Lull

ON ST. LULL, ARCHBISHOP AND CONFESSOR, AT MAINZ IN GERMANY,

IN THE YEAR 786.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Lull, archbishop and Confessor, at Mainz. (S.)

BHL Number: 5067

BY J. V. H.

§ I. The cult of St. Lull vindicated; his Acts discussed.

The holiness of Lull, called into doubt The Roman Martyrology, which various Additions both of Usuard and of Ado, and above all the liturgical Calendars of the Church of Mainz, had gone before, announces on this day the feast of St. Lull, archbishop of Mainz, in these words: At Mainz, of St. Lull, bishop and Confessor. There would accordingly be no reason for us to be in doubt about his holiness and cult, had not some, among whom also Claude Chastelain, who deserved very well of hagiography, called the holiness of Lull back into doubt, both on account of the silence of the more ancient Martyrologies and above all on account of the controversy which he had with St. Sturm, abbot of Fulda. For the said Chastelain writes these things in his vernacular Roman Martyrology Martyrologe universel, p. 716.: Son nom ne se voit dans aucun des anciens martyrologes; et avec assez de fondement, vu la manière peu chrétienne dont S. Ludger l'accuse d'en avoir usé avec S. Sturme. [His name is seen in none of the ancient martyrologies; and with good enough ground, seeing the unchristian manner in which St. Ludger accuses him of having dealt with St. Sturm.] But if the silence of the more ancient Martyrologies created any presumption against the holiness of Lull, the same would have to be thought of Sturm, inasmuch as neither Rabanus nor Ado nor Usuard entered him in the roll of the Saints. One thing can be said of both, that the silence of these Martyrologists shows us nothing else than that, when they wrote, the holiness of neither had been proved; which is to be said above all of Rabanus, who, as he himself writes Canisius, Thesaurus Monumentorum, vol. II, p. 290., inserted there whatever feasts of Saints he could find, yet in such wise that he says he wrote nothing except what he found noted by his predecessors in little books: by which words he surely gives a sufficient reason why L St. Lull, who scarcely not remembered years, had died when Rabanus published his Martyrology. (Compare the preface of our Du Sollier to Usuard, no. 64.) The same can be answered concerning Ado and Usuard, unless one should prefer to say that they were ignorant of the fame of holiness and the cult of Lull, at least in so far as at the beginning they were confined within the narrowest limits. For the rest, to prove the cult of St. Lull the constant custom of the Church of Mainz from the most ancient times would suffice us, even if no other arguments of holiness were at hand.

[2] on account of a text falsely attributed to St. Liudger, But, say the adversaries, St. Liudger, bishop of Münster, accuses Lull of having inveighed too bitterly against Sturm: without our retorting this fault, it is not so great that, once amended, it should exclude him from the Roll of the Saints: otherwise, as often as we should find some Saint sinning, so often would his name have to be struck out of the Martyrology (compare Prospero Lambertini, On the Beatification of the Servants of God, book III, chap. XXXXIX, no. 7). St. Ambrose writes aptly to our matter [Apology of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus, chap. II, vol. II of the Works, p. 145. Venice edition 1781.]: But the Saints of the Lord, who long to finish the holy contest and to run the course of salvation, if anywhere by chance, as men, they have fallen more by the frailty of nature than by lust of sinning, rise the keener to run, renewing greater contests by the goad of shame, so that the fall is reckoned not only to have brought no hindrance, but even to have heaped up incentives to speed. For the rest, what controversy there was between Lull and Sturm, each a Saint, will be examined more at length below: let it suffice here to have shown one thing, that whatever fault is attributed to St. Lull cannot stand in the way of his legitimate cult, inasmuch as he gloriously repaired it, as we shall set out more fully afterwards. Mabillon, both in the Annals of the Order of St. Benedict, book XXIII, § XI Vol. II of the Annals, p. 160. and in the Acts of the Saints Saec. III, part II, p. 399., whom others then followed, among whom Adrien Baillet at the 16th of October, says that St. Liudger pours back all the fault upon Lull, and in testimony of the assertion brings forward, as he says, his words, which we also give from Mabillon: Sturm, lovable to all… To Lull alone his good fame was displeasing, and he always acted against him out of envy. A discord having arisen among them, the brethren, trusting in the support of Bishop Lull, went to the king and accused the blessed man before him, objecting to him I know not what crime of enmity toward the king. Sturm having been sent into exile, then an extraordinary rumour had filled the ears and mouths of all alike, that Blessed Sturm the abbot had been taken away from the monastery of Fulda by the counsel of Bishop Lull. All alike bore this grievously… Lull meanwhile obtained from the king, by giving unjust gifts, that the monastery of Fulda should be established in his own lordship, etc. So Mabillon: but these words are not read in St. Liudger, from whom we have only the Life of St. Gregory of Utrecht, but in Eigil, fourth abbot of Fulda, in the Life of St. Sturm, his predecessor Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 373.. And this accusation against St. Lull, coming from the mouth of Eigil of Fulda, is not of such weight as to break the authority of the Roman Martyrology: and indeed, since the whole contention between the two Saints seems to have arisen from the jurisdiction over the monastery of Fulda, which each judged to be his own, it is no wonder that Eigil, an abbot whose interest was at stake in that controversy, was more unfair than was just toward St. Lull.

[3] is vindicated from ancient monuments. The document, therefore, which was being flaunted against the holiness of Lull from the testimony of St. Liudger collapses: indeed he himself must rather be called a herald of the virtues of the archbishop of Mainz. For he has these things in the said Life of St. Gregory of Utrecht At the 25th day of August, p. 258, no. 13.: In all these things he (St. Boniface) was not a little helped by his chosen disciples, after their master most illustrious preachers and pillars of the Church of God: of whom each, like the morning star rising early, illumined his city and region by his examples and teaching. Liudger then enumerates SS. Gregory of Utrecht, Megingoz of Würzburg, Willibald of Eichstätt, bishops, and Wynnebald and Sturm, abbots; and among these, adorned with the title of holiness, he relates also Lull, who inhabited the metropolitan city of Mainz with the greatest part of the eastern Franks, who settled in the diocese of that city. Which words show how great an opinion of Lull's holiness his contemporaries had, and especially St. Liudger. And the opinion persisted after his death: for St. Rabanus, himself also bishop of Mainz after having earlier ruled the monastery of Fulda as abbot, writes of Lull in epigram CIII, on St. Ferrutius Joannis, Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. II, p. 43.:

Therefore long since Lull, bishop and honour of the city, Translated hither the bones of the sacred martyr Ferrutius.

While the same Bl. Rabanus held the see, namely in the year 851 or 852, as Lambert of Hersfeld, monk of Hersfeld, writes In Pistorius, Writers on German Affairs, vol. I, p. 312., the translation of Lull was celebrated on the Lord's Supper. And so, about sixty years after his death, such honour was paid to our Lull as was wont to be paid only to holy men. Whence also, on the testimony of the same Lambert Ibid., 317., in the year of the Lord 1040 the Relics of the holy Confessors Wigbert and Lull were translated into the dedicated crypt of Hersfeld. His holiness is testified also by William of Malmesbury, a writer of the 12th century, book 1 On the deeds of the Kings of the English, chap. IV Savile, Writers on English Affairs, fol. 15., in these verses, which he remembers he had heard from boyhood:

Bishop Lull, than whom none is holier, Strong in divine medicine, God granting it, Meets diseases, as the whole world proclaims.

But while the body of St. Lull had already been solemnly elevated for a century, while the whole world was proclaiming his miracles, the honours of the Saints had not yet been decreed to St. Sturm, which Innocent II at length bestowed on him in the year of Christ 1139, as can be seen in Giusto Fontanini Codex of Canonization, p. 13.. These things, however, are not to be so said as if we wished to detract anything from the sanctity of Sturm, but that it may be plain that Claude Chastelain spoke less prudently when he blames St. Lull because he had had a controversy with St. Sturm. Now concerning the biographers.

[4] The Acts of St. Lull, not very ancient Lull, says John Mabillon Acts of the Benedictine Saints, saec. III, part II, p. 392., found many praisers, none who committed his deeds to writing,

had no ancient writer, except the anonymous one of whom we must treat presently. We have left no stone unturned to find some more ancient Life of St. Lull; the celebrated Georg Heinrich Pertz, in charge of publishing the Historical Monuments of Germany, had also promised us his help for this and actually gave it; but all efforts were in vain. Christian Joannis Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, preface, p. 7. says that a Life of St. Lull was written in verse by Meginfred, a monk of Fulda, and employs as witness of the assertion John Trithemius in his Annals of Hirsau under the year 986. But the said Trithemius has nothing similar either under this year or under the year one thousand and ten, to which he binds the death of Meginfred. Here is the text of Trithemius as it is found in the Annals of Hirsau, printed with the types of St. Gall in the year 1690 Vol. I, p. 128.: He (Meginfred), since in all writings, not only divine but also human, he was most learned among the more learned, compiled many little works of the highest authority, by the learning of which he commends his memory to posterity: first of all he published a Chronicle of his monastery of Fulda, containing a brief history of the succession of all the abbots, in which he also briefly noted the abbots of certain other monasteries issuing from Fulda and their successions. From which work we acknowledge that we have taken many things in the compiling of the present history, which we trust will be most pleasing to you, both the future and the present inhabitants of the monastery of Hirsau. He described in heroic verse, in two books, the Life of St. Boniface the Martyr, from monk first archbishop of the Church of Mainz. He composed in metre the Life of St. Sturm, first abbot of Fulda. He composed in prose the Life and deeds of St. Rabanus, from fourth abbot of the monastery of Fulda sixth archbishop of Mainz. The Life and Passion of St. Sonderold, from monk of the monastery of Fulda ninth archbishop of the people of Mainz. The Life of St. Hildebert, from abbot of the monastery of Fulda twelfth archbishop of the church of the people of Mainz. Moreover he composed many other things which have not come into my hands. So Trithemius: from which it is clear that Christian Joannis erred when he invokes his testimony as saying that Meginfred composed a metrical Life of St. Lull.

[5] by the author, as it seems, a monk of Hersfeld The loss of a more ancient Life, which either perished or perhaps never existed, two Anonymous writers have in some fashion repaired: of whom the former compiled the Life of St. Lull from monuments which in part related the deeds of SS. Boniface, Sturm, Lioba and Wigbert. The other, pursuing brevity, seems to have clung closely to the footsteps of the former, a few things being excepted, of which we shall treat below. The author of the former Life is made, for I know not what reason, by the Louvain Butlerian Hagiography to be Simon Guillemot, namely he who transmitted it to Mabillon. Wherefore the latter calls it the Life of Gemblours or Gembloux, relying on this sole authority, that he received that Life from a codex of the monastery of Gembloux in Brabant, as he himself narrates in the eulogy of St. Lull, § I Acts of the Benedictine Saints, saec. III, part II, p. 392.: then in § XXII Ibid., p. 400. he goes further, supposing that Sigebert, the celebrated chronographer, is the author of this Life, without taking care to confirm his conjecture by any proof. First of all, that someone of Gembloux is the author of this writing, for the reason that it was found in a codex of this monastery, is not a fit argument. For this same Life, in a manuscript of the 13th century which the celebrated Georg Heinrich Pertz transmitted to us, formerly existed at Heilbronn, and has now been transferred to the library of Erlangen in Bavaria, inscribed in the catalogue under no. 268 Pertz, Historical Monuments, vol. II, p. 365.. Shall we, for a reason of this kind, call the writer of the Life a man of Heilbronn? Especially since this same composition was already printed in the year 1483, more probably at Cologne, because at the end there is an epigram in praise of this city: which Life also John of Westphalia, printer, published at Louvain in the year 1485. But that John Mabillon suspects Sigebert to be the author he seems to conjecture gratuitously, and that probably from this, that he had persuaded himself that the writing came forth from Gembloux: Sigebert was of Gembloux, and the same had already written many things: this is the cause of the suspicion; how light it is, everyone sees. Moreover Sigebert does not seem to have written other things than those which he himself indicates in his book On the Ecclesiastical Writers In Fabricius, Ecclesiastical Library, p. 114.: and in these nothing occurs about St. Lull: for the Little Book of the deeds of the abbots of Gembloux, written by a contemporary and disciple, says this of him d'Achery, Spicilegium, vol. II, p. 768.: He wrote to the people of Trier a book on the fasts of the four seasons, and many things which he records in the book of Illustrious Men. Various things therefore urge that the Life of St. Lull was not written by Sigebert. It was indeed easier to refute the Mabillonian supposition than to track down the true author of the little work: yet that he was a monk of Hersfeld or a cleric of the church of Mainz is indicated by the words which are read at no. 32: Living, he occupied the ears and minds of few; dead, of almost all. For we now make vows to him, and now pay divine honours for God's sake, now we have instituted solemn feasts. Which last words fit a cenobite of Hersfeld best of all, since even today the annual festival of St. Lull is held celebrated there, under the name of Lullus-fest Hoffmann, Erdbeschreibung, vol. II, part II, p. 1676.. For the rest, that this Life is fairly ancient may be suspected from this, that it mentions only the earlier translation, celebrated in the year of Christ 852; but by no means the later, which took place in the year 1040: whence it is given to understand that the little work was written in the intervening time.

[6] are written with fair sincerity. In the said Acts of St. Lull John Mabillon, § I, disapproves of three things: first, that the writing runs out almost into commonplaces; which does not seem said with sufficient accuracy, especially if we look at the Life as it was printed. Here and there indeed you will find some brief eulogies sprinkled in which can fit all Saints of the same condition everywhere; but these are such as occur in all biographies of this kind: the manuscript Life of Erlangen indeed has rather long discourses, and exaggerates various things with certain circumlocutions: but Mabillon did not use this reading, as is plain from the fragment brought forward in § XXII, from which all those things that make the Erlangen narrative prolix are absent. The same writer then says that the Life of St. Lull records few deeds; certainly the Anonymous does not narrate all, and what he narrates he does not relate clearly enough; but most biographies of these times have this drawback, that, written more for edification than for learning and inmost knowledge of affairs, they do not show all the deeds. Finally Mabillon speaks of an admixture of fables; nothing indeed occurred to me as I read which smacks of fable: all things seem drawn from genuine sources, as the reader, I trust, will judge with me. We shall publish the Life as it exists in the codex of Erlangen, mutilated toward the end. The Additions of this manuscript, however, we shall enclose in brackets, adding also in the margin the variant readings of the Louvain edition: so that the Louvain Life will come forth pure and entire. But the Life of which Mabillon speaks in § XXV will be of scarcely any use, since it draws into a compendium what is set out more at length in the other writing. It seems more opportune, therefore, to show the compendious Life of St. Lull which is found in the Breviary of Mainz of the year 1570, and which shows some image of our Saint.

[7] A compendium of the life of St. Lull. Lull, born among the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, drank in Christ together with letters from his first years. For, entrusted while yet seven years old to the fathers of a certain monastery, he omitted nothing which could pertain to meriting the grace of God. When he had grown up, taming his body with assiduous abstinence, he subjected it to the spirit: and he was occupied in the meditation of the Holy Scriptures with such diligence that he threw all into admiration of himself. And as the report grew frequent at that time throughout Britain of the things happily done by Boniface, archbishop of the city of Mainz, to whom Lull was joined by blood, and that in those places the harvest was indeed most abundant but the scarcity of labourers very great, he began to turn over in his mind how he could bring help to one occupied in so holy and necessary a function. And so, having already obtained the rank of the diaconate, by the will of his superiors he undertook the journey to Boniface. Thus, having measured a long journey by land and sea, he came to Germany, by whose coming Boniface was wonderfully refreshed. He, when he had taken surer proofs of his most holy way of life, abundant learning, and mind burning toward God, advanced him against his will to the dignity of the priesthood and wished him always to cleave to his side. And after he had long applied himself sedulously to preaching, and had proved his faith and industry in discharging many other weighty affairs, Boniface, being now about to go into Frisia, appointed him as his successor in the see of Mainz in the presence of King Pippin. Which province he administered holily and prudently up to decrepit age by teaching, admonishing, reproving, like no degenerate son of a good father. At length, knowing through the spirit that the day of his falling asleep was at hand, having called his fellow bishop Alboin, a very religious man, he enjoined him, having first celebrated the sacred mysteries, to go before him to the monastery of Hersfeld. He, performing the sacred rite without delay, although he seemed unharmed and sound in his whole body, when he had partaken of the Lord's sacraments, ended his life together with the Mass. Lull, not at all moved by this occurrence, carrying the forerunner of his own death, placed in a ship with him, by the Main to the monastery of Hersfeld (earlier built by himself), buried him honourably. Where, being at once seized by sickness, in the thirty-second year of his archbishopric he died in the Lord by a peaceful death. His body, laid up in the same place, when after the sixtieth year it was raised from the earth, was found with such comeliness of all its limbs and brightness of its garments too that he seemed to have expired that very day, and to be buried in sleep rather than in death.

§ II. The homeland of St. Lull, and the monastic life spent in England.

That St. Lull was an Anglo-Saxon, St. Lull, says the Anonymous at no. 1, was born among the Angles and Saxons, in no obscure place, as it is said. That Lull was an Angle by homeland cannot be called into doubt. This is testified first of all by Othlo in the Life of St. Boniface, book I, chap. XXX Joannis, Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, p. 221.: Sending into his province and homeland, he (Boniface) made many come thence, women as well as religious men, imbued with various knowledge, and divided the burden of his labour among them. Among whom the chief men were Burchard and Lull, Willibald and Wynnebald his brother, Witta and Gregory: and the religious women, namely the maternal aunt of St. Lull, named Chunihilt, and her daughter Berathgit … but Chunihilt and her daughter Berathgit, very learned in liberal knowledge, were appointed teachers in the region of the Thuringians. This narrative, however, is weakened both by the error of Othlo, who says that Gregory was an Angle, whereas he was a Frank, and by the narrative of the anonymous author of the Life of St. Boniface Acts of the Saints, 5 June, p. 482, no. 4., in which it is said, as Mabillon rightly notes: He (Boniface) chose for himself

a great many physicians of souls: some indeed from his own nation, others from the part of France, some also from the borders of Ireland, that they might be with him as fellow workers in the vineyard of the Lord: of whom were these: Wigbert from the part of the Angles, Blessed Gregory of a noble stock of the Franks, Sturim (Sturm) and Lul and Memgoz (Megingaud), Willibald and his brother Wynnebald, and very many others, whose names it would be very long to enumerate one by one. But these things are very much entangled: for since he had called Wigbert alone an Angle, it is natural to conclude that SS. Lull, Willibald and his brother do not belong to England. Then, since he had numbered Gregory among the Franks, it would follow, since he had said that workers were summoned from the borders of Ireland, that he called all the rest Irish: in which case he would have fallen into a manifest error: for it is established that Sturm was a Norican, as his Life written by Eigil, fourth abbot of Fulda, has it; that Willibald and Wynnebald belong to the Angles our Henschenius proved at length in the Life of St. Richard at the 7th day of February Acts of the Saints, vol. II of February, p. 71, no. 15.. Hence I judge the testimony of the Bonifacian Anonymous to be of no, or certainly of light, authority, inasmuch as he did not know to which nation each of the said men belonged. Othlo too stumbled when he reckoned Gregory among the Angles; but perhaps that error can be attributed to the fault of a copyist who carelessly painted in a Frankish man among the other Angles.

[9] but not an Irishman, the letters prove. For the rest, that St. Lull was an Angle is most manifestly proved by the Bonifacian letters: among which that which is placed as CXXIV in order in the edition of Stephan Alexander Würdtwein Würdtwein, Letters of St. Boniface, p. 310. Serarius LXXXIX.. There Abbot Gutberct writes to Bishop Lull: I received gladly indeed the little gifts of your charity, and the more gladly as I knew that you sent them with this inmost affection of devotion, that is, you destined a silken cloth for the Relics of our master Bede of blessed memory, for the remembrance and veneration of him. And it seems right to me indeed that the whole nation of the Angles in all the provinces, wherever they are found, should render thanks to God, because so wonderful a man… God gave them in their own nation: nourished at his feet I learned this which I relate. That Gutberct seems to have been abbot of Wearmouth and of Jarrow: and the Venerable Bede lay buried in the monastery of Jarrow until the episcopate of Edmund of Durham, who was elected in the year 1020, as is established from the Acts of the Venerable Bede at the 27th of May Acts of the Saints, vol. VI of May, p. 723.. Gutberct, therefore, the writer of the cited letter, who calls himself abbot, more probably presided over the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow (Wiremuth and Jarrow) in the diocese of Durham. And indeed the new Monasticon Anglicanum Vol. I, p. 502. says that in the year 716 a certain Huactberht (to Simeon of Durham Hwetbyrth) presided over both monasteries. Certainly the name of that abbot squares excellently with our Gutberct, so that we may say they are one and the same. Nor does the reckoning of time stand in the way: this indeed is certain, that the letter could not have been written before the year 754, in which our Lull received the pontifical mitre, inasmuch as it was sent to the most longed-for and most sweet friend in the love of Christ, Lull the bishop and dearest of all prelates: but from this nothing else follows than that Gutberct presided over both monasteries for thirty-eight years, which does not exceed the limits of probability. Some difficulty might perhaps be sought in this, that since he says in the same letter that he has lived forty-three years under the protection of St. Paul, the patron of the church of Jarrow, it would follow that a monk of five years was advanced to government: and this too is not so rare that very many examples cannot be cited: indeed from these words it does not plainly follow that Gutberct had not earlier served in some other monastery. Whence it becomes fairly certain that this Gutberct was one and the same with Huactberht or Hwetbyrth. Let us return to our matter. Eardwulf, bishop of Rochester, also writes to St. Lull as an old companion, in letter CXVI among those of Boniface Würdtwein, p. 300. Serarius LXXVII., and greets him as an old companion: Among other things, then, it is recognized to be the friendly and memorial custom of true companions, when, on account of the spaces of intervening lands or the regions of foreign provinces, they cannot visit and greet one another in person, at least to send words of greeting through their faithful messengers or even by letters. We could bring forward many other things of this kind which would show that Lull was an Angle and not an Irishman, as the Louvain reading has it in his Life to be published below.

[10] He put on the monastic habit Lull, says the Anonymous at no. 1, was born in no obscure place, as it is said, noble in race. Which words seem to indicate that the nobility of St. Lull's race was not in every respect certain to the Anonymous. Nevertheless his kinship with Chunihilt and Berathgit, learned, as Othlo has it in the cited no. 8, in liberal knowledge, and therefore women of some more eminent condition, indicates a similar nobility of blood. Let it be permitted to add here that the sacred memory of these nuns is found preserved through images placed upon the altar of St. Michael at Ohrdruf Thuringia Sacra, p. 26.. But what is asserted both by the Anonymous at no. 3 and by the Breviary of Mainz cited above, namely that St. Lull was closely related to St. Boniface by the line of kinship, is confirmed, so far as I know, by no fit testimony. But if these things are doubtful, far more certain is our Saint's monastic life. He himself indeed, in letter XXV among those of Boniface Würdtwein, p. 81. Serarius LXXIV., addressed to Abbess Kanebada, says: We wish the clemency of your Kindliness to know that we embrace you before others … with love, because … we have passed over to the German nations, and because, received into the rule of the monastic way of life of the venerable archbishop Boniface, we are helpers of his labour, so far as the poorness of our poor little nature avails. Nor is it to be thought that St. Lull first professed the monastic life after he had reached Germany; for there exists letter CXXIII Ibid., p. 309. Serarius LXXXVIII., which shows that Lull was already a monk in England. And since mention of this letter, though rather brief, will recur rather often in the course of this Commentary, I shall show it here entire. The inscription is: To the most holy and venerable bishop Lull, the servant of the servants of God (Abbot Hereca, as it seems), heartfelt greeting in the Lord. Then the letter begins: I ask you, O most beloved brother, as I most fully trust in you, that you be not unmindful, but always with most sagacious mind recall to memory our old friendship which we had between us in the city of Maldubia, when Abbot Eaba nourished you in loving charity, and I remember this sign, that instead of your name he called you "Irtel"; therefore Abbot Hereca greets you with a holy greeting, and the whole congregation which remains in its cenobitic life, because you have held us worthy in remembrance with you. And he who shall have persevered in peace to the end, he shall be saved. Farewell, lovable one, happily for ever: my beloved, chosen by God, because charity has no price. Abbot Hereca made this sign. Hence it is clear that our Lull received the monastic habit not from St. Boniface, as the Louvain Butlerian Hagiography says, but before he crossed over into Germany.

[11] before the German expedition, The cause of the error will probably have been that in the cited letter to Kanebada St. Lull says that he was received into the rule of the monastic way of life of the venerable Archbishop: but I would not easily interpret these words of the first admission to the monastic order, when I have before me the letter of Abbot Hereca, saying that Lull was nourished in the monastery under Eaba, and the fairly ancient tradition in the Anonymous at no. 1, which relates that he betook himself into a monastery at seven years old. These words therefore seem rather to be referred to the companionship which Lull had with St. Boniface, from whose side he did not depart, if faith is to be had in the Anonymous at no. 9: Therefore, taking Blessed Lull by the hand, he led him into the midst; and looking at the multitude which stood around: Behold, he said, you have a man worthy in my judgment, to whom I can entrust the inheritance of my studies (and) of my contests for Christ. He is joined to me by kinship of the flesh, but much more closely joined by the bond of the spirit, because, having lived with me a long time, he has given me a certain and evident spectacle of his holiness and of a most excellent way of life according to the gospel institution. Whence I, not doubting of your assent, enjoin upon him the pontificate of Mainz. Which words agree with letter XCV among those of Boniface Würdtwein, p. 265. Serarius CXLVII., in which Theophylact, deacon of the Apostolic See, calls Lull archdeacon of St. Boniface, whom he served with faithful and pleasant services. Since, according to c. I, de Officio Archidiaconi (I, 23), the Archdeacon was the vicar of the bishop in all things, and all care of the clergy belonged to him, it becomes manifest that St. Lull must have stood as close as possible to his bishop Boniface. And although there were already several archdeacons in one bishopric [Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. I, p. 394 and 404. Compare John Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, vol. I, second Appendix, p. 645.], yet in these beginnings of the German Church it is quite likely that Lull was Boniface's only archdeacon, to whom he entrusted no small part of his pastoral solicitude.

[12] and indeed, as it seems, From the cited letter of Abbot Hereca we have that St. Lull was nourished in the city of Maldubia under Abbot Eaba. Mabillon, in the eulogy of St. Lull, § III, says that the monastery of Maldubia seems to be none other than that of Meldunesburg or Meldun (Malmesbury). Now the monastery of Malmesbury is situated in Wiltonia (Wiltshire), in the ancient province among the West Saxons; it took its name from Maildulf, its founder, as William of Malmesbury narrates in the Life of St. Aldhelm at the 25th of May, in these words Acts of the Saints, vol. VI of May, p. 79, no. 1.: When, now somewhat older, he had returned from Kent to the West Saxons, he received the habit of religion in the monastery of Meldun, which is situated in the city which by its ancient name is called Mealduberi, and now Mealmesberi. This a certain Meldun, who by another name is called Meildulf, a Scot by nation, a philosopher by learning, a monk by profession, had made. The name of the place for the ancients was the castle of Bladow or Ingelborne, as the same William narrates in the book of the antiquities of the monastery of Meldun, which I cite from the new Monasticon Anglicanum Vol. I, p. 257, no. III.: Meildulph leading the eremitical life under the castle of Bladow, which in Saxon is called Ingelborne Castell: and it was built by a certain British king named Dumwallo Molvicius. There had formerly been a city there, which was utterly destroyed by foreigners. The castle kept itself fortified, which stood for a long time without a dwelling nearby. This land therefore Leutherius or Eleutherius, bishop of Winchester, to which, he says, the name Maildulfesburch was given, to Aldhelm the priest

deigned to confer and bestow for leading the regular life; as we have from his charter in the place cited, no. I, given beside the river Bladon on the eighth day before the Kalends of September in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 675. This city, therefore, Maildulfesburch, Mealduberi, which the Venerable Bede too, in book V, chap. XIX of the Ecclesiastical History of the English, calls the city of Maildu or the city of Maildufus, squares excellently with the city of Maldubia in which St. Lull was nourished: to this purpose too is the fact that the religious women, or nuns, among whom was Chunihild, Lull's maternal aunt, probably came from Wessex, the native soil of St. Boniface; as indeed we have it of St. Lioba Acts of the Saints, 28 September, p. 761., who under Abbess Tetta had professed the monastic life in the monastery of Wimborne, of the county of Dorchester (Dorsetshire).

[13] in the monastery of Malmesbury; Some scruple, however, remains: namely, in the often-praised letter St. Lull is read to have been nourished in Maldubia under Abbot Eaba; but no one among the heads of the monastery of Malmesbury occurs who bears that name. After Maildulf, the holy hermit, we have St. Aldhelm, who, having been made in the year of the Lord 705 the first bishop of the Church of Sherborne, retained the government of the monastery at the request of the brethren, perhaps until his death-year 709 Acts of the Saints, vol. VI of May, p. 78, Commentary, no. 5., in which he made way for Daniel, abbot until the year 747 New Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. I, p. 255.. Since therefore Lull, who had left his homeland in the year 725, departed this life in the year 786, he could have had no other teacher than Abbot Daniel: and, Eaba being excluded, all the rest that pertains to residence at Malmesbury wavers: indeed Abbot Hereca too, the writer of the letter, is not found in the catalogue of the abbots of Malmesbury. For the aforesaid Daniel was succeeded by Aldhelm, the second of this name, whom Ethelard followed, although the year of the dignity received is unknown, since it is uncertain in what year Aldhelm II ceased. And Ethelard ruled the monastery until the year 780, when he was promoted to the bishopric of Winchester: him finally Cuthbert succeeded as sixth abbot, but the time of his government is uncertain: and thereafter, up to about the middle of the tenth century, the catalogue of abbots suffers a gap. Yet since the said letter, inasmuch as it was sent to Lull already a bishop, was not written before the year 754, indeed can be said to have been given after the eightieth year of the eighth century, a place can easily be found for Abbot Hereca. Eaba too may be inserted; since the new Monasticon Anglicanum in the place cited says it does not know in what year Daniel took up the government, while yet it is certain that St. Aldhelm, his predecessor, bishop of Sherborne in the year 705, continued for some time in the government: here are the words of the said Monasticon rendered into Latin: The time of his (Daniel's) promotion is not so certain as his successor Aldhelm II in the year 746 is certain. But, however these things may be, since, relying on no fit document, we do not dare to intercalate two abbots into the catalogue of Malmesbury, we prefer to unravel in some fashion the difficulty, which we do not wish to throw back upon the carelessness or ignorance of a copyist, by saying that Eaba and Hereca had two names, after the custom of that time and of their nation. For, to say nothing of St. Boniface, who had earlier been Wynfrith, and St. Willibrord, who was afterwards called Clement, because they received these names in foreign regions from foreigners, in England itself there were many with two names: thus St. Lioba or Leobgytha had another name, Trutgheba Acts of the Saints, vol. VII of September, p. 730, no. 12.; Heaburg is said in letter XXX Würdtwein, p. 73. Serarius XXXVIII. to have had the surname Bugge; and Trecea the deacon, writing to Lull, shining with the mitre of the episcopate, asks that he receive him with his household, who, he says, am called by my own name Aldbercht: letter CXVIII Ibid., p. 304. Serarius LXXIX.. These examples suffice to show that there were then various persons in England who were distinguished by a double name. For I do not wish to bring in here as an example our Lull himself, who in the letter of Abbot Hereca is called Irtel; for I judge that a jocular appellation which did not exceed the limits of domestic custom; for if this word were truly a surname, and accordingly equally known as the name itself, how could it be brought forward as a sign of a friendship which length of time could not obliterate? I remember this sign, that instead of your name he called you Irtel. Adrien Baillet therefore erred when he says that that was Lull's only name before his episcopate: for there exist various letters among those of Boniface in which, whether as monk, as deacon, or as priest, he is called by the single word Lull [Compare letters XXXV, LXXXV and CI. Würdtwein, p. 81, 245 and 271. Serarius V, CXLV and IV.].

[14] without his having inhabited another. The Louvain Butlerian Hagiography says that St. Lull passed from the monastery of Malmesbury to that of Jarrow, and there obtained the Venerable Bede as master. I think the conjecture is taken from nowhere else than from letter CXXIV among those of Boniface Würdtwein, p. 310. Serarius LXXXIX., in which Gutberct, disciple of Bede the priest, says that he received his little gifts, and the more gladly, he says, as I knew that you sent these with inmost affection of devotion, that is, you destined a silken cloth for the Relics of our master Bede of blessed memory, for the remembrance and veneration of him. These things indeed prove perhaps that the Venerable Bede was known by face to St. Lull, since there is question of his remembrance and veneration, but they in no way imply that he once lived under his discipline: which neither do the words which follow, of Bede our master, imply; they certainly admit an excellent interpretation, whether we understand that Gutberct spoke of himself alone when he uses the plural number, or say in this sense that Bede was a common master, inasmuch as he instructed not only those present by voice but also those absent by his writings. And that Gutberct is indeed to be understood in this sense is declared by what follows, in which he glories that he was nourished at his feet, and accordingly is a probable witness of his knowledge and virtue. If therefore St. Lull had also been brought up under the discipline of so great a master, Gutberct would have pressed the argument of his encomium much more strongly by saying that Lull himself had been nourished at the feet of so great a doctor, that he himself was a witness both of his learning and of his holiness. Moreover the house of ascetics of Malmesbury did not lack its school, and that a distinguished one; for St. Aldhelm had ruled it, to whom people ran, says William of Malmesbury in his Life at the 25th of May Acts of the Saints, vol. VI of May, p. 81, no. 10., by every path; these desiring holiness of life, those knowledge of letters. He himself testifies of himself in the same place Ibid., p. 79, no. 2.:

I first, returning to my homeland (if only life remain), Shall lead the Muses with me from the Aonian summit.

There was then dwelling in the same monastery Daniel, afterwards bishop of Winchester, whose learning St. Boniface valued so highly that he consulted him before others. Compare letters of Boniface XII, XIII and XIV Würdtwein, p. 30 and following. Serarius III, LXVII.. It is further not likely that a school illustrated by such great masters had no heirs of such great doctors, and fell at one blow just at the time when our Lull inhabited it a very few years later. His residence under Bede as teacher in the monastery of Jarrow seems therefore to be struck out.

[15] He received the diaconate before the German expedition. The same Hagiography asserts that St. Lull was ordained deacon by St. Boniface: which opinion John Mabillon, in the eulogy § V, and Adrien Baillet leave hanging before the judge. And not without reason: for it is far more probable that our Lull, already a deacon, migrated into Germany. This is testified first of all by the Erlangen addition at no. 4: Lull being still placed in the monastery, when he had already been ordained deacon, a certain noble flame blazed up: with which agrees the Breviary of Mainz in the lessons brought forward at no. 7. Both texts of the Life confirm the tradition of the church of Mainz at no. 3: Many whose faith he had proved and abounding river both of eloquence and of spiritual knowledge he (Boniface) thereupon called forth into the work of the Gospel. Such certainly St. Boniface wished as helpers, who should not need to be instructed but could instruct others; religious men, says Othlo in the Life of St. Boniface, book I, § XXX Joannis, Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, p. 221., imbued with various knowledge, he made many to come, and divided the burden of his labour among them. Among whom the chief men were Burchard and Lull, etc. These words designate the grown youth of Lull, and such as would be fit for receiving the diaconate, for which in England at that time an age of eighteen years sufficed, as is proved by the example of the Venerable Bede, who testifies of himself Acts of the Saints, vol. VI of May, p. 721, no. 4.: In the nineteenth year of my life I received the diaconate, in the thirtieth the degree of the priesthood, both through the ministry of the most reverend bishop John, at the order of Abbot Ceolfrid.

§ III. The deeds of St. Lull in Germany before his episcopate.

The epoch of the arrival is established Le Cointe, at the year of Christ 724, § XII Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks, vol. V, p. 708.: St. Lull, because, he says, he lived up to the year seven hundred and eighty-seven, we do not believe came to Boniface before the pontificate of Gregory the Third. This Gregory obtained the pontificate on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of March of the year 731: Mabillon in his Annals under the year of Christ 727, book XX, § LXXX Vol. II, p. 75., doubts about the time of St. Lull's arrival in Germany, saying: In their number (of the companions of St. Wigbert) Lull seems to have been… But whether their arrival in Germany happened in this year or a little later, namely after Boniface was created archbishop by Gregory the Third, the matter seems to me one of mere conjecture; for that Boniface is called archbishop in the aforesaid letter of Wigbert does not prove that he had already been expressly set over the see of Mainz; since he was sometimes called archbishop from his episcopal ordination made by Gregory II: with which title Daniel, bishop of Winchester, honours him in his reply to his third letter Würdtwein, p. 35. Serarius in the notes. (letter XIII). He therefore moderated the opinion which he had put forth in the eulogy of St. Lull, § IV, that he arrived in Germany about the year 732. This last opinion Baillet and the Louvain edition of Butler embrace. It seems to me much more probable that St. Lull's German journey is to be joined with about the twenty-fifth year of the eighth century than that we should put it off to the pontificate of Gregory the Third and accordingly after the year 731. For St. Lull came into Germany with St. Burchard, as we have from Othlo, cited above at no. 8. Now that Burchard went to the German regions while Gregory II was still alive, that is, before the year 731, has been shown by

our men in the Preliminary Commentary on his Life Acts of the Saints, vol. VI of October, p. 559, no. 7. at the 14th of October, so that it is not necessary to repeat their arguments here. That Lull was Burchard's companion of pilgrimage is shown also by the letter to Abbess Kanebada in England, among those of Boniface XXXV Würdtwein, p. 81. Serarius V.. For in this letter, to which are prefixed the initial notes Den. and L. and B., that is, as I interpret, Denwald, Lull and Burchard, to whom alone the initial letters fit, they give thanks that through her they passed over to the German nations. Of Lull indeed there can be no doubt, since in what follows it is said: I Lul and our father, namely St. Boniface. Further, let it suffice to have refuted what Le Cointe objects against the assigned epoch. Burchard, he says, when he gave himself over to the discipline of Boniface, was already a priest: this too our men admit at his Life Vol. VI of October, p. 560, no. 9.: And he lived up to the year of Christ 791. These things are established from his Life, which the monk Egilward wrote in two books. Indeed it is established from the contemporary St. Liudger, in the Life of St. Gregory of Utrecht Acts of the Saints, vol. V of August, p. 258, no. 14., that St. Burchard died before St. Boniface, and accordingly before the year 754: whence the machine built upon his decrepit age collapses. Our men also showed that Le Cointe's other objection is of no great moment Vol. VI of October, p. 559, no. 8., namely that nothing is read of Burchard from the time he came into the sight of Boniface until the same Boniface went to Pippin, mayor of the palace, Childeric being already king, that is, in the year of Christ 743. For that this assertion is false is shown at length by the commentator on the Life of St. Burchard, Jacques Bue.

[17] of St. Lull into Germany about the year 725. In the case of St. Lull Le Cointe himself admits that the difficulty is less: he therefore brings forward one thing, that he prolonged his life up to the year of Christ 786. But what, on this hypothesis, stands in the way of the more common opinion by which it is asserted that St. Lull came into Germany under the pontificate of Gregory II, I plainly do not see: we know from his letter to St. Gregory of Utrecht, among those of Boniface CIII Würdtwein, p. 274. Serarius XLV., that he was younger than Gregory, but not by much, as we shall see below at no. 34: and Gregory was born in the year of Christ 704, as our men prove in his Life Acts of the Saints, vol. V of August, p. 247, no. 31.. What then can prevent Lull from both living up to the said year and yet having come into Germany while Gregory II was ruling the Roman Church? Let us grant that he joined Boniface at twenty years of age and already a deacon; he could certainly at that not contemptible age render services, and prelude the apostolic labours with, as it were, lighter tasks. It is certain also that not only Othlo but also the contemporary writer of the Life, Willibald, binds to the pontificate of Gregory II the arrival of certain helpers from England Acts of the Saints, 5 June, p. 467, p. 37., among whom in Othlo, after Burchard, our Lull is read first. The opinion therefore is to be kept which antiquity has indicated to us, which can most rightly be harmonized with the other contemporary documents, which the very progress of the Christian Religion in Germany also urges upon us: for it does not seem likely that St. Boniface, a bishop in the year 723, when all things of the Catholic faith were prospering, waited nine years before he consented to his English companions coming to help him. Wherefore, although the pontificate of Gregory II runs on to the beginning of the year 731, our predecessors nevertheless preferred to join the arrival of St. Lull and his companions with the year 725, reckoning that Boniface, consecrated bishop on the day before the Kalends of December in the 23rd year of the same century, had nothing more at heart than to share the apostolic labour among his fellow countrymen. These things, I think, suffice for us to defend solidly the opinion which we have borrowed from the Preliminary Commentary of the Life of St. Burchard.

[18] Made priest in Germany, St. Lull, when he came to St. Boniface about the twenty-fifth year of the eighth century, can scarcely have exceeded the twentieth year of his age, inasmuch as he was younger than Gregory of Utrecht, who had been born in the fourth year of the same century, as he himself admits in letter CIII among those of Boniface Würdtwein, p. 274. Serarius XLV.. Hence it is established that he ministered in the rank of the diaconate for at least ten years. According to the custom, therefore, of those times, which required thirty years for the priesthood, he obtained the priesthood about the year of Christ 735. To the times, therefore, in which he discharged the diaconal office are to be referred those letters among those of Boniface in which he is called minister by others, or himself subscribes with that name. Such is the hundred and first Ibid., p. 271. Serarius IV., addressed: To the most reverend brother Dealwine, long since master, Lul, unworthy deacon, discharging the office of the diaconate without the prerogative of merits. Whether, after he had called himself deacon, by the words discharging the office of the diaconate without the prerogative of merits he wished to insinuate something special, namely that he was archdeacon of St. Boniface, as we shall see below, it is useless to inquire here. After he had commended himself to Dealwine's prayers, he says: The sending of paltry little gifts accompanies this note, sent with a mind not so much worthy as devoted. It was the custom of those times, as can be seen everywhere in the Bonifacian letters, to send little gifts as a sign of friendship, wherefore they were for the most part rather slight. Here they seem to have been earthenware vessels, if one may conjecture from the verses subjoined to the letter. But in return he asks that he would deign to send him some little works of Bishop Aldhelm, whether in prose or in metre or in rhythm, for the consolation of his pilgrimage and for the memory of the blessed bishop. The memory which Lull here has of Bl. Aldhelm is not to be referred to a personal acquaintance with the holy bishop, since he was four years old when he died, but because, as a monk of Malmesbury, taught by the disciples of Aldhelm, he had very often heard his praises from the mouth of Dealwine himself.

[19] the dignity of archdeacon until his episcopate Another letter, which is CII Ibid., p. 272. Serarius XXXIX, is addressed to Lull himself: To the illustrious and most dear minister of God Lulla, Ingalice, your unworthy priest, yet in all things devoted servant. He gives thanks for the letters and little gifts, and then consoles him as one placed in tribulation, and promises the prayers both of himself and of the whole congregation or monastery: finally he offers him very small little gifts, that is, he says, four little knives made after our custom, and a silver calamister and one napkin. John Lingard, in his book on the Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, chap. IV Antiquités de l'Église Anglo-Saxonne, p. 179, French edition, shows that the ancient monks in England gave themselves to various crafts, and that even bishops themselves sometimes did not disdain to put their hand to arts of this kind. The calamister which he joins to the knives was more probably made by the work of Ingalice. Yet lest, reader, while you read calamister, that iron needle by which hair is curled should come before your mind; for such an instrument was surely not used by the most holy clerics and monks of that time, whose tonsure shaved off almost all their hair; but understand calamister as a tube (compare Facciolati), which could be used for drinking, a golden one of which the Roman Pontiffs still use today for drinking the sacred blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. But what Mappa signifies here is difficult to track down, since it can indicate every kind of cloth for manifold uses. Ingalice's letter is followed by CII Würdtwein, p. 273. Serarius XLVI., which is addressed: To the sister in Christ most dear, Leobgytha, Lull, the least servant of the disciples, by the authority of the Lord Boniface. But this letter seems to belong rather to the time of his episcopate, both because it brings in the authority of the disciples of St. Boniface, and above all because it promises her liberal help in all necessities, which he asks to be indicated to him through Gundwin the deacon: and since he asks that Lioba suggest to the same man that he should not grow weary in his labours, because very rare is he who is willing to share his tribulations with him, I judge that this fits most aptly the controversy which afterwards arose between SS. Lull and Sturm, of which we shall have to treat more at length below.

[20] he seems to have kept; Although the letter to Dealwine and the other of Ingalice designate Lull as deacon, it is not, however, clearly established that they were therefore written before the year 735, in which we think he was ordained priest. For it is certain that, although a priest, he nevertheless administered and retained the office of archdeacon until he was appointed bishop of Mainz by his master Boniface. This is shown above all by the letter of Theophylact, himself also a deacon of the Roman Church, among those of Boniface XCV, in the following words Ibid., p. 265. Serarius CXLVII.: We beseech your ambrosial goodness from God that you deign in every way to cherish for God's sake, and to hold commended for the friendship of our littleness, the most holy and to himself exceedingly beloved Lull, the blessed, your archdeacon, our most dear and most beloved companion and brother. For our love in him is assured, because he ministers with faithful and pleasant services to your kindly paternity, adorned with great mitres: and for this reason, our knee likewise bent, we beseech your togaed prudence that you disdain not that he have a much ampler recompense. It is wholly certain to me that Theophylact, whom John Mabillon in § V suspects to be the maternal uncle of St. Lull, here asks the pontifical mitre for his client; for what recompense could be repaid to an archdeacon, that is, to the dignity second after the bishop, except that he should at some time ascend the principal chair, and that indeed of Mainz: Boniface would surely not have wished to be deprived of his Lull. I suspect this letter was written in the year of Christ 748, in which Pope Zachary gave St. Boniface power to elect and consecrate his successor, letter LXXXII Ibid., p. 240. Serarius CXL.. Then Theophylact rightly asked that Boniface would deign in every way to cherish and hold commended Lull, his archdeacon. And indeed that Lull was a priest already in that year, namely 748, no one, I think, will easily call into controversy; this at least is established, that three years later, when he came to Rome in the year 751, he is called priest, as we have from letters LXXXVI and LXXXVII Ibid., p. 246 and 257. Serarius CXLI and CXLII. written by St. Boniface.

[21] He was a helper to St. Boniface These things abundantly show that St. Lull was the bishop's chief minister, and a sharer also of all his secrets, as we have from his embassy to Pope Zachary. Hence Würdtwein Letters of Boniface, p. 101. rightly concludes that Lull, the ordinary companion of St. Boniface, was present at all the councils celebrated by him. Of which the first the same Würdtwein contends

in the place cited, as do Harzheim Councils of Germany, vol. I, p. 52 and 342. and Anton Joseph Binterim Pragmatische Geschichte der Deutschen Concilien, vol. II, p. 17., was celebrated in Bavaria in the year of Christ 740. Others on the contrary, among whom Antoine Pagi Critique of Baronius at the year 742, § VII. and Giovanni Domenico Mansi Supplement of the Councils, vol. I, p. 551. are eminent, will have it that this Bavarian council is to be put off to the 42nd or even the 43rd year of the eighth century. To me indeed it seems that we must not depart from the opinion of the former on account of the reasons brought forward by Antoine Pagi and Giovanni Domenico Mansi, which Joseph Harzheim in the place cited has excellently dissolved. In place of the chief argument for me is the letter of Pope Gregory III among those of Boniface XLVI Würdtwein, p. 99. Serarius CXXX., given on the fourth day before the Kalends of November, the most pious Augustus Leo reigning, in the 23rd year of his empire, and also Constantine the great emperor, his son, in the 20th year, in the 8th indiction, that is, in the year of the common era 739. In this letter the pontiff confirms the division of Bavaria into four dioceses, and the ordination of three bishops, to whom the several dioceses should be committed, Vivilo or Vivilo being already bishop of Passau. To these things he adds: But as to the council, which you are to celebrate beside the bank of the Danube in our stead, we command your fraternity by apostolic authority to present yourself there. We have here an apostolic precept, which St. Boniface, most observant in all things of the apostolic See, surely did not resist. Nor let Charles Martel be objected, as if while he lived synods could not be celebrated: for these things concern the Austrasian Franks, nor indeed are they to be turned into a fault of Charles, as our Henschenius showed at length in the Preliminary Commentary to the Life of St. Eucherius of Orléans at the 20th day of February, §§ III, IV and V Acts of the Saints, vol. III of February, p. 211., whom Charles Le Cointe then followed at the year 741, § XXXVIII, and J. J. Raepsaet in the Vindication of Charles Martel Works, vol. I, p. 287.. I would rather believe that the synods were omitted on account of the civil wars which long disturbed Austrasia, and from which a huge relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline arose of its own accord.

[22] in celebrating councils: For the rest, at this first German council, besides the bishops of Bavaria, there were present also those bishops of Alemannia to whom the letter of Gregory III was addressed, namely Wiggo of Augsburg, Luido of Speyer; to whom would have to be added Ridolt or Rudolf II of Constance, had he not departed this life in the same year Trudpert Neugart, Bishops of Constance, p. 74.. Joseph Harzheim and Anton Joseph Binterim, in the place cited, doubt indeed of the presence of the Alemannian bishops, but I do not see for what reason; for we have the same foundation as for the council, namely the letters of Gregory III: as therefore from letter XLVI we conclude that some council was celebrated in Bavaria in the year of Christ 740, so also from letter XLV of the same Pontiff it must be said that bishops from Alemannia were present. We have deliberately omitted the name of Adda or Etho, bishop of Strasbourg, because it is lacking in the best codices. There is no need here to review the remaining synods celebrated by St. Boniface, at which we think our Lull was present as the inseparable companion and archdeacon of his bishop; since no difficulties occur in them which the praised writers have not solved. Let it be permitted to note one thing here, that we fully agree with the celebrated Binterim in interpreting the saying of Willibald in the Life of St. Boniface at the 5th of June Acts of the Saints, vol. I of June, p. 468, no. 44.: The bishops and priests, deacons and clerics, and every ecclesiastical rank coming together into one, whom Duke Carloman of illustrious memory caused to be summoned under the rule of his kingdom, the fifth synodal council was held. This fifth council is not, as Harzheim insinuates Vol. I of the Councils of Germany, p. 345., the synod of Soissons celebrated in the year 744, nor, as Giovanni Mansi will have it Supplement of the Councils, vol. I, p. 557., the German one of the year 747; for each is referred to Pippin alone, no mention being made of Carloman, as is plain from the preamble of Soissons Harzheim in the place cited, p. 57. and from the letter of Pope Zachary among those of Boniface LXXIV Würdtwein, p. 202. Serarius CXXXIX.. Another synod therefore must be sought which was celebrated under Carloman: nor does any other occur to us than the German one of uncertain place of the year 742 and that of Les Estinnes of the following year. And we judge that Willibald here chiefly points at the German one, because in that synod the marks indicated in Willibald's text seem to us to concur. There came together all the bishops with the priests established in the kingdom of Carloman, and indeed to give counsel how the law of God and ecclesiastical religion might be recovered, which in the days of past princes had been scattered and had collapsed, and how the Christian people might come to the salvation of the soul and, deceived by false priests, might not perish. So the German council. But in Willibald, after the things which the first four ecumenical councils effected in condemning Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius and Eutyches have been narrated, there is added: Thus in France, all the perfidy of heretics being utterly rooted out and the conspiracy of the wicked extirpated, the increases of the divine law were augmented and the synodal canons of the general councils were received. What he calls the fifth council, therefore, does not so much indicate the order of the synods celebrated by Boniface as a certain comparison of this German synod with the four ecumenical councils, of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon.

[23] and in carrying out embassies. We have already said at num. 21 that St. Lull discharged an embassy to Pope Zachary. In it matters of the greatest moment were concerned, which St. Boniface did not wish to commit even to letters. For writing to the Pontiff he has this in letter LXXXVI Ibid., p. 246. Serarius CXLI.: I beseech the holiness of your paternal goodness with humble prayers that you kindly receive with grateful mind this priest of mine, the bearer of my letters, named Lul. For he has certain secrets which he must confess to your goodness alone; some to tell you by living voice, some to show noted in letters, to inquire and ask about certain necessities of mine, and to bring back to me the answer and counsel of your paternity, from the authority of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, for the solace of my old age, so that, all these things having been heard and considered, if there are any things done which please you, I may strive to increase them: but if anything, as is to be feared, displeases, I may by the precept of your apostolate either merit indulgence or perform a worthy penance. This mission took place in the year of Christ 751, as we have from the reply of Zachary, given on the day before the Nones of November, in the reign of the Lord most pious Augustus Constantine, great emperor crowned by God, in the 32nd year, the eleventh year of his empire (namely from the death of his father Leo the Isaurian), in the fifth Indiction. By the same embassy a most ample privilege is said to have been obtained for the monastery of Fulda, which St. Boniface had founded. But of this privilege it will be more fitting to treat below, when the treatment of the controversy between SS. Lull and Sturm recurs, § VI. From what has been said thus far it is plain that the life of St. Lull was most laborious, and accordingly that the fragment of a Chronicle in Canisius Thesaurus Monumentorum, vol. IV, p. 754., in which it is narrated that our Saint remained, intrepid in glorious works, in the Bavarian village of Ilmmünster, deserves no credence: which indeed the Benedictine Year, written by Aegidius Ranbeck Calendarium Annale Benedictinum, vol. IV, p. 129., approves by its reckoning; but our Lull had neither the time nor the occasion to create for himself a similar leisure. If therefore it were certainly established that the founder of the monastery of Ilm was some Saint Lull, it would have to be said that he was some namesake.

§ IV. Through the agency of St. Boniface, St. Lull is created archbishop of Mainz.

St. Boniface obtains from the Pope the power That Redger succeeded St. Boniface, says Serarius Joannis, Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, p. 371., is related by the epitome of Bede. But histories, books, catalogues, martyrologies and all breviaries cry out against it. Nor is there any mention of any Redger after St. Boniface: but all things proclaim Bl. Lull as his successor. Moreover this, whether fable or the yawning of some copyist, will be abundantly refuted through the whole series of the story. Already in the year 742 St. Boniface, in letter L Würdtwein, p. 107. Serarius CXXXII., had asked of Pope Zachary that he might choose a successor for himself; for the cited letter has this: That there may be leave of your authority that, with the counsel of the servants of God, I may do concerning that election (of his successor in the see of Mainz) what shall seem best to us in common, for God and for the advantage or spiritual fruit of the Church and the defence of religion, that I may have your consent to do what God shall deign to inspire me to be best: because this does not seem able to be done if the prince be opposed. To this petition Zachary replies in the following letter, given on the Kalends of April, in the reign of… Constantine… in the 24th year of his empire Compare Würdtwein, note, p. 116.: But as to your having asked to appoint a successor for yourself, that while you live a bishop be elected in your place: this we by no means suffer to be granted: because it is shown to be against every ecclesiastical rule and the institutions of the Fathers: but we will that he minister to you and be a helper in the Gospel, the Apostle saying: "If anyone shall have ministered well, he shall acquire for himself a good degree." For it is manifest that it is exceedingly reprehensible and detestable that, while you live, we should substitute another for you… But if the divine clemency shall have willed that the same man survive after the day of your passing, if you shall have known him fit and it shall have been determined in your will, at the hour at which you shall know that you are about to depart from the present world, all being present, designate a successor for yourself, that he may come here to be ordained: which we suffer to be granted to no other, which we have judged, charity compelling, to bestow upon you.

[25] of substituting a successor for himself; St. Boniface seems to have besought the same favour through St. Burchard, his disciple, about the beginning of the year 748: for the same pontiff, by letters given on the Kalends of May in the reign of… Constantine… in the 29th year… in the first indiction, among those of Boniface LXXXII Würdtwein, p. 240. Serarius CXL., at length grants what he had so ardently requested. You asked, says Zachary, that with our counsel, on account of the old age coming upon you and the full age of your days, and the weakness of your body, if you could find another, you should place him in the same see over which you preside in place of your person; but that you, most dear one, should be legate and envoy, as you have been, of the apostolic see. But we, God helping, give counsel to your reverend holiness that, for the salvation of rational souls, Christ favouring, you by no means leave the see which you hold of the Holy Church of Mainz, that the Lord's precept may be fulfilled in you: "He who shall have persevered to the end, he shall be saved." But if, if the Lord shall have granted according to your

petition a perfect man who can have solicitude and care for the salvation of souls, you shall ordain him bishop in place of your person; and you shall be in the Gospel entrusted to you and in carrying the ministry of Christ, seeking out and strengthening the Church of God in every place. From these and the other letters cited above it is clear that St. Boniface did not have it in mind to leave the see of Mainz at once, but only then when the advantage of the Church should require it: it should not seem strange, therefore, that that design was put off to another year. It is also worthy of notice that the title and dignity of legate remained with Boniface, which accordingly, when he died, was extinguished.

[26] wherefore through Fulrad he solicits Already in the letters cited above at no. 24 Boniface had expressed his fear lest the election of a successor should suffer most grievous difficulties if the prince were opposed: to avert this evil he addressed a letter to St. Fulrad, abbot of Saint-Denis and arch-chaplain of King Pippin Würdtwein, p. 260. Serarius XCII., that he, who with St. Burchard of Würzburg had discharged with Pope Zachary the embassy by which the royal name was sought for Pippin, mayor of the palace, should now intercede with the king in the cause of the election of his successor and in the due establishment of the German Church. Here is the letter: For the spiritual friendship of your brotherly love, which you have often shown in my necessities out of regard for God, I cannot pay worthy thanks as great as you have merited: but I beseech almighty God that He repay you eternally the rewards of recompense on the lofty summit of the heavens in the joy of the Angels. But now in the name of Christ I beseech that what you have begun with a good beginning you may finish with a good end, that is, that you greet in my name our glorious and lovable king Pippin, and render him great thanks for all the works of goodness which he has done with me, and that you report to him what seems likewise to me and my friends, that I must soon finish this temporal life and the course of my days through these infirmities. Therefore I beseech the highness of our king, for the name of Christ the Son of God, that he deign to indicate and command to me now while living, concerning my disciples, what recompense he will afterwards make concerning them. For almost all are foreigners, some priests, appointed in many places to the ministry of the Church and of the peoples: some are monks in our little cells, and children are set to reading (to be read?) letters. And some elders who, living with me a long time, have laboured and helped me. For all these I am solicitous, that after my death they be not lost: but that they may have the counsel of your recompense and the patronage of your highness, and be not scattered as sheep having no shepherd: and that the peoples near the march of the pagans may not lose the law of Christ. Therefore I diligently beseech the clemency of your Kindliness in God's name that you cause my little son and fellow bishop Lull, if God will and if it so please your clemency, to be set and appointed in this ministry of the peoples and churches, as preacher and teacher of priests and peoples. And I hope, if God will, that in him the priests may have a master, and the monks a regular teacher, and the Christian peoples a faithful preacher and pastor. I ask this especially to be done because my priests near the march of the pagans have a very poor life. They can get bread to eat, but they cannot find clothing there unless they have counsel and a helper from elsewhere, that they may be able to sustain and endure (remain) in those places for the ministry of the people, in the same way as I have helped them. And if the goodness of Christ shall have inspired this in you, and you will consent to and do this which I ask, deign to command and indicate this to me through these my present envoys, or through letters of your goodness, that I may live or die the more joyful in your recompense.

[27] the royal consent, This letter shows how great was then the authority of kings in the election of bishops: indeed, before he ascended the throne Pippin had already exercised the same authority. For in the council of Soissons of the year of Christ 744, to which the name of Pippin, duke and prince of the Franks, is prefixed so that the decrees of the priests might obtain the force of law among the peoples, we read in canon III Harzheim, Councils of Germany, vol. I, p. 58.: Therefore we have established by the counsel of the priests and of their nobles, and have ordained bishops throughout the cities. Similar things had been said by Carloman, he too duke and prince of the Franks, in the German council of the year 742, canon I Ibid., p. 49.. This authority passed to the Carolingian kings, as we have from letter LXXXI of Lupus, abbot of Ferrières Dom Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 486.: Our lord (Charles the Bald) has ordered us to suggest this to your prudence, that it is not new or rash that he procures bishops from the palace for the more honourable Churches especially. For Pippin, from whom through the very great Charles and the most religious Louis, Emperors, our king draws his origin, having set forth the necessity of this kingdom to Zachary, the Roman Pope, in a synod at which the Martyr Boniface was present, received his consent that, as bishops died, he should remedy the bitterness of the times by the industry of men most approved by him: lest perhaps through the simplicity of bishops there should happen what came about in this city of the Aedui, the care of which now exercises us. Rightly therefore does St. Boniface employ Fulrad, the king's chaplain, as intercessor, that he might be able to set his disciple Lull in the see of Mainz.

[28] that, ill health pressing, There was then pressing (namely in the year 752, since Pippin was not saluted king before this time) that infirmity which he had foreseen when he asked of Zachary licence to ordain his successor in his own lifetime. There is no doubt that that assent was granted, as Willibald clearly says in his Life Acts of the Saints, vol. I of June, p. 469, no. 47.: But since the holy man, weighed down by infirmity of body, could not attend the synodal assemblies of the councils in every respect, now by the advice and counsel of the glorious king (Pippin) he determined to propose a fit minister for the aforesaid flock, and appointed his Lull, a disciple of ingenious disposition, to instruct the great number of so great a people, and advanced and ordained him to the rank of the episcopate, and involved him in the inheritance which he had acquired in Christ by earnest labour, who was both the faithful companion in the Lord of his pilgrimage and the witness on both sides of his passion and consolation. The author of the third or more recent Life of St. Boniface among our men Ibid., p. 482, no. 5. adds one thing, namely that Lull was elected and consecrated bishop of Mainz in a synod of bishops: Amid most grievous laments of sorrow (on account of the death of St. Willibrord the bishop) and sighs of deep groaning, it met him in mind that he ought as soon as possible to gather a synod. Without delay, the bishops coming together into one, and the whole choir of the ecclesiastical order, with the consent of them all and with the decree of King Pippin, who then, his brother Carloman being dead, had been made king, he chose for himself Lul, a venerable man, as successor of the see of Mainz, and appointed the venerable Sturim abbot in the monastery of Fulda, enjoining him to bear the care of the flock committed. To Willibald indeed he commended the rule of the pastoral office in the place of Heystede, and to Burchard he delegated the diocese of the same city at Würzburg. Wigbert too he appointed governor of the brethren in the monastery which is called Hersfeld. These things too Bl. Boniface, the future martyr, like a wise architect, disposed in all respects: and, taking some brethren with him, boarding a ship, he came as far as Utrecht.

[29] he may be able to consecrate Lull as successor; We have unfolded the text of the Anonymous a little more at length, that it may be clear that here everything is narrated very confusedly: first of all Willibald, the primary author of the Bonifacian Life, attributes the departure of St. Boniface and the election of his successor not to the death of St. Willibrord, but to the fact that, weighed down by infirmity of body, he could not attend the synodal assemblies of the councils in every respect. And deservedly indeed: since all who defer the death of St. Willibrord as far as possible nevertheless do not dare to assert that he lived beyond the year of Christ 746: and it is incredible that those most grievous laments of sorrow and sighs of deep groaning lasted for at least six years. Then the cited Anonymous speaks in the same manner of the institution of the bishops Willibald and Burchard and of the ordination of Lull, whereas these things happened at wholly different times. That Burchard, for example, had already received the episcopal mitre in the year of Christ 741, our predecessors showed in the Preliminary Commentary of his Life Acts of the Saints, vol. VI of October, p. 562, no. 14.. For the rest, I would not by these things weaken what the Anonymous says about the synod held for ratifying the ordination of our Lull: for this Zachary had prescribed in his former letter on this business, brought forward above at no. 24, when he wishes that Boniface should designate a successor for himself with all present. Nor is this weakened by the fact that the licence is granted only for that hour at which he should know that he was about to depart from the present world, for the words brought forward designate a death near, whether by infirmity or by old age; in which last case there was certainly sufficient time to gather a synod. Then the very extraordinary way by which our Lull was to ascend the see of Mainz urged the celebration of a council, in which numerous bishops should confirm what was to be done outside the order of the canons.

[30] which indeed in the year of Christ 754 The year in which St. Lull was ordained bishop depends wholly on the time of the departure of St. Boniface into Frisia and of his martyrdom: and that he went into Frisia indeed a second time, leaving Germany, we have from the Life of St. Sturm Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 372.: In the tenth year, says Eigil, fourth abbot of Fulda and a contemporary author, after he (Sturm) moved to the holy place, the holy archbishop Boniface, having taken counsel with the king and the other Christians, entered the further places of the Frisians, given over to pagan rite, and gained there a huge multitude of men for the Lord by teaching and baptizing. Moving thence after a long time, he came safe to his churches in Germany. But in the following year he had come again to the watery fields of the Frisians, desiring to fulfil the work of preaching begun. When he had come there, and one day had called the people together to his teaching, they came each from his own place, not as if humbly to hear the word of the Lord, but, puffed up with a malign spirit, with hostile arms they rush upon the sacred feasts of the Lord's word, and slew the holy bishop of Christ with the sword, and killed all his company with swords. Willibald narrates only one departure to the Frisian nations, because, having discharged the apostolic office in Germany, St. Boniface had decided to spend what remained of his strength on converting Frisia. But Eigil, who had lived with St. Sturm, whose Life he wrote, since he distinguishes a twofold departure, is wholly to be admitted.

[31] we suppose happened: Nevertheless, that St. Lull was consecrated bishop before the first departure of St. Boniface is urged upon us first of all by the silence of Willibald, who would surely have distinguished the two departures if the ordination of Lull had fallen between them. But now comes the question

to which year of the common era the tenth year of the founded monastery of Fulda, of which Eigil treats, is to be attached. Le Cointe wholly contends that the chronology of the monastery of Fulda is to be woven from the year of Christ 745, because between its foundation and the slaying of St. Boniface, which took place in the year of Christ 755 Pagi, Critique at this year, § XV and following, he interposes ten full years. But for us the authority of Eigil, contemporary with the things which he narrates, is weightier: and he, in the said Life of St. Sturm Pertz, vol. II, p. 370., says in express words: In the year of the Incarnation of Christ seven hundred and forty-four, there reigning in this nation of the Franks two brothers, Carloman and Pippin, in the twelfth indiction, in the first month (namely March), on the twelfth day of the same month, he entered the holy place long since predestined by God. From this year, therefore, it is not permitted to move the beginning of Fulda: for we have here a witness both contemporary and domestic, greater than every exception. And Le Cointe can weaken this testimony the less, because the ten years on which he builds his chronology he borrowed from Eigil himself, from the text brought forward in the preceding number.

[32] not, however, From this same text Pagi Critique of Baronius at the year 753, § VI. entered upon another reckoning. From this, namely, that in the tenth year of the foundation of Fulda St. Boniface made ready his first departure into Frisia, he concludes that it is to be referred to the spring time of the year 753, and accordingly that the ordination of St. Lull is also to be attached to this year. These things indeed would proceed rightly, were they not opposed by what the same Eigil says, that the Saint in the following year again came from Germany to the watery fields of the Frisians: for the following year can be no other, in Pagi's judgment, than that of Christ 755, in which he underwent martyrdom. For he judges that St. Boniface was already archbishop of Utrecht when, at his petition, King Pippin gave the diploma by which he confirmed all the possessions of the Church of Utrecht, which was given in the month of May on the 23rd day, in the second year of the reign of that glorious king Compare Miraeus, Diplomata Belgica, vol. I, p. 494.. But I think this conclusion illegitimate; for Boniface already had some administration of the Church of Utrecht long before the Frisian departure, as he himself testifies in letter CV Würdtwein, p. 278. Serarius XCVII., addressed to Pope Stephen II. The bishop of Cologne was claiming the metropolitan right over the people of Utrecht after the death of St. Willibrord: Boniface opposed himself to the claim, and deservedly, since the care of this Church lay upon him: Wilbrord, he says, preaching for fifty years, converted the aforesaid nation of the Frisians for the greatest part to the faith of Christ, destroyed the fanes and shrines, and built churches, and establishing an episcopal see and a church in honour of the Holy Saviour in the place and fortress which is called Trajectum, and in that see and church of the Holy Saviour which he built he remained preaching until feeble old age: and he substituted for himself a fellow bishop to fulfil the ministry, and, the days of his long life being ended, he passed to the Lord in peace. And Carloman, prince of the Franks, commended to me a bishop to be established and ordained in that see, which I also did. But now the bishop of Cologne usurps to himself that see of the aforesaid bishop Clement (that is, Willibrord), ordained by Pope Sergius, and says it belongs to him on account of the foundations of a certain church destroyed by the pagans.

[33] as Pagi will have it, We see from this letter that at least from the year 747, in which Carloman ceased to be prince of the Franks, the care of the Church of Utrecht had been committed to Boniface, over which he set an administrator rather than a bishop, whether that was Eoban or rather St. Gregory. It is no wonder, therefore, that the holy bishop Boniface sought from King Pippin confirmation of the possessions of the Church of Utrecht, and that in the diploma given the church of St. Martin is said to be Boniface's. But in what sense it belonged to him is explained by the words of the same diploma, in which the king says: The house of God of St. Martin, over which we have granted and confirm that the lord archbishop Boniface preside as GUARDIAN. Not, therefore, as bishop, but as guardian or administrator, did St. Boniface preside over the church of St. Martin: wherefore it is confirmed that he went into Frisia not in the year 753, but rather in the following. Pagi, in order to reconcile the Frisian departure of the year 53 with the slaying of the holy bishop, perpetrated in the year 55 of the same eighth century, says that he returned into Frisia in the year 754, perhaps in autumn time, and accordingly passed the winter there, which certainly can be hammered out of the text of Eigil by no industry. When he had come there, he says, and one day had called the people together … they came … and slew the holy bishop of Christ with the sword. Which things square excellently if St. Boniface underwent martyrdom a short time after his second arrival; but in no way if he wintered in Frisia: for Eigil, who had accurately distinguished the twofold departure, and had sketched at least in brief words the things done in the first arrival, has nothing at all of the things which the Saint would have done in the autumn and the whole winter up to the 5th day of June: wherefore this reticence does not agree with the sequence of the narrative.

[34] in the year 753. We prefer therefore so to attach the first departure into Frisia to the tenth year of the founded monastery of Fulda as nevertheless to reach the year of Christ 754. Eigil himself, in the words brought forward above, has it that the departure was made ready, counsel having been taken with the king and the other Christians. It seems to me very probable that that counsel was held in the Field of March, in which the chief affairs of the kingdom were treated. That assembly was celebrated on the Kalends of March, until in the 55th year of the same century it was put off to the Kalends of May, whence the name of Maicampus or Campomadius and Campomajus clung to it. It is read in the Annals of Petau Dom Bouquet, vol. V, p. 13.: 755. Tassilo came to the Field of Mars, and they changed the Field of Mars to the month of May. And that the general affairs of the kingdom were treated in the Field of March we have from the Annals of the Franks of Metz Ibid., vol. II, p. 680.. It seems to me, therefore, that on the Kalends of March of the year 754, and therefore while the tenth year of the founded monastery of Fulda was still running, the bishops and nobles came together, that then the election of Lull was approved, and his ordination celebrated in a council of bishops. In this way all things flow rightly in Eigil's narrative, and we also have accurately thirty-two full years, during which, as we shall see below, he continued in the episcopate, having died, namely, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of November of the year 786. St. Lull, therefore, ordained bishop in the year of Christ 754, was nearer to the fiftieth year of his age: which is confirmed also both from the epoch of his arrival in Germany (above no. 16 and following) and from the canonical rule flourishing among the Angles, which required the fiftieth year for the episcopate, as we have from Willibald's Life of St. Boniface Acts of the Saints, 5 June, p. 465, no. 26., who refused the episcopate because he had not yet fully reached the fiftieth year, according to the norm of canonical rectitude. We know, however, that this rule was not always kept by St. Boniface, as is shown by the example of St. Willibald, who, at forty-one years of age, was set over the see of Eichstätt Vol. II of July, p. 491..

§ V. St. Lull translates the body of St. Boniface the Martyr to the monastery of Fulda.

The Relics of St. Boniface, The first care, and that at once mournful and glorious, that held our Lull as bishop was that of translating to Fulda the body of his holy master and Martyr. He himself had designated the place of burial; for he had commanded his successor Vol. I of June, p. 470, no. 48. to complete the building of the basilica already begun at Fulda, and to bring there his body, grown old with many courses of years. The order of this burial we shall relate here, at least according to its chief heads, both because all things were carried out at the command of our Lull, and especially because from the difference of the narrative it shines out that Eigil, the other author of the narrative, set forth the manner of acting of St. Lull with too unfair a mind. First we bring forward Willibald Ibid., p. 472, no. 56.: From Mainz religious and faithful brethren in the Lord, sent by ship by Lull the bishop, the successor indeed of this holy bishop and Martyr of Christ, to bring the body of the blessed man to the monastery which he had built while he lived, and which is situated beside the bank of the river which is called Fulda, arrived (at Utrecht)… The prefect of that city, in their hearing, thundered forth a prohibition, as an edict had gone forth from the glorious King Pippin [Pippin was then in Italy; accordingly the prefect had proclaimed it in the king's name.]; and it was proclaimed that the body of the aforesaid bishop should not be removed from there. But since the strength of the Almighty prevails more than that of men, there was at once heard by all the bystanders a wonderful and memorable miracle, accomplished by angelic rather than human knowledge; and the bell (the bronze bell) of the church, as a sign of admonition concerning the holy body, no human hand touching it, was set in motion: so that all, struck by a sudden dread of fear, were astonished with the greatest fear, and proclaimed that the body of this just man must be given up. And so it was at once given up, and was honourably carried away by the aforesaid brethren of holy memory with psalms and hymns, and without the labour of rowers was brought on the thirtieth day of his death to the aforesaid city of Mainz… But the aforesaid lord bishop too, the successor of so venerable a dignity, who at that time was present at the royal palace, wholly ignorant of this cause and unaware of the arrival of the holy body, came to the city which we have mentioned as if at one and the same moment of the hour… Pricked in their hearts, with the priests and deacons and every ecclesiastical rank, they brought him to the place which he had foreordained while living, and, a new sarcophagus having been made in the church, they laid him, burying him according to custom. So Willibald.

[36] against the will of the people of Utrecht and of Mainz, Othlo, in the Life of St. Boniface, book III, chap. XXVII Joannis, Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, p. 272., changes some things somewhat. He insinuates that the edict of King Pippin was a fable. Because they (the people of Utrecht) saw that they could not contend with the multitude of those arriving, they testified that it had been ordered by King Pippin that the body of St. Boniface should not be taken away from there. But the envoys (of Mainz), judging this rather feigned than true, pressed with all their strength in the cause for which they had come, virtue, namely, strengthening and helping them, so that they might obtain their wish. There follows the miracle of the bell sounding without human motion, terrified by which those who had gathered for a fight decided that the body of the holy man must be given up. Othlo adds another thing, omitted by Willibald: Namely, the pledge of so great a treasure having been received, there were very many at Mainz who judged that the body of the holy man ought to be buried there where he had been bishop, affirming that this is the right of all churches, that where anyone has had his episcopal see, there also he should be buried. And the contention of some who affirmed this so far prevailed that St. Lull almost consented to their counsel, had not St. Boniface appeared in a vision to a certain deacon who was called Otpert, saying:

"Tell Bishop Lull to translate my body without any hesitation to the place of my monastery." And when many, hearing this command, did not at all believe it, Bishop Lull, the Relics of the Saints having been brought, ordered Otpert to prove by oath whether his vision were true. And he, doubting nothing, fulfilled the orders, proved the vision by oath… With such joy, therefore, he was brought to the place of the monastery of Fulda, in which he himself had very often wished to be buried, and very often had commended this to be accomplished by the blessed bishop Lull. Who also, striving to the utmost to fulfil his petition, with due veneration gives back to the earth what was its own.

[37] to the monastery of Fulda Othlo, though later in time, is followed by Eigil, contemporary with Willibald. In the Life of his master St. Sturm Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 372. he has these things: But the holy Martyr willed that his body should be carried to the place in the solitude which he himself by God's will had chosen for himself, which at once became clear. For when they wished to carry it to the other church (the greater one of Utrecht), and to place it there in a sarcophagus, approaching, they put their hands to the bier and could not lift it; very many others joining themselves to them, not even so could they move the bier in which the holy body lay. They understood therefore that it was not his will that he should remain in the same place; but they declared that he ought to be carried to the city of Mainz. At once, lifting the litter without any difficulty, and carrying it to the river and placing it on the vessel, they began to draw the ship along the bed of the Rhine and to make for the upper parts. Which being heard, Sturm from the monastery of Fulda, established in the wilderness, took care to come to meet them with haste, and went on together with them until by a prosperous and easy passage they came to the city of Mainz. The priests at once and all the clergy of that city, coming up and taking the body of the holy Martyr, placed it with honour in their basilica. All the priests and clerics and the whole people then said with one voice that it was not right that the holy Martyr of God should be carried to another place; but where he had had his episcopal see while living, there too he ought to rest in body. Moreover there came also from the palace a messenger from the king, who says that the king had commanded that the body of the holy Martyr should be placed in the same city, if it were his will. But Sturm and those who had come with him from the wilderness constantly said that the holy bishop, often staying with them, had also shown them the place where they should lay his body, and that without doubt he had wished to rest in body there in the solitude. Meanwhile, while they were contending in this manner, and Lull, bishop of that city, had wished in every way to prevent the body of the Blessed Martyr from coming to the solitude, by night the holy bishop stood by a certain deacon in a vision: "Why," he said, "do you delay to carry me to my place Fulda? Rise," he said, "quickly and with haste bring me into the solitude to the place which God has predestined for me." He, rising, narrated the order of the vision which had been shown him first to Sturm, then to all the chief men. All then, seized with exceeding terror, feared any longer to oppose the passage of the holy Martyr thence. Lull, however, who was bishop there, would by no means believe the revelation of the holy Martyr before he who had seen the vision had laid his hand on the sacred altar and confirmed with an oath this which he had seen. Eigil then narrates that the body came to Fulda after a few days, that is, on the thirtieth day of his passion. On the following day, he says, Bishop Lull with the clerics and the rest of the crowd with which he had come departed thence.

[38] chiefly by the care of St. Lull, To one who compares this threefold narrative it is manifest that several variations occur: Othlo adds to Willibald those things which happened at Mainz. But far different from both is Eigil, whose authority we valued most highly when we treated of fixing the epoch of St. Boniface's departure into Frisia, because he was a contemporary writer, and because nothing in others weakened his authority. But in the cited narrative he is deservedly suspect to us from the things which he relates below concerning the controversy conducted between Lull and Sturm. First of all he does not relate the prodigy of the bell, which is not to be turned into a fault in him, inasmuch as he could have been ignorant of it, while he perhaps learned through witnesses of the miracle of the bier, which the people of Utrecht could move by no strength until they had transferred it to a ship to be carried away. But I do not know whether what he narrates about the edict, as if given at Mainz, by which it was forbidden that the body of the Martyr Boniface should be carried out of the city, can be excused for the same reason. Willibald was not only synchronous, as was Eigil too, but earlier in time and accordingly nearer to the facts which he narrates: he wrote while King Pippin was living, who died in the year 768, since constantly, as often as he speaks of him, he adds to his name the title of glorious king; but treating of Carloman he says of illustrious memory, which befits the dead. Next, Willibald wrote under the censure of two bishops, Lull of Mainz and Megingaud of Würzburg Vol. V of June, p. 460, Prologue, at the request of religious and catholic men, among whom, whether in the parts of Tuscany, or in the bounds of Gaul, or in the approaches of Germany, or even in the borders of Britain, the fame of St. Boniface the Martyr and the brilliance of his miracles resound. The Life published by Willibald, therefore, was to be carried about through various parts of Europe: and the author, surrounded by innumerable witnesses who had seen the whole matter in person, could neither commit an error nor attempt any deception.

[39] as is shown against Eigil, But the matter stands in every other way with Eigil: he, at the time of the death of St. Boniface, had not yet passed beyond the bounds of infancy; for he himself says in his prologue Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 366.: I, Eigil, had lived in his (Sturm's) discipleship more than twenty years, and was nourished and taught under the discipline of that monastery from infancy up to this age. St. Sturm died on the 17th day of December of the year 779, as we have from the same Life: therefore about the 59th year of the same century Eigil began, as an infant, to inhabit Fulda, and accordingly could very easily have been ignorant of what had been done about the burial of the holy Martyr, or even have attributed to the people of Mainz what had been the doing of the people of Utrecht. Indeed, that Eigil was of too unfair a mind toward St. Lull is abundantly shown by what follows in his narrative, and what will come to be discussed below: what then? if he said that the feigned royal decree concerned rather the people of Mainz, that he might thus obliquely carp at Lull, whom afterwards he always shows as envious against St. Sturm? He could do this the more easily because the writing published by him perhaps lay hid long within domestic walls, inasmuch as, addressed to the nun Angildruth Ibid., it was not so easily to come forth into public light. Whether, however, it was Eigil's error or a less fair mind, we would not on that account detract anything from his uprightness, which Bl. Rabanus praises above others Schannat, History of Fulda, p. 98., and which other weighty authors Ibid., p. 99. have commended in writing: this one thing is established hence, which will have to be repeated below too, that in controversies of this kind, such as blazed up between SS. Lull and Sturm, each party not rarely suffers something human, and subjects very often exaggerate the defects of their patrons.

[40] are translated. But if it is permitted to defend Eigil in some way when he says that the royal edict was fabricated at Mainz, we cannot proceed by a similar way when he accuses Lull, as if he had wished in every way to prevent the body of the Blessed Martyr from coming to the solitude. The cited Othlo explains the matter more mildly: The contention, he says, of some who affirmed this so far prevailed that St. Lull ALMOST consented to their counsel, had not, etc. Willibald says nothing of the altercation at Mainz. I easily persuade myself that St. Lull feared lest the people, already stirred, should rush into open rebellion if it were despoiled of that treasure by the sacred body being taken away into the solitude; and that he also preferred to enrich his church with these precious Relics rather than to transfer them elsewhere through slaughter and blood. But since Willibald himself testifies that St. Boniface commended above all to Lull, his successor, that he should bury his body at Fulda: who does not see that a commendation of this kind would never, with Lull's consent, have been published, if in fact a popular commotion had blazed up, he himself either exciting it or conniving at it? Rightly therefore does Othlo say that Lull strove to the utmost to fulfil his (Boniface's) petition. The whole matter is neatly explained by the addition of the Erlangen manuscript to the Life of St. Lull to be given below, at no. 19, and at the same time it sets out in what way he almost consented to the counsel of the people. When they came to Mainz, then indeed the whole clergy with the people, pouring out to meet them, pleaded with the bishop by the law of nations, saying that this bishop had been theirs, that the inheritance of the dead father was owed chiefly to them both by the law of heaven and by the law of the court, that he was mindful neither of the equitable nor of the good if he thought otherwise, especially since both the glory and the calamity of the Church of Mainz specially concerned him as its bishop; finally, that if he did not of his own accord come round to this opinion, they would rather use force and try every extremity than be cheated of so great a good. Then the archbishop, having long and much tried to bring the tumultuous people back into favour, when he saw that the matter went forward too slowly, confused and uncertain in mind, was in doubt what counsel to take, whither to turn. For he saw that to oppose the will of the multitude was neither easy to do nor safe enough for himself. But when his resources were thus forced into a strait, Blessed Boniface, according to his promise, quickly found a broad way out. He then narrates the vision which Otbert had had: and which Lull believed, though the people opposed; which very thing the cited Othlo also testifies. On the contrary Eigil relates that the people at once acquiesced in the voice heard from heaven, but that Lul, who was bishop there, would by no means believe the revelation of the holy Martyr before he who had seen the vision had laid his hand on the altar and confirmed with an oath this which he had seen.

§ VI. On the controversy which arose between SS. Lull and Sturm concerning the monastery of Fulda.

Nothing from the holiness of SS. Lull and Sturm Since in the preceding § we treated of the ill will created against St. Lull by Eigil through his mutilated narrative of the translation of St. Boniface, we believe it opportune to append here the controversy which Sturm had with our Saint, being about to follow up the deeds of St. Lull afterwards. There is no doubt, as we shall show below, that the suit arose on account of the jurisdiction which each claimed as supreme over the monastery of Fulda. We shall forewarn one thing, that nothing is taken away from the holiness of either while each defends the right which he thinks his own; and that the evil then grew heavier on both sides through whisperers is to be ascribed rather to human ignorance, and so to the infirmity of our frail nature, than to malice. Further, nothing has more often stirred up the gravest discords even among most holy men than some suit concerning jurisdiction, as Jean Fronteau, canon regular, rightly noted in the Life of St. Ivo

bishop of Chartres Acts of the Saints, 20 May, p. 251 *, no. 11., treating of the enmity that arose between Ivo and Geoffrey, abbot of Vendôme, on account of the exemption of the monastery. For this, he says, is the root of like discords, most fruitful from of old, even among any who are illustrious in holiness and learning. And just as no authority even of the most pious men has hitherto been able to put an end to it, so neither has it seemed to harm in any way the integrity and holiness of either party disputing. Thus therefore we shall treat of this discord, that while we set forth the deed we bring no harm to either: for it would be equally unjust to fasten any crime upon St. Sturm as, like Claude Chastelain above at no. 1, to pour back every fault upon Lull and on that account to speak doubtfully of his holiness.

[42] the controversy takes away, First of all this is to be established, that the cause of the whole controversy was, as we have said, the jurisdiction claimed on both sides over the monastery of Fulda. This Eigil himself insinuates openly enough Life of Sturm in Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 373 and following, saying that Blessed Sturm the abbot was taken away from the monastery of Fulda by the counsel of Bishop Lull… that Lull meanwhile obtained from King Pippin, by giving unjust gifts, that the monastery of Fulda should be given into his lordship; and, having received dominion over it, appointed there as abbot, one who would obey him in all things, a certain priest of his who was called Marcus. St. Lull, however, consented shortly afterwards that the monks of Fulda should appoint an abbot for themselves from their own bosom; and when this had pleased all, the brethren chose from among themselves a wholly good brother and truly a servant of God, adorned with all good manners, named Prezzold, whom Blessed Sturm had taught from his infancy and loved much; him they ordained abbot over themselves, only for this, that they with him, and he likewise with them, might treat daily … how, with the help of the holy Martyr Boniface and with the grace of almighty God, they could come to this, to ask that their former master Sturm be granted them by King Pippin. At length the king granted that St. Sturm should return to his own, and ordered him, released from all lordship of Bishop Lull, to go to the monastery of Fulda with all honour … he also commanded that he should seek his cause and the defence of the monastery from no other than the king. The monastery, therefore, first given to Lull and afterwards released from all lordship of Bishop Lull, was the source of the whole controversy. The anonymous author of the enlarged Life of St. Lull alleges the same cause, below at no. 21: He (Sturm) privately and publicly stirred the minds of the brethren, warning them that this indulgence of the bishop toward them looked elsewhere than they supposed; for he displayed one thing in his face and contrived another in his mind, and cloaked the design of some great injury under the title of piety, namely one who by certain blandishments of words was enticing men to this, that he might fraudulently put upon them the reins of his lordship and snatch away the good of liberty, than which nothing is more pleasant to human life, nothing more becoming to the Christian name, nothing more suitable to the profession of monks.

[43] stirred up concerning the monastery of Fulda, The monastery of Fulda and its territory, inasmuch as it is situated in the district of Grabfeld, was contained within the limits of the diocese of Würzburg, as J. Georg Eckhart Commentary on the affairs of Eastern France, vol. I, p. 396. and Aemilian Ussermann Bishopric of Würzburg, p. XXV. Compare the Chronicle of Göttweig, p. 606. prove. The question which was agitated between Lull and Sturm, therefore, did not touch the ordinary jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop: the bishop indeed has power over monks as over the rest of the clergy, unless they can show a privilege by which they are exempted, as the experts in ecclesiastical law everywhere demonstrate. The cause of the controversy was namely another: Boniface, namely, was the founder of the monastery, and by virtue of such a foundation there belonged to him a certain supreme oversight, at least over the temporal goods of the monastery; this Lull, as sole heir, claimed for himself, and that, as it seemed to him, the more justly the greater care he spent in completing the building which Boniface had begun. For it was provided by the canons that if a monastery had a bishop as founder, it should render account of its temporal goods to the bishop; if a king, to the king. So I must explain canon XX of the Council held in the palace of Ver Labbe, vol. V of the Councils, col. 1669. in the year 755, or, as Giovanni Domenico Mansi prefers, in the following year Supplement of the Councils, vol. I, p. 607.: In another synod you granted us that those monasteries where monks or nuns have lived regularly, as to that which you left them of those properties from which they could live, thereafter, if it was royal, the abbot or abbess should render accounts to the lord king; and if episcopal, to that bishop. St. Lull therefore thought that whatever concerned the accounts of the monastery of Fulda pertained to himself: for whatever properties and rights the bishop acquired, the whole of this came to the Church. He thought, therefore, that he was defending the right of his Church of Mainz as often as he showed himself to the monks of Fulda as heir of his master Boniface. Hence it is no wonder that he opposed St. Sturm, whom he judged to stand up for his monastery more than was fair.

[44] whose nature is explained: But Sturm, on the contrary, appointed abbot immediately by St. Boniface, judged that whatever of right had formerly belonged to his master had flowed back upon himself alone. Whence he too must be wholly excused if he rose up rather bitterly against Lull, and if he instilled this aversion of his mind into his monks, as is sufficiently established from Eigil. For there was question of a very doubtful matter, which depended on Boniface alone, and which the holy Martyr, by words or writings put forth on both sides, had left ambiguous. Sturm too, a most holy man and most tenacious of regular discipline, could deservedly fear lest, some episcopal lordship creeping in concerning temporal things, the spiritual government of the monks too should little by little suffer some detriment. Hence Sturm easily persuaded himself that beginnings must be resisted. In this case, therefore, each thought he was defending his own right, nay easily took it into his mind that he was bound to this by the office which he administered. It was natural, therefore, that each should treat the other more unfairly, as one whom he sincerely judged to be swerving from the right way and to be brought back to duty in every way, by mildness and severity, in season, out of season. Meanwhile I cannot conceal that Eigil, when he treats of Lull, says nothing at all of praise about him, but traduces the holy bishop as envious and violent: fairer, however, is the opinion of the Anonymous writer of the Lullian Life at no. 20: A certain man named Sturm, he says, then presided over the monastery, a man of excellent talent and of holiness to be proclaimed; but of a nature too vehement and fierce. For the rest, our Lull was favoured by the commendation which Boniface had made as he departed into Frisia in these words Acts of the Saints, 5 June, p. 470, no. 48.: Do you complete the building of the basilica already begun at Fulda, surely from the goods and moneys belonging to the see of Mainz: the right therefore was established for St. Lull both from the inheritance in which Boniface had involved him, and which he had acquired by earnest labour Ibid., p. 469, no. 47., and from what were in a manner his last testamentary tablets, by which Boniface, as he departed, had as it were pledged the possessions of his see for the perfect building of the monastery of Fulda. From the same cause also St. Sturm feared for himself and his own: for when he saw, namely, that the bishop was directing all his effort to that place itself, he suspected that this solicitude looked elsewhere, says our Anonymous at no. 20, namely to the confirmation of his lordship and to the detriment of monastic liberty.

[45] the text of Eigil is shown to be interpolated, From what has been said thus far it follows that the hinge of the whole controversy was in the administration of temporal property. Whence I suspect that the text of Eigil narrating the return of St. Sturm to his own has suffered some interpolation: Not much time after, he says Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 375., the king ordered Sturm to be called to him, and commended to him for ruling the monastery of Fulda, which he had before, and ordered him, released from all lordship of Bishop Lull, to go to the monastery of Fulda with all honour, and to rule the monastery with his privilege, which blessed Pope Zachary, supreme pontiff of the apostolic see, had formerly delivered to St. Boniface, which privilege the brethren have preserved in the monastery up to today; he also commanded that he should seek his cause and the defence of the monastery from no other than the king. The words expressed in larger letters Johann Georg Eckhart Commentary on the affairs of Eastern France, vol. I, p. 503. conjectures were interpolated after Eigil: and not undeservedly. For how would the privilege granted to St. Boniface for the monastery of Fulda have been in the hands of King Pippin? An instrument of this kind would have been at Fulda, or certainly at Mainz, but by no means in the royal palace; otherwise no light infamy would be drawn upon Lull, a most holy man and one taught by his master the observance due to the Roman See, as though he had suppressed by force or by art a document of the greatest moment, or had despised an apostolic mandate: a calumny of this sort would have to be proved by the weightiest arguments before it deserved any credence. But if the noted words be struck out of the text, all flows rightly: Pippin, namely, in order that the whole controversy might be settled, transferred the right concerning temporal things from the bishop founder to the king, so that thereafter the monastery of Fulda should no longer be reckoned among the episcopal but among the royal monasteries: he therefore granted a new privilege by which it should be released from all lordship of Bishop Lull, and should thereafter seek its defence from no other than the king. That our Lull bore this change of affairs with difficulty we shall readily grant; for the Saints are not such as to suffer nothing human.

[46] and to be supposititious Someone will perhaps infer that the privilege given by Pippin to St. Sturm was not the Zacharian instrument itself, but rather a diploma by which the king himself had formerly confirmed the pontifical grant, and a copy of which was laid up in the royal archives: and that in such a way at least the graver fault is removed from Lull. But, to confess our mind sincerely, we judge that all authority must be withdrawn from this diploma. From the subscription the substitution is plain: for after the Zacharian formula, repeated in the same words, it ends: Sign of Pippin, most glorious king, sign of Boniface, archbishop, sign of Burchard, bishop, sign of Willibald, bishop, sign of Lul, bishop, sign of Eoban, bishop … in the name of God Baddilo has recognized it. Given in the month of June in the first year of our reign. Done at Attigny, the public palace, in the name of God. These things we have taken from the bronze plates of Johann Friedrich Schannat Vindiciae Archivi Fuldensis, plate III.. Now we know that the years of King Pippin begin from a twofold beginning, either from the month of March of the common year 752, in which he was anointed king by St. Boniface, Childeric having been tonsured, or from the fifth day before the Kalends of August of the year 754, when he was consecrated again with royal unction by Pope Stephen II together with his sons Charles and Carloman. But neither epoch squares with the subscriptions of the diploma:

not the first, which concurs with the year 52 of the eighth century; for then Lull was not yet bishop, inasmuch as he was able to attain this dignity first in the following year, as we saw at no. 30 and following, and accordingly could not subscribe as bishop. Nor can the second epoch heal the said diploma: for the month of June of the first year of Pippin's reign is to be bound to the year 55 of the same century: but at that time St. Burchard, bishop of Würzburg, had already died, as our men showed in his Life at the 14th of October Vol. VI of October, p. 570, no. 39., and as is established from the Life of St. Gregory of Utrecht written by the contemporary St. Liudger Vol. V of August, p. 258, no. 14., in which, treating of the helpers of St. Boniface, most illustrious preachers and pillars of the Church of God, he adds in express words: Two of those chosen ones of God, Wigbert (abbot of Fritzlar) and Burchard, passed from the world before their master. Nor ought what Johann Schannat Vindiciae, p. 46. alleges, in order to decline the authority of St. Liudger, to deceive, namely that there were perhaps two bishops Burchard, of whom one died before Boniface, the one of Würzburg surviving: for that one, wholly unknown to us, would not have been numbered among the most illustrious preachers and pillars of the Church of God.

[47] the diploma of Pippin; But the cited diploma suffers another damage at this epoch from the martyrdom of St. Boniface, which all fix on the Nones of June: whence it would follow that the holy bishop was still in the palace of Attigny in the month of June, and yet was slain in Frisia on the fifth day of the same month. Even if the diploma was given on the very Kalends, it nevertheless cannot be that on the fourth day he reached Dokkum, distant from Attigny seventy Belgian miles (about 43 myriametres), forewarned the neophytes about receiving the sacrament of Confirmation, that the people then conspired for his slaying, and were present with arms by agreement: all which we have from Willibald 5 June, p. 470., whose text insinuates openly enough that the holy bishop held an assembly of the people at least once or twice, in which he taught the rudiments of the faith. The Pippinian diploma therefore collapses on this head too. What if Pippin himself could not even be present at Attigny at the beginning of the month of June? We said already above at no. 36 that the decree of Pippin by which the translation of the holy Martyr was forbidden was feigned, because at that time he was staying in Italy, intent on the Lombard war. We have from the letter of Pope Stephen II to Pippin that Rome, besieged from the Kalends of January 755 for a space of three months Labbe, vol. VI of the Councils, col. 1635., was freed when Aistulf, king of the Lombards, heard that Pippin was moving an army into Italy Chronicle of Ado in Dom Bouquet, vol. V, p. 317.. In the month of May, therefore, he had already reached the Lombard borders, and remained outside the Gauls until winter. Whence, for a similar reason, it must be established that those diplomas which are said to have been given by Pippin in spring or summer time in various royal palaces are to be postponed by two whole years or even three, in so far as the year of the reign expressed in them is to be reckoned not from the month of March of the year 52 but from the fifth day before the Kalends of August of the year 54 of the eighth century.

[48] whence the privilege of Pope Zachary also totters: The Pippinian diploma tottering, the privilege also totters, in my opinion, with which Pope Zachary is said to have adorned the monastery of Fulda. For if it had been true and genuine, the monks of Fulda would not easily have let it come about that they propped it up with some false diploma: the adage recurs, namely: Once a liar, always a liar, as often, namely, as a connected matter is concerned. For the rest, another presumption too is created against the Zacharian bull from this, that Nicolas Serarius makes no mention of it, although it is found in full in the Othlonian Life of St. Boniface Book II, § XV. Mabillon, Acts of the Saints, saec. III, part II, p. 80.: but what chiefly prevents us from calling Zachary's letter genuine is that no word of a privilege is made in the letters written on both sides concerning the affairs of Fulda, and that Boniface himself asks nothing at all similar to the privilege brought forward. In letter LXXXVI Würdtwein, p. 246. Serarius CXLI., brought to Rome by our Lull, Boniface says: There is moreover a wooded place in the wilderness of a most vast solitude, in the midst of the nations of our preaching, in which, building a monastery, we have established monks living under the rule of the holy Father Benedict… This aforesaid place I acquired by just labour through religious and God-fearing men, especially Carloman, formerly prince of the Franks, and dedicated it in honour of the Holy Saviour. In which place, with the consent of your goodness, I have proposed to recover by resting a little, or for a few days, my body wearied with old age, and to lie there after death. For four peoples, to whom we have spoken the word of Christ by the grace of God, are known to dwell round about this place. To whom, with your intercession, so long as I live or am in my senses, I can be useful. For I desire, by your prayers, the grace of God accompanying, to persevere in the familiarity of the Roman Church and in your service among the German nations to whom I was sent.

[49] But St. Boniface seems to have spoken more explicitly through his disciple Lull, which seems contrary who, as is said at the beginning of the cited letter, had certain secrets to be opened to the pontiff alone, some to be told by living voice. Hence the reply of Zachary cannot be fitted in every part to the question proposed by the bishop. For the pontiff says in letter LXXXVII Würdtwein, p. 249. Serarius CXLII.: You have asked this also, that the monastery established in the most vast solitude and in the midst of the nations to which you preach, and founded by you, and dedicated in honour of the Saviour our God, where also you have ordered monks to live under the rule of Bl. Benedict; that venerable monastery we should fortify in your name (better: for your name) with a privilege of the apostolic See. Which, acquiescing in your wishes, we have ordained according to your desire and petition: for it befits the preacher of the divine ministry and an excellent minister to attain what he desires and to finish the good work begun to the end… Given on the day before the Nones of November, in the reign of the Lord most pious Augustus Constantine, great emperor crowned by God, in the 32nd year; in the eleventh year of his empire, in the fifth indiction. It is helpful first of all to set out in a few words what Zachary meant when he says that the monastery of Fulda was to be fortified in the name of, or for the name of, Boniface: but it seems it can signify nothing else here than to decree that the monastery should be Boniface's own and remain so perpetually. For a similar expression in St. Augustine, sermon CCCLVI [Vol. V of the Works, col. 1391. Otherwise the 50th of the various sermons, which is also inscribed book II On the Morals of Clerics.], has a meaning of this kind: The very place also, he says, where the monastery was established by my aforesaid honourable son Eleusinus, was given to the priest Barnabas himself before he was ordained priest; in that place he instituted a monastery. But nevertheless, because the place had been given in his NAME, he changed the instruments, that it might be possessed in the NAME of the monastery.

[50] to the genuine letter which St. Boniface From this interpretation, which seems to me true and genuine, it is plain that the pontifical privilege, as it is shown by Alexander Würdtwein p. 257., although given in the same year and on the same day as the recited letter, nevertheless in no way corresponds to the letter of Zachary: for the pretended privilege forbids every priest of any church whatever (therefore also Boniface, bishop of the Church of Mainz) to have any dominion or authority in the monastery of Fulda except the Apostolic See; whereas the pontiff's letter rather indicates the contrary. For that reason another Bonifacian letter was substituted for the genuine one, which our Brower published from a manuscript of Fulda Book III of the Antiquities of Fulda, chap. X, p. 201.: in this, further, St. Boniface not only narrates, as we saw above at no. 48, that he founded the monastery and wishes to rest there while living and to lie there when dead: but, though the head and opening of the letter are the same, nay even the chief outlines of the foundation, he says nevertheless: From Gregory of venerable memory, while he was ordaining me, unworthy, bishop (namely in the year of Christ 723), I obtained that he should take under his special protection my place, foreseen for my burial, namely the monastery of Fulda, not yet indeed completed but to be completed with the help of God and yours, to be fortified by the protection of Bl. Peter, and to be strengthened and protected by Roman authority. Which he also did, and, a privilege having been given, confirmed it by his own and Bl. Peter's authority, and by the bond of his ban, under the witness of Christ and of the Church, bound with perpetual anathema those who should take away anything of the stipends of the brethren, or of the tithes (tithes in a wooded place, in a vast solitude!) and the offerings of the faithful… For that place which I have chosen is Fulda, having its name from the river which flows past, in the vast solitude of Bochonia, in the midst of the nations of our preaching; in which place I have built a monastery to our Lord the Saviour Christ and to His Mother, the perpetual Virgin Mary, and to the most holy Apostles Peter and Paul: in which we have established monks serving God devoutly under the rule of St. Benedict. This place I have enriched through princes and religious men with estates and honours, and through Pippin and Carloman have confirmed it by most firm authority… This place, I say, prepared for my rest, I commend into your power, most dear Father, and that of Bl. Peter the Apostle, praying and beseeching most earnestly that it may always be fortified and defended by the right hand of your protection.

[51] had addressed to the Pope. Certainly if Zachary's reply squared with a letter of this kind, the Fulda privilege would proceed well: but this fabrication swarms with anachronisms: first of all the place of burial at Fulda would already have been chosen in the year 723, whereas, as is abundantly established from the Life of St. Sturm Pertz, Monuments of Germany, Life of St. Sturm, vol. II, p. 360., it was scarcely discovered about the year 740. Then the pseudo-Boniface says that he enriched the aforesaid place with estates and honours, whereas in the letter to Fulrad brought forward above at no. 26, to move his mercy, he says that the priests near the march of the pagans have a very poor life: that they can get bread to eat, but cannot find clothing there: would Boniface meanwhile, leaving his helpers or abandoning them to the mercy of others, have enriched monks with estates and honours? There is no one who would easily agree to an assertion of this kind. Then how could Gregory in the year 723 adorn with a privilege a monastery which first began in the month of March of the year 744, as we have from the cited Life of St. Sturm? How does it come about that, if it existed, Zachary made no mention of it? That the letter is fictitious is therefore plain enough: but at the same time, since it was forged to pave the way for the Zacharian diploma, to which the genuine letter was not sufficiently fitted, that diploma itself seems wholly to totter: for we are not accustomed to apply to an authentic instrument a lying and accordingly ruinous prop. For the rest, all these things, which will be treated again in the commentary to the Life of St. Sturm on the 17th day of December,

we have discussed here because Eigil and the more recent writers would have the root of the whole controversy set in the Zacharian privilege. In our opinion, however, even admitting all these letters as true, the controversy would remain entire, namely whether by title of the foundation there belonged to St. Lull, involved in the inheritance of St. Boniface, a right concerning the temporal goods of the monastery of Fulda.

[52] Peace was at length made between SS. Lull and Sturm. By way of crowning touch let it be said that peace was at length made between St. Lull and the monks of Fulda. First of all St. Sturm, dying, forgave Lull from his heart whatever he believed had been wrongly inflicted on his monastery Pertz, ibid., p. 377.. Then Lull himself was munificent toward the monks of Fulda, as is shown us by the charter of a donation made to the monks of Fulda, which is of this kind Schannat, Corpus Traditionum Fuldensium, p. 36.: In the name of the Lord. The Lord Charles reigning, king of the Franks and of the Lombards and patrician of the Romans, on the 25th day of the month of September, a Sunday, when the same most glorious King Charles was holding court with us. I, Lull, by the grace of God archbishop of the see of Mainz, have handed over to my Lord St. Boniface, archbishop and Martyr, the purchase of estates which I purchased in the estate of Fargalaha, which is situated in the district of Thuringia above the river called Unstrut, on this condition, that my portion may be with my Lord and Father, the most holy Boniface, Martyr and archbishop, in the kingdom of God, and that my brethren of Fulda may be perpetually mindful; and I gave counsel to certain of our faithful men, namely four most noble men, Walto, Reginald, Warmund, Burchard, who have estates in their own property on the border of the same estate of Fargalaha, that they should hand over their portions to St. Boniface and make him their heir on earth, that they might become his co-heirs in heaven; who did so, and this handing over was confirmed before the king. This handing over was made in the year 774 or 785, which are marked with the Dominical letter B, and in which accordingly Sunday concurs with the 25th of September. In each year King Charles was in Germany, as the Chronicle of Lorsch and that of Einhard at these years show us Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. I, p. 152 and 166.. In turn the monks of Fulda, as a token of the peace restored and in memory of the benefits received, entered the name of St. Lull in the sacred diptych of their church Gori, Thesaurus Veterum Diptychorum, vol. II, p. 198.. If, therefore, there was any sin both on the part of St. Sturm and on that of St. Lull, the forgiveness of the one and the liberality of the other blotted it all out.

§ VII. The foundations of St. Lull.

Attempted first at Hersfeld Since in the preceding § we treated of the enmity that arose between SS. Lull and Sturm on account of the administration of the monastery of Fulda, we have thought it opportune to append to these things the foundations which the bishop made, being about to comment on his remaining deeds afterwards. The first foundation of our Lull concerns Hersfeld. Some beginning of this monastery had already been made under St. Boniface; indeed it had preceded the foundation of Fulda by eight full years, as Eigil narrates in the Life of St. Sturm Ibid., vol. II, p. 370.: nevertheless Johann Georg Eckhart, in his commentaries on the affairs of Eastern France Vol. I, p. 460., denies that so great a space of years passed between the beginnings of the two monasteries. This question, since it does not touch St. Lull, we put off to be debated in the commentary on the Life of St. Sturm on the 17th day of December. One thing comes here to be inquired: whether St. Lull is truly and properly to be called the founder of the monastery of Hersfeld. For the authority of various writers of the highest mark, who ascribe this monastery to St. Boniface, makes the matter doubtful. First of all Lambert of Aschaffenburg, himself a monk of Hersfeld, in his chronicle Pistorius, Writers on German Affairs, vol. I, p. 309. plainly says under the year 736: The beginning of the monastery of Hersfeld. It is referred to the same year by the Anonymous of Erfurt in the History of the Landgraves of Thuringia Ibid., p. 1300. and by Mabillon in the Life of St. Sturm Acts of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict, saec. III, part II, p. 271.. And if the origin of Hersfeld is to be attributed to this year, beyond doubt we must also acknowledge St. Boniface as founder, inasmuch as he then, flourishing in strength and age, administered the German affairs alone. But since no contemporary or nearly contemporary author says anything of the kind, I judge that in this question we must cling to Eigil, who says that a beginning was indeed made at Hersfeld, but that in the ninth year after, the monastery of Fulda having been established, the monastery begun was abandoned. This shines out from the whole context of the Eigilian narrative: for when, by the order of St. Boniface, Sturm and his companions had gone into Buchonia to search out a place fit for monks, on the third day, says Eigil Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 367., they came to the place which up to today is called Hersfeld; and having seen and explored the places situated round about there, they asked Christ that that place be blessed for them to dwell in, and in that place where the monastery is now situated they set up little dwellings roofed with the bark of trees.

[54] the foundation, by St. Lull Sturm reports to his master what he had found, but Boniface answers: The place indeed which you have found I fear for you to inhabit on account of the nearness of a barbarous nation: for there are, as you know, fierce Saxons near there. Wherefore seek for yourselves a more remote and lower dwelling in the solitude, which you can inhabit without danger to yourselves. Sturm therefore set on foot new searches, and at length found the place long since prepared by the Lord, namely Fulda, whither, Boniface consenting, Sturm transferred his disciples. They left the dwellings roofed with the bark of trees, for Eigil does not narrate that Sturm built anything else: and the place, uncultivated for nine years, returned to wildness. Thus far I have agreeing with me Gabriel Bucelin Germania Sacra, part II, vol. I, p. 44., and Le Cointe who follows him Annals of the Franks at the year 745, § LXXX, vol. V, p. 134.; but they add that under the year of Christ 750 the said monastery was begun by St. Boniface, cultivated by St. Sturm, and finally reached completion through our Lull. But nothing supports a conjecture of this kind: the more ancient writers are silent about the monastery of Hersfeld until, St. Sturm having returned to his own with the diploma of King Pippin by which the monastery was exempted from Lull's dominion, he (Lull) turned his thoughts and affection elsewhere, and reduced the ruins of Hersfeld to the form of a proper house of ascetics. The anonymous writer of the Life, at no. 23, narrates the sequence of events accurately enough: His mind (of the man of God) was already affected with no moderate weariness, when he saw so many and so great labours of his flowing away in vain, envy not being extinguished by benefits … and that it would be the height of madness to spend on this place without fruit such great expenditures, with which he could build elsewhere a lasting … monument… And there was a place in the forest of Buchonia, to which antiquity gave the name Hersveldt, very suitable for the habitation of monks. He then relates the cause why Sturm left it at Boniface's order, and continuing his narrative says: The place of Hersfeld, Blessed Boniface handing it over, passed into the ownership of St. Lull, who perhaps already then had conceived in his mind the desire of building a monastery there … into this place he purposely gathered all his resources. The shrubs having been more abundantly cut down, he opened space for brethren of a larger number, he undertook to build it with more cultivated buildings … in a short course of time the name of Hersfeld had risen to an immense summit of glory and greatness.

[55] is completed, The last words in my opinion do not indicate that some monks had already dwelt at Hersfeld before Lull's foundation; but that the place formerly prepared by Sturm was now fitted to hold more inhabitants. Nor indeed does any reason appear for an earlier foundation of Hersfeld. For it is certain that, when St. Boniface died, the monastery of Fulda had not yet been completed, which the holy Martyr commended to be finished to his disciple and successor Lull, as we saw above at no. 44. What cause, then, would have driven him to build a new monastery? No necessity indeed appears for founding it: not for the propagation of religion, which at the beginning the nearer Saxons spurned, and of which they afterwards obtained as apostle St. Sturm of Fulda himself. Nor did the number of monks require new dwellings, for which, in those beginnings indeed, even the monastery begun at Fulda abundantly sufficed. Finally, let us not imagine for ourselves such a Boniface as would have wished to divide in two the monastic battle-line, which is most powerful by its unity.

[56] about the year 766. From what has been said thus far we seem able to draw out the time at which Hersfeld began: namely, when St. Sturm returned to his monks of Fulda with the royal diploma transferring the said monastery from the right of the bishop concerning temporal things to the right of the king. Which indeed I think happened in the 12th year of King Pippin: for the first handing over addressed to Sturm as abbot Schannat, Corpus Traditionum Fuldensium, no. XX, p. 10. is bound to this year, which from the 28th of July concurs with the year of the common era 765. And in the same 12th year of Pippin, on the fifth day before the Kalends of September, Lull had bought various estates from Count Leidrat for the monastery of Fulda Ibid., no. XXIII, p. 12.: after this day, therefore, St. Sturm would have obtained the government of his monastery: whence the conjecture of Johann Georg Eckhart Commentary on the affairs of Eastern France, vol. I, p. 588. is quite pleasing, who, since the Sturmian donation does not bear the mark of the month, transfers it to the following year, that is, of Christ 766. To this year, therefore, or, if anyone prefers, to the preceding one, are to be referred the beginnings of the monastery of Hersfeld, which our Lull began to cultivate when, after Sturm's return, he saw himself despoiled of all the right which he claimed over Fulda, as the Anonymous cited at no. 54 declares openly enough. From this year therefore is to be reckoned the beginning of the stable monastery at Hersfeld, which then grew into a most ample dominion. It is situated, says Gabriel Bucelin Germania Sacra, part II, p. 44., in a very convenient place in Hesse, which Lull loved even before Fulda itself… and blessed it with most ample revenues; which St. Wigbert too, himself also a great Apostle of Germany, was seen to regard even from heaven itself before others, and, appearing to Albuin, bishop of Fritzlar, wished his body to be translated thither, which the monks Ernest, Baturich and Wolf performed as soon as possible with the highest religion and devotion Acts of the Saints, vol. III of August, p. 132.: buried there, Bl. Albuin He will be treated of on the 26th of October. and Lull moreover won a great name for the place. The same monastery was reformed by St. Gotthard Better Godehard, bishop of Hildesheim, vol. I of May, p. 501., at the entreaty of Willigis, the first elector of Mainz. The same was illustrated by the abbot St. Bardo, of great holiness Acts of the Saints, vol. II of June, p. 299., who, drawn out to the see of Mainz, was a singular ornament to all Germany, and on account of his wonderful eloquence in preaching was called a second Chrysostom.

[57] The last fortunes of this monastery. The foundation of Hersfeld continued entire up to the beginning of the 16th century. For then, as is clear from the bull of Leo X, given on the day before the Nones of May 1513 Schannat, History of Fulda, Proofs, p. 347., although the monastery in Hersfeld … had been distinguished and notable and rich in its own means, nevertheless for several past years, on account of the untoward events of the succeeding times, or also perhaps the carelessness or rather the powerlessness of those who had presided over it, it was very much diminished in its temporal dominion, goods, revenues and means through alienations of property, etc., and also weighed down and oppressed by debt and the burden of obligations. Therefore the Pontiff perpetually unites, annexes and incorporates the monastery of Hersfeld, with all its rights and appurtenances, to the monastery of Fulda. But that matter did not proceed peacefully, as can be seen in the History of Fulda Schannat, History of Fulda, p. 249.: for there stood in the way of that business both the subjects of Hersfeld and Anne of Mecklenburg, widow of William, Landgrave of Hesse, and mother of the minor Philip, to whom belonged the supreme and hereditary advocacy over the said abbey. It would be tedious and foreign to our work to set out the windings and vicissitudes of a long and entangled controversy. Let it suffice, by way of crowning touch, to add that this wealthy monastery passed into the right of the Protestants, and on the 24th of October of the year 1648 was confirmed to the family of Hesse by the laws of the peace of Westphalia and Münster Dumont, Traité Diplomatique, vol. VI, part I, p. 453.: Let the House of Hesse-Cassel and its successors retain the abbey of Hersfeld with all its appurtenances, secular and ecclesiastical, situated whether within or outside the territory (such as the provostship of Gellingen), saving however the rights which the house of Saxony has possessed from time immemorial, and in that name let them ask investiture from the Imperial majesty as often as the case shall arise, and render fealty.

[58] The foundation at Cassel, Another foundation of St. Lull becomes known to us from the history of St. Ferrutius, Martyr of Mainz, of whom we shall have to treat at the 28th day of October. From the narrative of his translation, written by Meginhard of Fulda, who flourished about the 80th year of the ninth century, these things are had Surius, 28 October, p. 394.: There (in the place called Castellum, today Kastel near Mainz) the most sacred limbs, accompanied by divine benefits, frequented by the citizens, rested peacefully up to the times of the pontificate of the venerable Lull, who after the most holy Martyr and bishop Boniface vigorously ruled the people of the see of Mainz. He therefore, an excellent follower of his predecessor and master, while he was building churches throughout the diocese of his see, founding monasteries, and ennobling the kingdom of the Franks far and wide with the worship of the Christian religion, translated the Relics of St. Ferrutius into the place of the rejoicing, and took care to gather together those who serve as soldiers to God under the discipline of the cenobitic norm, fervent in spirit, rejoicing in hope, of one mind, chastening their souls in the obedience of charity, in the love of brotherhood. And using the providence of a good shepherd, he handed over to the brethren themselves, lest they should fail in the way of the Lord's commandments, sufficient revenues of food and clothing, and as long as he lived in the body he cherished that place with the highest devotion out of reverence for the Saint. But after the house of this earthly clay habitation of his was dissolved, that he might inhabit one not made with hands but eternal in the heavens, his successors in the pontificate and likewise in religion, Richulf, Haistulf and Rabanus, cherished the holy place with the same devotion, enlarged the church, arranged fittingly the tomb of the holy remains, and cherished with the consolation of the highest humanity the poor of Christ keeping watch by the sacred bones.

[59] in the place called Bleidenstadt The Authors of the Gallia Christiana, when they treat of this monastery Vol. V, col. 579., insinuate some doubt whether perhaps St. Boniface, or his disciple Sturm, founded that monastery before our Lull put as it were the finishing hand to the work. But from the text cited above it is clear enough that our Saint not only completed but also began the pious work; for we have a witness of the matter greater than every exception: for Meginhard, a monk of Fulda, a nearly contemporary author, would not easily have deprived his fathers and patrons of that little flower in order to adorn Lull, whom the monks thought too unfair toward their Fulda. The name of the monastery was the Place of the rejoicing, in German Bleidenstadt, which word has fallen out of use among the Germans, but in Flanders Blyd, verblyden, etc., still flourishes. The fortunes of this monastery, about which I have found very few things in our archives, can be set out at the Life of St. Ferrutius, to be given on the 28th day of October: let it suffice to add one thing here, that this monastery was changed into a collegiate church in the year of Christ 1945 by Alexander VI, and preserved the Catholic faith undiminished in the midst of the Lutherans [Compare Gallia Christiana in the place cited, and Christian Joannis, Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, p. 807.].

§ VIII. Dedications of churches.

St. Lull consecrates churches, at Ohrdruf As far as monuments worthy of credence have been available to us, we have set out what pertains to the foundations made by St. Lull: now we shall follow up his remaining deeds. Our Serarius, book IV, § XII of the Affairs of Mainz, says: In the year 777 he dedicated a church in honour of St. Peter at Ohrdruf. But Christian Joannis notes beneath Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, p. 377.: I do not remember reading in any of the ancients worthy of credence that he (Lull), as the author has it, dedicated at Ohrdruf a sacred building newly raised, in the year 777, in honour of St. Peter, with the accustomed order and apparatus of ceremonies. It escaped the learned man that the authority of this consecration is propped up by the chronicle of Lambert of Aschaffenburg, a writer of the 11th century, who under this year expressly says Pistorius, Writers on German Affairs, vol. I, p. 310.: The dedication of the church at Ohrdruf by Blessed Lull in honour of St. Peter. Lambert, a neighbour and a writer of the highest credibility, could certainly have learned the fact from the tradition of Ohrdruf: there is therefore no reason why we should lessen his authority in a matter otherwise of the least moment. I will not conceal, however, that some difficulty is raised by the fact that the monastery founded by St. Boniface at Ohrdruf had as its tutelary Saint Michael the Archangel, as Othlo shows at length in book I, chap. XXIX Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, p. 220.; indeed, that this patronage also persisted until the end of the 16th century, Johann Burchard Mencken is our witness in the Bonifacian legend Vol. I of the Writers on German Affairs, p. 837.: This church, he says, even now takes the place of the parish at Ohrdruf and is called die Pfarr zu St. Michael the parish of St. Michael, in the letters of agreement of Joachim, abbot of Hersfeld, with Frederick William, duke of Saxony, on the 24th of May in the year 1594, concerning the fief of the counts of Gleichen at Ohrdruf and Wechmar. See the cited diploma in Thuringia Sacra Heinrich Otto, Thuringia Sacra, p. 39.. The same is established from the letters of foundation of the altar and vicarage of the Holy Cross in der Pfarrkirche Sanct Michaelis in the parish church of St. Michael, given by Sigismund, count of Gleichen, on the fourth weekday after Epiphany of the year 1494 Ibid., p. 30.. Hence it came about that the city of Ohrdruf, although in the year 1527 it fell away to the Lutherans, nevertheless bore Michael the Archangel in its arms perpetually up to our age Ibid., p. 21..

[61] under the invocation of St. Peter: From what has been said thus far it is clear that some wrongly ascribe to St. Lull the dedication of the church of St. Michael at Ohrdruf, which, since it was built about the year 727, had Boniface rather than his successor as consecrator. But in the same place there was another church, built under the invocation of St. Peter, which St. Lull would have consecrated. It is true indeed that the said Lambert refers the building of this church to the year 980, since he says Pistorius, Writers, vol. I, p. 315.: Gozbert, abbot of Hersfeld, built a church at Ohrdruf, which they suppose was dedicated in honour of St. Peter: but from this it would be falsely deduced that no church under the invocation of the same name existed before these times. It is known that at the beginning of the tenth century the Huns or Hungarians devastated Germany and France; and that they fell upon Thuringia in particular with fire and sword Regino is our witness in his Chronicle, book II, under the years 8, 12, 15 of the same century Ibid., vol. I, p. 101.. The learned think that the monastery of St. Michael was certainly destroyed by wars of this kind Thuringia Sacra, p. 27.; why not also the church of St. Peter? especially since each fact is related by the same Lambert, an accurate and domestic writer. Let the said church have perished through the Huns, and Gozbert then have rebuilt it: the truth will stand for each fact. This foundation, which afterwards passed into a college of canons, was later transferred to Gotha, as Tentzel shows from several diplomas in the supplement to the History of Gotha Vol. II, p. 106..

[62] in the monastery of Lorsch, Far more certain is it that our Lull dedicated the church of Lorsch, although this dedication has another difficulty, which we shall discuss below. Here are the words of the Chronicle of Lorsch [Marquard Freher, Writers on German Affairs, vol. I, p. 100, and the Codex of Lorsch, vol. I, p. 18.]: In the year following after these things, that is, of the Lord's incarnation 777, but in the 13th year from the foundation or beginning of the monastery of Lorsch, and in the 6th year of the reign of Charles from the time when, his brother Carloman having died, the monarchy passed to him, the abbot Gundeland, the building of the temple being now completed and adorned with every kind of beauty as befitted the house of God, went to meet the king at the city of Speyer, earnestly beseeching that he would deign to be present in person at the consecration of that church; to whom the pious king kindly assenting, with Queen Hildegard and his sons Charles, Pippin, Louis and many princes of the kingdom, he celebrated, through Lull, archbishop of the see of Mainz and successor of Blessed Boniface, bishop and Martyr, and through the bishops Megingoz (of Würzburg), Wiomad (of Trier), Angilram (of Metz), Waldric (of Passau), with magnificent apparatus and the highest veneration, at the head of the Kalends of September, the dedication of that church, and translated into it with the greatest honour of devotion the body of the Blessed Martyr Nazarius, our lord and patron, where how great miracles, what signal marks of virtue have divinely shone forth through his merits, how great remedies from various diseases, mischances, miseries and straits have come from then on and thereafter, it is not in our power to unfold; especially since there is a little book about these things composed by our predecessors elaborately enough in prose and metrical style. Moreover the most excellent king too, among the other gifts of his liberality which, like another Solomon, he joyfully offered to the Lord in the simplicity of his heart, handed over to the monastery of Lorsch the estate of Obbenheim in all its integrity, by which he most largely endowed and enriched the same church on the day of its consecration, with a precept of confirmation of this kind. There follows in the cited codex the diploma of donation, given on the fourth day before the Nones of September in the 6th year of our reign. Done at Worms, the public city, happily.

[63] in the year, as is shown, We have set down the whole fragment here at length because various things occur in it which can shed light on the disputed epoch of the dedication. But such as the author of the chronicle describes it, it is wholly to be retained, whatever

Pagi and his followers may say, we judge. The chief weight of our opinion is that the chronological notes are consistent with themselves: for the years of King Charles and those of the founded monastery agree most aptly with one another. For Charles, who, his brother Carloman having died, had obtained Austrasia in the 72nd year of the eighth century, is rightly said to have been present at the dedication in the 6th year of his reign. And the monastery, as the same codex of Lorsch has it Vol. I, p. 2., was founded in the 64th year of the same century; nor ought it to move us that the 12th year of Pippin's reign is bound to this year, since it would rather be the thirteenth year; this error, if we do not wish to attribute it to a careless copyist, we must ascribe to the diploma of donation, in which, since the twelfth year was reckoned without mention of the common era, the chronographer slipped, and attributed the donation and the foundation of the monastery to the same year of Pippin's reign. For that the building of the monastery began after the donation is manifestly deduced from the sequence of the chronicle Ibid., p. 6.: The reverend bishop Rudgang (Chrodegang) therefore, embracing … the vow and petition of the venerable Williswinda (the donor), … set over the same place his brother Gundeland, … and committed it to his disposition with all its appurtenances, on the terms on which it had been handed over to himself; he also sent with him brethren … from the monastery of Gorze, which he himself had built some time before, imparting to them all things necessary both in food and in other supports. From these it becomes manifest that the monastery began to be inhabited after the fourth day before the Ides of July of the year 763: and probably was not brought into the form of a true monastery except in the following year: and accordingly the thirteenth year is rightly said to have been running when in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 777 the church of Lorsch was being dedicated. For the rest, this epoch will become more certain still from the very refutation of the reasons which Pagi and the others who defend his opinion object.

[64] 777 of the eighth century: Pagi Critique of Baronius at the year 774, § XVIII. first of all objects the twofold Chronicle of Fulda, which has it that the dedication of Lorsch was celebrated in the year 774: and the authority of each chronicle would surely be highly valued by us, did it not contradict a domestic witness who had before him, as he himself speaks, the little book composed by his predecessors elaborately enough in prose and metrical style. The authority of these writings is also lessened by the fact that they have a single numerical note, which, as is well enough known, successive copyists easily corrupt, while on the contrary the codex of Lorsch shows three notes of this kind concurring most perfectly. The said Pagi then objects that dedications of churches were wont to be made only on Sundays; and that in the year 774, although the first of September fell on the fifth weekday, the head of the Kalends of September, that is, the nineteenth day before the Kalends of the same month (14 August), concurred with a Sunday: which does not happen in our year. We readily grant that dedications were wont to be made on Sundays; but it is a rule which admits its exceptions, as Karl Meichelbeck proves even from Pagi himself Chronicle of Benediktbeuern, Preface, p. XXIII and following, and among which the arrival of Charles and his family may deservedly be reckoned. We have already seen above how the 13th year of the founded monastery concurs with the year of the Lord's Incarnation 77 above 700. Finally Pagi would have the parenthesis deleted by which it is said that the sixth year of Charles is to be counted from the death of his brother Carloman; but rightly, in my opinion, the parenthesis is added, and Charles deservedly begins his reign from this epoch, since then for the first time he obtained Austrasia, in which Lorsch and Worms were contained.

[65] and the temple of St. Goar, on which occasion is explained The third dedication which the ancients write that he celebrated was that of the church of St. Goar, which place, situated on the Rhine between Oberwesel and Boppard, afterwards grew into a town. It was contained within the bounds of the bishopric of Trier, which Wiomad then ruled. Hence it may seem strange that bishops belonging to the province of Mainz performed this consecration, namely Lull the metropolitan, Basinus of Speyer and Megingaud of Würzburg, as Wandalbert of Prüm, a nearly contemporary writer, relates in the miracles of St. Goar Vol. II of July, p. 338, no. 4.: The basilica being now completed, when the time came at which it was to be consecrated to the divine name, there were sent by the most excellent prince Charles Lull, archbishop of Mainz, a man of the nation of the Angles, praiseworthy in manners and life: Basinus of Nemetae, which city is now called Speyer: and Mehingod of the city which, situated beyond the Rhine, is called in barbarous speech Würzburg, bishops, who had all been ordained by Bl. Boniface, bishop and Martyr: that through them both the church should be consecrated and the body of the most blessed man (Goar) translated into the place where it is now situated. I suspect the cause of this mission and of the absence of the bishops of the province of Trier was the very controversy then pending, or recently decided, concerning the ownership of the cell of St. Goar, which the said Wandalbert clearly sets out Ibid., p. 345, no. 37..

[66] the probable cause of the absence For Pippin had given the cell of St. Goar to Assuerus, abbot of Prüm: but after Pippin died, there arose, says Wandalbert, between the bishop of Trier, then Weomad, and Abbot Assuerus a contention over the same cell; the bishop asserting that it belonged to the right of his Church; the abbot contradicting that it was by the king's law a hereditary possession, and that the Church could claim nothing for itself in it, which had been committed to him by King Pippin and transmitted by right of succession into the lordship of the most illustrious Charles. This suit, long debated, was at last settled in the assembly at the source of the Lippe, and sentence was given for the abbot. And hence it is natural to judge that Wiomad of Trier and his comprovincial bishops experienced a certain soreness of mind; for scarcely anyone looks with a fair eye on the triumph of an adversary whom he has pursued in many ways because he reckoned him unjust and an invader of another's property. Wiomad, therefore, would for this reason have refused to perform the consecration of the basilica of St. Goar, and our Lull, at the solicitation of King Charles, would have fulfilled this office, returning from the assembly of the Lippe.

[67] of the proper bishop For according to what we have related, we can attain by fairly certain conjecture in what year the basilica of St. Goar was dedicated: for the day, namely the 25th of May, as we have from the Preliminary Commentary to the Life of St. Goar Ibid., p. 331, no. 24., we think placed beyond controversy. Le Cointe fixes the year of the dedication as the sixty-eighth of the eighth century At 768, § XLIV, vol. V, p. 729.: since, he says, in the following year Mehingod abdicated the bishopric of Würzburg. Le Cointe slips, as Aemilian Ussermann, a Benedictine of St. Blasien, shows in his history of this bishopric Episcopatus Wirceburgensis, p. 12 and following, since Megingaud occupied the see of Würzburg for a long time still after this year: which we too showed above at no. 63, discussing the epoch of the dedicated basilica of Lorsch. Le Cointe's chief argument therefore collapses: whence one may wonder why the said Aemilian Ussermann admitted the same year for the dedication of the church of St. Goar. Our Joseph Harzheim also came round to the same opinion Councils of Germany, vol. I, p. 124.. Dom Bouquet Collection of the Historians of France, vol. V, Chronological Index, p. LII. places the celebration as held in the 76th year of the same eighth century: probably because in a note to a letter of Pope Hadrian he had judged that Weomad died in the said year Ibid., p. 595.. But, not to say that this bishop prolonged his life up to the 91st year of the same century, as some judge Gesta Trevirorum, vol. I, p. 80. Trier edition 1836., we nevertheless have from the consecration of the church of Lorsch, above at no. 63, that he lived even after the year marked by Dom Bouquet.

[68] or diocesan of Trier. One thing I believe certain, that the dedication of the basilica of St. Goar was not celebrated before the controversy pending between Weomad and Assuerus had been settled. From Wandalbert further, as has been said, we have that the cell of St. Goar passed to the abbot of Prüm, a general assembly having been held in Saxony at the source which is called the Lippe. But no assembly occurs in the said place before the year of Christ 780. Under this year the Loisel Annals of the Franks have Dom Bouquet, vol. V, p. 40.: Then the lord King Charles, making his journey to order Saxony, came to Eresburg, and thence to the place where the Lippe rises. The Annals of Metz have the same under the said year Ibid., p. 343., with which agrees the metrical Life of Charles, which closely follows the footsteps of Einhard Ibid., p. 144.:

He sought Eresburg first, after this where the river Lippe Has its springs, being about to order very many things; He is said to have remained some days in the camp.

In this assembly, therefore, of the year 780 I judge that the suit about the cell of St. Goar was settled: unless, however, someone should wish to put off the disputation to the assembly of the year 782, when a great assembly was celebrated in the same place. But the former opinion pleases me more, since we know that in the last years of his life St. Lull, pressed by infirmities, could scarcely give himself to laborious offices of this kind. For the rest, this controversy was more probably the cause why both he himself and the other bishops of the province of Mainz were invited to perform the consecration, since none of them belonged to the province of Trier: for even when a suit has been settled there commonly remains some leaven as it were of enmity, infected by which men otherwise most holy scarcely bear the victory of adversaries with equanimity. Hence Weomad would have refused to dedicate the church, and our Lull, at the solicitation of King Charles, would have fulfilled this office, returning from the assembly of the Lippe.

§ IX. On the honour of the pallium conferred rather late, and on the councils at which St. Lull was present.

Councils were rarer on account of the frequency of assemblies: It may seem strange to one who considers the frequency of the synods celebrated while St. Boniface was living that no assembly of this kind was held under Lull his successor. The chief cause of this thing seems to me to be the very manner in which every year the nobles of the kingdom were called together to the Field of May. Hincmar of Reims, who, as he himself says, copies Adalhard of Corbie, a contemporary of Charles, testifies to us Ibid., vol. IX, p. 267. that the custom at that time was such that not oftener, but twice in the year two assemblies were held. One when the state of the whole kingdom was ordered for the space of the coming year, which, once ordered, no turn of events changed except the highest necessity, which likewise pressed upon the whole kingdom. In which assembly the generality of all the greater men, both clerics and laymen, came together: the lesser for the sake of receiving the same counsel, and sometimes likewise of treating it, and of confirming it not by power but by their own understanding of mind or judgment. And in these assemblies the Capitularies were proposed and confirmed; and no one is unaware how accurately they settled the whole ecclesiastical matter, the bishops consenting. This, in my judgment, is the true reason why synods properly so called were rarer. To this purpose too is the fact that the metropolitan hierarchy, restored by St. Boniface, after his death seems to have fallen into disuse

until, as we shall show below, it was again restored by Pope Hadrian. For that the metropolitan dignity of the Church of Mainz was asserted not only to St. Boniface but perpetually to his successors we have from the letter of Pope Zachary Letter LXXXVIII. Würdtwein, p. 241. Serarius lacks it..

[70] to celebrate councils, however, There are nevertheless writers Binterim, Deutsche Concilien, vol. II, p. 35. who think that a synod of bishops was not celebrated in the province of Mainz for this reason, that our Lull, lacking the archiepiscopal pallium for about twenty years, did not have the power of convoking councils. In favour of this supposition is alleged the letter of St. Boniface to Cuthbert; but I doubt whether the authority of this letter binds the argument: here are its words Letter LXXIII. Würdtwein, p. 197. Serarius CV.: And we decreed in our synodal assembly, and confessed, that we wish to keep the catholic faith and unity and subjection to the Roman Church to the end of our life, and wish to be subject to St. Peter and his vicar: to gather a synod every year: that metropolitans should seek pallia from that see, and desire canonically to follow the precepts of Peter in all things, that we may be numbered among the sheep commended to him. And to this confession we all consented, and subscribed, and sent it to the body of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, which the clergy and the Roman Pontiff received with rejoicing. We decreed that every year the decrees of the canons and the rights of the Church and the norm of the regular life should be read and recovered in synod. We decreed that the metropolitan, who is exalted with the pallium, should exhort the others and admonish and investigate who among them is careful about the salvation of the people, or who is a negligent servant of God… We decreed that it is proper to the metropolitan, according to the statutes of the canons, to investigate the morals of the bishops subject to him and their solicitude about the peoples, of what kind they are (it is). And let him admonish that the bishops, coming from the synod and holding an assembly in their own diocese with the priests and abbots, command them, by insinuating them, to keep the precepts of the synod. And let each bishop, if he has been unable to correct or amend anything in his diocese, likewise make it known in synod before the archbishop and openly to all for correction, in the same way as the Roman Church bound us, when ordained, with an oath, that if I should see priests or peoples to have strayed from the law of God and could not correct them, I should always faithfully indicate it to the apostolic See and to the vicar of St. Peter for amendment. For so, unless I am mistaken, all bishops ought to make known to the metropolitan, and he to the Roman Pontiff, if anything about the correction of the peoples is impossible for them, and so they will become free of the blood of lost souls. For the rest, most dear brother, since an equal labour and a greater danger hangs over us than over the other priests, because the ancient canons command that all metropolitans (better, the metropolitan) should know that they bear the solicitude of the whole province.

[71] had no need In this letter indeed St. Boniface seems to require something greater of a metropolitan who is exalted with the pallium; but this is nevertheless restricted to exhortation, admonition, investigation, and accordingly to a certain inspection, extending itself perhaps even over those bishops who otherwise were not subject to the archbishop by metropolitan right: the honour of the pallium therefore seems to have nothing in common with the right of celebrating a council. But if anyone nevertheless should wish so to twist the cited words as to fit them to convoking a synod, he will surely have to explain how it came about that, while it was provided by synodal decree that metropolitans should seek pallia from the apostolic See, our Lull nevertheless lacked this ornament for about twenty years? I gladly acknowledge, with the Maurist editors of the works of St. Gregory the Great Book IX, letter XI, to Queen Brunechild, vol. II, col. 936., that the first example of the necessity of receiving the pallium for metropolitan bishops occurs in the cited synodal decree: it nevertheless seems not to have obtained the force of law, inasmuch as it was not put into execution, according to the known adage Canon III, distinction III.: Laws are instituted when they are promulgated; they are made firm when they are approved by the usages of those who use them. Otherwise how would Pope Hadrian, in the letter about to be cited, not have turned it into a fault in St. Lull that he had so long put off the petition for the pallium, especially if that archiepiscopal insignia had been necessary for convoking councils? Wherefore not undeservedly Sebastiano Berardi, in his commentary on the Canons of Gratian Vol. II, p. 418., establishes that the law of receiving the pallium was imposed on metropolitans in the year 877 in the Council of Ravenna Labbe, vol. IX of the Councils, col. 300.: unless we prefer to anticipate it by seven years, and accordingly to refer it to canon XVII of the ecumenical synod of Constantinople of the year 870 Ibid., vol. VIII, col. 1136..

[72] of the pallium the metropolitans in that period: Gaetano Cenni, in the notes to the Roman Council of the year 779 Mansi, vol. I of the Supplement of the Councils, col. 674., rightly says that Pope Hadrian was the restorer of the metropolitan dignity in the Gauls, as he shows from the letter of the same Pope to Bertherius of Vienne Labbe, vol. VI of the Councils, col. 1888., in which, he says, by the authority of Bl. Peter, prince of the Apostles, we have restored to each metropolitan his power after the ancient manner, and we asked our son, the glorious and renowned King Charles, before the body of Bl. Peter, that every metropolis should have its ancient dignity. Therefore we have sent this letter of our authority to all, which we wished you also to have, that you might know that the privilege of your Church, which it had from the time of Blessed Leo, has been entirely restored. Given on the Kalends of January, in the reign of the most pious Augustus Constantine, by God's assent the most pious King Charles crowned, in the first year of his patriciate (774). From these things it is plain why our Lull lacked the pallium and the archiepiscopal name for so long, which perhaps he first obtained in this or the following year. For the rest, I cannot agree with the said Gaetano when he says Mansi, vol. I of the Supplement of the Councils, col. 669. that in the eighth century it prevailed that archbishops had no authority before the pallium. For the authors of this opinion whom he brings forward belong to the following centuries, such as canon XVII of the VIIIth ecumenical Council of Constantinople, celebrated in the year 870 Labbe, vol. VIII of the Councils, col. 1136., etc. Indeed canon II of the Council of Ver of the year 755 Ibid., vol. VI, col. 1665., or, as Mansi prefers Vol. I of the Supplement of the Councils, col. 607., of the following year, expressly foresees the case in which metropolitans are not had, and therefore appoints certain bishops in the place of metropolitans, until, it says, we amend this more fully according to the canonical institution.

[73] which he received rather late For the rest, the letter of Pope Hadrian to Tilpin, archbishop of Reims, as it has flowed from Flodoard into the collection of letters of the Roman Pontiffs, seems to me very suspect. Remi Ceillier, a Benedictine monk, also held it doubtful, inasmuch as it calls into controversy the legitimate ordination of St. Lull Ecclesiastical Authors, vol. XVIII, p. 237.. Before all things I must show the text itself to the reader Labbe, vol. VI of the Councils, col. 1791.: We enjoin also upon your fraternity, since certain things have come to us concerning the ordination of the bishop named Lull, of the Holy Church of Mainz, that, taking with you the bishops Viomagus and Possessor, and the envoys of our glorious and spiritual son Charles, king of the Franks, you diligently inquire into all things concerning his ordination, and investigate his faith and doctrine and his way of life, and his morals and life; so that, if he be fit and worthy to govern the episcopal see, he may send to us through his envoys, with letters and the testimony of yourself and of the other bishops whom we have commanded to be with you, the catholic and orthodox faith set out and written and subscribed with his own hand, that we may send him the pallium according to custom, and judge his ordination firm, and cause him to be established archbishop in the same holy Church of Mainz. These things are from Flodoard's History of the Church of Reims, book II, chap. XVII Library of the Fathers, vol. XVII, p. 541.: from which, as we have said, it flowed into the collections of the Councils. And Flodoard died in the year of Christ 966.

[74] St. Lull, for Although the year of this letter is uncertain, it certainly could not have been written before the year of Christ 772, in which Hadrian ascended the Roman see. If it were a question only of sending the archiepiscopal pallium, there would be no difficulty: for I judge that in that century, as I showed above, the Roman Pontiffs were not accustomed to grant the pallium indiscriminately to all metropolitans, but still observed the discipline set out by St. Gregory the Great, by which Book IV, letter XI, vol. II of the Works, col. 937. the ancient custom had prevailed that the honour of the pallium ought not to be given except when the merits of the causes required it, and to one strongly asking. Hence it is no wonder that the conferring of the pallium was delayed for twenty years. But the letter of Hadrian sounds wholly otherwise: the Pontiff, namely, had received certain sinister things about Lull's ordination: concerning the ordination of the bishop named Lull … certain things have come to us: wherefore he wishes to be instructed about his doctrine and morals, that he may then be able to send the pallium. But who would persuade himself that Hadrian was ignorant that the ordination of Lull was made by St. Boniface the Martyr by the authority of Pope Zachary, as we showed above at no. 25, the king and the bishops of France also consenting, compare above no. 28? And if he was not ignorant of it, how could it happen that he wished to confirm an ordination made twenty years before? Moreover, if we observe that St. Boniface was accustomed to submit all things done by him to the judgment of the apostolic See, as is clear in many ways from his letters, no one will deny that the holy bishop very likely informed the Roman Pontiff about the ordination of his successor, which was being done outside the canons, and received approval from him.

[75] a reason To this purpose too is the fact that our Lull, as bishop of Mainz, had already been present at the Roman council under Stephen III, otherwise IV, celebrated in the year of Christ 769 on the 12th day of April Mansi, vol. I of the Supplement of the Councils, col. 641.; in which the cause of Constantine the pseudo-pontiff was judged and the cult of the holy images vindicated. And at that time Hadrian was already a deacon of the Roman Church, to be Pontiff of the same Church within three years. It could not happen, therefore, that Hadrian was ignorant of the ordination, and that the preceding Pontiffs did not hold it legitimate and ratified. Whence it may deservedly be concluded that it is corrupt, in so far as it makes the ordination of St. Lull totter. Nor does it help to bring into the case the controversy between our Saint and Abbot Sturm; suits of this kind were frequent in that newness of affairs, nor did a long-lasting dispute with Assuerus, abbot of Prüm, harm Wiomad of Trier. There might perhaps be someone who would wish to untie this knot by supposing another pontiff more ancient than Hadrian: but the very context of the letter forbids it, both because it indicates Charles as sole king of the Franks, which came about in the year 772, and because in express words it speaks in it of Zachary and of Stephen his successor, therefore Stephen III.

[76] unknown to us. In this Roman Council, as it was published by

Gaetano Cenni from the codex of Verona, of the tenth century as is said, our Lull occupies the sixth place after Pope Stephen, and is called bishop of Magnantia Ibid.. One archbishop occurs there, Wilcharius of Sens, or, as is corruptly written, Vicumssenensis; for that Willicharius of Sens was present at the council we have from the papers of Panvinio Labbe, vol. VI of the Councils, col. 1722. and from the codex of Verona itself, in which Wilcarius, archbishop of the Gauls, hands over writings to Leontius, regionary notary Mansi, vol. I of the Supplement of the Councils, col. 643.. Hence the said Cenni rightly concludes that he alone was as yet presented with the pallium, inasmuch as he alone after the one of Ravenna is called archbishop. All the rest are called bishops; among whom our Lull comes sixth from Pope Stephen III, after George of Meltae, or Meaux. But if according to the discipline then flourishing the pallium had been necessary in order that one might exercise metropolitan rights, no fit reason occurs why Lull should not have asked that insignia from the pontiff, and obtained it from him too.

[77] St. Lull is present Before the Roman council our Lull had already attended the assembly of Attigny, in which many things were decreed synodally, as is plain from a historical fragment which records the names of the bishops and abbots, and is of the following tenor Labbe, vol. VI of the Councils, col. 1702.: The names of the bishops or abbots who, gathered in synodal assembly at the public estate of Attigny for the cause of religion and the salvation of souls, among the other things salutarily and wisely defined, decreed this also by the common decree of all, that each one of those whose names are found written below in this little list, when anyone of them shall have passed from this world, shall sing a hundred psalters, and his priests a hundred special masses. And the bishop himself shall fulfil by himself 30 masses, unless he be prevented by infirmity or some hindrance; but then let him ask another bishop to sing for him. And let abbots who are not bishops ask bishops to fulfil those 30 masses in their place: and let their priests remember to sing a hundred masses, and the monks a hundred psalters. There follow the names of the bishops and abbots, among whom, after Hradegand, bishop of Metz, and Eddo of Strasbourg, our Saint comes third: Lullo, bishop of the city of Mainz.

[78] at the assembly In the cited text several things worthy of note occur. First of all it becomes evident here, as I warned before, that the public assemblies, in that century at least, supplied the place of councils of bishops, and obtained the same force among clergy and people: many things are here related as salutarily and wisely defined by the bishops, who had come together for the cause of religion and the salvation of souls. Nor let anything be inferred hence against the liberty of the Church; the Church had its own right, liable to none of the princes; the men of the ecclesiastical order debated among themselves the things which pertained to the Church. But if anyone nevertheless would have divine things subjugated to the royal power, let him know, however, that with the bishops' consent nothing of the kind was attempted. Our Lull, already near death, as it seems, and accordingly when Charlemagne was flourishing, writes to Cena in England Among those of Boniface, letter CXXXI. Würdtwein, p. 320. Serarius CIX.: We ought to glory in insults and tribulations for the name of Christ, and in the exaltation of His Church: which daily is beaten, pressed and wearied, because the modern princes establish new customs and new laws according to their own desires. These words in my opinion suffice to show that not every norm of ruling the Church was approved by the judgment of the most holy prelate.

[79] of Attigny, Another thing worthy of note occurs in the decree of Attigny, namely that there were then several abbots raised to the episcopal dignity, whose names are shown in the subscription: such are Theodulf, bishop from the monastery of Lobbes, Jacob, bishop from the monastery of Gamundiae, Williharius, bishop from the monastery of St. Maurice: but among the rest is painted in Willibald, bishop from the monastery of Achistadum, which may seem faulty at first sight, since he ought rather to be called bishop of the city of Eichstätt. I judge, however, that Willibald is rightly written: for the beginnings of this bishopric are traced back to a monastery, as the contemporary nun of Heidenheim has it in his Life at the 7th of July Vol. II of July, p. 511, no. 43.. The first care of Bishop Willibald was to build a monastery at Eichstätt, to institute it according to the norm of the Benedictine rule, and in it to form his helpers to every virtue: what wonder then that the bishopric of Eichstätt is reckoned here under the name of a monastery? Whether the psalters prescribed to the priests and monks to be sung for each of the dead embrace all the psalms, or rather the seven penitential ones, I do not know: this word is found in each sense among the ancients, whom consult in the Glossary of middle and low Latinity and in the Supplement.

[80] but not, as it seems, at that of Gentilly. That our Lull was present at the assembly of Gentilly in the year 766, in which the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and the sacred images were treated of, Latomus judges in his manuscripts: but Christian Joannis Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, p. 377. rightly adds that nothing of the kind is read in any of the ancients. Meanwhile, although our Saint mentions rather often that he is tormented by various infirmities, I do not easily bring myself to think that they were the cause why he was more rarely present at councils and assemblies. For the letters which are addressed to him, and which he in turn sends back, manifestly show that during the time of his episcopate he enjoyed such health as sufficed for bearing the episcopal burden, excepting, however, the last years of his life, in which, being over eighty, he perhaps could not perform the more burdensome ceremonies of the Church, as I insinuated above at no. 68.

§ X. On the letters written by St. Lull and on the little gifts sent back and forth between the Germans and the English.

The encyclical letter to the priests Besides nine letters St. Lull has left us nothing written, although there is no doubt that he wrote many more, as is plain from the twenty-four addressed to him, each of which certainly received an answer. Although their style is unpolished, yet various things occur in them which can help to illustrate the history of that century. The first which occurs (we follow the edition of Alexander Würdtwein Among those of Boniface, letter CVII. Würdtwein, p. 285. Serarius CXII.) is an encyclical to the priests established in the province of the Thuringians, namely Denehard, Eanberht, Winbert, Sigaher and Sigewald, that both they and the handmaids of Christ (the nuns) and all the people in common should entreat the mercy of the Lord, that we may be freed from the impending scourge of rains. It is therefore prescribed to all that for one week they abstain from all flesh and from every drink in which there is honey: then that on the second weekday, the fourth weekday and the sixth weekday they fast until evening. Moreover that each of the servants of God (the monks) and of the nuns sing fifty psalms every day in that week, and that the priests remember to celebrate those Masses which are wont to be said for storms. Then he prescribes for the Roman Pontiff 30 Masses and those psalms, namely fifty, of which he had spoken a little before.

[82] the first monument of this kind; Remi Ceillier, a Benedictine History of the Ecclesiastical Authors, vol. XVIII, p. 221., says that this letter is as it were derived from a letter of King Pippin addressed to St. Lull: so that, according to the said Benedictine, he copied out the Pippinian charter, the king's name being kept silent. The king's name being suppressed, therefore, he would have made into his own encyclical the same letter, in which the same order of fasts and prayers was prescribed. I have, however, found no letter of this kind, neither among the Bonifacian ones nor in other collections: one is cited in which Pippin asks for prayers in thanksgiving for the abundant fruits of the earth Among those of Boniface, letter CIX. Würdtwein, p. 287. Serarius XCVI.: wherefore he writes that each bishop in his diocese should make Litanies, not with fasting, but only in the praise of God; who, he says, has given us such abundance, and let each man give his alms and feed the poor. This is the only letter of Pippin addressed to St. Lull which has become known to us. Worthy of note in the Lullian letter is that it is among the first monuments in which a bishop prescribes prayers and fasts to clergy and people. There occurs in it a special Mass against storms of the air. That Masses of this kind, which are called votive, were already then in use Cardinal Bona shows, book I Rerum Liturgicarum, chap. XV, no. 3, from a Book of Sacraments of the 8th century, in which more votive Masses are found than are found in present-day Missals. It seems worthy of note also that among the foods forbidden in time of fasting is placed drink in which there is honey, which is clear also from the letter to Oswitha to be cited below.

[83] the letter of Lull to the Pontiff; The letter of Lull, among the Bonifacian ones CXII Würdtwein, p. 290. Serarius c., is addressed to the Roman Pontiff, whether Stephen III or Paul I, and in it he complains that a certain priest, lying hidden in England, as is plain from the letter, named Enred, ordained in another diocese, and brought into his diocese by the priest Willefrith without the consent of his predecessor Boniface or of himself his successor, had spurned his authority. For, knowing the authority of the canons, he says, you decreed that all priests who are in the diocese ought to be under the power of the bishop, and that none of them should presume in his diocese either to baptize or to celebrate Masses without the order of the bishop, and that all priests should come to the bishop's council; all which things the aforesaid priest named Enred scorned to do, and therefore, according to what you defined, he received from me a sentence of rebuke. Canons of this kind occur frequently in the councils of that time and region [See the German Council of the year 742, canon IV (Harzheim, Councils of Germany, vol. I, p. 49). Council of Soissons of the year 744, canon V (Ibid., p. 58). Letter of Pope Zachary of the year 748, chap. II (Ibid., p. 84).]. Lull then complains that both Willefrith and his client Enred had carried off bondsmen, garments, arms, horses and herds; some of which Willefrith sent overseas with Enred to his mother: they seem therefore to have been natives of England. The same Enred had also carried off from the churches two armlets and five siglae: it is plain enough what comes under the name armilla here, which, made of gold, signifies an ornament of the arm: Siglae the commentators on the Bonifacian letters interpret as a necklace; but armilla too is an ornament: since therefore Lull designates a species of ornament, we rightly conclude that the name Sigla is not generic, but indicates a species, namely a golden signet ring, perhaps adorned with a precious stone, from the old Saxon word sigle, whence Siegel flowed into the Teutonic tongue for the Germans, Zegel for the Flemish [Du Cange, Glossary, under sigla. They also interpret it as a bulla, a brooch; compare Schiller, Saxon-Latin Lexicon, under sigl.].

[84] to Oswitha, reproachful: There follows the letter numbered CXIII Würdtwein, p. 292. Serarius XLVII., addressed to the abbess Suitana or Oswitha, in which, after a bitter rebuke, he excommunicates her because she let two women of the sacred veil (that is, nuns), against the statutes of the canons and the discipline of the holy rule, without the leave and counsel of the bishop… to satisfy the arrogance and pleasure of laymen… go free into a distant region. Perhaps into their native region, England? for travel back and forth was frequent in this century. The Saint continues: But lest perchance, making little of this my reproof, you despise it, I shall strike you with the apostolic word, by which he says: Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest may have fear. For such folly know that you are excommunicated with all your sisters who have perpetrated this guilt of negligence by consenting, until by worthy satisfaction you amend this fault. And those wandering and disobedient women mentioned above you shall not receive within your cell (monastery), but let them sit outside the monastery, excommunicated from the Church of Christ, doing penance, when they come, on bread and water; and you likewise, abstaining from all flesh and from every drink which is sweetened with honey: knowing that if you spurn this rebuke, you spurn Him who was sent by God to save sinners, that is, Christ, who said in the Gospel: He that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth Him that sent me, that is, God the Father almighty. We hope in Christ that you will be converted to better things.

[85] it is discussed in what sense Deservedly does Mabillon Life, § XV. hand down this letter as an example of the zeal for monastic discipline with which St. Lull burned: nor did it escape the most learned man that from this letter it is established that nuns in Germany were accustomed to eat flesh Annals, book XXV, § LXXIV, vol. II, p. 266., since the Saint imposes abstinence from flesh as a penalty for sin on Oswitha and on those nuns who perpetrated this guilt of negligence by consenting. Yet there flourished there the Benedictine rule brought over from England, for the fuller restoration of whose observance St. Sturm had been sent to Monte Cassino, as is read in his Life Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 371.: Further, when the brethren had desired eagerly to observe the rule of the holy father Benedict, and had inclined their bodies and minds with all their soul to the norm of monastic discipline, they took useful counsel, that some of them should be sent somewhere to great monasteries, that they might learn perfectly there the concord and regular way of life of the brethren. When this had been indicated to the holy bishop (Boniface), he prudently praised their counsel and enjoined this embassy on the zealous Sturm. He, the necessaries for the journey having been prepared, taking with him two brethren, in the fourth year of his entry into the aforesaid place (Fulda), set out for Rome, and in that land, all the monasteries having been surveyed, and learning fully the manners and ways of life of all the brethren dwelling there and the traditions of the monasteries, remaining a whole year at those monasteries, in the second year thence, filled with the virtues which he had seen, he returned. From these it shines out that the rule of St. Benedict was accurately investigated and observed to the letter.

[86] the eating of flesh was forbidden by the Benedictine rule: Hence I believe that the flesh which St. Lull here forbids by way of penalty is not that of quadrupeds but of fowls: for the rule of St. Benedict, chap. XXXIX, says: But let the eating of the flesh of quadrupeds be wholly abstained from by all, except the wholly weak and sick. And thence arose the question whether it was lawful for monks to eat fowls; concerning which the Benedictines themselves went off into various opinions, as Benedict van Haeften shows Disquisitiones Monasticae, book X, tract VI, disquisition II, p. 929.. Omitting this question, inasmuch as it is foreign to our purpose, it seems to me certain enough that the monks of Fulda, whose example other ascetics of both sexes in Germany would have followed, ate fowls; for St. Rabanus Maurus, book II On the Institution of Clerics, chap. XXVII, cited by Haeften Ibid., p. 930.: I believe the use of birds was permitted from that time by the fathers because they were created from the same element as the fishes too. For in the rule of monks we do not find the eating of other flesh forbidden them, except of quadrupeds. And this book is proved to have been written in the year 819 Mabillon, Annals, book XXVIII, § XCV, vol. II, p. 424.: since therefore Rabanus already appeals to the fathers, everyone sees that we plainly reach the age of Lull; wherefore I judge that the abstinence from flesh imposed on Switana is to be understood of fowls, lest we be compelled to say that a laxer norm of living had already then been introduced.

[87] the letter to Cena, archbishop of York; There follows the letter of Lull to Cena, among the Bonifacian ones CXXXI Würdtwein, p. 320. Serarius CIX.. The Saint calls Cena endowed with the mitre of the supreme pontificate; by which mitre the archiepiscopal pallium is designated: for Cena, by another name Ethelbert, Adelbert or also Albert, was archbishop of York in England Alford, Ecclesiastical Annals of England, year 767, no. 1., over which see he presided from the 77th to the 81st year of the eighth century. In that letter Lull, recalling the old friendship which they had pledged before God with a faithful promise, continues: For we ought to be glorified in insults and tribulations for the name of Christ, and in the exaltation of His Church, which daily is beaten, pressed and wearied, because the modern princes establish new customs and new laws according to their own desires. Therefore with humble prayer we beseech your excellence as a constant intercessor for the salvation of our soul. For by assiduous sicknesses of body with anxiety of mind I am compelled to go out of this toilsome life, most full of dangers, being about to render account to the loving and strict judge. And I have sent to your love little gifts, that is, a silken pall of the best kind, by the bearer of this letter. I beseech that you acquire any of these books and deign to send them to us, which Bede the priest of blessed memory expounded, for the consolation of our pilgrimage: that is, on the first part of Samuel up to the death of Saul, four books: or on Esdras and Nehemiah, three books, or on the Gospel of Mark, four books. Perhaps I ask burdensome things: but I enjoin nothing burdensome on true charity.

[88] the names of the princes are inquired into, Not a few things worthy of note occur in this letter addressed to Cena, archbishop of York. It is strange first of all that St. Lull complains so gravely of the state of the Church, which daily is beaten, pressed and wearied, because the modern princes establish new customs and new laws according to their own desires. On account of the highest praises with which Pippin and Charles are adorned with one voice by their contemporaries, the Rev. Mr. Binterim thinks that the Alemannian counts Warin and Ruodhard are here pointed at by our Lull Geschichte der Concilien, vol. II, p. 35., and in favour of this interpretation he cites Walafrid Strabo in the Life of St. Otmar Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 43., where these two, who at that time (from the year 754 to 771) administered the care of Alemannia, are in fact accused, at the devil's persuasion, overtaken by the disease of most monstrous avarice, of having drawn by force into the dominion of their own property in great part the possessions of the churches situated under their power. But it may deservedly be doubted whether Lull meant to treat of these counts, since their administration, confined within the bounds of Alemannia, could scarcely have concerned our Saint. Then, when Lull laments over the modern princes, writing especially to a foreign bishop, he can scarcely be understood to speak of anyone but the supreme princes or kings, that is, Charles and Carloman. The knot therefore lies in this, that we find on what occasion St. Lull could have complained of the sons of Pippin, whom contemporaries everywhere praise, and of whom certainly no one would say that they wished to bring any grievance upon the Church.

[89] by whom the Church was said to be oppressed: Although the words brought forward above seem to indicate some present calamity, I judge nevertheless that they are to be so explained that they rather presage something sinister for the future: for so is the human mind at times disposed, especially if it be weighed down by a sick body, that the impending evils which it fears it deplores as though already actually existing. King Pippin having died, good men feared lest the marriages to be arranged on both sides with Desiderius, king of the Lombards, should threaten great evils to Religion. And that the Lullian letter was written at that time is plain from this, that he calls the princes modern, that is, recently set on the royal throne. Now there exists a letter of Pope Stephen III, otherwise IV, addressed to Charles and his brother Carloman, in which the Pontiff tries by many words to turn them aside from contracting marriages with the family of Desiderius Labbe, vol. VI of the Councils, col. 1717.: Since, he says, we have found many, as we are instructed by the histories of divine scripture, through the unjust union with another nation to have strayed from the commandments of God and to have fallen into great crime. For what, most excellent sons, great kings, is such folly, that it should even be permitted to be said that your illustrious nation of the Franks, which shines above all nations, and so splendid and most noble an offspring of your royal power (Gisela, sister of both kings, was to be given to the son of Desiderius), should be polluted, which God forbid, by the perfidious and most stinking nation of the Lombards; which is by no means reckoned in the number of nations, from whose nation the race of lepers too is certain to have arisen. For no one who has a sound mind can even suspect this, that such most renowned kings should be entangled in so detestable and abominable a contagion. For what fellowship has light with darkness, or what part has the faithful with the unfaithful?

[90] and it is shown that the accusation concerns the sons of Pippin: He adds that each already had wives, whom having dismissed it was not lawful to marry others, then continues: Consider, I pray, how many and what powerful men, turning aside from the precepts of God through foreign marriages and following the will of their wives of a foreign nation, entangled in grievous excesses, have suffered immense perils. To one who considers this letter scarcely any doubt remains to me that our Lull had the same matter in view, and, while he laments new customs and new laws brought in, was censuring the Lombard marriages and the unjust divorce of each king: from history we have that Charles married Desiderata or Ermengard, Carloman Gerberga, both daughters of Desiderius. From the letter of Pope Stephen it shines out also that Charles, the Church unwilling and protesting, attempted several marriages at once; if, however, he did this, since weighty authors on both sides stand for differing opinions, which we judge is not to be discussed by us here. One thing we wished to indicate here, that if Charles committed any sin of this kind, it happened not with the Church conniving but with the Church forbidding with grave threats.

[91] in the same letter Lull asks for books Another thing which occurs in the cited letter worthy of note is the holy man's zeal in collecting books of various subjects. Besides the little works of Bede,

which he asks for here, he had already sought other writings of his from the same bishop Cena, as is established from the latter's letter, among those of Boniface CXXVII Würdtwein, p. 315. Serarius XCIX., namely the treatises on the tides of the sea and on cosmography, which Cena says had not come to hand: nor, he says, are there other copies with us except ones very troublesome in pictures and letters. From the letters sent back and forth between Lull and Guthbert it is clear that there was quite often dealing between them about books: thus in letter CXXXIII among those of Boniface Ibid., p. 323. Serarius CXI. Lull had asked for Bede's writings on the building of the temple, on the Song of Songs, and his epigrams composed in heroic or elegiac metre: he had received in letter CXXIV Ibid., p. 310. Serarius LXXXIX. from the same Guthbert the books of Bede on the man of God Cuthbert composed in metre and prose. St. Boniface in his time had already asked for similar gifts in letters XII Ibid., p. 32. Serarius III., XIX Ibid., p. 48. Serarius XXVIII., XL Ibid., p. 89. Serarius XV., XLI Ibid., p. 91. Serarius XXII., LIV Ibid., p. 119. Serarius VIII.. Among which, in letter XIX, written to the abbess Eadburga, the holy bishop asks: Since your goodness has often consoled my sadness, whether with the solace of books or the help of garments: so also I beseech that you increase what you have begun, that is, that you write out for me in gold the epistles of my lord St. Peter the Apostle, for the honour and reverence of the holy scriptures before the eyes of carnal men in preaching.

[92] which were often asked for by the English: From England too there was frequent traffic of letters by which books were sought from Gaul and Germany; as St. Boniface teaches in letter LIV Ibid., p. 120. to Bishop Ecgberht, in which he writes: As a token of charity I have sent to your fraternity copies of the letters of St. Gregory, which I took from the archive of the Roman Church, which I did not think had come to Britain: and I will send more likewise, if you shall command, because I took many from there. Milret, bishop of an uncertain see in England, asks of our Lull the venerable Life and glorious end of St. Boniface, among the Bonifacian letters CXVII Ibid., p. 302. Serarius LXXVIII.; and in turn treats of sending a book of pyrpyrian metre (Serarius conjectures porphyrian is to be read; but whichever way it be read, it is impossible for me to indicate what he meant to say). Cyneheard, bishop of Winchester, asks of our Saint in letter CXV Ibid., p. 298. Serarius LXXIV.: If there are any consolations with you necessary for us, or things unknown to us of spiritual knowledge indeed, whether in ancient books which we do not have, or in other ecclesiastical administrations, that you do not refuse to share them gladly with us. And also, if you should obtain any books of secular knowledge unknown to us, such as those on medicinal matters, of which there is some supply with us, but yet the overseas ingredients which we find written in them are unknown to us and difficult to obtain: or if you foresee any things necessary to us in any other affairs or kinds, deign to communicate them.

[93] Lull's fame in letters was great, This letter of Cyneheard proves how great was the fame of our Lull in cultivating the sciences, so that scarcely any kind of learning seemed foreign to him. Which fame is confirmed also by the letter of Charlemagne to St. Lull on promoting studies, which Bréquigny Table des diplômes. places under the year 787. The letter was published by Jean Lebeuf Dissertations on the ecclesiastical and civil history of Paris, vol. I, p. 421., who rightly observes that it was written before the year 787 Ibid., p. 387.: for then an encyclical would have sufficed, such as exists addressed to Baugulf, abbot of Fulda Bouquet, Writers, vol. V, p. 621, and Pertz, Monuments, Laws, vol. II, p. 52.. For the rest, Lull's name has dropped out; nor is the year in which it was given expressed: although it is not to be doubted that it was addressed to our Saint, since he is named both archbishop and disciple of St. Boniface; two things which befit no one whom we know but our Lull. Since it does not exist among the Bonifacian letters, and the little works of the said Jean Lebeuf are rather rare, we think it will not be unwelcome to the readers if we show it here, extracted from a codex of St. Martial of Limoges: especially because it extols also the Saint's knowledge of letters and his zeal in labouring for the conversion of souls: although it seems to carp at some negligence in imparting letters and sciences to his clergy.

[94] as the letter of Charlemagne proves; Charles, by the help of Christ king, to the most blessed man… archbishop, our father. Since, by God's favour, you studiously keep watch in acquiring souls for God, it seems very strange to us why you bear no solicitude in instructing your own clergy in the studies of letters. For you see the darkness of ignorance poured round on every side in the hearts of your subjects, and though you could pour the ray of learning into their senses, you allow them to lie hid in the gloom of their blindness. For that you are held powerful in this part too is doubtful to no one: since you have instructed one cleric of the holy man So-and-so, a bishop, your fellow priest, and another of So-and-so, a religious abbot, in liberal studies in such a way that almost nothing is wanting to them to the summit of perfection. What excuse, then, can there be for your holiness, when the sons of others are full of the pasture of your teaching, while your own still waste away with the hunger of ignorance, the food of learning being withdrawn? Certainly one of two things; either they themselves with contumacious pride disdain to be subject to your teaching, or on your part (which we would not have happen) things are done too remissly. But whichever of these it be, it looks to your care, venerable father, by whom, even if they are swollen in heart, they ought either to be corrected by fatherly admonition or restrained by the pastoral staff. And now, as far as study is concerned, they ought to be roused to the light of learning, now by gentle persuasions, now even by harsh rebukes: and if any of them are needy, to be roused even by aids bestowed. And surely, even if you are not able to draw others to learning, at least you can instruct those of the servants of your Church whom you shall perceive to be capable. But who could now believe that in so great a multitude as will be subject to your rule no one can be found fit for instructing? All who know you as the disciple of Blessed Boniface the Martyr await from your studies the most abundant fruit. Gird yourself therefore for what remains, lovable father, and be zealous in imbuing your sons with liberal studies, that you may both satisfy our will in this, which we ardently desire, and acquire the recompense of everlasting reward. Nor let the lamp of your works lie hid under a bushel in this part only, which in the rest, set upon a candlestick, gleams by divine gift with clear brightness. Farewell, most dear father, and be mindful of us.

[95] the price of books at that period: How great a price codices had at that period may be judged from this, that, on the testimony of the Venerable Bede, Aldfrid, king of the Northumbrians, about the year of Christ 690 gave to Ceolfrid, abbot of Wearmouth Venerated on 25 September., for one codex of Cosmography land of eight families, or as many hides: for by that word the Anglo-Saxon translator of Bede renders the word family. And a Hide contained a hundred, or at the least forty, jugera (arpents): so that Aldfrid spent at least three hundred and twenty jugera (109 hectares) on one book: so certainly Joseph Strutt interprets Bede Angleterre ancienne, vol. I, p. 173., who hands down the matter in the History of the abbots of Wearmouth in the following manner Mabillon, Acts of the Benedictine Saints, saec. II, p. 1009.: The library of each monastery (of Wearmouth and of Jarrow), which Abbot Benedict Venerated on 12 January. began with great earnestness, he himself doubled with no less industry; so that he himself added three pandects of the new translation (the Hieronymian, I believe), which he had brought from Rome, one of which, the old man returning to Rome, took with him among other things as a gift, the other two he left to each monastery. Also, a codex of the Cosmographers of wonderful workmanship, which Benedict had bought at Rome, being given, he purchased land of eight families beside the river Fresca from King Aldfrid, most learned in the scriptures, for the monastery of Bl. Paul the Apostle; which order of purchase Benedict himself, while he was still living, had assessed with the same King Aldfrid, but died before he could complete it.

[96] the variant reading of Mabillon and of the Hagiographers is examined. I will not conceal, however, that both the cited Mabillon and our men in the Life of St. Ceolfrid at the 25th of September Vol. VII of September, p. 132, no. 44 and 45., copying the Benedictine Acts of the Saints Ibid., p. 126, no. 17., by punctuating this text otherwise, have deleted every trace of a purchase. For they so divide the text brought forward that the donation of the cosmographic book seems to concern the increase of the monastic library, the acquisition of the land the mere liberality of King Aldfrid: this is their reading: The other two he left to each monastery; a codex of the Cosmographers also being given … which Benedict had bought at Rome. Land of eight families … from Aldfrid … he purchased into the possession of the monastery, etc. But everyone sees how awkwardly the text flows if we follow the Mabillonian punctuation: first of all Bede does not prove his assumption, namely the increase of the library through Ceolfrid, by speaking of a book which Benedict had bought at Rome: then, after Bede has said that Ceolfrid gave pandects to each monastery, how does it come about that the writer is silent as to which monastery he then conferred the Cosmography upon? Finally, how could Benedict, while he was still living, assess the order of purchase with King Aldfrid unless he were speaking of some exchange? Certainly a donee cannot assess the order of purchase, that is, prescribe the terms of the pact, when he receives something from mere liberality: it is for the giver to impose the measure and terms of his beneficence on the recipient. The text therefore seems to be understood of an exchange in the true sense of the word, and accordingly the punctuation brought forward in the preceding number is wholly to be retained.

[97] Of the little gifts Let us return to our matter. Besides the books which were sent back and forth from England and Germany, it was also customary among the men of that age to present one another with various little gifts [Concerning the practice of sending little presents see Mabillon, Acts of the Benedictine Saints, saec. III, part I, Life of the Venerable Bede, p. 554, and Haeften, Disquisitiones monasticae, book IV, tract VII, disquisition IV, p. 430 and following.]. Thus the cited letter of Lull to Bishop Cena makes mention of a silken pall of the best kind. A palla is a kind of hanging with which the walls of the church, the altars, and the sepulchres both of the Saints and of the great were adorned, as can be seen in the Glossary of Charles Du Cange under Palla. We do not think the presents which were sent on both sides should be passed over in silence; for by an indication of this kind, though summary, it can be shown, at least in some part, in what wares each region abounded. The English sent into Germany

frequently garments, and those, as it seems, of wool and of linen, as the letter of Cyneheard, bishop of Winchester, to our Lull shows us, among the Bonifacian ones CXV Würdtwein, p. 299. Serarius LXXIV.: From our own poor clothing also, he writes, we have sent these small little presents, unworthy indeed of your dignity, yet, we ask, suitable: that is, a woollen tunic and another of linen, as is the custom of having among us, boots and peripsemata (coverings of the feet), an orarium (here, since it is a question of common garments, I interpret it as a handkerchief: otherwise it signifies the priestly stole), and a cocula (a shaggy Irish cloak) and a short gunna sewn after our fashion (a garment of skins, from the English: Gown), as a token of our most full love.

[98] from England In letter CVIII among those of Boniface Ibid., p. 286. Serarius XC. Alhred, king of the Northumbrians, and Osgeofu, the royal wife, about the year of Christ 769, write to St. Lull and ask him to come to the aid of their embassies to the most glorious King Charles by counselling, so that he may cause the peace and friendship which befit all to be stably confirmed: by which words it is shown how great was the influence of our Lull with Charlemagne. Then he sends him twelve cloaks, with a gold ring as a dota, that is, as a gift; for so I interpret: We have sent small little gifts to your dignity. There follows a letter of similar argument, CXVI Ibid., p. 300. Serarius LXXXVI., in which Eardwulf, bishop of Rochester, gives our Saint one reptis ruptilis. Du Cange from various authors interprets reptis as renones, or coverings of the shoulders from the breast to the navel, and so bristling with twisted tufts that they repel the rain, which are commonly called repti, because the length of the tufts as it were creeps. But what the word ruptilis means here I plainly do not understand. In letter CXIX Ibid., p. 305. Serarius LXXXII. Abbot Botwine sends to Lull modest little gifts, that is, 3 cloaks. In letter CXXII Ibid., p. 308. Serarius LXXXVI. Cyneheard, the bishop of Winchester already praised above, first of all consoles his friend Lull, who is beaten by many tribulations which nearly all the Saints have been wont to suffer from the world; which seem to be referred to those things which we touched on above at num. 88; afterwards he adds: We have sent the littleness, however small, of a modest little gift only in view of charity, that is, a garment from our own clothing, as our predecessors are wont to send to your predecessors. We have already treated above of Gutberct, when we spoke of books; in the same letter CXXIV Ibid., p. 311. Serarius LXXXIX. he says that he gives two palls of most fine work, one white, the other of dyed colour, with little books, and a cloca (a kind of cloak, which even today is called in English Cloak), such as he had to hand.

[99] to the Germans And that little gifts of this kind, though of wool or linen, were not of the lowest price we conjecture from this, that wool was already highly valued, as the said Strutt shows Angleterre ancienne, vol. I, p. 182. from the laws of Ine, king of the West Saxons, who about the end of the 7th century decreed in chap. LV Wilkins, Anglo-Saxon Laws, p. 23. that a sheep with its lamb should be worth a solidus up to the fourteenth day from Easter. And the solidus consisted of five denarii, as Wilkins shows in his Glossary under manca, marca Ibid., p. 415.; and since the fleece of a sheep was valued at two denarii by law LXIX Ibid., p. 25., it follows that the fleece or wool was equivalent to two fifths of a sheep with its lamb. To this purpose too is the fact that at the end of the thirteenth century, namely in the year 1292, the use of wool or linen in garments was still rare in France, as the celebrated V. Géraud demonstrates Paris sous Philippe-le-Bel, p. 518 and 530.: since at that time at Paris there existed only 22 merchants of linen and 19 of woollen garments. The number of pelterers, as those were called who prepared the skins of animals for garments, ran up to 214: hence it may be conjectured that wool and linen were of far rarer use in the 8th century in Gaul, and especially in Germany, at that time plainly barbarous. By way of crowning touch we add, from letter CII among those of Boniface Würdtwein, p. 272. Serarius XXXIX., that Ingalice sent Lull four little knives, and from letter CXXIV Ibid., p. 311. Serarius LXXXIX. that Gutberct sent twenty little knives: by which is confirmed the saying of Strabo Geography, book IV, chap. V. that from Britain, besides white lead or tin, iron too was exported for the sake of trade. Compare Julius Caesar, On the Gallic War, book V, chap. XII.

[100] and of these to the English Nor was Germany wanting on its part: it gave first of all cloths of haircloth, or made of goats' wool, as letters XII and XXXVII teach us Würdtwein, p. 33. Serarius III, and p. 84. Serarius CL., and also shaggy ones Ibid., p. 120. Serarius VIII. (such as, on Strabo's testimony, Geography, book IV, were woven among the Belgae from rough wool, whence perhaps the name villosi flowed). Hawks and falcons originating from Germany were also celebrated, because, as King Æthelberht says in letter LXXXIV Ibid., p. 244. Serarius XL.: Very few hawks of this kind are found in our regions, that is in Kent, which produce such good offspring and are reared, tamed and taught to be agile and warlike for the aforesaid art (of catching cranes). The art of glass-making too seems to have been cultivated well enough in the Gauls at that time Ibid., p. 311. Serarius LXXXIX.; for Gutberct, praised a little above, writes to the Saint: If there be any man in your diocese who can make glass vessels well, when the time is favourable, deign to send him to me; or if perchance he is beyond your bounds in the power of some other, outside your diocese, I ask that your fraternity persuade him to come to us, because we are ignorant of that art and in want of it. The same Gutberct asks that a harper be sent to him, because, he says, I have a harp and have not a craftsman. The cithara the writer himself also calls rottae or rocta, a kind of musical instrument, according to Strutt Angleterre ancienne, vol. I, p. 121. a four-stringed lyre, which, however, Notker, in Du Cange under Rocta, says represents the figure of a delta on account of a mystery. St. Boniface too, in letter XXXVII Würdtwein, p. 86. Serarius LXXXV., sends to Ecgberht of York two little casks of wine, asking that he make a joyful day with his brethren from them.

[101] sent back and forth Besides these little gifts, native as it were, the Germans sent to England various things which, on account of more frequent trade with the East, were had more abundantly in the Gauls. Thus silk, of which we have already treated above at num. 97, was given by the Germans: as also spices, as letters XVI, XXXV and LXXI show Ibid., p. 45. Serarius VII; p. 82. Serarius V; p. 188. Serarius X.; these, however, not rarely came from Italy, as is clear from various letters. Thus Gemmulus, deacon of the holy apostolic See, in letters LXVIII and LXIX Ibid., p. 180 and following. Serarius CXLVIII and following., by way of charity, with great reverence sends to St. Boniface four ounces of cinnamon, two pounds of pepper, one pound of cozumber. And cozumber, called also coczumber, coczimber, cotzumber or cozamber, is a precious kind of fumigation, of which the same Gemmulus says that it is incense to be offered to the Lord at morning and evening times, or while the solemnities of Masses are celebrated, of wonderful odour and fragrance. And let these things said about gifts of this kind suffice: nor have we leisure to enumerate the little gifts of gold and silver with which those apostolic men adorned one another. But if anyone should censure this mutual liberality, let him remember, I pray, that gifts of this sort were at the same time a token of friendship and an alms of charity.

[102] sent. There still remain five letters written by St. Lull, of which we must treat in a few words. We have already reviewed above, at no. 10, the letter of Lull to Abbess Kanebada: and at nos. 18, 19 and 91 the letters which the same wrote to Dealwine, Leobgytha and Gutberct. There remains therefore one letter, among those of Boniface CIII Ibid., p. 274. Serarius XLV., addressed to Gregory of Utrecht, of which we have already treated above at no. 18: worthy of note besides there occurs in it a description of certain clerics or perhaps monks living too worldly: Who of the skilled, he says, does not know that there is much difference between temporal prosperity and eternal happiness? Let us learn, therefore, to enjoy this temporal power apart from eternal happiness, and in comparison with which all things become cheap to us. Precious garments, horses fed on spelt, hawks and falcons with crooked claws, barking dogs, the revels of buffoons, foods and drinks of exquisite sweetness of flavour, weights of gleaming silver and gold, let us spurn, lest there be the repose of a soft mattress, and let soft pillows rather be presented by men than by flaming girls. Before all things let the incautious familiarity of strange women be cut off, because we are often seduced by incautious security worse than by open temptation. Let the secret words of the divine scriptures drive out the tumultuous multitude of attendants, because that pit is to be avoided with all watchfulness through which we see very many to have fallen in miserable ruin.

§ XI. On the year and day of the death of St. Lull.

The learned do not agree on The death-year of St. Lull is disputed among the learned: for some fix the year of Christ 786: while there are not a few who judge that the following year is to be preferred: to say nothing of our Alford, who places the death under the year 788 Ecclesiastical Annals of Britain, year 788, no. 4. against the opinion of all writers. There is doubt also about the day of our Saint's death; since it pleases some that it was the seventeenth day before the Kalends of November, while others contend that he died on the Kalends themselves. We shall treat first of the death-year, as the weightier question, below dispatching in brief what pertains to the day. It is strange first of all that Nicolas Serarius Vol. I of the Affairs of Mainz, p. 377. says that there is greater agreement on the year of death 787. If Serarius said that there was such greater agreement among the more recent writers, I would gladly assent: but he himself, citing Marianus Scotus, sufficiently shows that he meant to speak of the ancients: and among these I have found not even one who plainly says that St. Lull died his last day in the 87th year of the eighth century. Marianus himself, whom Serarius makes the author of this opinion, rather insinuates the contrary. Here are his words Pistorius, Writers on German Affairs, vol. I, p. 635.: DCCXXXLVII… Lull, archbishop of Mainz, died. Richulf is ordained bishop on the fourth day before the Nones of March at Fritzlar. To this year certainly belongs the ordination of Richulf: for all know that the consecration of bishops, especially in those centuries, was wont to be celebrated on a Sunday; and in that year, marked with the dominical letter g, the fourth day before the Nones, or the fourth day of March, fell on a Sunday: nor does any reason occur, or

authority of the ancients, why we should say that Richulf succeeded Lull while he was living, as the author of the Life in the Butlerian collection wrongly insinuates. It is certain therefore, as I shall also show below, that the Saint died first, and, since his death cannot be moved from October or November, it follows that, with Marianus himself too not opposing, the death of St. Lull seems to be bound to the year of Christ 786.

[104] in defining the death-year Besides the said Marianus, whom no one will deny to be a doubtful witness, the chronicle of Hermann the Lame is also alleged by Caspar Sagittarius Antiquitates Ducatus Thuringiae, p. 91.: but wrongly; since there are various readings, and the death is found noted under each year, as can be seen in Pistorius Writers, vol. I, p. 221.. But in the edition which Aemilian Ussermann, a Benedictine of the Congregation of St. Blasien, prepared with new care in the year 1790, it says absolutely under the year 786 Collection of Monuments, vol. I, p. 127.: To Lull, archbishop of Mainz, Richulf succeeded. This reading, as it lies, could perhaps fit the following year more aptly, since it seems to indicate not so much the death of Lull as the obtaining of the see of Mainz by Richulf: I will not therefore oppose it if anyone should judge the other reading to be preferred: but he will agree with me that by this no prejudice is created against the opinion which connects with different years both the death of St. Lull and the ordination of his successor Richulf.

[105] of St. Lull, These things being removed as it were as hindrances of the ways, the line of the more ancient writers will proceed more easily, saying with unanimous voice that the death of St. Lull is to be fixed to the year of Christ 786. This is testified first of all by Lambert of Aschaffenburg, monk of Hersfeld, an exceedingly accurate and domestic author; he has under this year Pistorius, Writers, vol. I, p. 310.: St. Lull the archbishop died, whom Richulf succeeded. With these agree the more ancient Annals, namely those of Fulda or of Lorsch, contemporary, inasmuch as they end at the year of Christ 817 Dom Bouquet, Writers on Gallic Affairs, vol. V, p. 329.: Lull, bishop of Mainz, having died, Richulf succeeded. Nor can the same thing which I objected concerning the reading of Hermann the Lame in the preceding number be turned back here; for in the system of the adversaries neither would fit the year indicated, not the ordination of Richulf, which by the agreement of all is to be put off to the following year, not the death of Lull, which they would have placed in that year too: those writers therefore manifestly make for our opinion who place the pontificate of Richulf under this year.

[106] some standing for the year 787, others for the preceding: The Chronicle of Moissac, ending in the year 818, has Ibid., p. 72. under the year 786: A huge dread and fear fell upon the people, and a great mortality followed afterwards: and Julius the archbishop died. The celebrated Georg Heinrich Pertz not only approves the correction made by the Benedictines, that Lull be read for Julius; but thinks that the text itself has Lull Monuments of Germany, vol. I, p. 298., because Du Chesne and the Benedictines did not understand the shape of the letters i and l in that age. It is not ours to settle this suit, whatever it be, since we do not have the manuscript copy before us: one thing it seems must be said, that in the specimen of manuscripts shown by the celebrated Pertz each letter is excellently distinguished from the other, as will become manifest to one who inspects it. There follow in the order of time, since they run only to the year 900, the Annals of Fulda, which repeat the Annals of Lorsch in the same words Ibid., p. 350, and Dom Bouquet, Writers, vol. V, p. 329.. The Chronicle of Quedlinburg, ending in the year 1028, does the same Leibniz, Writers on Brunswick Affairs, vol. II, p. 276.. The Annals of Würzburg, whose limit is the first year of the twelfth century, relate under the same time [Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 240. Eckhart, Francia Orientalis, vol. I, p. 807.]: Lul, archbishop of Mainz, died, whom Richulf succeeded. We could bring forward many other testimonies, but these, in so far as they are ancient, suffice: especially if, as we have warned above, it be observed that none of the ancients clearly and peremptorily favoured the opposite opinion.

[107] standing: But as great as the agreement is among the ancient writers concerning the death-year of St. Lull, so great is the disagreement among the more recent learned men. Prolonging his life into the 87th year of the eighth century are our Nicolas Serarius Vol. I of the Affairs of Mainz, p. 377., Le Cointe Annals of the Franks, at this year, § XXIX, Caspar Sagittarius Antiquitates Ducatus Thuringiae, p. 91., Remi Ceillier Ecclesiastical Authors, vol. XVIII, p. 220., Alban Butler 16 October, Louvain edition, vol. XVI, p. 26.; Mabillon, both in the Acts of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict Saec. III, part II, p. 398. and in the Annals of the same Order At this year, book XXV, § LXXIV, vol. II, p. 266., hangs in doubt, although he shows himself well enough inclined to the opinion of the more recent. But the opinion of the more ancient is embraced by Pagi Critique at the year 786, § XI, Eckhart Francia Orientalis, vol. I, p. 715. and our Sigismund Calles Ecclesiastical Annals of Germany, vol. II, p. 458.. The reason which drove many of the more recent to put off the death of St. Lull to the year 787 is drawn from the consecration of St. Willehad as bishop of Bremen, which was celebrated on the third day before the Ides of July of the year 787, and at which they contend that our Saint was present. That St. Willehad was consecrated in the said year, and on that day, although it was not a Sunday, his contemporary Life, written by St. Anskar, places beyond all doubt: for having died on the sixth day before the Ides of November, a Sunday, he remained in the pontificate two years, three months, twenty-six days Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 384.: whence, the reckoning being made, we find the aforesaid year and day of consecration.

[108] antiquity favours the latter opinion, But it is not equally certain that Lull was present at this ordination: the foundation of those who assert it rests chiefly on the diploma which Charlemagne gave for the Church of Bremen. In it Charles, having narrated the victory over the Saxons and the subjection of the nation, wills that they, restored to their former liberty and freed from every due rent, be tributary and subject to God: then in Wigmodia, in the place called Bremon, he establishes an episcopal see. He then continues: By the precept of the Supreme Pontiff and universal Pope, and also by the counsel of Lullo, bishop of Mainz, and of all who were present, we have committed the same Church of Bremen with all its appurtenances, before God and His saints, to Willehad, a man of approved life. Whom also we caused to be consecrated first bishop of the same church on the third day before the Ides of July… Given on the second day before the Ides of July, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 788. In the 12th Indiction. And in the 21st year of the reign of the Lord Charles. Done at the Palace of Nemesis happily. Amen Harzheim, Councils of Germany, vol. I, p. 259.. But the day of the consecration of St. Willehad, without a year added, is certainly faulty here: for it is given to be understood that Willehad was made bishop in the year of the diploma's issue, which happened in the preceding year, as we saw above. Indeed the year of the Incarnation itself, as it is read in the diploma, does not concur with the indiction and the years of the reign of Charles: wherefore many put the year 789.

[109] nor does it stand in the way At the 8th day of November, on which St. Willehad will be treated of, the cited diploma can be examined, which not a few accuse of doubtful credit Ludewig, Reliquiae Manuscriptorum, preface, § XXIII. But, freely admitting the authenticity of the cited diploma, I judge it is to be so explained that it can agree with the annals praised above. Two things are to be distinguished here: the constitution of the bishoprics in Saxony, and the ordination of the bishops: the latter may be put off even after the death of St. Lull; but that the former was done while the holy archbishop was living is shown by Eigil in the Life of St. Sturm, who Pertz, vol. II of the Monuments of Germany, p. 376. died in the 89th year of the 8th century, on the 17th day of the month of December: King Charles, always devoted to the Lord, since he was most Christian, began to think how he could gain this nation (of the Saxons) for Christ. Having taken counsel of the servants of God, he asked that by their prayers they would obtain that the Lord assent to his wishes. Having gathered so great an army, the name of Christ having been invoked, he set out for Saxony, taking with him all the bishops, abbots, priests, and all the orthodox and worshippers of the faith, that by sacred teachings they might cause the nation, which from the beginning of the world had been bound with the chains of demons, to take on by believing the gentle and sweet yoke of Christ. When the king had come there, partly by wars, partly by persuasions, partly also by gifts, he converted that nation for the greatest part to the faith of Christ. And not long after he divided that whole province into episcopal dioceses, and gave to the servants of the Lord the power of teaching and baptizing. Then the greatest part of the people and land of that country is committed to Blessed Sturm to look after.

[110] the time Eigil's words, if we should follow them too curiously, would make the division of the bishoprics in Saxony concur at least with the death-year of St. Sturm. But while he was living, earnest labour was indeed spent in converting the Saxons, without anything having yet been done about erecting bishoprics: the text itself indicates this somewhat: Not long after he divided that whole province into episcopal dioceses: it is a parenthesis, which runs on into one or another year after Sturm's death; for the learned everywhere show that the ecclesiastical division of Saxony belongs to the 80th or 81st year of the eighth century Schaten, History of Westphalia, book VII, p. 317.. The writings of the ancients aim at this opinion: Lambert of Aschaffenburg Pistorius, Writers, vol. I, p. 310. relates under the year 781: Charles divided the land among the bishops in Saxony. The preceding year is pointed to by a Fragment of the Annals of the Franks Bouquet, Writers, vol. V, p. 26.: He divided the (Saxon) country among priests and bishops, and also abbots, that they might baptize and preach in it. The Chronicle of Moissac has the same in almost the same words Ibid., p. 367.. The Chronicle of Quedlinburg expresses it more clearly Leibniz, Writers, vol. II, p. 275., concurring about the year with Lambert: Charles … divided the land of the Saxons among the bishops and established boundaries for the bishops. Then, therefore, Saxony was divided into eight bishoprics, as Adam of Bremen testifies to us Lindenbrog, Writers on the North, p. 4., namely those of Bremen, Osnabrück, Münster, Minden, Halberstadt, Verden, Schidrensis, Paderborn.

[111] of the consecration Now that this institution of bishoprics in Saxony was made on the counsel of the bishops we have from a contemporary witness, a monk of Corvey, namely the writer of the translation of St. Vitus. He had promised to append briefly to his little work how the Saxons could be converted to the faith and to the knowledge of the truth Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 577.: a little below he keeps his promise, and, the subjugation of Saxony having been narrated, continues, saying: But when the Lord had given him (Charles) rest from very many of his enemies, he called together all who were under his dominion, the greater men, priests and princes, and most zealously inquired

how he might establish the true faith and true religion in his whole kingdom. He also sought, nonetheless, priests of good hope whom he might send into Saxony, who should teach them according to the ecclesiastical faith and establish houses of bishops and churches. But when he had handed over the whole ecclesiastical order in that region, he could not find how he might institute the monastic religion there. The institution of the bishoprics, therefore, was made on the counsel of Lullo and of all the bishops who were present in the year of Christ 780 or the following: whence it also follows that its truth remains to the Caroline diploma for the Church of Bremen, without our making St. Lull the consecrator of Willehad.

[112] of St. Willehad of Bremen. For the rest, we have these same things from the Life of St. Willehad: for, his ordination held at Worms on the third day before the Ides of July having been narrated, St. Anskar, the writer of the Life, adds Ibid., p. 383.: And thus he first obtained the pontifical see in that diocese. Which, however, had been put off so long for this reason, that the nation, resisting divine belief, while it scarcely suffered priests, under compulsion, to remain with it at times, would by no means suffer itself to be ruled by episcopal authority. For this cause, therefore, he stayed for seven years before as a priest in the same diocese, yet called bishop, and ordering all things, as far as he could, with the power of one presiding. By which words it is most clearly plain that Willehad already had a diocese and episcopal jurisdiction in the 80th year of the eighth century. Since therefore the institution of the bishopric of Bremen must be separated from the ordination of St. Willehad by an interval of seven years, no reason occurs why, since this diocese was committed to him on the counsel of Lull and of the other bishops, we should also attribute the ordination of the same bishop to him. The reason, therefore, collapses which moved the supposition of the more recent writers to ascribe the death of St. Lull to the year 87; and accordingly nothing stands in the way of our embracing the opinion of the ancient writers.

[13] The day too is disputed, Concerning the death-day of St. Lull there is also, though not so great, a diversity of opinions: Remi Ceillier Ecclesiastical Authors, vol. XVIII, p. 220., the authors of the Literary France Vol. IV, p. 172. and Alban Butler Louvain edition at the 16th of October put the day of death on the very Kalends of November: nor do they seem to have any other surety for their opinion than Jan Gerbrandszoon, a Carmelite of the 15th century as it was drawing to its end, who in his Belgian Chronicle says Sweertius, Annals of Belgian Affairs, p. 45.: At length, when he had long ruled the Church of Mainz, knowing by the revelation of the Holy Spirit that the day of his falling asleep was at hand, he betook himself to the monastery of Hersfeld, where he wished to lie, and there in the thirty-second year of his ordination passed to the Lord. Everyone will easily grant with me that a writer who all but reached the 16th century is not of great authority. I believe indeed that the said authors were moved by the note of John Mabillon Benedictine Annals, book XXV, § LXXIV, vol. II, p. 266., saying: Albuin is venerated on the seventh day before the Kalends of November (26 October). But since Lull died in the same year, and indeed after him; if the day of Albuin's deposition has been well noted, Lull could not have died on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of November, but rather on the Kalends of November, on which day Jan Gerbrandszoon places his death in the Belgian Chronicle. So Mabillon, and rightly indeed, if the day of Albuin's death were certainly established.

[114] but without fit I do indeed find the day of Albuin's deposition noted under the seventh day before the Kalends of November; but that mention is indicated only in the Benedictine menologies of Ménard and Bucelin; and the authorities which he brings forward here belong to later centuries: whence there is no reason why we should be held back by them; especially since the cult of St. Albuin seems very doubtful to us, or at least confined within the narrowest limits, inasmuch as no mention of him occurs in the Additions of Usuard cited by Du Sollier. This question further will be examined at the 26th day of October. Hence an error could easily have crept in in noting the day of deposition. But it is altogether another matter with our Lull: he, bishop of a primary see, illustrious for holiness, deeds and miracles, could not so lie hidden. Since therefore the Church of Mainz has always persevered in venerating St. Lull on the 16th day of October, and judges that he was buried on this same day: no reason occurs to me why we should depart from that opinion, which the silence of the Usuardine Additions also confirms; for none records our Saint on the Kalends of November; indeed Marianus Scotus expressly has Pertz, vol. V, p. 548.: Lull, archbishop of Mainz, died on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of November, at the second hour of the day.

[115] ground, as is shown. Lull perhaps died of the pestilence then raging, as a fragment of the Frankish Annals teaches us Bouquet, Writers, vol. V, p. 27. Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. I, p. 33., which, having related various signs in the sky, adds under the year 786: But afterwards there was a great mortality, and Lull the archbishop departed from this light. And since after the sudden death of Albuin, a few days having intervened, Lull too fell, it may be that this slaughter is to be ascribed to the prevailing mortality. Further, Lull, as we saw above at no. 30 and following, was ordained bishop in the month of March of the year 754. Up to March of the year 786, therefore, thirty-two full years run: there are, however, some who count these years not as full but as begun, like the author of the Life to be published below, because, as Pagi says Critique at the year 786, § XII, the ancients, if it happened that some bishop renounced his dignity, ascribed the years in which he survived it now to him, now to his successor; which he then illustrates with certain examples brought forward. So too we must interpret Marianus Scotus Pistorius, Writers, vol. I, p. 633. when under the year 755 he says that Lull succeeded after Boniface in the bishopric for thirty-two years (compare above no. 103). For from this epoch, that is, from the death of St. Boniface, the thirty-second year was begun, but by no means completed.

§ XII. On the Relics of St. Lull and their translations.

The body of St. Lull, laid in Hersfeld, St. Lull, having died on the 16th of October of the year 786, obtained burial in the monastery of Hersfeld founded by himself, in which he had closed his last day, as the anonymous writer of the Life testifies at no. 32. Having narrated the sudden death of Albuin, he continues: The archbishop, not at all moved by the miracle of so great a matter, but embracing with most ready favour the diligent forerunner of his own death, ordered him to be placed on a ship and, carried down the Rhine with the stream, to be put ashore at the place which is called Hohstedi (Höchst). Where, when the people had come together in numbers from the whole bishopric for the office of the funeral, being magnificently received, he was translated by land into the monastery of Hersfeld. Nor did he lack any ambition of funeral goods (honours?) (if there is any honour of the tomb, if there is any solace in burial), a solid belief being transmitted to all that his merits are of great moment with God. But Blessed Lull, in the same order in which he had arranged, made for the monastery of Hersfeld. Where, at once touched by sickness, when he was in the thirty-second year of his ordination, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of November, having passed through a most honourable death, he yielded to nature. And following his forerunner by the right path, he was numbered among the senators of the heavenly court. For by how great merits he stands out before God, even if the memory of his most illustrious and notably led life had become obsolete, so many and so great miracles would nevertheless be a sign, by which, though dead in the flesh, he yet lives among the survivors, much more vividly, so to speak, than when he once lived in the flesh.

[117] in the year 852 first Not long did our Saint's body lie under the earth, for, as the said writer of the Life has it at no. 34: The sixtieth year had now flowed by since the body of Blessed Lull was handed over to burial, and it came into the mind of the brethren who at that time were keeping the divine watches in the monastery of Hersfeld to raise the sacred bones and lay them in a more celebrated place. And when a huge force of religious men had removed the stone with which the sarcophagus was covered, there was to be seen a great miracle, unheard of in the memory of men. The body, covered with earth through so great a course of time, had suffered no injury of corruption. It showed such comeliness of countenance, such dignity of all its limbs, such brightness of its garments too, that you would believe he had expired that very day, or had been buried in sleep rather than in death. Only the little boot of the left foot had age consumed. When therefore that stone of immense weight, which we said was prepared for covering the body, was being rolled hither and thither, by chance it escaped the hands of those rolling it, and so crushed the foot of a certain brother standing near that, the bones being shattered together with the flesh and even the shape of the foot lost, it offered a foul and pitiable spectacle to the bystanders. But quickly Blessed Lull relieved the mourning breasts of the brethren. For in the next night, when sleep had overpowered the sick man, his vigour so suddenly returned to all his limbs that he was present also at the morning hymns, not even a scar of so great a calamity surviving.

[118] elevated, Lambert of Aschaffenburg places the translation of St. Lull in the year 852, saying Ibid., p. 312.: The translation of Lull on the Lord's Supper, which in that year fell on the seventh day of April. Hence it is clear that the sixtieth year of which the writer of the Life treats is here a round number, as it is commonly said: for between the death of Lull and his translation sixty-five years and about five months passed. The occasion for the translation was provided by the building of the church of Hersfeld under the invocation of St. Wigbert, whose tutelary patrons had before been the Apostles Simon and Jude. This the abbots Bruno of Hersfeld and Rabanus of Fulda had begun, the first stone having been laid in the year of Christ 831, on the second weekday, the sixth day before the Ides of July, as the said Lambert accurately notes; the dedication too, on the same witness, Rabanus performed, having been made archbishop of Mainz, in the year 755, on the fifth day before the Kalends of November, which day is sacred to the Holy Apostles Simon and Jude. Accordingly the translation too would have been made by his authority, which, as is manifest enough from the writer of the Life, was a true elevation of the body, equivalent to a beatification. For, the new church having been built, it was indeed fitting that the founder, though not inscribed in the calendars of the Saints, should be translated thither: but the narrative of the Anonymous places beyond doubt as it were the character of this deed, that it aimed at nothing else but that heavenly honours should be decreed to St. Lull.

[119] then in the year 1040 was translated into the crypt of Hersfeld: On a similar occasion, according to the same Lambert, the bones of St. Lull were translated in the year of Christ 1040. The crypt of Hersfeld, he says Ibid., p. 317., was dedicated, and into it were translated the Relics of the holy Confessors Wigbert and Lull. For the church of Hersfeld, formerly dedicated by Rabanus, had been consumed by fire in the year 1037: whence, the crypt or underground building having been restored, the Relics of the Saints were laid up here. After this twofold translation there is no one who gives fuller information about the body of St. Lull, except the Old Index cited by our Brower Antiquitates Fuldenses, book II, p. 153., which relates that our Saint rests in body at Hersfeld: but since the age of the little index is not disclosed, its narrative is less useful to us.

It is helpful nevertheless to note that of the ten bodies of Saints whose names it recites there, nine are proclaimed to be entire; but of St. Lull alone it says simply: Lull the bishop rests here in body. Whence it is given to be understood clearly enough that at the time when the Old Index was written a notable part of the body was already absent: which Bodo, a monk of Clus, an author of the 16th century, writes was translated to Gandersheim in the diocese of Hildesheim. He sets out the matter in these words Leibniz, Brunswick Affairs, vol. II, p. 352.: This too I would judge should by no means be passed over, but for the best of reasons made known by those present to posterity, that the same venerable father (Abbot Wedego, who held the helm of the monastery after the middle of the 15th century), with many prayers, although he often suffered refusal, obtained from the lady abbess and the chapter of the church of Gandersheim, our mother, the venerable head of the holy father Lull, formerly archbishop of the Church of Mainz. And it is the whole upper part of the head, having the forehead and the occiput: and it comes down as far as the nose and the ears, so that the orbs of the eyes are partly open.

[120] but part of the body Which, when he had joyfully received it and carried it to this monastery (of Clus), because he returned with a slow step, he placed on his table and so left it. But when he had already given his limbs to rest and was indulging in sleep, a heavy din roused him from sleep. But the sound ceasing, he gave himself again to slumber. While he was thus wholly asleep, a greater and heavier din than the former called the sleeper back from sleep. Awakened, he thought what the matter might be: but since he was a man never yielding to any terrors, he again indulged in sleep. While he was now fully asleep a third time, a third time too a din, now most heavy, sounded, which not only woke the man but also struck him with much fear. He, recalling to mind how on account of the late hour of the day he had left the venerable head placed on the table, at once rose and lit a candle, and, approaching the holy head with reverence and fear alike, lifted it up, and, carrying it into the church, placed it on the sacred altar: and so, when he had gone back to the place of rest, he heard no din any more at all. At that time the whole body of the holy father and bishop Lull (and I mean all his bones) was in the church of Gandersheim, separated from the other Relics of the Saints. His thumb, the right, I think, the lord Hermann Wreden, the abbess's scribe, afterwards obtained. This most blessed bishop built the monastery of Hersfeld, where his sepulchre is very beautiful: and the brethren bear it only most grievously if anyone says that so great a patron has been taken away from them. But, willing or unwilling, he is risen, he is not there. In this same monastery the lord father Godehard was abbot, afterwards bishop of the people of Hildesheim. Bodo's words, as is plain from the preceding number, are to be taken cautiously, and they must be so interpreted that we nevertheless grant that a part of the Relics of St. Lull was left at Hersfeld: especially since it is known that, when the remains of the Saints are in question, the part is not rarely used for the whole; which figure of rhetoric has often given handle to grave disputes.

[121] given to the monks of Clus, From what has been said thus far it shines out that the body of St. Lull rested at Hersfeld at least until the year of Christ 1040, in which its translation was celebrated: that it was then disputed in what place at length it had been laid up: for, as Bodo himself admits, there was shown at Hersfeld a very beautiful sepulchre in which the monks of Hersfeld said the bones of their patron were contained. This very dispute makes the question of when the body of St. Lull was translated to Gandersheim very doubtful. After I had turned myself in every direction, I could find nothing at all by which I might explain the occasion of the translation. It then occurred to me whether perhaps the body of St. Lull brought to Gandersheim came from the monastery of Ilm: (for we have already forewarned at num. 23 that there were perhaps two Saints of the same name); in which case truth would stand for the assertion of each monastery. But Bodo, the only witness, expressly says that the Lull whose Relics were kept in the basilica of Gandersheim was archbishop of the Church of Mainz, and the same who built the monastery of Hersfeld; so that no room for doubting is left: unless someone should think that, on account of the knowledge of each Saint confused by writers, the confusion is also to be extended to the Relics of one or the other. But here too we are destitute of every fit testimony. I prefer therefore to leave the matter doubtful rather than proceed by conjecture.

[122] to Hildesheim, Whatever then may be the case with this controversy, the monastery of Clus does not seem to have had its treasure long: for some time already before the year 1581 the head of St. Lull was held in honour in the church of St. Elizabeth, as Hermann, abbot of the monastery of St. Godehard in the city of Hildesheim, to be cited below, testifies: if, however, the same head was formerly brought to Clus; for of this translation too we know neither the time nor the occasion. It is certain, however, that at Hildesheim at the beginning of the seventeenth century there existed an entire and unharmed head, which was said to be that of St. Lull, archbishop of Mainz, and which was then given to the college of the Society of Jesus at Mainz. We shall relate the letters of donation entire, both because they contain some things pertaining to history, and above all that we may contribute our effort lest the memory of Hermann, a most holy and most beneficent abbot, be blotted out by oblivion: whom, as our Serarius says Joannis, Rerum Moguntiacarum, vol. I, p. 378., though learning, and especially skill in mathematics and law, commend him, yet much more do true religion, integrity and humanity commend and adorn him, so much so that even the heretics look up to him, love and revere him, the illustrious glory and ornament of the Benedictine Order in our Germany, of which at one time he acted as president, as they call it. Here further is the diploma of Abbot Hermann:

[123] and at length to the temple Hermann, abbot of the monastery of St. Godehard, of the Order of the Divine Benedict, in the city of Hildesheim, to all who shall read these open letters, greeting and everlasting happiness. As once the people of Israel carried with diligent care the bones of the holy patriarch Joseph out of Egypt, where they had rested more than three hundred years, into the holy land, and buried them fittingly, so too I have always judged it to be my office and that of any of Christ's faithful to vindicate and rescue, according to our strength, in this unhappy age, the precious Relics of the Saints pleasing to God from the injury and contempt of heretics. Wherefore, when in the year 1581 the church of St. Elizabeth, situated outside the walls of the city of Hildesheim (in which, among the other Relics of the Saints, the head also of the Blessed Confessor Lull, formerly archbishop of Mainz, had thus far been kept and held in honour), was overthrown by the work of the citizens of this place, and this sacred pledge with other Relics was placed, as though neglected, in a certain separate place beside the wall of the cemetery, I at once caused the said head of the holy Confessor, with other sacred remains, unharmed and entire, still covered with its ancient wrappings, to be taken away from there by a catholic priest, faithful and God-fearing, and carried to our monastery, in which I had decided to leave this sacred treasure, honourably kept thus far, to my successors as a singular safeguard of the monastery.

[124] came to the house of the Society of Jesus at Mainz. But since the venerable Society of Jesus has asked me with great prayers that the precious head of Bl. Lull be given to it for its college at Mainz, out of the affection of love with which I love the said Society of Jesus, I have preferred to deprive myself of such a treasure rather than deny it to their pious prayers. Therefore, together with these letters, I offer and give to the aforesaid college of Mainz the often-named head of the holy Confessor Lull, entire and unharmed, as it was carried to me, asking it that the Society above mentioned, and especially its college of Mainz, repay this service of charity by the assiduity of its prayers. In greater faith of all these things I have subscribed these letters with my own hand and fortified them with the accustomed seal of the monastery. At Hildesheim, on the 12th day of December in the year of the Lord 1603. So Abbot Hermann. Now that the temple of the Society of Jesus at Mainz has been levelled to the ground, it is not known what happened to the sacred head of St. Lull, which perhaps still lies hidden, as the present bishop of Strasbourg, the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Andreas Räss, wrote back to me. The abbey of Amorbach in Franconia also gloried that it possessed among its sacred Relics an arm of St. Lull, as Ignatius Gropp, a Benedictine of the same house, assures us History of the Abbey of Amorbach, p. 133.. We now give the Life of St. Lull from the Erlangen manuscript, whose additions we have enclosed in brackets.

LIFE OF ST. LULL, BY AN ANONYMOUS AUTHOR, AS IT SEEMS A MONK OF HERSFELD.

From the Erlangen manuscript, collated with the Legend of the Saints published at Louvain in the year 1485 by John of Westphalia.

Lull, archbishop and Confessor, at Mainz. (S.)

BHL Number: 5065

BY AN ANONYMOUS AUTHOR.

Chapter I. The birth of St. Lull; his setting out into Germany and his promotion to the archbishopric of Mainz.

St. Lull, born among the Anglo-Saxons, Lull was born among the Anglo-Saxons ^b, in no obscure place, as it is said, noble in race, but destined to be far nobler in faith. For, the grace of the Holy Spirit working in him, with the milk of the flesh he sucked the milk of divine charity: and already in the tender trunk of suckling infancy he displayed certain most beautiful flowers of a good disposition. For by no means did he give his mind, after the custom of this age, to trifles or playfulness *, but at once, from the tender nail, as they say, he devoted himself wholly, a recruit of joyful hope, to the warfare of Christ. Finally, when he had reached the seventh year of his age, he betook himself into a monastery ^c, and there spent many years, adorned with all virtues. He had an abundant knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, which he by no means abused for pride, but turning words into works, he tempered the knowledge which puffs up with the charity which builds up, and the more instructed he was in letters, the more frequent was he in good works.

[2] and having embraced the monastic life, He brought his body into servitude by almost daily fasts, and, to quench the natural heat of the flesh, he made nothing of the hardships with which he afflicted the outward man. His speech was seasoned with salt, and always in speaking it breathed wonderful gentleness and humility. For, speaking out of the abundance of his heart, the vessel of the Holy Spirit could belch forth nothing else than that with which it was full, the honey of charity and the oil of spiritual gladness. This alone was wont to be his matter of discourse among the brethren: how uncertain and brief is the life of mortals, how quickly the flowers of worldly glory wither; that happy and to be proclaimed with the praise of all would be the memory of the ancient Fathers who had passed by an unstained path through the filths of carnal life, who, the ancient enemy being triumphed over, now enjoyed tranquil peace and the companionship of God; that these were to be imitated, to their fellowship one must sigh in mind, run in conduct, strive with the utmost strength. With words of this kind he daily both incited himself, lest he should grow languid concerning his purpose, and ministered to his brethren no small fuel of divine love.

[3] into Germany At the same time in Gaul ^d there was administering the archbishopric of Mainz, as one of faith proved in all things and of great virtues in Christ, Boniface, who had set out abroad for God's sake from the same parts of Britain , and was most closely connected by the line of kinship with the aforesaid man. He, having entered upon the pontifical government, found throughout the whole

of Gaul almost, in some places indeed very many dregs ^e of the former heathenism remaining, but in others the warmth of the faith, iniquity abounding, grown utterly cold. Seeing therefore that the Lord's harvest had grown immensely, but that those times suffered a great scarcity of labourers, he sent back into Britain *, and called forth thence into the work of the gospel many whose faith he had proved and abounding river both of eloquence and of spiritual knowledge. [He also summoned some women to instruct in the Gauls a school of chastity and modesty; of whom most had made themselves eunuchs from their mother's womb for the kingdom of heaven under the profession of virginity, most, having experienced the marriage bed, embraced widowhood, the second plank after the shipwreck of virginity. Among these was the maternal aunt of Blessed Lull, a woman of very manly spirit and masculine virtue, named Cunihilt, with her daughter, who, except for the privilege of virginity, equalled her mother also in knowledge and gravity of manners. They, set over monasteries of women in Thuringia, led a life illustrious with great virtues ^f, and roused very many, both men and women, flourishing exceedingly in the world, to the emulation of their institute.

[4] he sets out, When therefore the celebrated report had spread through Britain of the things happily done by Blessed Boniface,] in St. Lull, still placed in the monastery, when he had already been ordained deacon, a certain noble flame blazed up in his breast, that he should bring help to the man of God , discharging so necessary an occupation, nor in so great a crisis of necessity withdraw himself from the camp of God. [He thought it, namely, unworthy, and not honourable enough for his reckoning, that he should regard as difficult and arduous this pilgrimage which a weaker woman had so many times undertaken. Having therefore deliberated with himself for a few days,] he went to the father of the monastery and disclosed to him what he was turning over in his mind. Tested by him in many ways, when he could be drawn from his resolution by no art, by no blandishments of words, bidding farewell to the brethren he set out on the journey, all accompanying him with weeping and praying for a happy outcome to so bold an undertaking. He set out therefore in haste, [having God as companion of the journey and as repeller of all things that should oppose him as he went,] and after many labours by land and sea at length entered Germany. [At that time Charles, mayor of the palace of the kingdom of the Franks, held the supreme power in the Gauls, a man of whom it is uncertain whether he was more excellent in faith or in arms. For this is the elder Charles, who, among the other things which he did excellently and bravely, twice fought with the Saracens, who had made an irruption into the Gauls, and so wore down their forces in two battles that, 375,000 having been slain in the one and almost as many thousands in the other ^g, the few who survived scarcely and with difficulty withdrew into Spain, whence they had burst forth.

[5] and is kindly received by St. Boniface; When therefore St. Lull had presented himself *] to Blessed Boniface, he had his arrival as most welcome, [venerating in him not so much the rights of kinship, by which, as has been said, he was closely connected with him, as the fervour of faith, the keenness of talent, the most abundant knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, of which things report had long since brought word to him. And when he had kept him with him for some days, and from domestic companionship had already taken surer proofs of his way of life and of his mind burning toward God, the man of keen talent, and a true living creature of heaven, full of eyes before and behind, understood that this man had been divinely destined to the Gauls to lighten for him, now verging on decrepit age, the burden of pastoral care: he therefore advanced him against his will to the degree of the priesthood. Other diligent ministers of the word whom he could have, however, he sent round about to evangelize the kingdom of God to the nations; this one he kept constantly with him and wished to afford him in all things a familiar companionship, so that he might be instructed more specially by his example, and might learn already now by practice how vigorously he ought to preside over the house of God.]

[6] by whom, setting out into Frisia, Many days after this having rolled by, when the man of God Boniface was already in his last age, [and, broken by weakness of body, could no longer frequent synods and fulfil the other functions of the pontifical office,] it came into his mind to go into Frisia ^h, and to vanquish the barbarism of the heathen people with the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. [Before indeed he had attempted the same work, but the savage nation, little distant from bestial fierceness, did not lightly bear that the ingrained custom of idolatry should be wrested from it, nor could it bear the light yoke of Christ, being wont, according to the impulse of a wanton mind, to pour itself out everywhere into all lusts. Whence the man of God, judging that he must yield to necessity, had withdrawn and had removed his life, still to be of profit to the Church through many things, from those raging and wishing now to lay hands on him. But now, when he had completed the course of his life and was sailing, so to speak, in the very harbour of the heavenly life, he took up again with most ready mind the undertaking from which difficulty had driven him back,] taught * by the Holy Spirit that he was to be taken out of human affairs by martyrdom, which alone was lacking to the heap of his perfection and for which from his early age he had sighed with all his prayers.

[7] archbishop of Mainz, King Pippin [At that time Charles, mayor of the palace of the kingdom of the Franks, had already departed this life, and Pippin alone was managing the care of the kingdom: for Charles had appointed his two sons Pippin and Carloman as heirs. But when for some years they had looked after the public business with equal right and a shared principate, Carloman, renouncing the world, decided to pass the rest of his age far from the commonwealth: and, the habit of the holy way of life having been taken, first at Rome on Mount Soracte, then in the province of Samnium, in the fortress of Cassino, he rested from all the occupations of the world. Further, King Childeric up to that time bore the royal name and a certain empty image of royal dignity, which had come to him from his fathers by hereditary right through the whole series of his family. But the administration of the whole kingdom and the disposition of all things which would be of use for war or peace was in the hands of the mayor of the palace. But Childeric, by order of Zachary, the Roman Pontiff, was thrown from the throne of the kingdom and thrust into a monastery, and Pippin, who after the custom of all his forefathers before him was called mayor of the palace or prefect of the palace, was declared king by the authority of the same Pontiff and called king by the most ready favour of the whole people, and so both the royal name and all the insignia of royal dignity passed from Childeric to Pippin and his posterity.

[8] the king Blessed Boniface, therefore, having gone to King Pippin, who, as has been said, was now alone in possession of affairs, when a numerous multitude of the princes of the whole kingdom was present, set out what he had determined in his mind, and asked all to take counsel in common lest the Church of God should suffer any harm, since * he was going whither the Lord was calling, but God would never be absent from those striving for Him; therefore, trusting in His help, they should take pains that the filthy (spurious?) shoots of heathenism, which he himself had cut down, should not sprout again, nor the enemy man sow tares over the good seed which he himself had sown in the Lord's field.

[9] and the people applauding, After these words] he took Blessed Lull by the hand and led him into the midst, and looking at the multitude which stood around: Behold, he said, you have a man worthy in my judgment, to whom I can entrust the inheritance of my studies and of my contests for Christ. He is joined to me by kinship of the flesh; but much more closely joined by the bond of the spirit; because, having lived with me a long time, he has given me a certain and evident spectacle of his holiness and of a most excellent way of life according to the gospel institution. Whence I, not doubting of your assent, [behold, before God and His Christ, the most pious king and your most holy assembly,] enjoin upon him the pontificate of Mainz, which until now I have administered myself. Let him in the things that are God's discharge for you the place of a father, let him, as I am about to depart in body but to remain always with you in spirit, represent me as much in dignity as in likeness of manners, that, dead in the flesh, I may in a manner live in his virtues.

[10] is created. [But you (and he looked into the face of the king), whom the Lord has anointed king over the line of His inheritance, love this man as a father, venerate him as an Angel of God, and to the King of kings, whose favour and most ready goodwill you have already experienced by so many victories, render this return, that you labour together from the heart with His servant for the salvation and government of holy Church. You too, whoever have vowed your souls to God, whoever have sworn into the sacraments of the Christian warfare, all with common zeal take up the commonwealth of God. Strive for the catholic faith, and to this man, ready to contend to the death for you, give your help in all things. A huge shout is at once raised: the whole crowd conspires in his opinion. One voice of all is made, that a most worthy successor had fallen to a worthy father. Most of them had already before learned his name and the institution of his life, because he had frequented the palace as the inseparable companion of Blessed Boniface, and often, the latter being occupied in other things, had himself administered certain business of the bishopric in his place, and through this had come into the knowledge of almost all the princes. Further, for others the testimony of Blessed Boniface had easily established the integrity of his manners, to whose words no less faith was given than if one had consulted an oracle of God.] So *, all casting their vote in common, St. Lull is dragged into the pontificate, most vehemently resisting and protesting with a flood of tears that he was unequal to so great a burden: but, overborne by the authority of Blessed Boniface, he could not long struggle against the common opinion.

ANNOTATIONS.

the following; and the same number of enemies slain is expressed by the chronicles of Saint-Denis written in French, book V, chap. XXVI, and by Sigebert of Gembloux at the said year Dom Bouquet, vol. III, p. 310 and 347.. For the rest, St. Lull's arrival in Germany is not on that account to be fixed to these years: for the Erlangen additions are not of such antiquity that they can overturn the opinion by which we suppose that our Saint set out from England about the year 725.

* adduxit brought Lov.

* restringeret restrain Lov.

* adds sapientiae of wisdom Lov.

* adds vir [man] Lov.

* Hiberniae of Ireland Lov.

* Hiberniam Ireland Lov.

* adds Bonifacio Boniface Lov.

* adds igitur therefore Lov.

* a sententia revocari posset could be recalled from his resolution Lov.

* per through Lov.

* et cum se and when himself Lov.

* adds autem [and] Lov.

* adds secundario a second time Lov.

* adds quippe indeed Lov.

* read se quidem himself indeed

* adds igitur therefore Lov.

* administrabam I was administering Lov.

* Itaque And so Lov.

Chap. II. St. Lull translates the body of St. Boniface from Utrecht to Fulda and lays it with honour.

St. Boniface to Lull [Then Bl. Boniface, taking with him Archbishop Lull, went through Thuringia and Hesse ^a, and likewise the other places which are inhabited between the Rhine and the Weser, showed him all the estates which he himself had acquired by his industry for the Church of Mainz, and also commended him in most exquisite words to all who were held more eminent in fame and wealth in these regions, adjuring them under invocation of the divine name to be his supporters in the ecclesiastical government. At length, affairs having been settled to his mind, meeting him more privately, all witnesses, as it is said, having been removed: Always, he said, even if you were living as a private man, you ought to have been of an attentive and solicitous mind concerning religion, to stand with unshaken breast for the camp of the Lord, never to put your own advantage before divine worship, finally to strive with the utmost effort that no sloth, or satiety arising from weariness, should creep upon you in divine things. How great, think you, is the necessity of these things that lies upon you now, when you have been placed as a pillar in the temple of God, and the whole building almost of holy Church seems to lean upon you with its whole cubit. See that the hand of those who lean upon you does not find you a staff of reed, when the breeze of popular favour bends it to whatever side it pleases. Having long enjoyed my companionship more familiarly than the others, you know most certainly that I have never, broken by the blandishments or terror of princes, given ground, nor ever accepted persons in the cause of God. Whence I leave you the Church, by God's favour and after God by my zeal, most flourishing.

[12] gives his last commands Behold, you, bound by me with an oath before God and His holy Angels, take pains that so great a labour of mine does not flow away in vain, that your sloth does not corrupt the happy victories for Christ, that the Lord's vineyard, begun in cultivation, does not degenerate after grapes into wild grapes. The life of mortals is prone from virtues to vices, and therefore, unless you act more attentively, unless you struggle more closely against the stroke of the river, shortly after, the bridle shaken off, it will be carried headlong from Christian sobriety back to the filths of the former heathenism. I have now run through the course of the present life: whatever strength I had in body, I have worn out fighting the Lord's battles. Now, although, worn out with old age, I can no longer serve as a soldier, far be it that I should ask discharge from the arms of the Lord, and hand over to inert leisure the slender spark of spirit which remains. I rather wish death itself, to which the common condition drives me, to be made for me the matter of virtue, that, departing from the salty bitterness of this mortality, my service completed, I may meet more securely my commander, whose standards I have followed unto death. But behold, I adjure you under the eyes of God who sees all things, by that goodwill of mine which you have enjoyed more familiarly than other mortals, that, in whatever place I shall have fallen as a victim of Christ, you search out my body and, having brought it to the monastery which I have established for myself in the forest of Buchonia beside the river Fulda, pay it its due rites. On the church in the same place, whose foundations I have already laid, do you put the last hand, with your means or the Church's, nay with yours because the Church's. The brethren there, on account of the scarcity of common goods, still lead their life by apostolic institutes, seeking their food by the work of their hands.

[13] before his departure: To these give your help and favour in all things from the heart, and embrace in the surviving flock the living memory of the dead shepherd, being about to have favour with God and with men if you show yourself a vigorous guardian to sons bereft of their father. You know besides the illustrious glory of virginity and the example of holiness unique in the world in our memory, Lieba, Virgin of Christ ^b, who was not content to await the nuptials of the heavenly bridegroom within the narrow bounds of her native soil, but at my prompting entered the Gauls, and, set over a monastery of women in the place whose name is Bischofsheim, draws after her to the bridal chamber of Christ great flocks of noble women. Nor does it escape you that I have always loved her uniquely for the purity of her manners, to be proclaimed, and that, while I am wont for the most part modestly to turn my eyes away from other women, I have granted her the first place of familiarity with me. Wherefore you will do me a favour if, when, the space of her life run through, she shall have yielded to nature, you bury her in the same sepulchre with me, that not even the violence of death may divide names most sweet to one another. When therefore he had made an end of speaking and] the veteran soldier of many campaigns had instructed the raw recruit of Christ to a nicety in each thing , as he had arranged, he set out for Frisia, taking with him those whom he judged fit for such a journey.

[14] St. Lull accurately administers the diocese committed to him: But Bl. Lull, seeing that all the reins of affairs had passed into his control, by no means began after the human manner to be carried away by insolence, but, reckoning with himself to how arduous and difficult a business he had put his hand, girded himself with the whole effort of his mind for the ecclesiastical work. He visited all the churches and monasteries situated within his diocese, *, attended to how the zeal for divine things flourished in each place, watched lest the cunning of the raging enemy should presume anything against the Lord's flock without his knowledge. Those whom he had found to have gone beyond the path of equity he called back, he withstood the obstinate to their face, and broke with pontifical authority the shameless brow of proud princes. But those whom he had found devoted to divine worship and fervent concerning religion, toward these he unfolded the whole bowels of fatherly affection: [before these he by no means put himself forward on account of the fasces of the pontifical chair and a name venerable even to kings, but gloried that he was their servant, confessed himself unequal to loosing the latchet of their shoe, and yet with gentle words seasoned with the honey of fatherly love exhorted them to tread with unwearied zeal the royal way upon which they had entered, and never, seized by satiety, to hold back their foot from what had been begun.] Whose infirmity did not drive him to languor? Whose stumbling did not burn him? Whose prosperity did not proclaim joy to him? Whose calamity did not overflow into his misery? Finally, made all things to all, he so wonderfully humoured each one that the zeal of all, though differing in age, sex and life, burned toward him with equal concord.

[15] administers the diocese: [And so his liberal diligence had in a short time won the minds of the people as much to God as to himself, so that all became devoted to religion and as inclined as possible to favour him; and the wound of grief which had seized most on account of the departure of Bl. Boniface had quickly hardened into a scar on account of so excellent a successor: nor did he himself applaud his so happy successes too wantonly, or, on account of the ambitious pomp of popular favour, grant himself indulgence for any fault or sloth, fearing with the Apostle lest perchance, having preached to them, he himself should become a castaway. Therefore] he relaxed nothing of his former sparingness of food and drink, nothing of the labour of vigils, nothing of contempt for property, nothing of his former temperance of manners and of his whole life. Rather forgetting the things behind, he stretched himself with all his effort toward the things before, anxiously gaping for the prize of the heavenly recompense. Though he had long since surpassed the others in faith and piety, he waged a fierce contest with his own mind, that he might surpass himself too and be held from day to day more religious than himself and more advanced in the study of manners.

[16] forewarned by a heavenly vision [Some time had now flowed by after the departure of Bl. Boniface, and he was staying in the royal court of Hilenheim ^c, King Pippin being settled there, with whom he was wont to be frequently present: for he used his counsels most gladly and administered all the chief affairs of the kingdom at his nod; so great a force of talent and breadth of heart was in the man; and for that reason he bore it ill that he should be absent from his side anywhere.] But one night, lying in his bed, when between waking and full rest the first mist, as they say, of sleep had weighed down his eyes, he saw Bl. Boniface standing by him, clad in the pontifical stole and in garments more elegant than usual, showing also in his very countenance and venerable white hair something of divine splendour. [He was at once astonished, struck by unexpected terror, and with his eyes fixed in the same gaze, silent, as far as the crisis of the fear pressing upon him allowed, he was considering with himself whether perhaps sleep, after its manner, was presenting to the sleeper vain spectacles of dreams. But he, uncovering the face which he would recognize more familiarly, when he had unfolded his brow with a certain courteous and festive cheerfulness toward the eyes of the beholder:] Behold, he said, beloved brother, time requires that you keep faith with your promises. Today, bearing witness to Christ, I offered my neck to the slayer: today the palace of heaven received me crowned with triumphal pomp. Now therefore, mindful of the promise by which you bound yourself in the presence of God, break off all delays, seek out the remaining spoils of the soul now triumphant, and, rescuing them from foreign regions, as you promised, carry them to the monastery of Fulda. [Let not the arduous business break you, let not the rough journey move you, let not the fierce and cruel temper of the barbarous nation terrify you: God bringing help, all things will turn out prosperously for you.] At these words the vision vanished together with sleep.

[17] he hastens into Frisia, [Then the archbishop, overwhelmed with heavy grief, for he was not in doubt that Bl. Boniface had departed from human affairs, as soon as the next day's light was restored to the earth, reported the matter to King Pippin: having bidden him farewell, he betook himself to his own, and there, the multitude having been called to a conference, set out the monstrous crime of the Frisians, that they had stained their hands with the blood of an illustrious man named throughout the whole world. Then he disclosed what he had promised to him while he was still placed in the flesh; finally he asked all to give their help on his behalf, lest he should become guilty of a vow toward so great a man and thereby provoke the wrath of the Almighty against himself. When he found the minds of all eager and fervent for the business at hand,] * without any delay he set out on the journey to Frisia, having with him no moderate forces of armed men, [both on account of the barbarians, lest perchance they should disturb the solemn office of the funeral by using force, and on account of

the faithful themselves, lest any sedition should arise among them, while each with religious zeal would wish to make a rush upon the sacred Relics and to carry off booty from the most precious treasure in rivalry.] Meanwhile when the report of the slain bishop had already grown strong, the people of the town of Utrecht, which is distant from the place of his martyrdom by a moderate interval [d,] having formed a band, burst into Frisia, and translated to themselves from that line of most illustrious Martyrs all the chief ones, with the very prince of the heavenly warfare, Bl. Boniface, and were now enjoying their plunder in security. After St. Lull came there, although he was equal in strength to the use of force, yet, lest an occasion of sedition should seem not so much offered as pressed more closely upon the rash common people, he began to act gently and without tumult.

[18] [and the body of St. Boniface, the people of Utrecht and Mainz protesting in vain,] He calls the whole throng of the confused multitude to an assembly, he gives thanks to all in common with some display *, because they had solemnly shown funeral rites to the holy Martyrs; that their merits with St. Boniface would, however, increase very greatly if they would suffer with equanimity his body to be carried to the monastery of Fulda, which business he had enjoined under the attestation of the divine name; that it had gone well with them and happily beyond human hope, to whom almost the whole camp of God's warfare had fallen as booty; [that if they wished to keep St. Boniface against the decree of his mind, he would not reckon this as a favour, but as an affront; that he would be more burdened than delighted by a violent devotion. At these words the minds of the people fell, anger was turned into favour.] So, all assenting and each according to his share helping the office of the funeral, the translation of the sacred body was celebrated with magnificent apparatus ^e.

[19] [Nor yet in this way was every difficulty taken away from the affair, he translates to Fulda. or the whole roughness of the business levelled. For when they came to Mainz, then indeed the whole clergy with the people, pouring out to meet them, pleaded with the bishop by the law of nations, saying that this bishop had been theirs, that the inheritance of the dead father was owed chiefly to them both by the law of heaven and by the law of the court, that he was mindful neither of the equitable nor of the good if he thought otherwise, especially since both the glory and the calamity of the Church of Mainz specially concerned him, as its bishop; finally, that if he did not of his own accord come round to this opinion, they would rather use force and try every extremity than be cheated of so great a good. Then the archbishop, having long and much tried to bring the tumultuous people back into favour, when he saw that the matter went forward too slowly, confused and uncertain in mind, was in doubt what counsel to take, whither to turn. For he saw that to oppose the will of the multitude was neither easy to do nor safe enough for himself. But, his resources being thus forced into a strait, Bl. Boniface, according to his promise, quickly found a happy way out. Finally, on the next day, when the bishop was about to come forth in public, wishing again to try the fierce minds of the people with gentle words, a certain man of the order of clerics, Othbraht by name, a deacon by office, came to meet him, and, leave having been obtained to speak more privately: This very night, he said, I was admonished in sleep by a divine oracle to bring to you, O bishop, these things as commands from St. Boniface, that you act constantly, and be not bent from your purpose by the sedition of the people or by rivalries: and that you testify to the people also that they will not go unpunished for having tried with obstinate mind to come against the disposition of God, unless they desist the sooner from their obstinacy. The bishop, as was necessary in so great a strait of affairs and want of counsel, received this most gladly, laid hold of the man, drew him into the midst, and, a higher place having been taken, ordered the heavenly oracle to be recited in the ears of the people. But on account of the immoderate desire of keeping the sacred body, no sufficient faith was given to his words among the multitude; suspicion touched the minds of some, lest perhaps a trick was being woven against them by the counsel of the bishop. Then the bishop, that he might win belief for the same words, consulting the credulity of the bystanders rather than his own, exacted an oath from the man to prove the truth of the matter. He gave it without any hesitation: the matter was believed, and so thereafter, every scruple of difficulty being banished, the body was taken away, and, the river Rhine having been crossed, was carried into the monastery of Fulda, and, as was enough for the most ardent zeal of the monks dwelling there toward him, was handed over to burial with a solemn and magnificent rite ^f.]

ANNOTATIONS.

* adds quem whom Lov.

* construxit, et built, and Lov.

* visitans visiting Lov.

* adds unde B. Lullus whence Bl. Lull Lov.

* fecit made Lov.

Chap. III. The controversy with St. Sturm about the monastery of Fulda; the foundation of the monastery of Hersfeld; his pious death and burial.

An enmity having arisen between the monks of Fulda and St. Lull These things having been done well and to his mind, the archbishop directed all his effort to that place itself: [for he reckoned that this would be for him excellent matter into which he might pour all the love owed to Bl. Boniface, and solace the longing for his most loving father by the hereditary possession of so great a pledge. And so he would visit the place itself rather often, cherish with the most exquisite words of consolation the brethren anxious over the death of Bl. Boniface, be present wherever the matter required, supply abundantly the want of their household, ward off danger if any perchance threatened, and finally administer most earnestly all the offices of a liberal and most indulgent father.] But these things turned out far otherwise than he himself conceived in hope ^a. [For not only did he win for himself by these things no favour, no goodwill of theirs, but he even stirred up against himself the most grievous hatred of all who dwelt there.] For a certain man named Sturm then presided over the monastery, a man of excellent talent and of holiness to be proclaimed, but of a nature too vehement and fierce: one, namely, of that most illustrious flock of the disciples of Bl. Wicbert [b, who were being trained after his example in the monastery of Fritzlar.] He privately and publicly stirred the minds of the brethren, warning them that this indulgence of the bishop toward them looked elsewhere than they supposed: [that he displayed one thing in his face and contrived another in his mind, and cloaked the design of some great injury under the title of piety, namely one who by certain blandishments of words was enticing men to this, that he might fraudulently put upon them the reins of his lordship and snatch away the good of liberty, than which nothing is more pleasant to human life, nothing more becoming to the Christian name, nothing more suitable to the profession of monks; that accordingly they would not be looking well to their affairs if, unmindful of the most noble way of life in which they had been liberally brought up by Bl. Boniface, they should of their own accord yield into servitude] ^c.

[21] he does many things here By these and like speeches he estranged the minds of all the brethren as much as possible from Blessed Lull, and had in a short time stirred up no moderate ill will against him, who suspected nothing of the kind. [From this all looked upon him with hostile nods and averted glances, refused familiarity, shrank from the blandishments of his words as from snares laid for their ruin, held every meeting and conversation with him suspect, and finally contended with his love, his benefits, his munificence by hatred, detraction and reproaches. To this was added that about the same time certain factious men approached King Pippin against Abbot Sturm, accusing him of having gone too far against the royal majesty with too petulant words. Whence the king, inflamed with anger, banished him into exile. And he decreed the oversight of the monastery of Fulda to Bl. Lull ^d. This matter added no little strength to the suspicion which had arisen long before; the whole congregation at once conspired with equal zeal against the bishop, and heaped up against him many grievous and incredible curses, saying repeatedly that he had been the instigator of such evils, that by his largess the accusers had been corrupted, by his arts instructed, by his zeal admitted to the audience of the king, finally that the whole story of this accusation had been fabricated by him, so that, the shepherd being thrown out, he himself might make an onset without danger upon the desolate fold.

[22] to make peace: Intent in every way, therefore, on calming this disturbance, the archbishop set over them as abbot a certain man named Marcus, a man of gentle temper, and, as his reputation bore, very suitable for quieting such great storms of affairs. But him they at once rejected, as one too earnestly favouring the bishop's side and bringing less hope to their seditions. Again the archbishop, inasmuch as he had it fixed in his mind to humour them in all things as long as he could with equity preserved, permitted them the authority of electing an abbot. They receive this with a glad mind: and at once create him abbot who would * dare to go against the archbishop's efforts on equal terms, and break his swollen spirits, as they suspected them, with brow opposed, as is wont to be said ^e. He therefore, created amid the great expectation of all, decided from the beginning that he must conduct the matter fiercely with the archbishop; for unless he did this, he knew certainly enough that he would use this preferment badly. When in this way they had waged a grievous war on both sides for two years, he contending with benefits, they with hatred and detraction, and they were pursuing without intermission with most petulant words the excellent bishop, the most illustrious light of that age, as, alas, is wont to happen too often, at last the zeal of the factions prevailed.

[23] but, all things having been attempted in vain, For King Pippin, after he had digested the heat of his anger through length of time, returning into favour, as I most truly trust, Bl. Lull striving for this very thing, namely that by this means he might purge the suspicion of the crime charged against him, Abbot Sturm

he recalled from exile, and, having received him back into the former state of his favour, granted him leave to return to the monastery of Fulda and to administer its care as he had been accustomed. This matter had raised the minds of the brethren to the greatest hope, but had struck into the bishop no less a despair of suppressing the sedition and of managing affairs prosperously.] Moreover his mind was now affected with no moderate weariness, when he saw so many and so great labours of his flowing away in vain, envy not being extinguished by benefits, [but, as though torches had been put beneath it, growing hotter and hotter from day to day:] and that it would be the height of madness to spend without fruit such great expenditures, with which he could build elsewhere a lasting monument of faith and, not to be abolished by any age, of his devotion. [This hesitation held him long in suspense: the purpose which he had taken into his mind at the prompting of his dearest father he could not leave except with an anxious and sick mind. He is overcome, however, by the harshness of affairs, and after long deliberation, after many sweats spent with vain hope, he recalled his whole intention from the undertaking, calling to witness heaven and earth and the spirit of Bl. Boniface living in Christ, that he had indeed wished to obey his precepts and to illustrate the nurslings of his institution with ample honours, but, broken by this injury, he gave ground: that God would exact penalties from him if he had thus far burned toward them with the spirit of ambition, as his accusers kept boasting, rather than with the affection of inmost charity.

[24] at length, Charlemagne approving, Indeed, unless I thought it dangerous to pass judgment on the divine judgments, I would believe it was done not rashly nor without the will of God that the minds of the holy bishop and of the brethren, holy too, as my opinion holds, grew together with such difficulty. For if this storm of affairs had not intercepted the goodwill of the bishop, he would surely, too much occupied on another's foundation, have omitted the zeal for his own glory, and the name of Hersfeld, now most illustrious in the whole world, would have gone into emptiness, nor would so great an abundance of most holy men have increased the number of the heavenly spirits. Meanwhile Pippin, when he had discharged the royal honours for 15 years, closed his last day ^f, leaving two sons surviving, each grown in age and ripe for governing the kingdom, namely Carloman and Charles, to whom afterwards, from the virtue and greatness of his deeds, the surname was added, so that he was called Charles the Great. These two, to provide for peace and concord, divided their father's kingdom between them. Carloman, a man of fierce nature, was carried away headlong wholly by ambition, nor did he in any degree moderate his anger or his covetousness, so long as, his brother cast out, he might possess the kingdom alone. But Charles was of gentle temper and of very advanced gravity. He tried to soften his brother, raging youthfully, rather by bearing with him than by going to meet his injuries.

[25] he turns his zeal He was, both in the favour and goodwill of the whole people, and in his own strength, and in the practice and skill of military affairs, and in the abundance of all things which are wont to be useful for wars, much better furnished than his brother: yet he judged that he must deal more mildly with his brother, reckoning namely that it would be for his greater glory with God and with men if he rather yielded to his brother for a time than went to avenge, by the worst example, the injuries received from his brother. Nor yet on that account did Carloman relax anything of the fierceness of his mind, but acted more tumultuously from day to day, sought occasions of breaking the treaty, finally stirred up the whole strength of his kingdom to hatred and to the ruin of his brother. And already the enmities had gone so far that from secret detractions the matter seemed to be looking toward open force and public war: nor was it in doubt that this dissension was to be ended by a mournful outcome. But while the state of the commonwealth was in danger in this way, the mercy of God was opportunely at hand. For Carloman, while he was now on the point of bringing arms against his brother and transferring the whole kingdom to himself by force, was overtaken by sickness and died, and freed the best of men, his brother, from the necessity of a wicked contest, almost two years after his father Pippin had yielded to nature.

[26] to founding the monastery of Hersfeld, Thus Charles obtained the principate alone, a man very vigorous in difficult * matters and most effective in all things to which he had set his mind. And indeed, if he had found either Titus Livius or Crispus Sallustius as writer of his deeds, I would say, with truth safe, that he would have equalled the glory of Julius or of Augustus Caesar, or of any most illustrious Roman emperor, as much in the arts of war as of peace. His deeds do indeed exist, but described too briefly and summarily for the dignity of the matters. Yet whoever reads them will find that he was the first of the kings of the Franks to be called Roman emperor Augustus, and that he transmitted that name to his successors too, if any could emulate his virtue and industry; that he ruled the commonwealth vigorously for 47 years, magnificently increased it, and at his death left it most peaceful and most adorned in fame, wealth, buildings, manners and laws. But let us return to the purpose from which we digressed. Archbishop Lull, who had always turned over in his mind how to transmit to posterity some proof of his spirit burning toward God, when the matter attempted in this way had turned out less prosperously, undertakes another under surely better auspices and, God inspiring, to have happier outcomes.]

[27] the monastery, There was a place in the forest of Bochonia, to which antiquity gave the name Hersvelt ^g, very suitable for the habitation of monks. In this Abbot Sturm, at the time when the fervour of the spirit first drove him headlong to the solitary and woodland life, had settled, and, having rooted out the shrubs which had occupied the face of the place, had built little cells for himself and the brethren with rough work, and had already spent nine years there. But the side bordering on the Saxons offended Bl. Boniface, although the pleasant site of the place and the convenience of the water attracted him; for they were still held by pagan rites, and often, making an onset into Thuringia and Hesse and all the nearest places, caused no moderate slaughter of men and devastation of fields. [Their sudden irruption, always to be suspected, seemed, even if with less danger, yet likely to strike much terror and fear into the brethren.] That they might escape this inconvenience, it seemed worth while to Bl. Boniface that they should move their seats further into Bochonia, and settle in places safer from approach ^h. They occupied the ground where the monastery of Fulda now is: the place of Hersfeld, Blessed Boniface handing it over, passed into the ownership of St. Lull, who perhaps already then had conceived in his mind the desire of building a monastery there. [Therefore, after he had fallen away from the monks of Fulda in the manner which I have said,] into this place he purposely gathered all his resources, the shrubs having been more abundantly cut down he opened space for brethren of a larger number, he undertook to build it * with more cultivated buildings, [and for this reason pressed upon what had been begun with keener force, that by the subsequent success of affairs he might restore his mind broken by the former adversity.

[28] whither he translates the body Nor did the outcome deceive his hope. For] in a short course of time the name of Hersfeld had risen to an immense summit of glory and greatness. [And now at length it was held illustrious enough and powerful enough, both by the numbers and by the excellent way of life of the servants of God; it was also increased more and more from day to day in wealth, fields and households, partly by the zeal of Bl. Lull, a very wise man, partly by the liberality of the princes of the whole kingdom, who all strove with the utmost effort for his pious desire. Moreover there flowed together thither in numbers men of celebrated fame and family in the world, who, having sold their household goods, brought the prices of them, and, according to the institutes of the primitive Church, laid the images of the gentiles, silver and gold, at the feet of the Apostles Simon and Thaddeus . To these also the church of the place had been dedicated: this cause had not least increased the wealth of the monastery. Whence the glory of that place had in a short time so grown that the places which, a few years before planted with shrubs, were seen to offer a pleasant lurking place to wild beasts, you would now see frequented by tillers and ennobled with most august buildings: the prophecy of Isaiah being proved even to the surface of the letter, promising that strangers shall eat the deserts turned into fruitfulness. To this brightness of the place, won by human virtue, there was added also the goodness of the Lord, and according to His greatness He honoured it with worthy gifts, giving a signal proof of the mind and goodwill with which He looked upon it. The bishop, as we have expressed above, when *] from the beginning of the foundation laid he had dedicated the church of the monastery to the Blessed Apostles Simon and Thaddeus, and [the majesty of so great a patronage had already won for the place huge reverence,] was admonished in sleep by an angelic voice to translate the body of Bl. Wicbert thither ⁱ.

[29] of St. Wigbert. He, as the published little book about his Life indicates, had come from Britain a few years earlier at the summons of St. Boniface; and when he had spent a long time in the Gauls a life most adorned with the glory of manners, that man , surely most illustrious in age and second to none of the ancient fathers in the exercise of monastic discipline, at length lulled to sleep in Christ by a happy falling asleep, had received burial in the town of Fritzlar ^k . His bones had already been very often translated from place to place, [and that on account of fear of the Saxons, who often, an irruption having been made into Thuringia and Hesse, plundered the fields and estates with armed hand, lest namely barbarous fury should presume any wicked crime against the holy Relics. At that time, when these things were being done, they were being kept in a certain fortress whose name is Buriburc ^l, on account of the fortification of the place, laid in a place not honourable enough for the majesty of so distinguished a person.] Yet on account of the miracle and novelty of the signs with which the living grace of God flourished even around the dry ashes of His Confessor, they were frequented daily by a great concourse of the people.

[30] the body of St. Wigbert. [The archbishop therefore did not move himself very briskly to carry out the business. He feared perhaps to be accused of levity if he should go off headlong to fulfil so excellent a matter immediately after the first vision. But while] he was wearing away time in delaying and deliberating, he was admonished by an angelic voice a second and a third time in like manner to hasten his delays, and not to deny his service any longer to the heavenly commands ^m. [So thereafter, thinking that nothing was to be doubted, that there might be greater authority in the deed, he consulted Charles, in whose hands the royal right was at that time, about this. When he had willingly assented,] having taken with him illustrious men both of the clerical and of the monastic order, he went to the place , and [the sacred bones, raised from there with great display of ecclesiastical apparatus, as he had been commanded,] * he translated into the monastery of Hersfeld. How great honour, advancement and reverence accrued to that place from this is evident even today to all who dwell there. [After these things Bl. Lull, when he had abundantly adorned that monastery with wealth, cultivated it notably with buildings, elaborated to a nicety the whole beauty of the house of the Lord, and also instructed the multitude of brethren with most temperate institutes, made up his mind to consult the advantages of affairs for the future too. For he had learned by experience that divine things are little safe among men; that seculars, always coveting what is another's, while they increase their own wealth, make nothing of mingling divine and human things with the least distinction … ⁿ.]

[31] He buries St. Lioba at Fulda, Meanwhile there struck the mind of the man of God the memory of the word which Bl. Boniface had enjoined upon him when he was preparing his departure into Frisia, namely that the Virgin

of Christ Leoba ^o, when she had paid the debt of nature, should be entombed in the monastery of Fulda; which also was diligently fulfilled according to his disposition. The man of God Lull also perceived through the spirit that the day of his falling asleep was now at hand: he judged, however, that the matter was to be kept in silence, both lest the crisis of death impending so near should cast grief upon his intimates, and lest, by boasting of foreknowledge, he should fall into the ambition of popular favour, which he had always held to be the pernicious and deadly ruin of all virtues, and that the things which he had arranged with himself about his funeral might be cared for more rightly and in good time.

[32] and Albuin at Hersfeld, He had with him a man of excellent holiness, as is believed, named Albewin [p], accustomed to discharge the business of the episcopal office after the bishop, whom by the common appellation they call a chorepiscopus [q]; and him he used in divine things, both privately and publicly, as helper and suffragan. Having summoned him to himself, he said: A cause has arisen which requires me to hasten my departure to the monastery of Hersfeld: let it be your office, having first celebrated the solemnities of Masses, to go before me, who will follow at once, and to provide the things that are for the reception * of me and those coming with me. He, impatient of delays, quickly takes up the orders, arranged what would be of use to those setting out: he celebrates Mass, wholly ignorant of what was being built by such a device: and when, still unharmed in body, he had partaken of the Lord's sacraments, he suddenly breathed out his spirit; for in the same moment he finished both his life and the Mass. The archbishop, not at all moved by the miracle of so great a matter, but embracing with most ready favour the diligent forerunner of his own death, ordered him to be placed on a ship and, carried down the Rhine with the stream, to be put ashore at the place which is called Hohstedi [r].

[33] where he himself too Where, when the people had come together in numbers from the whole bishopric for the office of the funeral, being magnificently received, he was translated by land into the monastery of Hersfeld. Nor did he lack any ambition of funeral goods *: (if there is any honour of the tomb, if there is any solace in burial): a solid belief being transmitted to all that his merits are of great moment with God. But Bl. Lull, in the same order in which he had arranged, made for the monastery of Hersfeld, where, at once touched by sickness, when he was in the thirty-second year of his ordination, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of November, having passed through a most honourable death, he yielded to nature, and, following his forerunner by the right path, was numbered among the senators of the heavenly court. For by how great merits he stands out before God, even if the memory of his most illustrious and notably led life had become obsolete, so many and so great miracles would nevertheless be a sign, by which, though dead in the flesh, he yet lives among the survivors much more vividly, so to speak, than when he once lived in the flesh: for living he occupied the ears and minds of few, dead, of almost all. For we also make vows to him, now pay divine honours for God's sake, now have instituted solemn feasts.

[34] dies most holily. The sixtieth year [s] had now flowed by since the body of Bl. Lull was handed over to burial, and it came into the mind of the brethren who at that time were keeping the divine watches in the monastery of Hersfeld to raise the sacred bones and lay them in a more celebrated place. And when a huge force of religious men had removed the stone with which the sarcophagus was covered, there was to be seen a great miracle, unheard of in the memory of men. The body, covered with earth through so great a course of time, had suffered * no injury of corruption; it showed such comeliness of countenance, such dignity of all its limbs, such brightness of its garments too, that you would believe he had expired that very day, or had been buried in sleep rather than in death. Only the little boot of the left foot had age consumed. When therefore that stone of immense weight, which we said was prepared for covering the body, was being rolled hither and thither, by chance it escaped the hands of those rolling it, and so crushed the foot of a certain brother standing near that, the bones being shattered together with the flesh and even the shape of the foot lost, it offered a foul and pitiable spectacle to the bystanders. But quickly Bl. Lull relieved the mourning breasts of the brethren: for in the next night, when sleep had overpowered the sick man, his vigour so suddenly returned to all his limbs that he was present also at the morning hymns, not even a scar of so great a calamity surviving.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Of Albuin or Albowin, by others called Witta or Wittanus, discussion will recur at the 26th day of October; at which day his Acts can be discussed. From this narrative, however, it would follow that Albuin died a few days before St. Lull: whence it will come to be examined for what reason his memory was fixed to the 26th day of October.

q. Albuin is here called chorepiscopus; whatever may be the case with chorepiscopi in general, namely whether they were distinguished with the episcopal character: there is no doubt concerning Albuin, inasmuch as St. Lull used him in divine things, both privately and publicly, as helper and suffragan Concerning chorepiscopi compare Nardi, Dei Parrochi, vol. I, p. 422..

r. The writer arranges the last journey of St. Lull very confusedly. For to one who inspects a topographical map it is plain to the eye that the monastery of Hersfeld is situated in the eastern quarter from Mainz, and accordingly that, to go there from Mainz, there is no necessity of touching the Rhine: indeed, whether one sail down the stream or up it, he will surely recede the further from Hersfeld. I believe therefore that the text is to be corrected in this sense: And carried up the Main against the stream, (he ordered him) to be put ashore at the place which is called Hohstedi. Near Mainz the Main (le Mein) flows into the Rhine, coming from the east, and, which favours my correction, about midway between Mainz and Frankfurt there is even today the little town of Höchst, called by the ancients Hochstedi or Hochstedin: from which the journey by land, as the text has it, was to be taken toward Hersfeld.

s. We saw in the Preliminary Commentary, no. 119, that the first translation of the body was celebrated in the year of Christ 852; that is, in the sixty-seventh year after the death of St. Lull: whence it is clear enough that the Anonymous here used, as we have said, a round number.

* concepisset had conceived Lov.

* adds Lulli of Lull Lov.

* gratiam favour Lov.

* ipsi they themselves Lov.

* read ausus fuerat had dared

* adds Viri Dei of the man of God Lov.

* ejus [his] is lacking in Lov.

* read in bellicis in warlike

* Herollesfelt Lov.

* posteritas posterity Lov.

* qui [who] Lov.

* adds igitur therefore Lov.

* adds autem [and] Lov.

* adds ergo therefore Lov.

* adds que [and] Lov.

* brevique tempore and in a short time Lov.

* read Thaddaei Thaddeus

* cum autem B. Lullus but when Bl. Lull Lov.

* Hiberniam Ireland Lov.

* illa that Lov.

* Fricellar Lov.

* adds propter timorem Saxonum adhuc gentilium on account of fear of the Saxons, still heathen Lov.

* cum autem archiepiscopus de translatione but when the archbishop … about the translation Lov.

* adds secundo a second time Lov.

* adds igitur therefore Lov.

* adds et [and] Lov.

* adds honorifice honourably Lov.

* supply necessaria necessary things

* read honorum of honours

* read senserat had suffered