of Christ 629) Dagobert… took Ragentrude to his bed, of whom in that year he had a son named Sigibert. And indeed since this Sigibert is the third of this name, it could by no means have happened that one who was born in the year 629 had children who had already built monasteries in the year 596. Ridiculous, therefore, is the opinion of those who make our Balderic the same as Dagobert II or his brother, sons of Sigibert III. On which matter see Marlot History of Reims, vol. I, book II, chapter 33, the History of the royal abbey of St. Ouen of Rouen Book II, chapter 2 and the History of the Franks of Valois Book 20, p. 187 and following. The Breviary of Reims of the year 1630, cited above, gives out a twofold opinion: for in the lesson concerning St. Balderic this Saint and his sister Bova are said to be the children of Sigibert; but in the lessons concerning St. Bova at the 24th of April, St. Bova is said to have been adopted by Sigibert; of which assertion du Saussay seems to have been the inventor and Le Cointe the supporter: this contradiction was long since removed by the people of Reims, as I gather from the breviary of the year 1759, in which they are reckoned, not without an added doubt, children of King Sigibert. Rightly was the contradiction guarded against; and of the two doubtful things that one was chosen which is propped up at least by some testimonies; the other was rejected, which probably rested on the sole authority of du Saussay, the inventor and propagator of so many fables.

[12] concerning the father of SS. Balderic and Bova and the parents of St. Doda; Henschen proposes a third opinion in the annotations to the Life of SS. Bova and Doda Acta SS., vol. III of April, p. 286. For after he had cited the testimony of Flodoard and the Breviary of Reims: Why not rather, he says, (St. Bova) his (St. Sigibert's) niece, with St. Balderic, born of some daughter of Dagobert I? Let the answer be: because this manner of explaining is not only gratuitous, but conflicts both with the existing historical records and with the chronology adhering to the deeds of St. Balderic. For, to be silent about many other things, Dagobert I himself, younger in birth than his brother Merovech, is not to be reckoned born before the year 600, in which his father Chlotar II had scarcely reached the sixteenth year of his age: Henschen therefore erred by at least half a century. In this way, then, I consider that some errors have now been cut away which I know to have been spread abroad concerning the lineage of St. Balderic. Marlot History of Reims, vol. I, book II, chapter 23, p. 255 and following and Mabillon in the Annals At the year 629, no. 10 open other opinions; let us hear the former, Marlot:

[13] the opinions on the same matter of Marlot and Mabillon are set forth. It remains to inquire who at length was the parent of Balderic and Bova, Sigibert the first or the second: and this latter, although of brief power, yet if he left offspring by a wife, is not unfittingly to be reckoned the father of Balderic and Bova; for it may be that, on account of the chance of fortune and the family overthrown by Chlotar out of hatred of Brunichild, the little children were thrust by someone into monasteries: but since the histories are silent about this, indeed rather it is held from them that the stock of King Theoderic was utterly extinguished, and this Sigibert, son of the later Theoderic, died under age, the mind sticks here, nor does anything occur in favour of this opinion. And in truth Fredegar, chapter 21, is witness that in the sixth year of the reign of Theuderic (which is the year of Christ 601) a son named Sigobert was born to this king of a concubine, who in the year 613, as the same witnesses in chapter 42, was slain with his brothers: three children therefore could not have been born to Sigibert II.

[14] Marlot and Mabillon. Whence it could more probably be said, Marlot continues thus, that the aforesaid Balderic and Bova came forth from Sigibert I. For Gregory of Tours, book IV, chapter 41, relates that Brunichild his wife came with her sons to Sigibert, who had returned to Paris from Rouen; and in book V, chapter 1 (the aforesaid Sigibert having been killed at Vitry), that Queen Brunichild, staying at Paris with her sons and greatly troubled, was driven into exile by Childeric, who ordered her daughters to be held at Meaux; and that besides Ingund and Chlodosuinda there was another, who perhaps escaped the historians and lay hidden somewhere in Austrasia with Balderic, until, matters being pacified, emerging as it were from hiding, they first built at Reims a monastery beside the Basilican gate, and another in the place which is called Montfaucon from an event which Flodoard explains. So Marlot. Mabillon prefers to doubt, in these words: if Balderic and Bova had King Sigibert as their father, this can be reckoned of no other than Sigibert, son of the elder Chlotar. Indeed Orderic Vitalis numbers Bova, a virgin consecrated to God, among the children of Sigibert and Brunechild; although this stands in the way, that they are reckoned among the children of this Sigibert neither by Gregory, bishop of Tours, nor by any author of those times. Whether they were natural offspring of this Sigibert, or born of another Sigibert of royal stock, others may divine, as far as we are concerned. Thus he. And these sayings of Mabillon can be pressed somewhat from the poem of St. Venantius Fortunatus Book X, poem 17,

which is read both in the Gallia Christiana Vol. II, col. 1149 and in the Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum of Lyons Vol. X, p. 519, and which was composed when Plato the archdeacon was consecrated bishop of Poitiers in the year 592; in it occurs the following distich:

May King Childebert flourish, comely, in his citadel upon the earth, With his offspring, his people, his mother, his SISTER, his consort.

Now the offspring who are praised here are Theodebert II and Theoderic II, the mother Brunichild, the consort or wife Faileuba, and the only sister Chlodesuinda; for Ingund, the other sister, had died an exile in Africa in the year 585. Whence it is clear that if there were other sisters of Childebert II, they were natural or spurious, and accordingly the sayings of Marlot utterly collapse.

[15] It is proven that Sigibert I, besides Childebert II, Chlodesuinda and Ingund, But, they say, the silence of St. Gregory of Tours, of Fredegar and of others argues that Sigibert had no natural children either; which matter we must look into more deeply. Jonas, monk of Bobbio, disciple of St. Columbanus, and a most praised biographer, in the Life of St. Columbanus, which is printed in the second Benedictine century p. 22 and following, no. 42 and following, narrates these things: Blessed Columbanus … is invited to a meal by Leoparius of that city (Tours): he did not refuse to go… Then one of the guests, Chrodovald by name, who had in marriage the paternal aunt of King Theodebert, but was faithful to King Theoderic, answered the man of God in a humble voice: Whether it were better to be given milk to drink than wormwood? To whom the man of God said: I know that you wish to keep the rights of the alliance of King Theoderic. And he confesses that he had promised the alliance of fealty, and would observe it as long as he was able. If, he said, you are joined to the alliance of King Theoderic, you will gladly be the envoy sent by me to your friend and lord. Bring, then, these things to his ears, that both he himself and his children are to be destroyed within the circle of three years, and that the Lord will root out his stock utterly… Which afterwards all the nations of Gaul perceived to have been fulfilled. Such things Jonas relates: and since this prophecy was fulfilled in the year 613, it follows that there existed about the year 610 a paternal aunt of Theodebert II, or daughter of Sigibert I, different from Chlodesuinda, already married to Chrodovald, and yet not named by Gregory of Tours and Fredegar, and excluded from the legitimate children of Sigibert by the distich of Fortunatus. And whoever thinks it could be objected that this aunt was a daughter of Brunichild, perhaps married before her coming into Gaul, let him read Fortunatus, who, in the poem Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. X, p. 558, book VI, poem 2 on the nuptials of King Sigibert and Queen Brunichild, praises her three or four times for her virginity: it will be enough to have excerpted these little verses:

Sigibert, in love, is consumed by the fire of Brunichild, Who pleases, fit for the marriage-bed, marriageable in ripe years, Her virginity * swelling in flower…

Whence it is consequent that Theodebert's aunt was the daughter of Sigibert, not of Brunichild.

[16] had other children, but natural ones; On account of the verses of Venantius Fortunatus recited at no. 14 it has already been said that she was not begotten by Sigibert of a lawful bed. On other grounds it is supremely probable, from a contemporary writer, that several natural children were born to Sigibert before his marriage with Brunichild. For he, born in the year 535 and entering into matrimony only in the year 566, and accordingly having passed thirty-one years in celibacy contrary to every custom of the kings of the Franks, who very often took a wife in the fourteenth year of their age, is celebrated by the praised St. Venantius Fortunatus, who was very much at home in the royal court, and a most suitable witness of matters of this kind, in these verses:

Sigibert, exulting, created for our joys, Makes his vows, WHO NOW, FREE OF ANOTHER LOVE, Takes on dear bonds; whose chaste mind, his youth now tempered, Seeks wedlock, AND, CHECKING WANTON THINGS, FLEES TO THE YOKE; from whom his age takes nothing away, Living modest in heart, one ruler over so many peoples, AND HAS GIVEN REINS TO HIMSELF; but as nature requires, By marital law IS CONTENT IN ONE EMBRACE.

So Fortunatus in the cited epithalamium. Who, then, will wonder if we judge that to the commonly recorded legitimate children of Sigibert at least three natural ones must be added? Nay rather, if they lay entirely hidden from the historians, these poems of Fortunatus are so clear that on account of them alone they would have to be devised. These things being laid down, the genealogical tables are to be brought forward.

[17] among whom the wife of Chrodovald, St. Balderic, St. Bova, The aunt of Theodebert, the wife of Chrodovald, is now beyond controversy from the cited Life of St. Columbanus. But concerning St. Bova her anonymous biographer Acta SS. at the 24th of April, p. 284 relates these things from the not so long-standing tradition of the nuns: She was… begotten of King Sigibert her father, who was sprung from the stock of the most noble Caesars. And throughout the same Life St. Balderic is called the brother of St. Bova; he appears in it as rich, and elder in birth: whence it is gathered that he was not only a uterine brother of St. Bova, but also of the sons of that same Sigibert. Which is confirmed by this, that by the same Anonymous Ibid., chapter 2, no. 9 he is called not only the brother but also the germanus of St. Bova; which word implied the identity of both parents even in that age, as is clear from these words of Hucbald in the Life of St. Rictrude: Now Dagobert had a brother Aribert (Charibert), not however a germanus, since he was born of another mother. Then Flodoard History of Reims, book IV, chapter 38 testifies that he had found these things in other writers: St. Balderic the priest, with his sister Bova… are related to have been sprung from royal stock, namely from King Sigebert their father, having a niece named Doda, a most chaste girl, who is said to have been betrothed to a certain magnate of that same King Sigebert. Of this niece below. The third witness is Orderic Vitalis, cited by Mabillon, as I showed at no. 14; and since he mentions only Bova and omits Balderic, he seems in this place not to have copied Flodoard, but to have used I know not what other record. And that he said St. Bova was the daughter of Brunichild was an easy error, since he knew Brunichild as the one lawful wife of Sigibert. I forbear to relate the testimony of Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, which is extant in the Accessiones Historicae of Leibniz p. 44, since, according to his custom, Alberic himself testifies that he borrowed what he has in this place from the History of Reims. What I would wish the reader to notice again at this point is that in the times of Flodoard a fuller Life of St. Balderic was extant, as I have often noted.

[18] and perhaps the mother or father of St. Doda: To proceed with the anonymous biographer of SS. Bova and Doda: It remains that we suggest something concerning the noble birth of the noble Doda, namely the niece of Saints Balderic and Bova, an abbess of ardent purpose. This Blessed Doda, then, a most noble virgin, is said to have been betrothed from infancy to a certain most freeborn and most sagacious man, begotten of royal stock (as is said), just as she too had sprung from royal lineage. But meanwhile, that she might be diligently brought up, she is handed over by her most Holy uncle Balderic to her aforesaid aunt Bova, the abbess. Whether this St. Doda was the daughter of the aforesaid aunt of Theodebert, I have nothing from which to declare: but if she was not, at least four natural children are to be assigned to Sigibert, namely St. Balderic, St. Bova, the aunt of Theodebert or wife of Chrodovald, and the mother of St. Doda, if the designation avunculus (maternal uncle) given to St. Balderic is taken in the strict sense; but if the word avunculus occupies the place of the word patruus (paternal uncle), the father of St. Doda. And these things are to be embraced the more securely because it is established that other documents also besides her Life itself lit the way for Flodoard when treating of this Saint: for the Anonymous writes that St. Doda, veiled with the veil of religion, was presented to her raging bridegroom; who, when he had drawn the temple of chastity to himself by force, the hands which had touched her chaste garment stiffened. But presently, restored to his former health, whatever had been assigned beforehand in the betrothal charters of his patrimony he therefore grants to Christ God. For he conferred on that same monastery these aforesaid things, and many other gifts, which the same church still retains, among which Noviantus, a most beautiful estate, and Vallis-monasterii, namely a great domain. Thus he [Acta SS. at the 24th of April, Life of SS. Bova and Doda, chapter 11, nos. 10 and 11]. Flodoard Book IV, chapter 38, however, had received entirely other things on this matter; namely, with him the bridegroom, striving to seize the bride, having mounted his horse, while he was trying to accomplish this in some way, is related to have fallen from the raging horse and perished with his neck broken. There is no reason for me here to approve to the reader the narrative of the Anonymous rather than the narrative of Flodoard; this one thing is to be noted, that Flodoard treated of these Saints from other records than from the Life of SS. Bova and Doda; which plurality of testimonies is a strong support in the present question.

[19] Probably St. Balderic was born between the year 560 and 566. Wherefore it is to be reckoned historically certain that St. Balderic, with the siblings enumerated above, is to be counted among the children of Sigibert I: which entirely agrees with what we said at nos. 8 and following concerning the time at which the monastery of St. Peter the Upper was founded by St. Balderic. For there we deduced that St. Balderic with his sisters was born at least before the year 570; but from what we gathered at no. 16 from Fortunatus and from the time of Sigibert's marriage, entered upon in the year 566, his birth must be put back at least four more years; and these are strict limits. And since St. Balderic, on account of the situation of his patrimony, seems to have been born not far from Reims and to have lived there before his cenobitic life, his birth is probably to be included between the mentioned year 566 and the year 561, in which Sigibert first held the see of Reims, as Gregory of Tours witnesses History of the Franks, book IV, chapter 22, the head of Austrasia; at which city, as Ruinart notes in a note to this place, it is certain that Sigebert had a palace. This chronology being admitted, the remaining deeds of St. Balderic will be cleared up without trouble.

* read virginitate

§ III. St. Balderic builds at Reims a monastery for his sister St. Bova, to which belonged the church of St. Mary outside the walls of the city; he founds the monastery of Montfaucon, where he has as disciple St. Wandregisilus, as is proven by examining the Acts of this Saint; a new chronology of the deeds of SS. Balderic and Bova is woven; St. Balderic dies.

St. Balderic, before the building of the monastery of Reims Flodoard in the History of Reims Book IV, chapter 38 narrates these things: There were formerly among us, then, many basilicas of the Saints, and also monasteries within or around this city of Reims, which are now proven not to exist. Two monasteries of maidens, however, still survive within the city: of which one (which is called the Upper, namely from the situation of the place) St. Balderic the priest, with his sister Bova, afterwards abbess of that same monastery, built in honour of Saint Mary or

Saint Peter is related to have built… Then the Blessed Doda, persevering in her purpose of chastity, succeeded her aunt in the government of that same monastery. She also obtained afterwards from the prince Pippin that a precept of immunity, which is still held among us, should be made for that same monastery. Their bodies, entombed in the church outside the walls of the city, where the monastery of maidens had first been, rested long, until afterwards, elevated in consequence of certain revelations, they were carried to this new church, and, placed there with veneration, are honoured there with the continual reverence of the maidens serving God. Marlot History of Reims, vol. I, book II, chapter 33, p. 254 and following and Mabillon [Annales Benedictini at the year 629, §10 and following] approve these things. But from the biographer of SS. Bova and Doda some things seem worth noticing concerning this monastery outside the walls.

[21] he did not build the monastery of St. Mary outside Reims; For he, after he had explained at length Chapter 1, no. 4 St. Bova's resolve to preserve her virginity, proceeds thus Ibid., no. 5: Balderic, having learned this most chaste desire of his sister, founded a precious monastery within the walls of the Remi, not far from the gate of the basilicas: of whose wonderful structure, because we are hastening to other things, or because in our times that work is now seen to be almost entirely destroyed, we omit for the present to discourse; but we shall return to it in its place, after first narrating what pertains to the business. That monastery, then, being built to perfection and enriched with many ornaments, and the flock of holy Virgins placed in it, and the things which seemed necessary within and without being diligently set out, the aforesaid man Balderic caused his sister to inhabit the place with other maidens. The manuscript codex, however, from which Henschen published this Life, was of such a condition that before chapter 4 or number 15 much was lacking: which was also noted there, as if this had happened through the fault of the copyist. And that this gap was to be filled with those very things which are promised to be returned to in their place is gathered from the indexes of the titles, among which this is found: How St. Balderic honourably built the monastery in which he appointed his sister, namely Saint Bova, as abbess, and enriched it with the inheritances of his patrimony. But from what has just been recited, and from the testaments of Romulf and Sonnatius already adduced and from the testament of Lando to be cited below, it is more than sufficiently established that the monastery of maidens of St. Peter was always below or within, not outside, the walls of the Remi.

[22] but the nunnery of Reims possessed the church of St. Mary outside the walls. One may suspect whence came Flodoard's assertion that outside the walls of the city … the monastery of maidens had first been; and this other, that this monastery was built in honour of Saint Mary or Saint Peter. Hear, namely, the Anonymous, at the sixth number after the gap (which is to be noted on account of what has been said), discoursing thus: Then the venerable Father is honourably committed to burial in the church of the Blessed Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, outside the walls of the city of the Remi… Which church, because it is seen to be utterly destroyed from its foundations on account of the age of years and above all the onslaught of the pagans, we have omitted to speak of at greater length. Whence it becomes manifest that a church of Blessed Mary, not a monastery of Blessed Mary, existed; that St. Balderic was buried there, not in the city; that the title of Blessed Mary was given to it, not to the monastery built within the walls, which in all the testaments of which there has been talk always occurs with the name of St. Peter, never with the name of Blessed Mary. Moreover, in the work of Fr. Guyet of the Society of Jesus, called the Heortologia, you will seek in vain a church or monastery which has a wavering patron or title, such as that disjunctive Saint Mary or Saint Peter; and indeed when there truly are several patrons, they are taken as one. By confusing, then, the sayings of the Anonymous or of another, Flodoard patched together his narrative. It could also be that Flodoard admitted these things because the revenues of the church of Blessed Mary were still received by the nuns of St. Peter the Upper; and on that account its patronal feast was kept: on which matter see Guyet Heortologia, p. 108.

[23] [St. Balderic is the one who persuades St. Bova to accept the abbatial office, and seems to act the part of guardian towards St. Doda;] Further, after the monastery of St. Peter at Reims had been built, and St. Bova had lived there for some time with her companions, as the Anonymous Chapter 1, no. 5 witnesses, the sisters … began to hold most chaste conclaves, treating how they might set the holy Virgin Bova over themselves… Hearing which, the blessed Virgin began to refuse the weight of honour… But when Balderic, the brother of the aforesaid Virgin, perceived this unanimous will of the sisters, with sweet words and most holy exhortations he began to persuade his sister not to go against the divine counsels, and rather to weigh the will of others than her own… Having heard which, she withdrew her purpose from rigid obstinacy, and submitted * to the yoke of obedience her mind, before stiff-necked in this regard. Whether St. Balderic was the guardian of St. Doda I am doubtful: but in the Anonymous Chapter 2, no. 7 it is read of this Virgin: That she might be diligently brought up, she is handed over by her most Holy uncle Balderic to her aforesaid aunt Bova, the abbess, that, noble, she might be nobly educated, and, holy, be trained in holy training. For the little one is taught from her earliest age divine letters, and after that human ones. And below Ibid., no. 9, where the coming of the young man to whom she is said to have been betrothed from infancy is to be narrated, the biographer proceeds thus: Having heard these things, the Holy Mother (Bova) is said to have answered: that none of these things was her concern; that those whose concern it was should rather be applied to; that the girl had been commended to her by her brother, and, especially well educated with many sweats, was to be given back to no one without him.

[24] he builds the monastery of Montfaucon, But let us proceed with Flodoard History of Reims, book IV, chapter 39: Now St. Balderic, after the construction of this (Reims) monastery, seeking a place where he might also establish his own dwelling, in which, having gathered religious men with him, he might live religiously and serve God devoutly and quietly, at length found a place pleasing to himself, which they call Mons Falconis. Which place, at that time uninhabitable, was covered with dense woods, cutting which down he founded for himself a dwelling by his own labour. It is said, moreover, that he had a bird which we call a falcon going before him and as it were guide of his journey while he was seeking that place, which settled on that same place, and, returning for three days to that spot where there is now an altar in honour of St. Peter the Apostle, settled there without change. Whence too very many assert that the monastery was so called from this event. When he had begun to serve God there more devoutly, some who feared God conferred their goods on him: and so, monks being gathered with him, he established a monastery under regular institution: and he built that same monastery under the honour of Blessed Germanus (of Auxerre, as Calmet teaches in the History of Lorraine Vol. I, book X, col. 466, Mabillon in the Annals At the year 629, §12, and his confrères in the Gallia Christiana Vol. IX, col. 177). In what year these things were done, I know nothing from which it may be determined with certainty.

[25] to which St. Wandregisilus came about the year 629, Nevertheless these things must have been done long before the year 629, about which time St. Wandregisilus, according to Mabillon Annales Ord. S. Bened. at the year 629, §10, came to Montfaucon, or even before the year 627, to which Le Cointe Annales Ecclesiastici Francorum at the year 627, no. 3 prefers to tie the coming of St. Wandregisilus: either of which opinions, according to our Du Sollier Acta SS. at the 22nd of July, p. 256, can be admitted. Now concerning this coming, so far as it pertains to St. Balderic, there has already been very much dispute. First, then, the testimonies of the ancient writers seem worth presenting: in the earlier Life of St. Wandregisilus, composed by an author who expressed in a barbarous style many things seen by himself, these things occur Ibid., chapter 1, no. 8, p. 266, and Benedictine second century, p. 527: After which the man of God himself (Wandregisilus), leaving the delights of this world, desired to live in a holy monastery under the habit of religion. At the beginning he dwelt for no long time with a certain old man in the place which is called Montefalco; who was a man very index (perhaps this is insignis, "distinguished"), of beautiful eyes, lily-like face, long hands, and he frequently desired to wash them in water; who, having given away (understand: having given away, etc.) all his means, sought to sit in the furnace of poverty. On this, among other things, Du Sollier notes that it can scarcely be gathered from the text to whom that sense "who was a man, etc." is to be referred. The later and interpolated Life of St. Wandregisilus, collected partly from the earlier one, also by a contemporary, refers these things to St. Wandregisilus; but, what is against this, St. Wandregisilus is said, in the earlier Life a little below, to have built a cell out of his means: which agrees rather badly with the foregoing words. Wherefore we leave these things undecided. Let us now hear the later biographer, whose little work was likewise published by Mabillon and Du Sollier.

[26] as both biographers and the Chronicle of Fontenelle relate. So he Chapter 1, no. 5: But after, as was indicated above, the holy man himself abandoned the delights of this world, he wished to apply himself to divine philosophy in a holy monastery, and to hand over his venerable mind to be formed by the monastic rule. And first, in the place which is called Mons Falconis, he dwelt for no long time with a holy man named Baltfrid: whose acts and life, if any wish to know them, they will easily find in the deeds written about him. I omit the rest, passing over to the Chronicle of Fontenelle, written about the year 835 and inserted in d'Achery's Spicilegium; where I find the following Vol. II, p. 264, of the new edition: He withdraws, then, to the place which is called Mons Falconis, attaching himself to a certain man of great virtues, whose name does not now occur to memory, and, having lived with him a very long time, he is proved an admirable cultivator of an innocent life. Summoned thence by the aforesaid king (Dagobert I), and ordered to hasten to the royal house, he was first met with rebuke for the change of habit, but afterwards was honourably attended… Which last things, set out at greater length, see in both the aforecited Lives of St. Wandregisilus, abbot of Fontenelle.

[27] It is proven that St. Balderic was then living there, But the question is whether that old man, the holy man named Baltfrid, and the man of great virtues, is the same as our Saint Balderic. Mabillon first affirmed it in the Acta Sanctorum Ord. S. Bened., then denied it in the Annals; and since the Annals are more easily used, it is not wonderful if the negative opinion meets one almost everywhere unchallenged among the historians who wrote after Mabillon. Meanwhile our Du Sollier Acta SS. at the 22nd of July, p. 257 long ago proposed a twofold argument by which to show that this Baltfrid or Waltfrid is not to be distinguished from our Balderic,

it is, in my judgment, invincibly established: Certainly, he himself says, of this Baltfrid no mention is made anywhere, so far as I know, except in this place (for I take no account of du Saussay), although he must have been very well known for holiness of life, as is asserted in the same place in these words: "Whose acts and life, if any wish to know them, they will easily find in the deeds written about him." But it seems hardly likely that the memory of one whose Acts were in everyone's hands should have been altogether neglected in the neighbouring Churches, whether of Verdun or of Reims. The Acts of St. Balderic indeed have perished, if you except a very few things which the just-praised Flodoard noted; but his remembrance still flourishes among the people of Reims, and in their Breviaries his feast is prescribed yearly on the 16th day of October. This surely strengthens the conjecture of those who recognise no Baltfrid different from St. Balderic. Add that St. Balderic founded the monastery of St. Germanus at Montfaucon towards the beginning of Dagobert, as you will gather from Mabillon, Annales Benedictini, book XII, from no. 10: he could therefore easily have presided over it even at the time when St. Wandregisilus came. Finally, in the Thosan manuscript copy of the second Life of St. Wandregisilus not Waltfridus but Baldricus is read, as our Rosweyde noted, who collated ours with it.

[28] and that he is wrongly distinguished from Baltfrid, whose name To these a few things seem worth subjoining: first of all the zeal for truth demands that to du Saussay two other writers be added who have recorded Baltfrid, cenobite of Montfaucon, as distinct from St. Balderic: the former is Trithemius, who in the work On the Illustrious Men of the Order of St. Benedict Book III, chapter 144; so he is cited by Wion brings forward Balfrid, monk at Montfaucon in Gaul, a cultivator of the eremitic life, shining, as they say, with many miracles both in death and in life; and the other is Arnold Wion in the appendix to the Monastic Martyrology Lignum Vitae, vol. II, book III, p. 411, who borrowed these things from Trithemius and made them his own. If these are compared with the places which I cited at no. 2 of this Commentary from Trithemius and Wion, in which they commemorate St. Balderic, it will easily be established that Baltfrid and Balderic were held by them as distinct. Nevertheless Trithemius and Wion are of too recent an age for their assertions, whose source is probably the Life of St. Wandregisilus, to be able to stand against the reasons produced above by our Du Sollier.

[29] [was inserted after the year 835 into the badly interpolated Lives of St. Wandregisilus; a Life of St. Balderic was then extant.] The other animadversion that seems worth making is this: it has already been said above that in the later Life of St. Wandregisilus it is read that the acts and life of Baltfrid (or rather, according to the Thosan manuscript, of Balderic) will easily be found in the deeds written about him, if any wish to know them. Now it is supremely likely that these words were interpolated after the year 835. For, to pass over that that Baltfrid is said by Wion to have died in the year 660 (but let us grant that he died in the year 640), and that the later Life of St. Wandregisilus, who died in the year 667, was written not so very long after the year 680 (see on this matter Du Sollier at the 22nd of July); and that accordingly it is not credible that the deeds of Baltfrid, who certainly never enjoyed the fame of St. Martin, St. Germanus and others of this kind, were so widely known that a monk not of the district of Reims but of that of Rouen should have used the foregoing words forty years after his death: on other grounds it altogether appears that that name of Baltfrid is owed to the interpolator: otherwise, how could the chronicler of Fontenelle, who manifestly used the later Life (compare, among other things, what he asserts concerning Wandregisilus's journey to Bobbio with what occurs in the two Lives concerning the same journey), write whose name does not now occur to memory? Surely these things about that supposed Baltfrid had not yet been thrust in, but only an oral memory existed: and accordingly how easy, after two or three centuries, a like slip! And the reason why I made this interpolation more recent than the year 834 is that about this year the Monk of Fontenelle completed his chronicle (see the notice which is prefixed to the chronicle itself in d'Achery); and then that Mabillon or Ruinart, in the preliminary Observations to the Lives of St. Wandregisilus, showed that the later Life was interpolated from the chronicle; and finally what we ourselves have just set forth concerning the intruded name of Baltfrid sufficiently proves that the corruption of the Life is later than the said year. From which follows this true absurdity (if that Baltfrid is admitted as distinct from St. Balderic), that the life and deeds of some Saint of the district of Reims were known to the monks of Fontenelle, who at about the same times was hidden from Flodoard of Reims, who praises the remaining Saints of the district of Reims, but is silent about this one with deep silence: wherefore it is to be established that the Thosan manuscript was better interpolated; and that the old man whom St. Wandregisilus met at Montfaucon about the year 627 or 629 is our St. Balderic.

[30] The arguments of Le Cointe and Mabillon are refuted, And from these things the chronology is again established by which we said, at no. 19 of this Commentary, that St. Balderic, no less than his sisters, was born between the year 561 and 566. But these and very many other things are shaken by Le Cointe and Mabillon, and moreover faith must be kept with the promises of our predecessors, who, reviewing the arguments of Le Cointe and Mabillon, wrote these things in the preliminary commentary on St. Nivard, no. 17: Le Cointe in the Annals of the Franks at the year 627, no. 6, recites the words of the Breviary of Reims, in which it is said that a monastery was built at Reims by Balderic the priest, and that St. Bova, Balderic's sister, presided over it as abbess. Concerning the consecration of the same monastery these things are said there: "Which he took care should be dedicated to God in honour of the most Blessed ever Virgin Mary and of Saint Peter the Apostle, Saint Nivard being bishop." Le Cointe thinks, at the year 649, no. 10, that that consecration took place about the beginning of the pontificate of Nivard, King Sigibert still living. Mabillon in the Annals at the year 629 strives to show that that monastery was founded before the year 630, in which Nivard was certainly not yet bishop, so that it may be doubted whether the consecration was performed by Nivard, which neither Flodoard asserted nor do the Acts have. Nevertheless it is established that the holy bishop was a benefactor to that same monastery: for Flodoard, chapter 7, has this: "Likewise (Nivard gave his goods) at Reims to the monastery of maidens, where Boba was seen to preside as abbess." The praised Mabillon speaks thus of this donation: "Nivard, bishop of the Remi, towards the end of the seventh century bestowed certain things on the monastery of maidens at Reims, where Boba was seen to preside as abbess; who seems to be distinguished from Saint Bova from what has been set forth: otherwise she would have been more than a hundred years old. But if anyone wishes them to be one and the same, it follows that he must also deny either that Saint Bova was the first abbess of the nunnery of Saint Peter, or Balderic's sister; or certainly that Balderic was not the founder of the monastery of Montfaucon, which, from what has been said, was founded before the six hundred and thirtieth year, and indeed after the construction of the nunnery of Saint Peter." Moved by this reasoning of Mabillon, the editors of the Gallia Christiana established that the monastery of maidens over which the abbess Boba presided, when St. Nivard bestowed certain goods on it, is the monastery of St. Peter the Lower, built by St. Guntbert. From these, then, a threefold question is brought into controversy; which must be solved by us here, since our Stilting wrote in the same place: It will be possible to treat of St. Balderic at the 16th of October, on which he is said to be venerated, and to investigate there whether the arguments of Mabillon necessarily compel the distinction of the two. Certainly, if the monastery was built not long before the year 630, St. Bova could still easily survive when St. Nivard benefited that monastery, long before the end of the seventh century, since he died about the year 673.

[31] which attack this whole commentary, First of all it is certain to me that the monastery on which St. Nivard conferred goods is the monastery of St. Peter the Upper, since the Life of St. Guntbert, published without interpolations by Papebroch Acta SS., vol. III of April, p. 623, openly hints that the monastery of St. Peter the Lower was built only after the death of St. Nivard. Secondly, it is certain to me that the abbess Boba is the same as Saint Bova: namely, there can be no question about the name, since there is no one who does not know that the letters B and V are μεταβολάς, as Schilter puts it in the Glossary at the letter B; moreover in the Life of St. Bova itself, chapter 1, no. 4, it is said that Bova is so called from her name, as one called the helper of many: the reason of which etymology is to be sought from the old word Bub, Bube, signifying a male or female servant among other things, as may be drawn from the examples which Schilter brings together in the Teutonic Glossary at the word Baba: which word also remains in the present Theotisc, or Flemish or Dutch, language, in which we have Boef; but this word, no less than Schalk, originally servant, has passed into a perverse sense. Why these things had to be noted at some length the reader will learn if he goes to what Henschen drew out at the cited place of the Life of St. Bova. But not only from the identity of the name, but also on other grounds it is proven that the abbess Boba is the same as the sister of St. Balderic. For from the very many donations of bishops preserved by Flodoard it is sufficiently proven that at that time there was only one nunnery at Reims: wherefore if St. Bova is not designated by St. Nivard, some other abbess of her monastery, who succeeded St. Bova, must have been indicated: but from Flodoard Book IV, chapter 38 we know that St. Doda succeeded her; and Flodoard's testimony is firm, since he saw the precept of immunity granted to her by Pippo or Pippin of Herstal, who was already ruling in Austrasia in the year 680; moreover, in the catalogue of the abbesses of St. Peter the Upper inserted in the Gallia Christiana Vol. IX, col. 271 and in Marlot's History of Reims Vol. I, book II, chapter 34, another Bova, or Boba, who presided over the monastery of St. Peter the Upper, will be sought in vain. But this twofold question is only a little appendage of Mabillon's principal argument, which disturbs our chronology.

[32] and what has been said is again confirmed, Thirdly, therefore, I maintain that St. Bova is not to be said to have been more than a hundred years old when St. Nivard benefited her monastery; although she already presided as abbess over the monastery of St. Peter not only about 630, as Mabillon will have it, but at least thirty-four years before, as we established at length at nos. 8 and following. That this may be evident, it suffices that the donation of St. Nivard could have been made before about the year 666: (we referred, namely, the birth of St. Bova to between the year 561 and 566 at no. 19 of this Commentary). Now, as our Stilting has shown

at the 1st day of September Acta SS., vol. I of September, p. 270, St. Nivard was made archbishop of Reims about the year 650, and perhaps earlier. Wherefore nothing compels us to assign St. Nivard's donation to much later times. But Mabillon and his followers will have it referred to the end of the seventh century: would that such novel assertions rested on sure proofs! But Mabillon's whole foundation seems to lie in this, that he believed the often-mentioned donation to be contained in the testament of St. Nivard; which, if it were true, it would still not be permissible to conclude from it that this benefaction took effect in the year 673, in which, according to Stilting, St. Nivard died: since that Saint could have drawn up his testament long before his death; which (to cite an obvious testimony) the editors of the Gallia Christiana Vol. IX, col. 18 admit against Le Cointe in the case of Romulf, bishop of Reims. Secondly, this hypothesis of a testament is not only gratuitous but utterly baseless; since Flodoard, who records the testaments of St. Remigius, Romulf, Sonnatius and Lando, asserts nothing of this kind concerning St. Nivard; which is confirmed by the silence of Almann the monk, who set forth the deeds of St. Nivard Compare Acta SS., vol. I of September, p. 278 and following. Thirdly, in this very place, where Flodoard records the grant of goods in question, he treats of other donations made by St. Nivard long before his death: it will be enough to have named the bounties conferred on the monastery of Hautvillers, which Mabillon himself in the Annals Annales Ord. S. Bened. at the year 662, §23, the Gallia Christiana Vol. X, proofs, col. 1, and we in the present volume, in the Life of St. Bercharius, have referred to about the year 662. Our whole chronology, therefore, can stand, if about 95 years are assigned to St. Bova. Which age a good many Saints, as Mabillon himself approves, have passed beyond.

[33] The year of St. Balderic's death lies hidden; he was an old man in the year 629; But what age St. Balderic reached, at what time he died, and other things of this kind, we do not so clearly discern. Wion, who writes that Baltfrid died about the year 660, testifies that he does not know at what time St. Balderic died, who to us is the same as Baltfrid. Chastelain and the Martyrology of Auxerre attach his death in general to the seventh century; the Paris Martyrology assigns the year 628 or 664; but it is uncertain on what foundations these rest. From the Life of St. Wandregisilus this one thing is clear to us, that about the year 629 he was still living, but already broken in strength, since he is called an old man; then, from Flodoard and the often-cited Life of St. Bova, that he departed from the living before this Saint. For the rest, the whole of chapter 4 of the Life of St. Bova is taken up with narrating the death of St. Balderic: it is enough for me to have transcribed the synopsis which Henschen set in the margin in these words: St. Balderic, about to depart (from the monastery of St. Peter at Reims, whither he had come on account of business), is kept in the monastery by a storm raised at the prayers of the Saints (Bova and Doda); he is tried by a grave sickness; he fears lest evil threaten the monasteries; he comforts SS. Bova and Doda: he rouses himself with pious vows, beholding a crown offered him by Christ, he dies piously; a most sweet odour and the brightness of the corpse indicate his heavenly glory; St. Bova his sister and St. Doda his niece mourn his death greatly. The body of St. Balderic, laid out, shines with miracles; he is buried on the 9th of October.

[34] he is buried in the church of St. Mary outside the walls of Reims. With these Flodoard agrees, closing the chapter on St. Balderic thus History of Reims, book IV, chapter 39: These things accomplished (Montfaucon set in order), having returned to his sister at Reims, he closed there the last day of his course, where also, buried, he rested for no small time. Which last words are not to be understood as if St. Balderic had been buried in Reims itself; in which matter very weighty writers err. For in the preceding chapter Flodoard wrote that the bodies of SS. Bova and Doda, entombed in the church outside the walls of the city … rested long, until afterwards, elevated in consequence of certain revelations, they were carried to this new church (within the city)… Which words are to be compared with what the Life Chapter 5, no. 24 of SS. Bova and Doda presents: St. Doda, venerably laid out with the services of divers perfumes … they honourably buried beside the left side of the Holy Father Balderic, on the 8th before the Kalends of May, in the aforesaid church of the Blessed Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary: where the merits of those three flourished for many times, until that church was utterly destroyed for the reasons treated by us above. And elsewhere it is said Ibid., no. 22 that St. Bova was entombed at the right side of her brother, to rest in the basilica of the Holy Mother of God outside the walls of the Remi; and the same is openly affirmed of St. Balderic Ibid., no. 20. According to this Life of St. Bova our Saint was buried on the 7th before the Ides of October, or the 9th day of this month. Marlot History of Reims, vol. I, book II, chapter 35, p. 263 relates from Flodoard that St. Balderic died on the 12th day of October: which is a slip of the pen or of memory, since this author nowhere noted the time of St. Balderic's death. How long the pledges of our Saint remained outside the walls of the Remi, there is nothing from which we may declare. Yet at no. 5 of this Commentary it was made plain that they had long before the year 882 been carried elsewhere, first to the monastery of St. Peter at Reims, as is clear from what was said at no. 5, then to Montfaucon, as Flodoard teaches at length in this part of his history, which, furnished with annotations, we subjoin at the end of this Commentary. And the reason why St. Balderic was buried in the church of St. Mary outside the walls of the Remi, and not in the church of St. Peter, is that at that time the custom of burying in cities had not yet sufficiently prevailed, as is clear below from the Life of St. Mummolinus and the notes added to it: on which matter it is not expedient to bring together more here. In vain would the testimony of Flodoard (book I, chapter 17) be objected, speaking of the burial of St. Remigius; since that place rather indicates that the former custom of burying the dead within the walls of the Remi had been abolished in the time of St. Remigius and had not yet been restored in the age of Flodoard himself. We proceed now to the fortunes of the monastery of Montfaucon, which we have often said owes its origins to St. Balderic.

* read substravit

§ IV. Some historical points regarding the monastery of Montfaucon are elucidated.

[At Montfaucon canons had already succeeded in place of monks in the times of Hincmar;] It may first be asked whether St. Balderic was a Benedictine monk: I forbear to repeat the answers of Wion and of the others whom I cited at no. 2; let Mabillon alone come forward here, who in the index of those passed over in the Second Benedictine Century marked St. Balderic with an asterisk, which designates those who seem to be genuine Benedictines; but the learned know that this was a subterfuge by which he might placate his confrères, who were demanding that he be charged with violating the canon of the Holy Order, while others of his associates were holding him up as too easy-going. As far as concerns me, I am unwilling to indulge in baseless conjectures: leaving it to others to investigate whether anything can be drawn from the discipline and deeds of St. Wandregisilus, who had St. Balderic as his master. But whatever be determined on this matter, monks did not dwell so long at Montfaucon, and canons succeeded them. For although these words of Flodoard Book IV, chapter 40: Then in process of time, by the diligence of the clerics inhabiting the aforementioned monastery of that blessed man, his body was furtively carried thither… away from Reims, do not certainly hint that these clerics were already canons, yet in the time of Hincmar men of this institute were without doubt already living there; which is established from Flodoard Ibid. asserting that at the times of King Charles and Archbishop Hincmar… the canons of that place were driven by the terror … of the Northmen, and from the words of Hincmar Labbe, Collection of the Councils, vol. VIII, col. 587 in the synod held at Reims in the year 874: The priests of our parish (diocese) are said to neglect their churches and to obtain a prebend in the monastery of Montfaucon; and also the canons of that monastery to occupy the churches of rural parishes. Both of which, since they were done out of greed for gold and produced many inconveniences, he severely forbade. And from this time until the French tumults of the last century canons remained there. But it is pleasing to inquire a little more deeply into the history of Montfaucon than I know to have been done hitherto by any historian.

[36] perhaps Charlemagne visited this place and treated it liberally. Above we learned from Flodoard that the title of St. Germanus was given to the monastery built at Montfaucon by St. Balderic. Nor is that wonderful, since St. Heiric of Auxerre [On the Miracles of St. Germanus, book I, chapter 46, in Labbe, Bibliotheca nova Mss., vol. I] relates that the cult of this Saint had been introduced into the diocese of Reims already in the time of St. Remigius. But neither St. Heiric nor any other ancient writer known to me who has set forth the life, miracles and translations of St. Germanus relates what, as Marlot witnesses History of Reims, vol. I, book II, chapter 35, p. 262, is asserted by the more recent biographers of St. Germanus and St. Balderic, and what I also find in part in the Office of Montfaucon: that Charlemagne asked of the people of Auxerre and obtained Relics of St. Germanus, to be carried into Germany: that they were translated to Montfaucon; that the coffin in which they were enclosed was weighed down with so great a weight that they understood thereby that it had been ordained by a higher will that the aforesaid Relics should adorn Balderic's monastic church, which on that account was dedicated to Blessed Germanus; that the emperor, informed of this matter not long after by messengers, visited the church and Balderic, to whom he imparted many revenues, with which ten or eighteen prebends were endowed, etc. It is certain that fables are not lacking here: for St. Balderic is almost two centuries earlier than Charlemagne; and that the translation of the Relics of St. Germanus in the time of this emperor is fictitious is manifest both from the said book of St. Heiric and from what our predecessors commented on this matter at the 31st of July, or Lebeuf in the History of Auxerre Vol. I, p. 74, and many others. The origins of which errors I seem to myself to discover in the History of the foundation of the monastery of Gladbach, which Luc d'Achery first published in the Spicilegium; where in volume II of the later edition these things are read p. 656: It is related by the older people that in the times of Charlemagne a certain Balderic, one of the chief men of the kingdom, built a church on that mountain, and endowed it, as a most beautiful bride, with most precious Relics of the Saints and with sufficient revenues… The situation of which mountain is discerned from these words which meet us there Chapter 6: Beyond the boundary of the diocese (of Cologne) they approached

the bounds of the Molensians. In those very bounds, then, there was an uncultivated mountain… And below Chapter 8 it is set forth at length that this is that same mountain on which the monastery of St. Vitus of Gladbach was built. But to excuse those who confused Gladbach with Montfaucon, I shall note that the latter (as will be seen a little below) is situated in the county of Dolinensis or Dolmensis: which name is not entirely dissonant from the district of Molinensis; and moreover that innumerable opinions have been put forward concerning this district: see the Chronicon Gottwicense at the word Moilla and the work of the distinguished Messrs. Binterim and Mooren on the old and present diocese of Cologne Vol. I, p. 230 and following, where that district is very well illustrated. To return now to the question proposed, Marlot approves the passing-through and liberality of the emperor History of Reims, vol. I, book II, chapter 35, p. 262; which opinion can be propped up by the right which Charlemagne's successors thereafter obtained over this monastery.

[37] [Certainly it was in the hands of his successors, by whom it was given to the bishops of Verdun;] That the right which kings or emperors enjoyed over royal abbeys is often to be traced to the fact that the foundation or rebuilding of the abbey was owed to their munificence, Thomassin teaches among others [De la discipline ecclésiastique, edition of 1725, part II, book II, chapter 28, no. 1]. Now in the division of the kingdom made between Charles the Bald and Louis the German in the year 870, Charles obtained, among various monasteries, Montfaucon. About the year 890 this monastery is to be seen in the hands of Arnulf, king of Germany, natural son of Carloman, king of Bavaria, nephew of Louis the Stammerer, and great-grandson of Charles the Bald. But about the mentioned year 890 the abbey or collegiate church of Montfaucon was made from royal into episcopal; as is clear not only from the testimony of Flodoard History of Reims, book IV, chapter 41, but above all from the writing of Dado himself, bishop of Verdun, who received it. He, namely, as he himself says in his preface, in the year from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 893, and the 5th year of the reign of the lord King Arnulf, composed an epitome of the deeds of Atto and Berhard, who had preceded him in the see of Verdun, which Wassebourg first published in the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul Fol. recto 174 and then Calmet among the proofs of the History of Lorraine Vol. III, col. 77. Now these words occur there, to be referred to the times of Dado himself: Arnulf also, the most glorious king, gave as its own by the precept of his authority to the aforesaid church (of Verdun) the abbey which is called Montfaucon, which is built in honour of St. Germanus and is situated in the county of Dolinensis (Calmet reads Dolmensis), with all things belonging to it, etc.

[38] who had temporal and spiritual jurisdiction over it. Marlot History of Reims, vol. I, book II, chapter 25, p. 263 comments on this donation, and blames Wassebourg for contending from it (where he does so I indeed do not find) that the church of the aforesaid Montfaucon was subject to that of Verdun; and according to the cited diploma itself he proves that the further part of the Argonne, in which Montfaucon lies, was part of the dominion of the emperors, although he does not wish to deny that the aforesaid monastery was conferred in commendam on the bishops of Verdun: and indeed by the testimony of Flodoard it seems possible to establish that already in the time of Dado the usage of commendam had obtained at Montfaucon; for Flodoard gives out these things Ibid., book IV, chapter 41: The aforesaid bishop Dado, after he obtained this abbey of St. Balderic, exchanged certain properties situated beyond the Rhine, formerly given to that same monastery by Abbot Adelard, for the estate of Gerlani mons lying on the Moselle. To which estate, when he had COMMANDED the brethren of this congregation to set out for the sake of securing it for himself, … they set out TO CARRY OUT WHAT WAS ORDERED. Moreover from the Life of Blessed John, Abbot of Gorze, published in our work at the 27th of February Chapter 3, no. 23, p. 694, this other testimony is to be drawn out: namely, Blessed John is related to have been visited by many; among whom … a certain man, a Breton by nation, Andrew by name, especially learned in liberal studies, but also excelling in virtue of mind, and, what is greater than these, very zealous in divine things. He, driven from his native island by the assault of the Northmen, all its inhabitants being either killed or put to flight, with many other learned and likewise wise men, was received at Montfaucon by the bishop of reverend holiness Dado, of whom mention was made above, with some Bretons who had come with him, and was provided for liberally enough. But this power of the bishops of Verdun was not pleasant to the canons of Montfaucon: for already in the year 941, as Flodoard asserts in his Chronicle, the canons of Montfaucon, weighed down by the oppression of the bishop of Verdun, deserting their monastery, carry the body of Saint Balderic their patron to Reims. Hugh of Flavigny, who abridged this writing of Flodoard from the year 919 to the year 966, admits the same fact in his Chronicle of Verdun, hinting, however, that the oppression was rather pretended than real. But Hugh is too recent for us to stand by him.

[39] [Thence disturbances, which were afterwards settled; which, however, is not clear from the letters wrongly attributed to an abbot of Montfaucon.] How long the canons of Montfaucon lived exiled from their monastery, it is not readily to be declared. The matter was certainly already settled when Adalbero, bishop of Verdun, praised for his sanctity, got possession of this monastery, not in the year 980, as Marlot wrongly determines History of Reims, vol. I, book II, chapter 25, p. 263, but between the year 984 and 988, as is established from the Gallia Christiana Vol. XIII, col. 1182 and following, and resigned it a little before his death to Rodulf, the son of his brother or sister, who lived until the times of St. Richard, abbot of St. Vanne, as is maintained by Wassebourg Antiquités de la Gaule Belgique, fol. verso 206. It would have to be established that this dispute was settled even sooner, according to the opinion of certain people who will have it, as the Gallia Christiana has it Vol. XIII, col. 1181, that two letters published in d'Achery's Spicilegium Vol. I, p. 398 of the later edition were written by a certain abbot of Montfaucon to Wicfrid, who held the see of Verdun from the year 959 to the year 983. But Martène in the Amplissima Collectio Vol. I, col. 230 published the same letters with another inscription, and in the added note shows sufficiently that they were written by Remigius, monk of Auxerre, to Dado, whom we have recorded above. To the arguments of Martène it can be added that the Hungarians, who in the former letter are said to be laying waste the diocese of Verdun, did not make incursions into this tract of land after the year 935; than which year the episcopate of Wicfrid is later. The friendship, therefore, which in this letter is said to flourish between the bishop of Verdun and the congregation of St. Germanus does not regard the canons of St. Germanus of Montfaucon.

[40] Dudo, primicerius of Verdun and abbot of Montfaucon. From the time at which Adalbero resigned the monastery of Montfaucon to his nephew Rodulph, the office of abbot does not seem to have returned forthwith to the bishop of Verdun. For in the catalogue of the primicerii of Verdun inserted in the Gallia Christiana Gallia Christiana, vol. XIII, col. 1258, there appears a certain man named Dudo, concerning whom the following are read there: Dudo was at the same time primicerius and abbot of Montfaucon in the year 1032 in the month of September, in the charter of foundation of the priory of Amel. (This charter is printed in the Gallia Christiana Ibid., among the instruments, p. 557; but he is styled there only primicerius.) He subscribed the letters of Bruno, bishop of Toul, for the monastery of St. Èvre in the year 1034. Which letters are found among the proofs of the History of Lorraine Vol. II, col. 267; but from them we learn only that he was primicerius of Verdun. The assertion of the Gallia Christiana is nevertheless certain, since there has been dug out of the archive of Metz a diploma of the emperor Conrad II, by which he strengthens an exchange made between Heymo, bishop of Verdun, now deceased, and Dudo, primicerius of Verdun and at the same time abbot of Montfaucon; which diploma, printed in the Collection of the Historians of Gaul D. Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens de France, vol. XI, p. 558, names Dudo primicerius and abbot of the place of Saint Germanus. The reader will find part of it woven into the annotations to be subjoined to Flodoard's narrative of the miracles of St. Balderic. But from no source can it be drawn in what year Dudo first occupied the abbatial seat of Montfaucon; it only follows from Heymo's year of death, 1024, that Dudo in this year at least enjoyed both dignities of primicerius of Verdun and abbot of Montfaucon. But this state of things did not last; for in the following time the government of this church came again into the hands of the bishops of Verdun, as we shall see below at the year 1168.

[41] [From the year 1057 not an abbot but a provost presides over Montfaucon; a castle afterwards built and destroyed; the right of the bishop of Verdun.] Meanwhile, about thirty years after the times of Dudo, the title of abbot had been abolished and had passed into the name of provost, which Milo is related to have already used before the year 935 Flodoard, History of Reims, book IV, chapter 42. This we are taught by the rescript of Godfrey the Hunchback, duke of Lorraine and uncle of Godfrey of Bouillon, given on the holy days of Pentecost of the year 1057, concerning the reforming of the sub-advocates of the Church of Verdun; which several abbots and also the provost of the abbey of Saint Germanus had long been demanding, as is read in Wassebourg Antiquités de la Gaule Belgique, fol. verso 261. Nor can this intervention be wonderful; because Montfaucon was a fief or beneficiary estate, which he who bore the office of abbot or provost, whether he was the bishop or the primicerius of Verdun or another, held from the duke of Lorraine. Of which thing Laurence of Liège is witness, the writer of the History of the bishops of Verdun, inserted in volume II of the later edition of d'Achery's Spicilegium; where Montfaucon is said to be situated within the episcopium, or temporal jurisdiction of the bishop of Verdun, and at the same time mention is made of a castle which the duke of Lorraine held there as lord: The same duke (Godfrey of Bouillon), says Laurence Spicilegium, vol. II, p. 246, new edition, on departing caused the castle of Montfaucon, which he had fortified in the episcopium (of Verdun), to be overthrown, lest it do harm in the future. And for my rendering of the word episcopium, whose various meanings may be seen in Du Cange's Glossary, by the temporal jurisdiction of the bishop, La Martinière in his Geographical Dictionary at the word Montfaucon was my authority. And in fact this seems the right interpretation, since among the districts, villages or other things of this kind in which Nicolas Psaulme, bishop of Verdun, obtained the customary temporal jurisdiction by investiture from the emperor Charles V at Brussels in the year 1548, Montfaucon is reckoned according to ancient custom D. Calmet, Histoire de Lorraine, vol. VII, col. 112. But as regards the spiritual jurisdiction, I see that weighty but more recent historians place Montfaucon

subject, before the tumults of the last century, to the bishop of Verdun, and pluck it away from the diocese of Reims. But since nothing anywhere meets me which would lead me to the same opinion, I think this dispute can be settled if the jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the monastery is distinguished from the jurisdiction over the neighbouring dwellers or citizens of Montfaucon; and if the former is attributed to the bishop of Verdun or another holding his place, but the latter is ascribed to the archbishop of Reims. Whatever it is, the authority of the archbishop of Reims was not always useless to the people of Verdun themselves who possessed Montfaucon. There is extant, namely, in Martène's Amplissima Collectio Vol. II, col. 761 and in the Collection of the writers of the History of Gaul D. Bouquet, vol. XV, p. 869 a letter of Pope Alexander III, given at Benevento in the year 1168 or 1169 to Henry, archbishop of Reims; in which he begs him to defend Richard de Crissa, bishop-elect of Verdun, devoted to the Roman Church, from the vexations of Giderus de Sarnai, who presumed to invade and lay waste the possessions of the church of Montfaucon and to afflict its men with divers losses, since he ought to reckon the losses of his said son as his own.

[42] [The archdeacons of the Argonne are sometimes provosts of Montfaucon; which of these were made bishops of Verdun.] I do not know whether long before the year 1224 the archdeaconry of the Argonne (namely of that part of the Argonne which was enclosed in the archdiocese of Reims) was united with the provostship of Montfaucon; nor similarly is it sufficiently clear to me whether this conjunction of benefices always persisted from the beginning of the thirteenth century: this only is certain to me, that Henry de Malapete enjoyed both these offices when a schism took place in the chapter of Verdun in the year 1224, the sounder part of the chapter electing Ralph de Torote (which election was confirmed after two years), the other part electing Henry de Malapete himself. See this business set forth more broadly in the Gallia Christiana Vol. XIII, col. 1210. Similarly Nicolas Bousmard, who through the care of Charles III, duke of Lorraine, obtained in the year 1576 his bulls by which he was declared bishop of Verdun, not without the ill-will of certain canons, was archdeacon of the Argonne, great provost of Montfaucon and dean of the collegiate church of St. Magdalene before his episcopate Ibid., col. 1244. Between Henry and Nicolas a third provost of Montfaucon becomes known, who likewise enjoyed the archdeaconry, and in the year 1456 was elected bishop by the greater part of the chapter; which office he obtained in the following year by nomination of the supreme Pontiff; whose praises and blemishes the Gallia Christiana declares at length Ibid., col. 1235 and following. But since our aim in investigating these things was only to supply to some extent the absence of a history of the abbey of Montfaucon, there is no reason for us to investigate at what time the castle was built which Henry IV, when Champagne came into the hands of the kings of France, ordered to be razed, and of which Beaugier in the Commentaries on Champagne Mémoires historiques sur la Champagne, vol. II, p. 14 and d'Expilly in the Geographical Dictionary treat, or to heap up similar things regarding political history.

§ V. The loss of almost all the Relics of St. Balderic; his cult in the diocese of Cologne and at Montfaucon, while the chapter existed and after it was destroyed.

[The Relics of St. Balderic, of which only a part was kept at Reims and at Montfaucon,] In the preceding § we were almost silent concerning the Relics of St. Balderic and their cult: both because the things which happened before the death of Flodoard, or rather before the Ecclesiastical History of Reims was written by him, this historiographer diligently noted; and because those which followed his times lie wrapped in utter darkness, so that the body itself has long since rested in an unknown place. At Reims indeed, as Marlot has it History of Reims, vol. I, p. 256, there was formerly kept in the treasury of St. Peter the Upper a fairly long bone of St. Balderic (these are Marlot's words), which perhaps perished amid the French tumults (for the people of Reims answered nothing to us when we inquired about it); and at Montfaucon also some little bones were held in pious veneration: but the remaining sacred remains were buried in long oblivion. This is established, namely, from the letter of a canon of Montfaucon who, to avoid death or sacrilegious perfidy, had emigrated into the diocese of Cologne. The Reverend Messrs. Binterim and Mooren in their work on the old and present diocese of Cologne Die alte und neue Erzdiözese Köln, vol. I, p. 136 and following, where they comment on the Liber valoris of the diocese of Cologne, inserted it at the place named Weislich in the deanery of Ahr, which is now called Wesseling or rather Wesling, but formerly Waslicia. Now that circular letter runs in these words: The Chapter of the illustrious collegiate church of Saints Germanus and Balderic of Montfaucon, of Gaul * Montfaucon, of the Diocese of Reims in Gaul, founded on a secular footing by the emperor St. Charlemagne, had already from the earliest times, about the year 820, received from a certain Adhælard, abbot or provost of its church, a certain domain, namely the estate of Waslicia, commonly Wesseling, situated above the banks of the Rhine between Cologne and the town of Bonn. This estate the canons of Montfaucon governed for 600 years and more, and caused to bear fruit through one of their number deputed for this purpose, until, in the middle of the fifteenth century, considering the hindrances resulting from the greater distance, they sold it to the canons of SS. Cassius and Florentius of the city of Bonn for a certain agreed number of gold florins; with which they acquired other estates nearer to them. The instruments of this sale, made to the chapter of Bonn, are extant in the archives of the church of Montfaucon, and the act by which the deputies of St. Cassius, in the name of their chapter, promise that they will celebrate in their church of Bonn a perpetual anniversary for the benefactors of the church of Montfaucon, especially those who gave the said Waslicia to it.

[44] [seem formerly to have been lost in the diocese of Cologne, as is established from the letter here recited;] In the earlier centuries of their existence the canons of Montfaucon, first put to flight by the Northmen, then by the Hungarians, who had invaded and infested these parts of Gaul, finally oppressed by the neighbouring magnates, so many times made for their Waslicia, in order to withdraw themselves from their vexations, carrying with them the body of their patron Saint Balderic; running together in crowds to whose remains and prostrate before them, the inhabitants of the Rhineland obtained from God many healings, and wondered at many miracles, which Flodoard, a writer of Reims of the tenth century, narrates at length. Whence the cult of St. Balderic gained no small strength in these Rhineland regions. But alas! already from the eleventh century the church of Montfaucon misses the body of its patron, of which it possesses only certain particles; and it is permitted to conjecture, not without foundation, that the principal part of the body was left behind at Waslicia, or in its neighbourhood, after the above-mentioned translations. There is added that for many centuries since a special cult has been held in that same collegiate church of Montfaucon of Saints Gereon and his Companion Martyrs, introduced surely for no other cause than on the occasion of the above-said translations of the body of St. Balderic into the archdiocese of Cologne, just as, conversely, from the ancient possession of the chapter of Montfaucon, the parish church of Wesling claims for itself the patronage of Saint Germanus.

[45] Wherefore I, Louis Marie de Rosne, priest and canon and historiographer of the same church of Montfaucon, now exiled for the faith and the king in these parts of Germany, in the name of my said chapter ask and beseech all whom I ought to ask, that they inform me if anything concerning Saint Balderic, abbot, has come to their knowledge. Whether, for example, his body is known to be preserved at that same Waslicia or in its neighbourhood and his cult flourishes; and if the matter is so, that they deign to bestow more certain testimonies in writing upon the petitioner, to receive perpetual thanks both from me and from my confrères on earth, but a greater reward in heaven from him who is God wonderful in his Saints. — Cologne, 20 November 1793, Derosne, canon of Montfaucon. — I testify that the present manuscript was delivered by the hands of the author, at the time of his exile, to me the undersigned in the abbey of Brauweiler, Spenrath.

[46] on which some criticisms seem to be called for: It will be worth while to have noticed a very few things about this letter. It is affirmed at the beginning that the monastery of Montfaucon was founded on a secular footing by the emperor Charlemagne: which in other words means that at that time secular canons were substituted for the monks originally instituted there by St. Balderic; but let it be permitted us to oppose this assertion, since we are persuaded that in the time of this emperor, if any change was then made, regular canons, not secular ones, were introduced there. In truth the rule of Aachen, very much promoted by Charlemagne, is judged by many, among whom Zunggo Prodromus Historiae Canonicorum Regularium, vol. I, p. 100, never to have had its canons among any others than secular ones; but you may not infer from this with certainty that canons of this kind everywhere succeeded monks in the times of Charlemagne; for in the same times the rule of canons of St. Chrodegang, certainly of religious, prevailed: wherefore, since Hincmar of Reims in the synod of Reims of the year 874 issued a chapter by which he plainly supposes that the canons of Montfaucon were truly religious (which may be read in Labbe Collection of the Councils, vol. VIII, col. 587 and following, where among other things mention is made of the written profession), the opinion of Zunggo pleases us much more, who judges Prodromus Hist. Canon. Reg., vol. II, p. 93 that secular canons were introduced there only in the twelfth century, although it is sufficiently clear from what has been said that in the ninth century regular discipline had already gravely tottered in this monastery. But what Zunggo Place cited asserts besides concerning Montfaucon are almost as many fictions as words. Whoever wishes to read them, let him compare them with what we drew out in the preceding §, and this most harsh censure of ours will perhaps seem milder. But let us bring our foot back to the cult of St. Balderic.

[47] hence St. Balderic obtained a cult in that region. The cited and praised work of Binterim and Mooren advises us that in book III, section 75, of the Greatness of Cologne mention is made of the ruins of a church formerly sacred to St. Balderic. And indeed in the indicated work Gelenius, De Admiranda Coloniae Magnitudine, p. 588 it is read that a monastery of Servite nuns seems to have been founded by St. Philip Benizi, travelling through Germany in the year 1273, which existed for some time near Bonn under the title of St. Balderic, commonly Sanct Baldrich, now united, as Gelenius adds, writing in the year 1645, to the College of Dietkirchen, in whose vineyard the ruins of St. Balderic are still seen. The title of the church, however, seems to have arisen from the exile of St. Balderic (that is, of the canons of Montfaucon) at Wesseling. The College of Dietkirchen is the same as the collegiate church of St. Lubentius at Dietkirchen, situated in the diocese of Trier on the river Lahn. But in vain have I inquired further concerning this monastery of Servite nuns, of which not even mention is made in the Annals of the Order of the Servants of Blessed Mary.

Virgin, nor in the works which we have on the dioceses of Trier and Cologne, if you except the places adduced.

[48] The remaining records which pertain to the cult, But as regards the cult, the Relics and other things of this kind at Montfaucon, nothing better occurs to me than to present in the Latin idiom two letters sent to us. The very Reverend Monsieur Houzelot, dean and parish priest of Montfaucon, wrote back to our requests thus: I. The manuscript codex which Calmet mentions was given to the flames in the year 1793, no less than the remaining records which were kept in the archive of Montfaucon. II. The former houses of the canons have been utterly destroyed; one church survives, which was preserved so that it might take the place of the former parish church of St. Laurence, in which the sepulchre of St. Balderic was, and which is now entirely demolished. III. St. Balderic is not the patron of Montfaucon, but St. Laurence; he is esteemed only as the founder; but he is patron at Spanulsi villa (Épinonville) and Septsarges, small parishes which lie half a league from Montfaucon. No pious pilgrimage exists in St. Balderic's honour. IV. Our church rejoices in no Relics of St. Balderic; I found only in the sacristy a skull and two bones of the forearm (ulnae, therefore, or radii), destitute of documents of authenticity. I have had them placed in the altar not long ago erected in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Seven Sorrows. The common people esteem that they were formerly taken from the body of St. Balderic. (Let the reader see what I recited at no. 44 from the letter of M. Derosne, and judge whether a skull and two larger bones could ever have been called particles.) V. At Montfaucon there exists neither image, nor statue, nor any other record of any moment regarding St. Balderic; if you except a well, which is commonly called le puits de S. Baudry, although today this Saint is called in the vernacular not Baudry but Balderic; similarly another well near the former collegiate church is called the well of Saint Germanus. VI. In this tract no other miracles are known than those which are related by Flodoard. VII. The Mass and Office of this Saint are proper; and we still use them, although Montfaucon is now included in the diocese of Verdun, in which the Office from the Common of an abbot is used. So the praised Monsieur Houzelot in a letter given on the 23rd of April of the year 1842.

[49] the monastery, Through the same very Reverend gentleman we obtained another and much longer notice concerning the former cult of St. Balderic and the state of the church of Montfaucon. Since the author of this notice is a weighty and eye-witness, and, as far as I can gather from his writing, flourishes no less in prudence than in genuine piety, I judge that I shall be doing a thing pleasing to the reader when I now present this letter itself, almost entire, as a historical record. He is the Reverend M. Radiere, today honorary canon of Verdun, and parish priest and dean of Clermont in Argonne. Having then said by way of brief preface that from the year 1778 he was a capitular canon of Montfaucon, but is now the only survivor of his former associates, he proceeds thus: The Chapter of Montfaucon, founded ten centuries ago (under regular discipline, understand), consisted of a provost, a dean, a precentor and twenty-eight canons; of whom one was at the same time canon and archdeacon in the metropolitan church of Reims. (From what time this obtained, I have been able to learn neither from Marlot in the History of Reims nor from the Gallia Christiana.) Those who were to be adorned with these dignities were elected by the votes of the canons. But the canonries and very many parishes were at the free nomination of the canon whose turn it was to confer the benefices: for all the canons were inscribed, in the order of seniority, on a table FOR CONFERRING BENEFICES; and through them this faculty went round in such a way that whatever benefice, whether canonry or parish, fell vacant within the two weeks assigned to each, he conferred it at his sole will: which was a notable and rare privilege.

[50] the Relics, The very beautiful collegiate church of Montfaucon, at the command of the sacrilegious men who then held power, was closed on the 20th day of November of the year 1790; and the abbey of St. Peter of Reims, which likewise traced its origin to St. Balderic, suffered the like fate at about the same time. No image of the aforesaid collegiate church exists; likewise representations would be sought in vain of the four reliquaries, which plates of silver and others of gilded copper encased, and in which were kept with much honour sacred Relics from the body of St. Germanus, bishop of Auxerre and patron of this collegiate church, likewise from the body of St. Balderic the founder, likewise from the remains of St. Alpinus, bishop of Châlons, and of St. Gereon the Martyr. All these pious pledges were thrown in the year 1793 into the bottom of an old cupboard of the sacristy; whence in the year 1803 the Reverend Parish Priest collected them, to enclose them, mixed together, in a wooden box, since he did not know to which Saint each bone belonged. Besides the reliquary of St. Balderic, there was honoured there a statue of the same Saint, about a metre and a half high, carved from stone and painted in variegated colour. But it shared the fate of the other images, having suffered the violence of hammers. While the chapter was not yet destroyed, the custom had prevailed of carrying round the reliquary case of St. Balderic on the three Rogation days. This was a great solemnity: two canons carried the sacred remains, whom not only the remaining canons and the lower choir of the collegiate church thronged about, but the whole clergy also, both of the parish of Montfaucon and of the villages lying below, in which a station was to be made, accompanied in numbers. Great was the ardour in these villages then: all the inhabitants of every age and sex longed to pass three times beneath the reliquary box; to which they applied their books, rosaries and other things of this kind, and even linens to be carried to the sick. The citizens of Montfaucon likewise showed their trust in St. Balderic when the sacred procession of suppliants returned into the collegiate church. In the Life of St. Vitalis, inserted in this volume, a similar usage of piety may be observed.

[51] the sepulchre, Historical records, the Reverend M. Radiere proceeds thus, have not yet been able to mark down what happened there at the end of the last century, and of which I am an eye-witness. St. Balderic, as may be drawn out from the lessons to be recited in his Office and from Flodoard, had chosen for himself as the place of burial the parish church, sacred to St. Laurence. (See Annotation e to the subjoined narrative of Flodoard.) Hither his body was brought from Reims and laid in the assigned sepulchre, until the canons, compelled by manifold necessity, wandered in every direction with this pious burden, to bring back home only some part of it. His sepulchre had been kept until then in the parish church of St. Laurence; but in the year 1778 this old church was destroyed, so that a new one, to be built in almost the same place, might be substituted for it. But since from that time the sepulchre of St. Balderic no longer lay beneath the altar dedicated to that same Saint, the chapter, of which I myself was a part, took care that this sacred tomb should be raised from the earth; and in the year 1780, with much solemnity, amid the singing of psalms, it translated it to the new church. I myself was present; and I am very well aware that this sepulchre was seen by me, consisting of a great stone hollowed into a trough, and containing remains of sandals and other things of this kind. The public instrument by which whatever was then done might remain attested perished wretchedly with the remaining charters which had remained in the archive at the time of the disturbances. In the year 1795 the new parish church was overturned, and the collegiate church was, by right and wrong, changed into the parish church. The sepulchre of St. Balderic remained in that very place to which it had been translated and laid again in the year 1780. You now have a public market-place there.

[52] the images I send you an impression of the seal of the chapter of Montfaucon: one may see on it St. Germanus as bishop with his pastoral staff, and Balderic, clad in monastic garb and cutting down with an axe a tree on which a falcon sits: thence arose the name Mons Falconis. In the same manner the same Saints are painted on the panel of a certain chapel. In the midst between them here is St. Laurence: for these three Saints are venerated as patrons of the collegiate church, now parochial. And at this point we have had the mentioned seal of Montfaucon, cut in boxwood, printed; as it is the only record that we have been able to find concerning St. Balderic.

The Reverend M. Radiere then notes many other things, of which we have already spoken at length above; and he regrets that he has in his possession no catalogue of the provosts who, adorned at the same time with the archdeaconry of the Argonne, presided over this most celebrated chapter; in whose hands was the lordship of the town of Montfaucon and of seven villages lying below.

[53] and the Office of St. Balderic, are reviewed. The proper Office of St. Balderic of Montfaucon, accommodated to the rite of Reims, has nothing remarkable; and the lessons which come to be recited within the Octave are put together partly from Flodoard's History of Reims, partly from the Life of St. Wandregisilus and from a certain uncertain tradition concerning Charlemagne: wherefore we dismiss them here. But the few things concerning the Life, and the very many concerning the miracles and translations of St. Balderic, which we subjoin here from Flodoard's History of the Church of Reims, are taken from volume XVII of the Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum of Lyons according to the readings of Colvener: since that edition is more than sufficiently known, it is superfluous for us to describe it at greater length.

* read Gallice

LIFE, MIRACLES AND TRANSLATIONS OF ST. BALDERIC.

From the History of the Church of Reims of Flodoard, book IV, chapter 38 and following, published in the Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum of Lyons according to the recension of Colvener.

Balderic, confessor, at Montfaucon in the district of Reims. (S.)

BHL Number: 0898

CHAPTER I.

St. Balderic builds at Reims a monastery of maidens, and at Montfaucon a monastery of men.

BY FLODOARD.

[St. Balderic, of royal stock, builds at Reims, for SS. Bova and Doda, a monastery] There were formerly among us, then, many basilicas of the Saints, and also monasteries below or around this city of Reims, which are now ^a proven not to exist. Two monasteries of maidens, however, still survive below the city: of which one (which is called the Upper, namely from the situation of the place) St. Balderic the priest, with his sister Bova, afterwards abbess of that same monastery, is related to have built in honour of Saint Mary or Saint Peter ^b. They are related to have been sprung from royal stock, namely from King Sigebert their father ^c, having a niece named Doda ^d, a most chaste girl, who is said to have been betrothed to a certain magnate of that same King Sigebert: and her aforesaid aunt Bova, training her to serve God and to keep perpetual virginity, turned her away from the love of an earthly bridegroom. He, since she opposed him, striving to seize that same bride, having mounted his horse, while he was trying to accomplish this in some way, is related to have fallen from the raging horse and perished with his neck broken ^e. Then the Blessed Doda, persevering in her purpose of chastity, succeeded her aunt in the government of that same monastery. She also obtained afterwards from the prince Pippo ^f that a precept of immunity, which is still held among us, should be made for that same

monastery. Their bodies, entombed in the church outside the walls of the city, where the monastery of maidens had first been ^g, rested long, until afterwards, elevated in consequence of certain revelations, they were carried to this new church, and, placed there with veneration, are honoured there with the continual reverence of the maidens serving God.

[2] and another for himself at Montfaucon. Now St. Balderic, after the construction of this monastery, seeking a place where he might also establish his own dwelling, in which, having gathered religious men with him, he might live religiously and serve God devoutly and quietly, at length found a place pleasing to himself, which they call Mons Falconis. Which place, at that time uninhabitable, was covered with dense woods, cutting which down he founded for himself a dwelling by his own labour. It is said, moreover, that he had a bird which we call a falcon going before him and as it were guide of his journey while he was seeking that place, which settled on that same place, and, returning for three days to that spot where there is now an altar in honour of Saint Peter the Apostle, settled there without change. Whence too very many assert that the monastery was so called from this event. When he had begun to serve God there more devoutly, some who feared God conferred their goods on him: and so, monks being gathered with him, he established a monastery under regular institution: and he built that same monastery under the honour of Blessed Germanus. These things accomplished, having returned to his sister at Reims, he closed there the last day of his course, where also, buried, he rested for no small time ^h.

ANNOTATIONS.

CHAPTER II.

Miracles and translations until almost the end of the ninth century.

The clerics of Montfaucon carry off the body of St. Balderic from Reims; Then in process of time, by the diligence of the clerics inhabiting the aforementioned monastery of that Blessed man, his body was furtively carried thither, having been taken away from Reims ^a, the guards being deluded by a trick. When certain citizens of Reims pursued them, they followed them until some caught sight of them. And while the bearers of the sacred pledge were troubled by their coming, a dense cloud dividing the two parties is believed to have been brought in by God, by which the pursuers, darkened and carried away by error into trackless places, could not keep to the footsteps of those going before. But a splendour sent from above shone upon the carriers of the sacred body in the night, until, unwearied, they came to the possession nearest the monastery, which is called the villa ^b of Spanulf . Because they laid down the holy limbs there, a church was afterwards built there in his honour. And when they were moving on from there with the sacred pledge *, as they began to draw near the monastery, the bells ^c of the church of the monastery are said to have rung of their own accord, namely without human impulse. Hearing this, the brethren went out to meet them: and so, receiving the long-desired gifts, while they try to bring them into the church of Saint Germanus, they feel them fixed before the very entrance of the basilica with such weight that they could by no means move them further, although for three days, striving at it, they eagerly attempted to accomplish this with every effort. So at length, a roof ^d being built over the fixed limbs of the Confessor, they are related to have remained there thus for three years.

[4] [which, out of fear of the Northmen, they carry elsewhere, and they have it as a protection for themselves against robbers.] That space of time completed, a fast of three days being celebrated, his venerable body was carried to the church of Saint Laurence ^e, where he himself, while living, had prepared a sepulchre for himself, and was reverently deposited in his own sarcophagus; and there it is established that it was kept with venerable cult until the times of King Charles and Archbishop Hincmar, when the Northmen ^f began to lay waste this kingdom. Driven by the terror of them, the canons of that place lifted the body of this their patron from the sepulchre and placed it upon the altar of Saint Laurence. While this was being done, three drops of blood flowed down from his head, as fresh and warm as if they flowed from a living body. And so it was carried to Verdun ^g. Brought back thence, it was placed in the church of Saint Germanus. Meanwhile, while it was absent from its monastery, the Northmen came to it; but, the Lord protecting it, they neither burned the churches nor killed men, except only one woman. And when they withdrew, they left the altars heaped with their gifts. Another time, when the Northmen were again approaching that same place, a certain canon of the place, Ottrad by name, taking the body of the Saint, the rest having slipped away in flight, himself climbed with the sacred body into a certain tree. The pagans, pursuing him, came right to the tree itself, and, looking up, could not discover that anyone had climbed it. And that same brother, remaining there for nine days, and taking no food except a single acorn, is recorded to have suffered neither hunger nor thirst. And again that same place was then delivered from the slaughter and burning of the pagans by the merits of this blessed man. Afterwards it happened that certain robbers ^h, unfaithful to the royal majesty, came to that same place, and, finding there no hand resisting them, set about plundering the desolate place. While they were doing this, the bells of the church of Saint Laurence began to ring with no one pulling them, and two wax candles were divinely lit by fire from above. And when the robbers, struck with fear, were fleeing, one of them, slipping, fell at the very gate of the monastery, and both he and his proud horse being crushed by the fall, the wineskins also in which he was carrying off the stolen wine were burst. The rest, seeing this, presented the church with gifts and withdrew, affected with fear.

[5] On account of scarcity they translate it to Waslicia in the diocese of Cologne. The canons of this venerable place, once compelled by the necessity of famine, taking Relics from the body of their venerable patron, set out to a certain estate of theirs situated on the bank of the Rhine, called Waslicia ⁱ, which a certain abbot of theirs named Adelard had conferred on that same monastery. There, when the people of the district, venerating the gracious pledges , had begun to bring their gifts, a certain abbot of the monastery which is called Bunna ^k, going to Willebert ^l, bishop of Cologne, began to defame this devotion, asserting that in truth the pledges of no Saint had been brought thither. And the canons who had come, fearing lest perchance they be constrained and examined by the bishop, since they gave out that they had with them the whole body of that Saint, as soon as they had heard these things, returned within two days to their monastery, almost a hundred leagues; and, taking up the limbs of the blessed man in their entirety, within as many days they returned to the aforementioned estate. And as they began to draw near to it, being still about the space of a league distant from the estate itself, the bells of the church began to resound with no one pulling them. And the clerics who had remained in that same place, hearing this, and understanding that their patron was coming, go out to meet them with crosses, and receive their protector with fitting honour. As they were celebrating the solemnities of the Masses, three wonders suddenly happened to me. A contracted man was made straight, a certain blind man was enlightened, and a dumb man obtained speech. Again the aforesaid abbot did not cease to blaspheme the miracles of God, turning away whom he could from visiting the Saint. While he was doing these things, seized with fever, he was so grievously troubled that he could neither eat nor drink nor walk. Compelled * by the burnings of this sickness, he at length recognised his sin, and caused himself to be carried in a litter as far as the Rhine, and thence by ship as far as the aforesaid estate, and so before the presence of the gracious body: and there, confessing his fault, he asked to be absolved, and gave a quantity of wax equal to the weight of his body: and having made vows to be paid yearly, staying six days, he merited to receive most complete health, and so went back whole to his own on his own feet. While the aforesaid clerics stayed here with their patron for the space of a year, no day, as they say, passed on which miracles of God were not wrought there. And on the very vigil of Saint John the Baptist, when many flocked together from Saxony ^m and also from distant regions, eighteen signal miracles are proven to have been shown: and scarcely any sick man came who did not go away safe and brisk. Such an abundance of goods was brought there that both the clerics themselves lived on it and sustained the others who had remained in the monastery, and enlarged or adorned the church of that estate.

[6] At the meeting of the bodies of SS. Balderic, Jovinus, Vitonus and Agericus, Afterwards it happened that, on account of want of water, the same sacred body was carried out of doors beyond its monastery, and was borne to meet the pledges of Saint Jovinus ⁿ. When it had been carried to meet him, as soon as they came together, the sky being clouded over, when there was a great drought, a copious force of rain was poured out: and while the garments of all were soaked with the shower, only the palls which were carried over the bodies of the aforesaid Saints remained entirely untouched by the rain. There a certain one-eyed man received the light of his lost eye. He, at once fleeing, and not glorifying God, as he was a jester, went away ungrateful: but when he came home, he lost again the light he had received. And when they came to the monastery with the bodies of both Saints, the pledge of Saint Balderic became so heavy that it could by no means be moved, until they had made the limbs of Saint Jovinus go before as far as the monastery. Now when the lord Dado, bishop of Verdun ^o, had obtained this abbey from the king, and had begun to hear these wonders, he ordained that every year the sacred pledges of three monasteries should be carried together to a certain midway place named Gaudiacum [p]: namely from the see of the city of Verdun Saint Vitonus [q] and Saint Agericus [r], and Saint Balderic from his monastery,

and Saint Roduicus [s] from Wasloium [t]. At which meeting innumerable miracles were afterwards wrought, so that scarcely did such a gathering pass in which someone of the sick was not restored to soundness: most of all, however, those who were seen to seek the patronage of Blessed Balderic. At one such meeting a certain dumb man spoke, whom the people of Verdun, seizing, began to lead with them, asserting that the power of the Saints whom they had brought had wrought this miracle. And so, while each party, separated, was being carried back to its own place, the bones of Saint Balderic were weighed down with such weight that they seemed to remain utterly immovable. When many ran back to this marvel of a miracle, while his people asked why he wished to stay there, and what he purposed to work there, it happened that he who had spoken, being dumb, was sought for. And when at length he had been called back and brought to the place of the fixed pledge, at once it was lifted without difficulty, and the sacred body was joyfully carried back to its own monastery.

[7] and in the village of Deva very many miracles take place. The aforesaid bishop Dado, after he obtained this abbey of Saint Balderic, exchanged certain properties beyond the Rhine, formerly given to that same monastery by Abbot Adelard, for the estate of Gerlani mons [u], lying on the Moselle. And when he had commanded the brethren of this congregation to set out to that estate for the sake of securing it for himself, they, taking with them the limbs of their patron, namely the lord Balderic, set out to carry out what was ordered. When they had come to the estate which is called Deva [x], the holy pledges were fixed with such weight that those bearing them could by no means go further: and, counsel being taken that they should be carried to the church of that same estate, dedicated under the honour of Saint Martin, they receive the possibility of carrying them. The pledges being carried thither, when after prayer they were carried back from the church, again the little body of the Saint is weighed down: and as all wondered, and some of the bearers thought that God wished to show there some signs for the glorification of his Saint, it was inquired whether any weak persons were perchance present. And when some injured persons came, and certain ones were carried, a certain lame man is raised upright, and a certain woman contracted in her arms for eight years past is loosed, and two blind women were enlightened, and a dumb child of seven years began to speak. In which place a cross was set up by the men of that estate, where afterwards two women received the light of their eyes, and candles were divinely lit, and many were freed from divers infirmities.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Hadrien de Valois in the Notitia Galliarum p. 251 records only one Gaudiacus, a village situated among the Carnutes; although he could have recorded many others, as is established from the Geographical Dictionary, etc., printed at Paris in the year 1804, at the word Jouy, which is the same as Gaudiacus. From this, therefore, it seems that it is to be determined that it is a question here of the place Jouy, lying in the district of Verdun (Département de la Meuse, arrondissement de Verdun, canton de Clermont); for this village is very ancient, as is clear from the charter of Angelram, bishop of Metz, by which he gave to the monks of Gorze an estate … situated in the district of Wabrince, called Gaudiacus D. Calmet, Histoire de Lorraine, vol. II, proofs, col. 109; which district certainly belonged to the diocese of Verdun, as Valois is witness in the cited Notitia p. 579, where he alleges many places which, from ancient records, are said to lie now in the district of Wabrinse, in the county of Scarponinse, now between the two torrents Lotosa and Horons in the district of Wavrinse and the county of Scarponinse, now in the district of Wabrinse, in the county of Verdun. Of the situation of the county or district of Scarpone mention will be made in annotation u.

q. St. Vitonus, bishop of Verdun, called in French St. Vanne, is venerated on the 9th day of November.

r. St. Agericus, likewise bishop of Verdun, in French St. Airy, is venerated on the 1st day of December; concerning him and St. Vitonus see the Gallia Christiana Vol. XIII, col. 1166 and following.

s. St. Rodvicus, or Rodingus or Chraudingus, founder of the monastery of Beaulieu, was illustrated by our Suysken at the day on which he is venerated, the 17th of September.

t. Wasloium is the same as Bellus locus (Beaulieu); which change of names was made in the eleventh century, as the Life of St. Poppo, abbot, published in our work at the 25th day of January, teaches: Moreover the abbey of St. Maurice, these words are read there Vol. II of January, p. 643, chapter 7, no. 26, called Wasloi, with all the appurtenances of that place, he (Richard, abbot of Wasloi) delegated to him (Poppo)… Having taken it up, because he found that it, which the pleasantness of its situation rendered commendable, was mean in its workshops and in the very narrow cloisters of the monastery, he overturned the monastery from the foundations, with the buildings adjoining it, and rebuilt it with greater elegance than it had had, and, the former name being changed, ordered it to be named Beloacum from its comeliness.

u. Gelani or Gerlani mons (called in French Gillamont by Calmet in the History of Lorraine Proofs, vol. II, col. 255) is the same place in which afterwards, in the eleventh century, a church and chapter or monastery of St. Laurence was built, called Deus-Louvart (Dieu-Louart): which is established from the Continuation of the History of the Bishops of Verdun and the diploma of the emperor Conrad of the year 1028, compared with each other. For that Continuation has Ibid., col. 14: Dudo also, the provost (of Verdun and abbot of Montfaucon), established at the castle of Eilauvarth a church in honour of Saint Laurence (or rather endowed it, since Heimo, bishop of Verdun, who sat from the year 988 to 1024, had already built it some time before Ibid., col. 255), ordained canons, arranged necessaries for those ordained, and with great works, with great labour and wonderful comeliness, brought that castle to completion. And the Conradian diploma runs thus Ibid., place cited: We desire it to be known to all that we, at the intervention and petition… of Rambert, venerable bishop of the Church of Verdun (who sat from the year 1024 to 1038 Gallia Christiana, vol. XIII, col. 1185), a certain monastery consecrated in honour of Saint Laurence the Martyr, situated in the place of Gellani mons beside the castle of Deus-Louvart, in the district of Scarpone (Sarponne, Scharpeigne, or Charpeigne), in the county of Richianus, built from the foundations by his predecessor Heimo of blessed memory … but because that same monastery had been built upon the property and power of Saint Germanus of Montfaucon, etc. It is then ordained that a certain compensation be made to Dudo, abbot of Montfaucon; namely that the clerics of Saint Laurence pay the ninth of the tithes; but that they be subject to the bishop of Verdun as lord, and to the bishop of Toul as their proper pastor. At the beginning of the seventeenth century this collegiate church was united to the primatial church of Nancy, whose canons ceded the use and ownership of that church to English Benedictine monks [D. Calmet, Histoire de Lorraine, vol. II, col. 180 and following, and ibid. among the proofs, col. 255 and following]. It lies on the Moselle, between Toul and Metz, below Pont-à-Mousson; as we gather from the geographical maps of Cassini.

x. That outside the tract of land in which we are engaged there were other places whose name was Deva may be seen in Hadrien de Valois in the Notitia Galliarum at the word Diva. But the place of which there is question here is to me the same as that which is now called Dieue. It is a league and a half distant from Verdun towards the south; and one must pass this way when going from Montfaucon to the Castrum Gellani, or Dieu-Louart.

* pignoris

* elsewhere Spamulfi

* pignore

* perhaps condito

* pignora

* pignora

* otherwise excoctus

CHAPTER III.

The remaining miracles and translations of St. Balderic until about the middle of the tenth century.

[At the Relics of St. Balderic, carried to Gellani mons, which someone was unjustly usurping for himself,] The church of Saint Romanus ^a, built in the aforesaid estate of Gellani mons ^b, Milo ^c, provost of the canons of this place, had for some time been taking away from them: and when they had received it back, Count Boso ^d restoring it to them, and had brought the limbs of Saint Balderic thither, many, hearing of it, began to flock together to his patronage. Among whom two blind noblewomen were brought, and a certain poor woman was carried there, contracted in almost all her limbs. And on the night of the vigil of Saint Romanus ^e, while the all-night watches were being celebrated in the church according to custom, suddenly so great a light was poured out from heaven that it seemed to surpass all the lamps that had been lit. Only the altar, on which the bones of the Saint had been laid, seemed to be covered by a dense cloud, and the very carrying-frame of the sacred pledge was seen as it were to move: when suddenly one of the blind women first, and soon the other, cry out that they see. Then the contracted woman lying in the midst, when she began to cry out and to entreat the help of God and of Saint Balderic, is loosed by degrees, first in her arms, and thence in her knees, until she stood upright on her feet. She, afterwards made whole, is sustained until now by the alms of the clerics. While, then, the clerics were staying in the aforesaid place with the sacred pledge, it happened one evening, as they were sitting together, that the man of a certain Milo, a friend , kindled with drunkenness and fury, began to say to them what they were doing there, and why they had entered into Milo's estate? When they answered that these same properties were Saint Balderic's, not Milo's; and he contradicted, that they were held as Milo's, not Balderic's; the clerics threatening him, he went away, and, climbing a lofty rock adjoining the estate, threw himself headlong, and so lay battered as if dead, or seemed near to death: and, lifted up thence, he was carried before the presence of the holy body, and there at length, acknowledging himself guilty, he was unexpectedly healed, and in a short time restored to entire soundness.

[9] Likewise when lately the limbs of this Saint had been carried back to the aforementioned estate of Waslicia ^f, and at Waslicia, where their bearers were deprived of due protection, since Godfrey ^g, count palatine of the prince Henry ^h, had seized that same estate, certain of the clerics of Saint Balderic went to that same Godfrey on this account; and when they could get no worthy answer from him, and he had answered that he would do no more for them in that matter than for his dog, a certain cleric among them added threateningly that he would therefore sweat a hot sweat, and his dog would not help him. He, furious at this, ordered them to be cast out of his sight. As they withdrew, he himself was presently smitten with divine vengeance, and, seized with a violent fever, began to be most grievously troubled, and to be kindled with excessive burnings, and to stream with most fervent sweats. Sending, then, to Wicfrid ⁱ, bishop of Cologne, he asked him to come to him, and related the matter to them, and received from him this counsel, that he should send to the aforesaid clerics, and, making them come to him and correcting his errors, should seek from them counsel and likewise help concerning his infirmity. He, obeying this and sending to them, bade them come to him. But his messenger, puffed up, as it seemed, with the vapour of pride, began imperiously to command that the clerics should go at once to his lord. When they refused, but asked him to take some refreshment of charity with them, he despised it; and as he withdrew, at the very going out, his horse, spurred on by him, leaping forward, fell, and perished with its neck broken. So he, humbled, returned to the brethren, partook of the charity which he had spurned, and so, corrected, went away. Hence, called and asked again and a third time, having learned at length of the troubles of this man, they then at last come to him, have compassion on the torments of the sufferer, and, as he confessed his sin and promised amendment, are careful to absolve him by their prayers. And he, at once professing that he was better, when the brethren had withdrawn, recovered, restored the properties he had seized, and thereafter kept himself from injuring them. But his house is said to have been afflicted with such a calamity that scarcely any remained who had used those same properties: even the horses and dogs perished, and the seizer himself, having lost his hair and nails together with his skin, scarcely escaped.

[10] [and on the river Rhine, which robbers infested, miracles and prodigious punishments are seen.] Then, on account of the assault of the Hungarians ^k, which at that time first broke forth upon this kingdom, counsel being taken, the canons of Saint Balderic cross the Rhine with their lord. Returning thence one evening, they make the ship fast in the middle of the river with anchors cast. And leaving a few guards in the ship with the sacred pledge, they themselves hasten in a skiff to the aforesaid estate of their possession. But three certain robbers, having learned that few guards had remained in the ship, and thinking that the treasures or ornaments of the Saint had remained there, embarking in a boat, make for it . But before they could reach the very ship they were seeking, blinded by God and their senses lost, unable to row, they began to be carried along by the force of the river. And so their little boat, dashed against the ship which kept the body of the Saint and shattered, left them in the midst of the waves. Of whom two were presently swallowed up by the river; the third, who was also a servant of Saint Balderic, putting out his hand, seized the ship of the Saint, and so escaping death, and brought into the presence of the clerics, could tell nothing of what he had suffered, until, refreshed on the morrow and his senses recovered, he at length narrated what had been done. And after the bones of this blessed man had been brought back from the aforesaid place to his monastery, many miracles are related to have been shown there, which on account of their multitude are not had in writing. Thither lately ^l a certain poor man, bringing a candle rolled into a ring, a little before the hour of vespers placed it upon the coffer of the sacred bones; and when, having offered his prayer, he withdrew, suddenly the candle, lit by fire from above, began to burn. And until the keeper of the church came to ring the bells for vespers, it burned away, the pall on which it lay being unharmed, nor did it inflict any harm on the pall to which it clung. Many miracles besides, of healings and of glorifications, the Lord deigns very frequently to show there for declaring the merits of his Saint, namely to the honour and praise of his name, which is blessed unto the ages.

ANNOTATIONS.

was adorned with the infulae of Cologne in the year 925, as the continuers of the Gallia Christiana will have it Vol. III, col. 644 and following, and Gregory Kolb in his review of the prelates of Cologne.

* surely pervigiles

* perhaps quidam

* perhaps amicus

* i.e. confitens

* illuc

* quæ