Aquilinus of Évreux

ON ST. AQUILINUS OF ÉVREUX, BISHOP, IN GAUL,

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE VII CENTURY.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux, confessor in Gaul. (S.)

B. B.

§ I. The antiquity of the city and See of Évreux. St. Aquilinus, Bishop, subscribes the council of Rouen. In what year it was celebrated. The fame of his holiness. Martyrologies.

The various names and site of the city of the Eburovices. The antiquity of the city of the Eburovices (Évreux), as also of the people of which it was the capital, is called into doubt by no one. As mostly happens, this city had different names at different times. Among the more ancient, Ptolemy, Ammianus Marcellinus, it is called Mediolanum (Μεδιολάνιον); in the Peutinger Table and in the Itinerary of Aethicus, Mediolanum of the Aulerci; in various Notitiae of Gaul, the city of the Ebroici, the city of the Euatici Ebroicae, the city of the Evatici, that is, Ebroicum. Usuard, on the 3rd day before the Ides of August, has: "At the castle of Ebroae, of St. Taurinus, bishop and confessor." Compare Hadrien de Valois Notitia Galliarum, at the word Aulerci.. From these it already sufficiently appears that Ebroicae was formed from the word Eburovices; the letter U being suppressed, as comes into use in similar cases, Ebroices is had, whence by a very slight inflection arises Ebroicae, and at length Évreux, it being frequently observed in French words of this kind deduced from Latin that the letter B is changed into V. As regards the Eburovices themselves (so called perhaps from the river Edura or Ebura, in French Eure), it must be noted that formerly the Aulerci dwelt, extending themselves from the Seine towards Armorica (now Lesser Britain). This is, namely, a most ancient nation, if credit is given to Livy; for he writes, book V of Decade I, chapter XXXIV: "Concerning the passage of the Gauls into Italy we have received these things. While Tarquinius Priscus was reigning... to Bellovesus" (leader of the Gauls) "the Gods gave a way into Italy. He called out the Bituriges, Arverni, Senones, Aedui, Ambarri, Carnutes, Aulerci." Further, "the Aulerci," says Cellarius [Notitia Orbis Antiqui, book II, chapter II, section II, § LXX, p. 164. Leipzig edition, 1773.], "were divided into three kinds: Eburovices, Diablintes, Cenomani" (others add a fourth kind, namely the Brannovices). "The division is from Caesar, Pliny and Ptolemy. The Aulerci Eburovices are named fully and clearly by Caesar, On the Gallic War, book III, chapter XVII... These are nearer to the Seine, to whom Ptolemy gives the town of Mediolanum; therefore in the Peutinger Table of Theodosius" (Cellarius does not indicate whether the praised Table is referred to the times of Theodosius the great, namely the year 393, or rather, which pleases the more recent better, to the year 435, while Theodosius the younger was reigning Biographie universelle, at the word Peutinger.) "and in the Itinerary of Antoninus from Rouen to Lutetia it is called Mediolanum of the Aulerci."

[2] [The antiquity of the See of Évreux, although the age of St. Taurinus is uncertain.] The antiquity of the see of Évreux is everywhere celebrated by all, although in what precise century it was erected is not established. For the rest, it is well enough known among all that the origins of the churches in Gaul are wrapped in dense darkness [Compare the Acts of St. Florentinus or Florentius, Bishop of Trier and of Tongres, above at the 17th day of this month.]. Let it suffice here to have set down what is had in the New Gallia Christiana Volume XI, column 564 and following. about St. Taurinus. In these is contained briefly whatever has been disputed by the learned up to now about the beginning of the church of Évreux. "It is agreed among all that St. Taurinus was the first bishop of the Ebroici" (not so expressly our Pierre Bosch at the 11th of August Acta Sanctorum, volume II of August, p. 635, in the Acts of St. Taurinus., where he says: "St. Taurinus is believed to have led the column of the Bishops of Évreux"), "but by whom he was sent, and at what time he lived, is not so certain. For his acts written by Adeodatus are so confused that scarcely any light of truth shines, says Bosquet, History of the Gallican church, book 1, p. 53. For they recite that he was born under Domitian; baptized by Clement the supreme pontiff, set out into Gaul with blessed Dionysius, and was given by him as bishop to the people of Évreux. They report also that an embassy was sent by Taurinus to Sixtus, Roman bishop ... and that a little after the death of Sixtus Gaul was occupied by barbarians. Weighing all these things, and recalling the depopulations of Gaul by barbarian nations, Bosquet judges that the times of Taurinus are to be referred to the irruption of the Alamanni under Gallienus: For under the same emperor Sixtus the second, Roman bishop, suffered about the year of Christ 260. Wherefore Taurinus, advanced in long age, must have been sent under Valerian and Gallienus with other bishops, of whom Gregory of Tours speaks, namely Saturninus, Paul, Gatianus and Stremonius. So Bosquet, whom the Sainte-Marthes noted and Tillemont seems to have followed. But the last writer of the history of Évreux" (Le Brasseur, of whom discourse will frequently recur in this Commentary), "less indulgent to the antiquity of his church, ... thinks with many others that Gaul was occupied by the Vandals about the beginning of the fifth century, at which time Taurinus met death." Our Bosch, at the beginning of the Preliminary Commentary to the Acts of St. Taurinus, writes in the margin: "Perhaps the Vth century"; and at no. 15 of the same he manifestly inclines to the opinion of Le Brasseur.

[3] St. Aquilinus Among the holy Pontiffs of the church of Évreux Aquilinus holds no lowest place. His memory occurs in all the histories of the ancient church. At the fifteenth day of February Acta Sanctorum, volume II of February., among the Passed Over and thrown back to other days, is read: "Claude Robert relates that St. Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux, is venerated on this day in his cathedral church. We, following the martyrologies, shall give his life on the 19th of October." Which, however, is not to be understood as if St. Aquilinus were patron of the cathedral church, since this is dedicated to the Divine Virgin. But there existed at Évreux, before the disturbance of affairs which brought ruin upon the end of the past century, a parish church under the invocation of St. Aquilinus, which after the concordat of the year 1801 remained suppressed. It was formerly a benefice of 1000 livres [Pouillié général contenant les bénéfices de l'Archevêché de Rouen, et des diocèses d'Avranches, Bayeux, Coutance, Lisieux, Évreux, Seez (General register containing the benefices of the Archbishopric of Rouen and of the dioceses of Avranches, Bayeux, Coutances, Lisieux, Évreux, Sées), Paris edition, 1648. Diocese of Évreux, p. 5.]. Today it is the oratory of the minor seminary of Évreux. There exists also not far from Évreux a village by the name of St. Aquilinus (S. Aquilin-de-Pacy), formerly a parish but now suppressed, as is plain from the ecclesiastical Calendar Almanach du clergé de France, 1844.. It was a prebend of 700 livres Pouillié général, place cited, p. 29..

[4] he subscribes the council of Rouen. The most ancient mention of St. Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux, which occurs is had from the council of Rouen, of which, on the witness of Sirmond Concilia Antiqua Galliae, volume I, p. 509. Paris edition, 1629., Aigradus makes mention in these words: "This authority of the privilege" (of Fontenelle), he says, "was made in the year of the Lord's Incarnation DCXXCII, in the Xth indiction, which was the XVIth year of the aforesaid glorious king Theodoric." Among the subscriptions Aigradus recites: "Aquilinus, bishop of the city of Évreux." There is not a single one of the learned who does not have mention of this council, although, as Dom Bessin notes Concilia Rotomagensis provinciae, earlier part, p. 13. Rouen edition, 1717.: "In what year this council was held the chronologers do not agree." Sirmond holds it to have been celebrated in the year of the incarnation of the Lord 682, Mabillon in the year 689, Labbe in the year 692; Dom Bessin himself in the year 693, Le Cointe in the year 688.

[5] On the year of this council, according to Le Cointe, The difficulty arises from the chronological characters which are placed at the beginning in the common Aigradus: namely, they are four in number. "The first," says Le Cointe Annales ecclesiastici Francorum, at the year 688, no. VII, volume IV, p. 191., "he takes from the nativity of the Lord; the second from the indiction; the third from the reign of Theodoric; the fourth from the pontificate of Ansbert himself. 'In the year,' he (Aigradus) says, 'of the Lord's Incarnation six hundred and eighty-two, in the tenth indiction, which was the thirteenth year of the aforesaid glorious king Theodoric, and the fifth of the pontificate of the aforesaid venerable prelate, in the general synod held in the city of Rouen.' The two former" (so Le Cointe proceeds) "were intruded by moderns. This is clearly established. For at that time neither were the notes of indictions used by the Franks, nor were the years numbered from the nativity of Christ. Next, in the six hundred and eighty-second year of Christ, with which the tenth Indiction agrees, Ansbert was abbot of the monastery of Fontenelle, and Audoenus was presiding over the church of Rouen as bishop, still surviving in life. The third character is found published in two ways. From the manuscript codex of Mont-Saint-Michel Sirmond writes the XVIth year of King Theodoric; in the common copies is had the XIIIth year. Most reject the XVIth year because they deny that Theodoric reigned sixteen years. This reason does not please us. For Theodoric held the kingdom of Neustria, where Rouen is, after his brother Childeric for more than sixteen years, although he reigned many fewer in Austria after his cousin Dagobert. The XVIth year of King Theodoric comes nearer to our reckoning than the XIIIth, for in this year Theodoric completed the fifteenth year and began the seventeenth. The fourth character is safer than the others, and in all the codices shows the fifth year of the pontiff Ansbert. These things as to chronology." Thus far Le Cointe. Who, since out of the four characters touched upon he holds only the fourth firm, as being placed in all the codices, and himself establishes the beginning of the episcopate of St. Ansbert

in the year 683 Ibid., p. 62., it follows that he attaches the council to the year 688. But it is far from true that all have agreed with Le Cointe's reckoning. Let us hear Labbe.

[6] likewise according to Labbe, "Aigradus," he says Concil., vol. VI, col. 1242. Observation., "the monk, or whoever else was the interpolator of the Life of St. Ansbert, from abbot of Fontenelle prelate of Rouen, has hitherto led Baronius, Binius, Sirmond, and many others into error, by bringing into the common text at least three, and those most grave, errors, which I here advise be briefly corrected, lest they go on any longer staining sacred chronology. For first the year of the Christian era 682 is to be changed into 692; then indiction X into V. Finally, the fifth year of Ansbert's pontificate is to be altered into the third, since it is more certain than certain that it was only on the 20th (read 24th) day of the month of August of the year 689 that St. Audoenus, Ansbert's predecessor, aged 90, after he had sat at Rouen for 43 years, 3 months, 10 days, departed to the realms above from the villa of Clichy, near Paris. Whoever wishes more, let the reader consult the Diatribe on the three Dagoberts of the Rev. Fr. Godfrey Henschen, S.J., page 129, and our historical Chronicle, pages 539, 545, 547. Further, this observation was not to be omitted by us, that that most diligent man of boundless reading, our Sirmond ὁ μακαρίτης, found written in the Ms. codex of St. Michael in peril of the sea the 16th year of King Theuderic, and, together with the diplomas of Arras (which we have elsewhere blown away at greater length), seized upon it as a kind of ε̈ρμαιον to establish that epoch of 24 years of Theuderic's reign which we were the first to prove false, by bringing many arguments into the line of battle, which assign 14 years (not merely 4, as nearly all commonly do) to Chlothar, his elder brother." Thus Labbe, so that he may fix 692 as the year of the council of Rouen; he therefore differs by four years from Le Cointe's chronotaxis.

[7] Henschen in the Diatribe on the three Dagoberts; Let us now come to our Henschen, whom Labbe praises. He therefore notes in his most celebrated Diatribe on the three Dagoberts P. 5. Antwerp edition, year 1655. that, for establishing the chronology of the kings of the Franks of the Merovingian stock, it is superfluous to have recourse to the years counted from the nativity of Christ (which he had said a little before Ibid., p. 4. were written in the margin by later men, according to each one's capacity), since that method of computing years from the birth of Christ was by no means in use in ancient histories before the eighth century. Then he proves Ibid., book 1, chapter 2, p. 9 and following that the epoch of the old Franks was distinguished by the years of the kings, not of pontiffs, of foreign emperors, or of indictions. After this, having set out what pertains to the reign of Dagobert I, he comes to Clovis II, whose first year falls in the year of Christ DCXLIV, whose reign, he says Ibid., chapter IX, p. 47 and following, begun in that year, is most solidly confirmed by St. Audoenus, formerly Referendary of King Dagobert. He, about to indicate the year and the day on which the bishops had been consecrated, which he could not but remember perfectly, namely himself of Rouen and St. Eligius of Noyon, testifies in the Life of the latter, published by him, that both had received the Apostolic blessing at the time when the Rogations were being celebrated throughout Gaul by the whole people. "Then," he says, "coming together in the city of Rouen on the fourteenth day of the third month, that is May, in the third year of Clovis, a king still very young" (he was then seven years old), "on the Sunday before the Litanies, amid throngs of the people, amid bands of clergy, amid choirs of chanters, we were consecrated freely by bishops, bishops together, I for Rouen, and he for Noyon." Thus St. Audoenus. The year indicated by him is the third of Clovis, of Christ DCXLVI, in which, with solar cycle XI, Dominical letter A, lunar cycle I, Easter was celebrated on the 18th day of the moon, the IX of April, and the solemnity of Christ's ascension into heaven on the XVIII of May, which was preceded by the Rogation Sunday, or Sunday before the Litanies, on the XIV of May. Henschen sets these things out so minutely and accurately because that datum is for him, as it were, the hinge on which very nearly the whole chronology of that epoch turns. Further, according to Fridegod, Audoenus ruled the church of Rouen for XLIII years, III months, X days; that is, from the XIV day of May of the year DCXLVI to the XXIV of August of the year DCLXXXIX On the three Dagoberts, book IV, chapter 3, p. 213.. And a little lower down the same Henschen writes Ibid., p. 214 and 215.: "To St. Audoenus, who died in the year DCLXXXIX, succeeded St. Ansbert, whose see is made celebrated by the synod of Rouen held by him, and indeed in the thirteenth year of the glorious King Theuderic. Sirmond corrects this XIII year of Theuderic, hitherto found in the printed Acts of the synod, and in the Mss. of Rouen and Fontenelle, which are most to be trusted, and in various others, from the sole codex of St. Michael in the sea, and puts in its place the XVI year of Theuderic, which number of years we have proved he did not reign Ibid., book 2, chapter XVI, p. 135 and following; likewise chapter XVII, p. 145.. Labbe follows Sirmond and with him refers (the council) to the year DCLXXXII, in which, while SS. Genesius, archbishop of Lyons, and Audoenus of Rouen were still living, St. Ansbert was living as a private person under Lambert, abbot of Fontenelle." Thus Henschen. We have seen above, at n. 9, that Labbe, with an observation appended, changed his opinion. Henschen, moreover, arranges the years of Theuderic III thus Ibid., at the end, in the chronological Index: in the year 676 Theuderic king of Neustria; in the year 679 Theuderic recovers the kingdom; in the year 692 the council of Rouen under St. Ansbert; in the year 694 King Theuderic dies. But the death of St. Audoenus and the beginning of the episcopate of St. Ansbert he attaches, as we have seen, to the year 689. Whence it is clear that the chronological note of the council taken from the years of the pontificate of St. Ansbert was either not seen by Henschen, or held by him in such slight account that, giving no reason, he did not hesitate to depart from it. Which, for the rest, was consistent with his assertion praised above: that the epoch of the old Franks was distinguished by the years of the kings, but that the other years were written in the margin by later men, according to each one's capacity,

[8] But afterwards Henschen revised his opinion. But in truth, many years later, Henschen himself noticed that many things concerning chronology which he had believed established in the Diatribe on the three Dagoberts were tottering. Wherefore he prefixed to volume 3 of April a writing with this title: Preliminary Exegesis renewing and establishing the Diatribe formerly published on the three Dagoberts, kings of the Franks. And first of all he places the last day of St. Audoenus no longer on the 24th of August of the year 689 (which Labbe had nevertheless admitted, from Henschen's Diatribe, as more certain than certain) but on the said day in the year 683 [Acta SS., vol. III of April, at the beginning. Exegesis on the Diatribe, p. X, n. 25.]. The reason is that he assigns his ordination to the year 640, on the XIV day of May Ibid., p. V, n. 11.. As regards the years of Theuderic III, he says that this king was put in Chlothar III's place in Neustria on the latter's death in the year 670, but was soon shut up in a monastery by Ebroin, and Childeric substituted in his place in the year 671. And when this man had been slain, Theuderic recovered the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy Ibid., p. VIII, n. 18., yet did not at once obtain Austrasia, being attacked in war by Pippin of Herstal Ibid., p. X, n. 25.; finally he dies at the end of the year 692 or the beginning of the year 693, after he had reigned seventeen years Ibid., p. X, n. 26.. From these things the whole chronotaxis set out in the preceding number collapses. For St. Ansbert's episcopate did not begin in the year 689, but in the year 683; as, says Henschen Ibid., p. V, n. 11., is required by the chronicle of Fredegar and the Life of St. Eligius. Whence it is no longer inconsistent that the council of Rouen (about which Henschen keeps deep silence in the Exegesis) was celebrated in the year 588; nor does the XVI year of Theuderic stand in the way, as if he had not reigned so many years, as Henschen held above; although, however, the aforesaid year does not square under every hypothesis with the chronology just set down; for if the beginning of Theuderic's reign be taken from the year 670, adding sixteen we come down to the year 686; if from the year 675, we arrive at the year 691. But if, as pleases most, the council was celebrated in the XIII year of Theuderic, we shall arrive at the year 683 or at the year 688, the latter of which certainly agrees. But below, at n. 14, the discussion will return to the years of the reign of Theuderic III.

[9] The disputation is resumed from Ghesquière and Cuper. SS. Audoenus and Eligius were elected (as our Cuper relates from Le Cointe in the Acts of St. Audoenus [Ibid., vol. IV of August, at the XXIV day. Preliminary Commentary, § II, n. 19, p. 796.]) in the year 639, that is, the year in which Romanus of Rouen and Acharius of Noyon died. But they, because they were laymen, did not allow themselves to be consecrated before the following year. "Coming together therefore," says St. Audoenus in the Life of St. Eligius, "into the city of Rouen, on the fourteenth day of the third month (May), in the third year of Clovis, a king still very young, on the Sunday before the Litanies … we were consecrated." But, Ghesquière subjoins in the Acts of St. Eligius Acta SS. Belgii, vol. III, p. 196., from the year 635, which, however you compute the years of Dagobert I, belongs to his reign (whereby Pierre-François Chifflet is refuted, who [Dissertation on the Years of Dagobert, chapter XVII. So indeed he is cited by our Cuper.] attaches the consecration of SS. Audoenus and Eligius to the aforesaid year), down to the year 668, long after the death of Clovis II mentioned by St. Audoenus, the Sunday which immediately precedes the Litanies or Rogations does not fall on the XIV day of May except in the year 646. Therefore, say very many, in the year of Christ 646 the third year of Clovis II was running; therefore on the XIV day of May of the same year the bishops SS. Eligius and Audoenus were consecrated. Nevertheless most learned men, such as Henschen (in the Exegesis: for we saw at n. 10 that he had decided otherwise in the Diatribe), Le Cointe, Mabillon, Pagi, Longueval, since they could not reconcile that epoch with the other chronological notes, entered upon another way of computing. Dagobert I, they say, reigned six years in Austrasia while his father was living. And in very truth Fredegar writes Chronicle, chapter XLVII.: "In the XXXVIII year of the reign of Chlothar, he made Dagobert his son the partner of the kingdom, and appointed him king over the Austrasians." Now the XXXVIII year of Chlothar falls in the year of Christ 622 [Gebhardi, Reges Francorum Merovingici documentorum authoritate asserti, Lüneburg 1736, p. 113. Compare Henschen, Exegesis on the Diatribe, chapter 2, n. 9, p. V.]. And those six years, Ghesquière thus continues, are of the number of the sixteen years which he is said to have reigned in all; therefore only ten remain to be computed from the death of Chlothar II; therefore Dagobert I died in the year 638.

(Dagobert met his fate, says Gebhardi Ibid., p. 116., on the XIX day of January in the XVI year of his reign, which, since the XVI year ran from March 637 to March 638, fits the year 638); therefore Clovis II began to reign in the same year 338; therefore Audoenus and Eligius were consecrated bishops not in the year 646 but in the year 640. Which Le Cointe confirms from the fact that Eligius is called bishop before the year of Christ 644 by Jonas, a contemporary writer Annal. eccl., at the year 640, n. 22 and 23..

[10] The day of the consecration of SS. Audoenus and Eligius. But in this latter year the fourteenth day of May, on which the ordination of SS. Audoenus and Eligius is commemorated in the ancient Calendars, does not fall on the Rogation Sunday itself. To untie this knot Henschen distinguished the Sunday before the Litanies from the Rogation Sunday itself; and in the year 640 the former falls on the XIV, the latter on the XXI of May Exegesis on the Diatribe, n. 12, p. VI.. Le Cointe took another road, interpreting the words of St. Audoenus in this way Annales ecclesiastici Francorum, at the year 640, n. XX.: "Of this period there are two parts. The former designates the year and the day on which Audoenus and Eligius arrived at Rouen. The latter marks the day on which they were consecrated bishops. They entered Rouen on the fourteenth day of the third month. But they were consecrated bishops on the Sunday before the Litanies, which was the twenty-first of May." Cuper assents rather to the latter; Ghesquière to the former. Mabillon has a scruple about Le Cointe's interpretation, because of the annual memory of that ordination in the Calendars on the XIV of May. Pagi answers In the Critica at the year 640, n. XIV.: "If (to that most learned man) the rule laid down by us and so often inculcated had come to mind, he would have affirmed that" (namely, that the years of the deaths of Dagobert and of Clovis are most certainly fixed: of the former in the year 638, of the latter in the year 646) "with every assurance: for I show by so many examples in this work that the depositions of the Saints, the translations of their relics, and the ordinations of holy bishops are often inscribed in the Martyrologies on other days than those on which they happened, that this ought henceforth to be held as a principle of chronology." But another scruple of the same kind also occurs to me. For if the consecration of St. Audoenus be deferred with Le Cointe to the XXI day of May, how will it be true that the holy Prelate died on the XXIV of August of the year 683, after 43 years, three months, ten days spent in the episcopate? Le Cointe removes the difficulty by putting three months and as many days. But the first writer of the Life of St. Audoenus, and he indeed nearly contemporary, says only (so Mabillon) that he died "when Waratto was underking, or mayor of the palace, in the reign of King Theuderic." "The other writer of his Life, Fridegod, obscured the reckoning" (for Le Cointe, corrupted it) "while he wished to explain it more scrupulously, where he says that Audoenus ruled the church of Rouen forty-three years, three months, ten days" Mabillon, Annal. Ben., book XVII, n. XXXVI.. Moreover, our Cuper in the Acts of St. Audoenus [Acta SS., vol. IV of August, at the XXIV day. Preliminary Commentary, n. 7–10, p. 597.] all but expressly denies this Life, which he judges was written in the ninth or tenth century, to Fridegod, and attributes it to an Anonymous. Whatever, finally, may be the case about the day, which we leave undecided, hesitating between Le Cointe and our Henschen, since the death of St. Audoenus falls in the year 683, in the month of August, the fifth year of St. Ansbert is referred to the year of Christ 688, or perhaps, because of some vacancy of the see, as commonly happens, and the time required for preparing the ordination, or because the manner of computing years was not precisely the same among all, to the year 689, in which accordingly the council of Rouen is to be fixed.

[11] On the years of the reign of Theuderic III. One thing only remains to be inquired, namely in what way the aforesaid year is to be reconciled with the chronological note taken from the years of the reign of Theuderic III. "Under the year," as Aigradus has it, "of the Lord's incarnation six hundred and eighty-second" (rather the eighth or ninth), "in the tenth indiction" (rather the first or second [L'Art de vérifier les dates. In the chronological table at the years 688 and 689.]), "which was the thirteenth year of the aforesaid glorious King Theuderic." Now according to Henschen in the Exegesis, Theuderic properly began his reign in the year 675, and died at the end of 692 or the beginning of the following year: whence also the XIII year of his reign agrees, as falling in the year of Christ 688. See above, n. 11. But, as is easily conceived in such great darkness of chronology, it is far from true that all arrange the reign of Theuderic III in the same series. Not to linger longer over these things, let Johann Gebhardi serve as an example, who treated learnedly and expressly of the Merovingian kings, distinguishing the series of times in five tables, which he asserts from the original sources [Reges Francorum Merovingici, Documentorum authoritate asserti a Joh. Lud. Liv. Gebhardi. Lüneburg 1736.]: "Theuderic III," he says, "born 655, king of Neustria and Burgundy 673, loses royal authority (that is, is made subject to the Mayor of the Palace) 687, died March 691" Ibid. Table V, at page 140.. Then in the Assertions of table V he adds: "They vary wonderfully on the years of his death. But all are to be rejected except the Gesta Francorum Chapter XLIX.; with which Eriambert, page 780: 'King Theuderic, son of Clovis, brother of Chlothar, reigned XIX years'; and Hermannus Contractus in Canisius, at the year 691: 'Among the Franks King Theuderic dies in the XIX year of his reign,' agree. For it appears from the charter of Vandemiris in Mabillon, De re diplomatica, page 472, which was given in the XVII year of the reign of our Lord Theuderic, that the king reached the year 690 alive. The nineteenth year of Theuderic began in the month of March 691, and he seems not to have completed many days of that month, since by the Annalist of Metz only three years after the battle of Tertry (where, defeated by Pippin, he retained nothing any longer of royal power except the name) are assigned to him. The annalist counted the completed years, omitting the months of the fourth year which he lived. The battle was fought in the month of June 687. The third year after it closed in June 690. Therefore the nine months of the fourth year are to be added. Theuderic died three years after his deposition, in the XIX year of his reign, in the month of March, April, or May of the year 691." Thus far Gebhardi. According to this reckoning the synod of Rouen comes in the year 786 or 689, according as the XIII or the XVI year of Theuderic is assumed.

[12] [It is far more probable that the council of Rouen was held in the year 688 or 689.] We have disputed these things at some length, not because there was hope of settling the dispute altogether (which has hung for so many years and, as it seems to us, will still hang for a long time), but so that it might appear in what position the learned had left it. Since, however, it is quite probable that St. Ansbert, whose Acts Bolland published on the IX day of February, was promoted to the mitre of Rouen in the year 683 or 684, it follows thence that the council to which St. Aquilinus of Évreux is read as subscribed was celebrated in the year 688 or 689, since this, of the four chronological notes set down by Aigradus, is the only one that stands firm, although Henschen, but in the Diatribe, seems not to have made so much of it. Compare n. 10. After these things it will seem a wonder to no one that historiographers have varied in assigning the year of this council; which also arose from this, that at different times now this, now that opinion prevailed. Thus many adhered to Labbe, who, as we said above at n. 9, judged it more certain than certain that St. Ansbert succeeded St. Audoenus in the year 689. Among the more recent, Dom Bessin hesitated between the year 688 and 693: "That Dagobert," he says Concilia Rotomagensis provinciae, part I, p. 13., "the father of Clovis, reigned sixteen years is agreed by all. But since he reigned six years with his father Chlothar, some think these sixteen years are to be counted from the death of his father, that is from the year 628; others from the year 622, in which, while his father was living, Dagobert was named king of Austrasia for six years. Whence the authors of the former opinion place Dagobert's death in the year 644, the others six years earlier, that is in the year 638. If, Dagobert having died in the year 638, Clovis began to reign, Audoenus was ordained bishop in the year 640, died in the year 683, and our council was held in the year 688. But if Dagobert I did not die before the year 644, Audoenus was not ordained before 646; Ansbert did not succeed him before the year 688 or 689, nor did he assemble the council in question before the year 693. We followed this latter chronology in the observation on epistle 58 of St. Gregory the Great, book 11, indiction 4." Thus Bessin. Among the very most recent, Dom J. B. Pitra, in his learned History of St. Leodegar, assigns the death of Dagobert I to the year 638 Histoire de St Léger, Evêque d'Autun et Martyr, p. 79. Paris edition 1846.; and, to cite a man of another kind, Sismondi agrees [Histoire des Français, by Simonde de Simondi, vol. I, p. 275. Brussels edition 1846.].

[13] The privilege of Fontenelle. Further, the privilege of Fontenelle, which was dealt with at Rouen, regarded chiefly three things: first, that the monks of the monastery of Fontenelle should for all time elect an abbot for themselves from among themselves; next, that the same monks, as under his rule (namely of Ansbert, who from abbot had been made bishop of Rouen, and is the author of the said privilege), so also henceforth both they and their successors should faithfully serve Christ according to the Rule of the holy Father Benedict; finally it is defined what is to be done for correction if the abbot either will not or cannot correct the monks. See Le Cointe [Annales ecclesiastici Francorum, at the year 668, n. VIII, vol. IV, p. 191 and following]; likewise Mabillon [Annales Benedictini, book XVII, n. LXV, vol. I, p. 541. Lucca edition, year 1739.], who in the same place censures Le Cointe. "Charles Le Cointe," he says, "quibbles in this place Annal. ecclesiast., loc. cit., n. XI, p. 193., when he gathers from this privilege that the Rule of St. Benedict was introduced at Fontenelle by Abbot Ansbert."

[14] The fame of sanctity from the Martyrology of Corbie, In very many Martyrologies mention is made of St. Aquilinus. Among the ancient ones the Corbie Martyrology comes in the first place, of which d'Achery Spicilegium. At the beginning, vol. II. Paris edition, 1723, in folio. says in the preliminary Notice: "I found indeed a very ancient Martyrology, attributed to St. Jerome, in a codex of the monastery of Corbie written about 600 years ago (which Hugues Ménard had prepared for the press); but truly I would not assert it to be the genuine or entire offspring of that same doctor, since it is established that many Saints more recent than he were added at various times." Of this same Martyrology Sollerius treats in the Preface to the Martyrology of Usuard Art. I, § II, n. XXXI.: "the two codices already mentioned," he says (which he had just reviewed), "in our collection of the Hieronymian (Martyrologies),

are preceded by another, much briefer copy, written out in folio in an elegant French hand, to which I appended these notes: 'A very ancient Martyrology, written at least eight hundred years ago, copied from a very old one of the abbey of Corbie, in the month of December MDCLXI.' And at the end Papebroch added: 'Gift of the most Rev. Dom Luc d'Achery, from the most ancient Corbie Ms., which we ourselves saw in the Library of Saint-Germain-des-Prés.'" From these things it is clear, by the judgment of the learned, that that Martyrology goes back to the twelfth century, or even (according to the note of which Sollerius was treating) to the middle of the tenth century. Since, therefore, there is read in it at the XVIII day of October: "In the city of Évreux, the Natalis of St. Aquilinus, bishop and confessor," it is a proof of a cult paid to this Saint in the twelfth or even the tenth century through various parts of Gaul.

[15] in the additions to Usuard, Neither Ado nor Usuard made mention of this Saint in the original text; but in most of the additions to Usuard mention of him recurs at the XIX of October: thus in that of Anchin: "At the stronghold of Évreux, the Natalis of St. Aquilinus, bishop"; in the Victorine codex and in that of the Queen of Sweden, marked number 130, at the end, without Position, that is, indication of place: "On the same day, St. Aquilinus, bishop and confessor"; in the Altemps codex: "In Britain, in the city of Oxford, St. Frideswide, virgin. And St. Aquilinus, bishop and martyr." Although there is here no Position or indication of place, it is not to be doubted that St. Aquilinus of Évreux is meant, since on this day in no Martyrology at all does another Saint of this name occur. Hence it will be the error of the copyist, who wrote martyr in place of confessor. The other things of this kind, which may be seen in Sollerius, loc. cit., I forbear to review.

[16] the Roman, with the erroneous Note of Baronius, The Roman Martyrology at this day has thus: "At Évreux, St. Aquilinus, bishop and confessor." Baronius adds in the notes: "Of Aquilinus the bishop. Of whom Bede, and others following him." But Bede makes no mention of Aquilinus, as may be seen in his Martyrology, which Henschen and Papebroch published Acta SS., vol. II of March. From the beginning. at the head of the second volume of the month of March; as also in the recent London edition of the works of Bede prepared by J. A. Giles [The complete Works of Venerable Bede in the original latin, accompanied by a new english translation of the historical Works by the rev. J. A. Giles. London 1843, vol. IV, p. 17 and following], who for the rest seems to have aimed at nothing else than to commit to type once more the venerable man's Martyrology as it had been given by our predecessors. Moreover, he does not even hint at what our Sollerius wrote about Papebroch's edition of Bede in his most learned preface to the Martyrology of Usuard Chapter I, art. II, n. 45–59., where he shows that the Additions which Papebroch ascribed to Florus are in no way to be attributed to him. Whence it would follow that neither Bede nor Florus made mention of St. Aquilinus, since Bede is blank on this day, the XIX of October, and the additions are not to be assigned to Florus, in which, moreover, the name of St. Aquilinus is not found. Baronius seems to have drawn his note from Molanus: for he, in his first edition of the Usuardine Martyrology [Louvain, at Hieronymus Wellaeus's, under the sign of the Diamond, in the year 1568.], has at the XIX day of October in the additions this: "And St. Aquilinus, bishop and confessor." And since the letter b is prefixed to this Announcement, it is an indication that Molanus took it from some codex of Bede. "For since," these are Molanus's words Preface, chapter XII., "Usuard could not note the saints who became illustrious after his own times, nor does he have all who were before him, therefore, so that this Martyrology might come out more full, certain things had to be added from the Martyrologies of various churches. Before which I placed some letters to signify whence I took them: few, however, lest their multiplicity should beget confusion. And the letters and their meanings are: A, the martyrology of Ado; B, of Bede, etc." It would be superfluous to inquire further who and of what kind was that codex in which Molanus found mention of St. Aquilinus under Bede's name; let it suffice to have said that this mention is not found in codices of better note.

[17] Saussay, In the Gallican Martyrology Saussay (du Saussay), according to his custom, weaves a long encomium, which is for the most part copied from the Acts to be set out below. Here we subjoin those things in which certain matters have been added or elucidated. "At Évreux, under the second Lugdunensis, St. Aquilinus, bishop and confessor … he was summoned by King Clovis II against the barbarians… At length, Aetherius, bishop of Évreux, having been killed at Lisarchae by heretics by a blessed end … he is seized by all and dragged to the church to be ordained, willing or unwilling… After he had been present at the council of Rouen…, when he had governed his church for twenty-four years … he sought the heavenly kingdom." — In the Supplement of the same Martyrology, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of August (the XVIII of July), there is read thus: "At Évreux, the Glorification of St. Aquilinus, bishop, who, full of an abundance of apostolic virtue, having put off the mass of the flesh on the nineteenth of October, entered the heavenly fatherland. Whose illustrious deeds stand recorded among the monuments of sacred history of the saints: and his blessed memory, consecrated to perpetual veneration, is celebrated in the church with its own festival on the fifteenth day of February." But neither in Saussay's text nor in his Supplement does anything about St. Aquilinus occur at the XV of February. What, therefore, Saussay meant is not easy to say. However, there is no need to labour much over it, since it is established that this writer is not always consistent with himself in all things.

[18] The Martyrology of Évreux, and Chastelain. Nor does the Martyrology of Évreux itself, published by the authority of Pierre-Jules-César de Rochechouart, bishop of Évreux, in the year 1752, make mention of St. Aquilinus on any other day than the nineteenth of October, where these words are set in the first place: "At Évreux, the Natalis of St. Aquilinus, bishop, who, when with his wife's consent he gave himself wholly to vowed continence together with good works, was taken up to the government of this church, and diligently provided for the salvation of the flock, and towards the end of his life, although deprived of the light of his eyes, did not interrupt the ministry laid upon him, especially that of the word." Alone among all the Martyrologists I have seen, Castellanus (Chastelain) is the one who treats of our Saint on two different days. His words, turned from French into Latin, are these: "At Évreux, St. Aquilinus, bishop and confessor." In the margin is noted the year 684, and reference is made to the XV day of February, on which day, under the rubric: Saints of France (Saints de France), is read: "At Évreux, the death of St. Aquilinus, bishop"; but in the margin is written the year 695. What, however, is celebrated on the XIX day of October Chastelain, a man otherwise learned, does not say. A universal Martyrology came out in more recent printing, edited by de Saint-Allais, with a Dictionary of the Saints, following Chastelain [Martyrologe universel traduit en français du Martyrologe Romain, avec un dictionnaire universel des Saints, etc., redigé sur l'ouvrage de M. Chatelain et considérablement augmenté par M. de Saint-Allais. Paris 1835.]. In this dictionary, at the XV of February, St. Aquilinus is said to have died in the year 684; and at the XIX of October the same is declared to have died in the year 695. It is clearly a wandering of the mind, which will be corrected from Chastelain himself, if ever that dictionary is issued in a second printing.

§ II. Synopsis of the Life of St. Aquilinus. Whether two Saints of this name, Bishops of Évreux, are to be distinguished.

Synopsis of the Life of St. Aquilinus. In the New Gallia Christiana Vol. XI, col. 567. the Life of St. Aquilinus is comprised in these words: "Born of noble parents at Bajocae (Bayeux), Aquilinus took a wife, of whom he begot children. Following arms under Clovis II against the Barbarians who were laying waste the borders of the kingdom, he fought manfully. Having returned home, he made, together with his wife, a vow of perpetual chastity. When Aetherius had died, he was proclaimed bishop by the clergy and people, and shone with sanctity. He was present at the council of Rouen under Ansbert in the year 689. This is singular, that he obtained to be deprived of his eyes, having often prayed God either to darken or to guard the windows of his body, lest harmful concupiscence should creep in through them. He is said to have died after two-and-forty years of rule, others say 32, others 24. Aquilinus, having died, is buried in the chapel which he had built in the Bourg, of which, as also of his tomb, no trace remains. There is at Évreux a parish church of this name, where his festival is kept on the XIX of October, and he is certainly commemorated on the XV before the Kalends of November (the XVIII of Oct.) in the Martyrology of St. Jerome. The monk Hecelo wrote the Life of St. Aquilinus and dedicated it to a certain Audoenus; Surius gives it in vol. V. And since in it Aquilinus is read to have served in arms under Clovis I against the Arian Visigoths, that gave occasion to distinguish two Aquilinuses; of whom the first is fictitious, since Clovis I had no power in Neustria."

[20] Whether there are two Saints of the same name. Baillet Vies des Saints. At this day., Longueval [Histoire de l'Église Gallicane, vol. V, p. 397 and following. Edition in 12mo. Paris, year 1826.], le Brasseur [Histoire civile et ecclésiastique du comté d'Évreux, p. 40 and following. Paris 1722.] and others have the same things as to substance: for all drew from the same source, namely from the Acts which we set out below. Nor is it a wonder, since those Acts, as is acknowledged by all, were composed by a grave and prudent man, that the writers, whenever they keep close to them, agree among themselves. But here, as also commonly happens in contemporary monuments of history, neither are the times indicated by a series of years, nor are princes, if any of the same name held the same throne, distinguished from one another by an added order of succession. Whence more than one disagreement has arisen among the learned about the time in which St. Aquilinus flourished, whether under Clovis I or under Clovis II; as also about the years of his episcopate, since some put forty-two, others thirty-two, others twenty-four. Nay, chronological difficulties have so vexed some that they saw no other way of solving them than to admit that two Saints of the same name held the see of Évreux at different times. And this we shall first try to elucidate, the rest being put off to the following paragraphs.

[21] [The reasons by which the opinion of two Aquilinuses is attacked in the Gallia Christiana are refuted.] Before all it is well to weigh the last words, adduced above from the Gallia Christiana: "And since in it" (the Life of St. Aquilinus) "Aquilinus is read to have served in arms under Clovis I against the Arian Visigoths." I do not know where the compilers of the said work read these things: not in Surius [At this day, the XIX of October. Histoire de France, vol. I, p. 50. Amsterdam 1712, in 12mo.], who names neither Clovis I nor the Arian Visigoths. "Meanwhile," says he, "summoned by

King Clovis, who at that time held supreme power, he sets out with the other prefects of the cities against the barbarians, who in the furthest borders of the kingdom of the Franks had begun with savage minds to grow insolent… Then, three years and six months having been completed, leave to return home was given to all." Thus Surius. With Surius's text agree two copies of the Library of Burgundy at Brussels: the one is taken from the Ms. of Rubea Vallis (Rouge-Cloître), the other from the Ms. of Gigny. Both have thus: "Meanwhile, called by King Clovis, who at that time held the empire, he (Aquilinus) sets out with the other prefects of the cities to resist the barbarians, who in the furthest borders of the kingdom had begun to break loose." It must be, therefore, that the authors of the Gallia Christiana did not look into Surius and had a corrupt Ms., or that they on their own authority put Clovis I, and substituted the Arian Visigoths for the indeterminate word barbarians.

[22] Clovis I had power in Neustria, No better proven is what is subjoined in the cited text: "That gave occasion to distinguish two Aquilinuses, of whom the first is fictitious, since Clovis I had no power in Neustria." For from undoubted monuments of history it is shown to evidence that the second Lugdunensis, which afterwards with certain other provinces of Gaul was called Neustria, was occupied by Clovis I at the beginning of his reign, namely when Syagrius had been conquered and with him the dominion of the Romans in Gaul extinguished, and was retained by him to the end of his life. "The Franks, immediately on their entry into Gaul, having crossed the Rhine near Cologne, had subjected to themselves those tracts which today we call the duchy of Lorraine and the duchy of Luxembourg; Champagne as far as the borders of the Burgundians … and the regions which are now called Picardy, France (Île-de-France), Belsia (Beauce), Normandy… All these had fallen as spoil to the new conquerors of the Romans." So Daniel in French.

[23] from Sirmond's Notitia Galliarum, To one looking at any geographical map whatever of Ancient Gaul, it will strike the eyes that the second Lugdunensis is contained among the regions occupied by Clovis. And from the Notitia Galliarum which Sirmond prefixed to the beginning of volume I of the councils of Gaul, and which seems to have been composed in the times of Honorius Augustus, the second Lugdunensis consisted of these cities: the Metropolis, the city of the Rotomagenses; the city of the Bajocasses (Bayeux, the native place of St. Aquilinus); the city of the Abrincatae (Avranches); the city of the Ebroici; the city of the Sagii (Séez); the city of the Lexovii (Lisieux); the city of Constantia (Coutances).

[24] and from Bouquet. There is in the third volume of Dom Bouquet Recueil des historiens de la France. a Map having the following subscription: "The state of France under the kings of the first line, from the observations of Dom Mart. Bouquet, Benedictine, and from the dissertations of M. Lebœuf, canon of Auxerre, drawn out by Gilles Robert, ordinary geographer of the king. 1740." In the margin of this map are enumerated the things which Clovis possessed in Gaul. Here are the words, translated from French into Latin. "Clovis possessed Austria, or eastern Gaul, which comprised the whole region between the Rhine and the Meuse. Clovis moreover had Neustria, or western Gaul, which lies between the Meuse and the Loire. Clovis, in the year 507, having vanquished and slain Alaric, king of the Visigoths, occupied both Aquitaines and Novempopulania together with the city of Toulouse. From the council of Orléans, celebrated in the year 511 (at which Maurusio, bishop of Évreux, was present, as is established from the subscriptions), it appears that Clovis held not only the cities situated between the Seine and the Loire, but also those which lie between the Loire and the Garonne." Hence one may judge on what foundation it is asserted that Clovis had no power in Neustria.

[25] Yet, led by other reasons, It would be superfluous in this place to recall to mind that the division of Gaul into Neustria and Austrasia was first employed after the times of Clovis; and that these parts extended now more widely, now more narrowly; since here it is a question not of the name but of the thing. Nay, it is not permissible even to suspect that learned men were led by this reason to assert that Clovis had no power in Neustria, namely that this word was not yet in use at that time. For this would be mere quibbling. Therefore both the words which, according to the said writers, gave occasion to distinguish two Aquilinuses are fictitious, since these are found nowhere; and the reason by which the same men wish to overthrow this distinction is fictitious, or rather altogether false, since it shines clearer than the sun that that region which was afterwards called Neustria was both occupied and preserved by Clovis I.

[26] most nevertheless acknowledge only one Aquilinus. These things being elucidated, let us return to the primary question, namely whether in reality only one Aquilinus is to be admitted, or two, and both indeed bishops of Évreux, both Saints? Although, as we have already said, the learned do not agree among themselves, yet those who put one are far more numerous than those who put two: thus Baronius and Pagi: the former at the year 682 Annales, vol. XII, p. 55. Lucca edition 1742, at the year 682, n. XIII., the latter in the Critica at the same year Ibid., p. 53, n. IX.; Longueval Histoire de l'Église Gall., p. 397 and following, Le Cointe Annal. ecclesiast., at the year 688, n. XX, and at the year 695, n. XII., Hermant Histoire du diocèse de Bayeux, p. 85–87. Paris 1703., Baillet, Butler, Surius, Saussay, Chastelain, the Gallia Christiana. Of the contrary opinion, which establishes two Aquilinuses, I have found no patrons except Dom Bessin, of the congregation of St. Maur Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciae. In the latter part, p. 373 and following, and Le Brasseur in the history of the county of Évreux, written in French P. 34 and p. 40., whose standard-bearer Severtius seems to have been [Chronologia historica successionis Hierarchicae, part III, p. 26. Lyons edition 1628.].

[27] The Catalogue of the Bishops of Évreux according to Dom Bessin, Dom Bessin, to strengthen his opinion, weaves in the place cited a Catalogue of the bishops of Évreux, from which we here subjoin only those things which chiefly bear on our matter.

Year 480. Maurisio, designated successor by St. Gaudus about the year 480. He was present at the Council of Orléans and subscribed in the year 511.

512. St. Aeternus or Aetherius. From the Acts of St. Aquilinus he preceded him in the episcopate. He was crowned with martyrdom about the year 515.

515. St. Aquilinus, under Clovis I, king of the Franks, was acting as leader of soldiers in the years 506 and 507 against the Arian Visigoths. After the war, having renounced military service, he was elected prelate of Évreux, succeeded Bl. Aetherius about 515 and, as Baronius holds, administered it for 24 years.

538. Licinius, by some called Lucinius; not a few think there were two who succeeded each other in the episcopal office. He subscribed the III Council of Orléans in the year 538, and the V in the year 549. Then, other names which do not belong here being interposed, there follows:

658. Concessus; he subscribed the privilege of Emmo, bishop of Sens, for the monastery of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif of Sens in the 3rd year of Chlothar II, in these words: "In the name of Christ, I, Concessus, a sinner, bishop of Évreux, have consented."

670. St. Aquilinus II. Some wrongly confuse him with St. Aquilinus I, or the elder. There is at Évreux a parish church of this name, where his festival is kept on the XIX of October; whereas the solemnity of the former, which is on the XV of February, is in no way kept there. He was present at the Council of Rouen under Ansbert in the year 693. Compare above, n. 12.

[28] it rests on monuments not sufficiently clear. Whence Dom Bessin drew all these things, so positively asserted, no one will easily conjecture. The so determinate designation of the years alone will render this catalogue suspect to anyone who has put even the slightest labour into elucidating the chronological matters of that epoch, since it is established that most things pertaining to the reckoning of those times are wrapped in the densest darkness. Hence also no one will wonder that the Catalogue of the same bishops which is found in the New Gallia Christiana Vol. IX, col. 564–621. differs very much from the Bessinian Catalogue. Let the following serve as an example.

[29] The Catalogue of the Gallia Christiana differs from the preceding. In the year 511, Meurisio. It agrees with the preceding. At the end is added: "he is believed to have died in the year following," namely the I Council of Orléans, that is, the year 511.

549. Licinius, whom some call Lucinius, and some think him a different person; he subscribed the Councils of Orléans, the III of the year 538, and the V of the year 549. But of the two bishops who follow Licinius in the Tables of the church, Valerius did not subscribe the V Council of Orléans, as they would have it; and Laban was bishop of Eauze. And, certain ones being interposed:

658. Concessus. To the Privileges of Emmo, prelate of Sens, for the monasteries of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif and of Sainte-Colombe in the year 658, Concessus is read as subscribed, who also subscribed the privilege which St. Drausius, bishop of Soissons, granted in the year 666 to the nunnery of Bl. Mary. Without chronological indication or notation of the years of succession there follow immediately:

Aeternus, who is also Aetherius, preceded Aquilinus, from the Acts of St. Aquilinus in Surius. Certain things pertaining to the cult of St. Aetherius are added.

Saint Aquilinus. "Born of noble parents at Bayeux," and the rest as at the head of this paragraph, n. 22.

Desiderius

Stephen. After him the years of succession are added.

765. Maurinus, who was present at the assembly of Attigny.

[30] Le Brasseur departs from both Catalogues, but much more from the latter, Again Le Brasseur and Severtius differ from both. as will be evident from the names and years subjoined here [Histoire du comté d'Evreux. At the beginning, in the chronological Table of the kings, dukes of the Normans, counts, bishops of Évreux.]. Severtius, however, arranges the series thus:

St. Taurinus

St. Aeternus

"St. Aquilinus, first of the name, very recently brought by us into the episcopal Catalogue, sat at Évreux 24 years according to Baronius on the Martyrology, or 42 years according to Guillaume Gazet. According to whom the Saint died on the XIX of October, in the four hundred and eighty-third year" Chronologia historica successionis hierarchicae, part III, p. 26.. Not undeservedly, therefore, did we call Severtius the standard-bearer of the others, who then continues in this way:

Maurisius

Licinius

Valerius

Desiderius

Ragnericus

"Aquilinus the second is found as a voter in a certain general council of Rouen, or at least it was a national one, and that in the six hundred and eighty-second year, on the assertion, from his own texts, of Baronius, num. 11. Indeed the manifest distance of two centuries between St. Aquilinus I and this other one recently added sufficiently compels us to divide them into two separate persons" Ibid.. A splendid way of reasoning indeed. For what else is this than to suppose what is in question? But the authority of Severtius is not so great that we should undertake expressly to refute his assertions, the more so as in meeting the others we shall at the same time also censure him.

[31] [From the Catalogues, if anything is to be concluded, it would follow that only one Aquilinus existed.] About these Catalogues let us note two things. First, since from the mere inspection of the series set out it sufficiently appears how much they differ among themselves, it follows that no solid argument can be drawn from them for either side of the disputed question of one

or two Aquilinuses; the second regards the very origin of these Catalogues, about which the Gallia Christiana has thus Vol. IX, col. 556–565.: "The series of the bishops of Évreux was first woven in summary form by Jean le Jau, penitentiary and canon of Évreux, and also vicar general of the bishop, in the year 1622. Him Robert and the Sainte-Marthes followed, whom N. Le Brasseur, librarian of the chancellor of France, tried to correct in the Civil and Ecclesiastical history of the county of Évreux, which he brought to light at Paris in the year 1722." (Dom Bessin had published the Councils of the province of Rouen in the year 1717.) "From these and other public documents and charters the series which we give has been composed." This last, since it is also the latest in time (for it was published in the year 1759), is to be judged the more accurate; and accordingly, if we should wish to deduce anything from the Catalogues, it will rather have to be said that there was only one St. Aquilinus.

[32] Dom Bessin in vain claims Baronius for himself. But let us examine more deeply the reasons on which the patrons of the other opinion rely. Dom Bessin, writing of St. Aquilinus I: "After the war, having renounced military service, he was elected prelate of Évreux, succeeded Bl. Aetherius about 515; and, as Baronius holds, administered it for 24 years" Concilia Rotomag. Prov., later part, p. 373. — in writing these things, I say, he seems to indicate that Baronius admits two Aquilinuses, or at least referred the one of whom he treats to the times of Clovis I. But Baronius's mind is altogether different. In the Notes on the Roman Martyrology he may indeed be judged to have left the matter undecided, since he says At the XIX day of Oct., note e.: "He sat 24 years; he flourished in the times of Clovis, king of the Franks, and of his sons." But in the Annals he mentions only one Aquilinus, whom he refers to the year 682. Treating, namely, of the Council of Rouen, to which Aquilinus subscribed, he adds at n. XIII: "Of Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux, who was present at the same synod, it is certain that he shone with eminent sanctity, and, having been enrolled among the Saints, is honoured with an anniversary memory on the nineteenth of the month of October. The Acts of his illustrious Life are extant." In the margin is written: "In Surius, at the XIX day of Oct., vol. V." And Pagi notes on this place, num. IX: "Of the sixteen bishops who subscribed the Council of Rouen, seven are honoured in the dioceses which they ruled: Ansbert in that of Rouen, on the ninth day of February; Aquilinus in that of Évreux, on the fifteenth day of the same month, who however is inscribed in the Roman Martyrology at the XIX day of the month of October, to which Surius also refers his Acts, etc." And a little lower: "Aquilinus … when he had served for three years and six months in a certain war under King Clovis II … Aeternus having died … Aquilinus was made bishop of Évreux and, when he had ruled that church for two-and-forty years, gave back his spirit to God." From which it may be seen that Baronius and Pagi agree in admitting one Aquilinus, but disagree in designating the day of the cult and in numbering the years of the pontificate; at least if the things which Baronius relates of Aquilinus both in the Notes on the Roman Martyrology and in the Annals be joined together: for in the latter he is silent about the time spent in the episcopate. Dom Bessin therefore slipped, if in truth, as indeed seems the case, he wished to prop up his opinion about Aquilinus I with the authority of Baronius.

[33] Nor does Bessin's reason drawn from a double festival hold. Nor of greater weight is what the said Bessin writes Where above. of Aquilinus II: "Some wrongly confuse him with Aquilinus I, or the elder. There is at Évreux a parish church of this name, where his festival is kept on the XIX of October: whereas that of the former, which is on the XV of February, is in no way kept there." By such a reason one would easily be induced to number not only two Aquilinuses but also three or even more; since in reviewing the Martyrologies above we found the XVIII day of October given somewhere to the cult of St. Aquilinus, and nothing prevents other days being found in the Calendars or Martyrologies of certain particular churches. Moreover, that is assumed which would have to be proved: namely that the festival of Aquilinus I is kept on the XV of February: for granted that a feast of this kind is celebrated somewhere, it does not thence follow that it is to be referred to the first Aquilinus rather than to the second; since the reason for a solemnity assigned to different days may be found either in a translation of Relics, or in the anniversary of election, ordination, or death, and other things of this kind. Which indeed is sufficiently indicated both by Chastelain, who at the XV of February mentions the death of St. Aquilinus, and by Saussay, who in the Supplement at the XVIII of July records his glorification. I should not think, therefore, that anyone among the learned would readily subscribe to the opinion of Dom Bessin from the fact that the memory of St. Aquilinus is kept on different days in different churches, nay in the same church. Those few things which the said writer brings forward to establish his opinion seem to us so to totter on every side that one may without rashness pronounce that nothing stands in favour of two Aquilinuses except the mere affirmation of the author.

[34] Of no greater moment are the arguments of the historian of Évreux, It remains that we examine whether the arguments which the author of the history of the county of Évreux, Le Brasseur, brought together for the same opinion are of greater moment. Since he is the chief champion of that opinion which puts two Aquilinuses, it is worth the trouble to set down here somewhat more at length his words, turned from French into Latin.

[35] whose words are recited "We must here treat," he says Histoire civile et ecclésiastique du comté d'Evreux, p. 34., "of St. Aquilinus. Since two (of the same name) held the see of Évreux, and both indeed Saints, many writers have confused them, and out of two have made one. Yet they are separated from each other by an interval of a hundred and fifty years: since the former flourished under Clovis I, the latter under Clovis II. St. Aquilinus I bore arms under Clovis I, and in the years 506 and 507 followed the war against the Arian Visigoths. Shortly after, having become a catechumen and renounced military service, he gave his life over to solitude. When he least expected it, he was elected bishop, and placed in the see of Évreux towards the year 515 in the place of St. Aeternus, and governed this church, as Baronius has it, for 24 years. Him the church honours as a Saint, since it has inserted his name in all the Martyrologies, as also the name of St. Aquilinus II; both of whom were mixed up, one with the other, in the last Breviary of Évreux; but they are distinguished in the Breviary of the Rt. Rev. de Saintes, the XV day of February being assigned to the one, the XIX of October to the other. May it be permitted to hope that, when a new Breviary is issued in this diocese, its own place will be restored to each Saint." And below Ibid., p. 40 and following he writes of St. Aquilinus II: "He is among the best known of the bishops of Évreux. His Life was written by Hecelo, a Benedictine monk, a learned and wise man. This Life breathes gravity and piety, and deserves by the judgment of the learned a firmer faith because its author lived towards the end of the eighth century, if not even earlier."

[36] with a chronological synopsis of the Life of St. Aquilinus. After these things Le Brasseur sets out a historical synopsis of the Life of St. Aquilinus, taken from the Acts, with the order of years added in which the deeds were done, which he also sometimes amplifies somewhat. He says he was born in the year 620 at Bayeux of noble parents, and those wealthy and endowed with singular virtue. He takes a wife, receives children of her, discharges distinguished offices in the court of King Clovis II. In the same reign he sets out to war against the Barbarians acting hostilely in the furthest borders of the kingdom. After three years and a half, namely towards the year 651, the war being ended, he returns to Bayeux, and thenceforth, his wife consenting, keeps continence. In the reign of Chlothar III, towards the year 663, by the unanimous consent of the people and clergy he is elected and consecrated bishop of Évreux; in which office he shines with outstanding virtues, especially with zeal for prayer and for promoting the salvation of his subjects. In the year 693 he is present at Rouen at the provincial council, and about that time is deprived of the light of his eyes, which indeed he himself regarded as a signal benefit of God, by which he would be immune from most of the allurements of sin. He died in the year 695, in the 75th of his age, after he had sat 32 years. He is buried in the Chapel which he himself had built in the Bourg, where he afterwards shone with various miracles. Of the Chapel as also of the tomb no trace now remains. The feast of St. Aquilinus II is noted at the XIX of October in the Roman Martyrology and other more recent ones; it is nevertheless kept on the XV day of February by the church of Évreux, and especially in the parish dedicated to the name of St. Aquilinus.

[37] From the summary of the Life subjoined it is seen that the author of the history of Évreux, in most of the things In what Le Brasseur differs from Bessin; which he added of his own to the Acts, agrees with Dom Bessin. Yet there is a point in which they disagree, since the latter expressly says that the feast of St. Aquilinus II is in no way kept in the parish church of his name at Évreux; but Le Brasseur, that the feast of St. Aquilinus II is kept on the XV day of February by the church of Évreux, and especially in the parish dedicated to the name of St. Aquilinus. Which is a manifest contradiction, and the more to be wondered at because both writers are contemporaries. Certainly the Ordo for reciting the divine office and celebrating masses according to the rite of the church of Évreux (year 1827) notes thus at the XIX day of October: "St. Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux. Minor double. Colour white. Proper office except the hymns. At mass, Creed." At the XV day of February not even the slightest mention of the same Saint is made. As to what concerns the chronology, it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently established from what has already been said, and will be still more established from what is to be said, that not complete faith is to be given to it, since for the most part it rests on scarcely any foundation, nor does the author himself seem to take trouble to adduce reasons by which to establish it.

[38] the reasons which he holds for his opinion The same may be said of the primary question which we are here treating. He will have it that there were two Aquilinuses, first because the church has inserted the name of St. Aquilinus I in all the Martyrologies, as also the name of St. Aquilinus II; then because their feasts occur on a different day; finally because the one Saint is clearly distinguished from the other in the Breviary published by the most illustrious M. de Saintes, bishop of Évreux. Besides these three, I should not think that anything else is contained in the words cited above from the history of the county of Évreux which has force of proof.

[39] are refuted. But it is falsely asserted that the name of both Saints is found in all the Martyrologies; nay rather, there is no Martyrology of any authority, whether recent or ancient, in which mention is made of an Aquilinus the elder or the younger, the first or the second; which is manifest from what we noted exactly above in §1 in reviewing the Martyrologies. And here Le Brasseur is with full justice convicted either of levity or of inconsiderateness:

for if he had applied even the least diligence in examining the ancient Martyrologies, he would without doubt have seen that in them a single Aquilinus of Évreux is in question; and if among the more recent one or another has mention of this Saint on different days, it is not thence to be concluded that different Saints of the same name are commemorated, since it is not infrequent for the same Saint to be honoured on different days, account being taken of death, consecration, translation and the like. There remains the Breviary published by the authority of the Rt. Rev. M. de Saintes. We grant that two, and indeed different, Saints of the name of Aquilinus are named and honoured in it. But this proves nothing else than that such was the opinion of those who gave their labour to composing that Breviary. On what reasons they relied is not clear, since they did not make them public, at least as far as is known to me. To the authority of the Rt. Rev. M. de Saintes we oppose the authority of the new Breviary, whose editors without any doubt maturely weighed the reasons fighting on this side and that. Nor is it to be passed over that the Senior of my colleagues, in revising our Acts, as is the custom among us, aptly noted: "It might be remarked that the Rt. Rev. M. de Saintes, when, on account of the opinions of some learned men, he established two homonymous bishops, did not forthwith have the right of canonizing the other one, hitherto unknown. That indeed far exceeds the limits of the Gallican liberties."

[40] The opinion establishing two Aquilinuses therefore totters, Thus far we have seen the things which fight in favour of the opinion admitting two Aquilinuses; certainly few in number and tottering on every side. It remains that we bring to the balance the things which the patrons of the other opinion bring forward, so that the learned reader, holding the weights of both opinions, may the more easily determine to which he may more fairly adhere.

[41] [Reasons of the contrary opinion. The complete conformity of life in both Aquilinuses.] The first thing which strikes the eyes, so to speak, is the complete conformity of life in both Aquilinuses, whether the elder or the younger. Each followed military service, was afterwards given to the solitary life, is unexpectedly elected, and is ordained bishop of Évreux. Whatever is read in the life of either is drawn from the Acts to be published below, and already made public by Surius, with the style somewhat changed according to his custom. The only difference to be observed is placed in this, that to Aquilinus I a few things are attributed, which extend only as far as his election; while to Aquilinus II is ascribed whatever is contained in those Acts, if, however, you except the things which are said there of St. Aeternus, and which in the History of the County of Évreux are assigned to St. Aquilinus the elder.

[42] [For two Aquilinuses to be established it must be said that the Acts were interpolated,] By what right this is done no one would easily show, since nothing is found in the text which suggests that these things were interposed. All things, whether you regard the style or the matter, cohere excellently with one another and point to the same author, as may be seen from the words set down here: "For when Blessed Aeternus, bishop of the city of Évreux, had been translated from this light to the eternal, so that in reality he might be what he had hitherto been called in word, the minds of the whole clergy and people are divinely inflamed, that that hidden servant of God Aquilinus, who, hiding himself, denied to his neighbours an example of piety, should be substituted for him." So Surius, who, although he changed certain words and transposed others, agrees exactly as to sense with the manuscript Acts. Now it may be asked why, while all the rest is referred to St. Aquilinus II, these things are ascribed to St. Aquilinus I? Certainly it would have to be proved before all things that these were inserted into the Acts of St. Aquilinus II by another hand; otherwise whoever removed them at his own pleasure will not escape the mark of levity.

[43] which no probable reason suggests. But if anyone should say that these things had to be suppressed in order to have an ordered series of the succession of the bishops of Évreux, since Aquilinus was put in the place of Bl. Aeternus, we reply that by this reasoning there is presupposed what is in question, since in the text of the Acts there is nothing which indicates the first Aquilinus rather than the second; and moreover the things related of St. Aeternus are drawn from nowhere else than from those very Acts of St. Aquilinus. Which is so true that our predecessors the hagiographers themselves had scarcely anything else to proclaim of St. Aeternus. (See the Acta SS. at the XV of July Vol. IV of July, p. 48., where at n. 1 our Sollerius positively affirms that St. Aeternus or Aetherius belongs to the Saints of the seventh century; nay he puts at the beginning in the margin: "about the year DCLX.") Nor is a stronger argument drawn from the catalogues of the bishops of Évreux, since, as we saw above, they do not agree among themselves, and that chiefly for this reason, that some put one and others two Aquilinuses.

[44] What has been disputed thus far is recapitulated; Therefore by no reason taken from without is it proved that the Acts of St. Aquilinus were interpolated as regards the things concerning St. Aeternus; on the other side, intrinsic marks fight for their authenticity; moreover those words about St. Aeternus are found both in Surius and in both our copies, nor finally is any Ms. produced in which those words are wanting. Let it be permitted, therefore, to conclude that the opinion of the author of the History of the County of Évreux totters violently from this very fact, that, in order to have its first foundations, Acts must be adulterated, nay even mutilated, which are held by all hitherto as genuine, and which seem to be praised as such by that very writer. And to resume briefly what has been disputed at some length in this paragraph: it is false that the name of St. Aquilinus, both the first and the second, is found in all the Martyrologies; the things said about a double festival celebrated on different days do not cohere with one another; and even if we should concede it, it would not thence follow that two Saints of the same name are to be admitted; finally, the Breviary of the Rt. Rev. M. de Saintes in no way settles the matter; it testifies only that that opinion prevailed at that time; just as, in turn, the contrary opinion prevailed when the Breviary was recently composed; and accordingly, other things being equal, the authority of the one is cancelled by the authority of the other; although other things are not equal, since in favour of the latter fight the immense labours which were undertaken through the whole seventeenth century (the Rt. Rev. de Saintes died in the year 1589) in seeking out and elucidating the monuments of ancient history; lastly, the catalogues of the bishops of Évreux do not agree among themselves, and again the most recent of these, which is found in vol. XI of the Gallia Christiana published at Paris in the year 1759, has one Aquilinus.

[45] and it is concluded that there is one Aquilinus. On the other hand, the conformity in the life of both Aquilinuses is complete; so that it is undoubted, nay evident, that each and every thing that merits any credit was copied from the same Acts; the ancient Martyrologies note one Saint of this name, as also the more recent, if you except one or another, and even in these it is far more reasonable to refer their mention to different festivals of the same Saint than to the commemoration of two Saints of the same name; finally, the contrary opinion, as it is defended by our opponents, either expressly admits with Le Brasseur an interpolation of the Acts, or must suppose it; otherwise it would have to be said that St. Aquilinus II succeeded St. Aeternus; which being admitted, their whole argumentation collapses. And from these things it sufficiently appears what our opinion in this question is. It is undoubted to us that there is a single prelate who held the see of Évreux under the name of Aquilinus.

[46] [What in the Acts seems to have given occasion to the opinion about two Aquilinuses.] These things being so, someone may perhaps ask how it came about after all that the opinion of two Aquilinuses was accepted by grave men, and those especially learned, and keenly defended. We answer that, in our judgment, it arose from this, that in the Acts Aquilinus is said to have served under Clovis "to resist the barbarians who in the furthest borders of the kingdom had begun to break loose." For it does not at once appear how these things can be reconciled with Clovis II, while they fit most aptly with the first king of that name. And thence arises a historical question which, as the nature of the Bollandist work requires, is to be worked out somewhat more fully; which we shall also perform in the following paragraph.

§ III. On the Barbarians against whom St. Aquilinus bore arms under Clovis; it is shown that they were more probably the Wends.

The Barbarians of whom the Acts speak are not the Arian Visigoths; Let us recall to mind that those words, "the Barbarians who in the furthest borders of the kingdom had begun to break loose," were changed against the faith of Surius and of the Mss.; and indeed in such a way that for the indeterminate word "Barbarians" the Arian Visigoths were substituted; and, what was consequent, that he was called Clovis I who, without any number of royal succession added, is named in the Acts simply Clovis. But in trying to avoid Charybdis they fell into Scylla. For a certain Aquilinus, bishop of the city of Évreux, subscribed the council of Rouen celebrated towards the end of the seventh century. And this man cannot be said to have served under Clovis I, who died at the beginning of the sixth century (in the year 511). A new knot, therefore, was entangled, for the solving of which a second Aquilinus was devised. But since the life of this one also had to be sketched, and since the Acts of only one existed and no hope shone of finding others, it remained that the life of both should be composed out of one and the same Acts. How successfully this was done we have seen sufficiently and more than sufficiently.

[48] but rather the Wends, If in the Acts the Arian Visigoths were really in question, to us too the difficulty would seem insoluble of reconciling the Aquilinus who subscribed the council of Rouen with the Aquilinus who had borne arms against those named Barbarians. But this difficulty does not arise. In the Acts it is a question of Barbarians, with no name added which designates these rather than those. And this being posited, all things cohere if those Barbarians be said to have been the Winidi or Venedae, of whom in the seventh and eighth centuries frequent mention is made among the writers of Frankish affairs, and against whom the Franks advanced into battle in the time of Clovis II, as will be evident from what is to be said.

[49] as is clear from Fredegar, It is well at the outset to write down here the things which Fredegar relates of the Wends in various places of his Chronicle [It is found in Bouquet: Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol. II, p. 447–551.], so that it may more clearly be known on what ground it can be affirmed that these are the ones whom the Acts of St. Aquilinus record as having begun to break loose in the furthest borders of the kingdom of the Franks.

[50] whose words are reported in full. At Number XLVIII Ibid., p. 432.: "In the XL year of the reign of Chlothar, a certain man named Samo, a Frank by nation, from the pagus Sennonagus" (more probably from the pagus Senonagus, Sengaw, in Hainaut, where Sonegia, our Soignies, is situated) "took with him many merchants, and set out to carry on trade among the Slavs, surnamed Wends. The Slavs had already begun to rebel against the Avars, surnamed Chuni" (others Huns) "and their king the Gagan. The Wends had been Befulci to the Chuni already from of old, so that when the Chuni went out with an army against any nation whatever, the Chuni stood before the camp with their army assembled, while the Wends fought: but if they prevailed to conquer,

then the Chuni advanced to take the plunder: but if the Wends were overcome, supported by the help of the Chuni they recovered their strength. Therefore they were called Befulci by the Chuni, because, making battle in a double rank of combat, they went in front of the Chuni. The Chuni came every year to winter among the Slavs; they took the wives of the Slavs and their daughters to their beds; besides other oppressions the Slavs paid tributes to the Chuni. The sons of the Chuni whom they had begotten on the wives and daughters of the Wends, at length not enduring to bear this wickedness and oppression, and refusing the dominion of the Chuni, began, as I mentioned above, to rebel. When the Wends had gone out with an army against the Chuni, Samo the merchant, of whom I made mention above, went with them in the army, and there his usefulness was so great that it was a wonder, and an exceedingly great multitude of the Chuni was slaughtered by the sword of the Wends. The Wends, perceiving the usefulness of Samo, elect him king over themselves, where he reigned happily for thirty-five years. The Wends waged many battles against the Chuni under his rule: by his counsel and usefulness the Wends always prevailed. Samo had twelve wives from the race of the Wends, of whom he had twenty-two sons and fifteen daughters."

[51] And below Ibid., p. 439.: "In that year (the IX of Dagobert) the Slavs, surnamed Wends, having killed a very great multitude of Frankish merchants in the kingdom of Samo and stripped them of their goods, this was the beginning of the quarrel between Dagobert and Samo, king of the Slavs. And Dagobert sent Sicharius as envoy to Samo, asking that he should make amends with justice for the merchants whom his people had killed and the goods which they had unlawfully usurped. Samo, unwilling to see Sicharius, would not let him come to him; Sicharius, having put on clothing after the manner of the Slavs, came with his men into his presence; he announced to Samo all that he had been charged with: but, as the heathenism and pride of the wicked have it, nothing of what his people had committed was amended by Samo, except only that he wished to appoint pleas, so that justice might be rendered mutually concerning these and other disputes which had arisen between these parties. Sicharius, like a foolish envoy, speaks insulting words, which he had not been charged with, and threats against Samo, because Samo and the people of his kingdom owed service to Dagobert. Samo, answering, already wounded, said: 'Both the land which we have is Dagobert's, and we are his, if only he will determine to keep friendship with us.' Sicharius saying: 'It is not possible that Christians, servants of God, can make friendship with dogs,' Samo on the contrary said: 'If you are servants of God, and we are dogs of God, then, while you constantly act against Him, we have received permission to tear you with bites.' Sicharius was cast out of Samo's presence. When he had announced these things to Dagobert, Dagobert haughtily orders an army to be moved from the whole kingdom of the Austrasians against Samo and the Wends: where the army enters upon the Wends in three divisions of the phalanx; also the Lombards, at the solace" (others: solicitation, payment) "of Dagobert, likewise went hostilely against the Slavs. The Slavs preparing in opposition in these and other places, the army of the Alamanni with Duke Chrodobert obtained the victory in the quarter where it had entered. The Lombards likewise obtained the victory; and the Alamanni and Lombards led away with them a very great number of captives from the Slavs. But the Austrasians, when they surrounded the stronghold of Wogastisburg" (others: Vocastense, Vogastense, Vocatense), "where a very large band of brave Wends had stayed, fighting for three days, many of Dagobert's army are there slaughtered by the sword, and thence, all fleeing and abandoning the tents and the goods which they had, they return to their own homes. Many times after this the Wends burst into Thuringia and the other districts of the kingdom of the Franks, laying them waste. Also Dervanus, duke of the people of the Urbii" (Le Cointe says they are the Surbii, Sorbi or Sorabi, neighbours of the Thuringians), "who were of the race of the Slavs and had long since looked to the kingdom of the Franks, delivered himself with his people to the kingdom of Samo. And this victory which the Wends won against the Franks the bravery of the Slavs did not obtain so much as the madness of the Austrasians, since they saw that they had incurred hatred with Dagobert and were constantly being plundered."

[52] Then N. LXXIV Ibid., p. 441 and 442.: "In the X year of the reign of Dagobert, when it had been announced to him that an army of the Wends had entered Thuringia, setting out with an army of the kingdom of the Austrasians from the city of Metz, having crossed the Ardennes, he approaches Mainz with a great army, purposing to cross the Rhine; having with him a scara" (that is, a troop of soldiers) "of chosen brave men from Neustria and Burgundy with dukes and grafs. The Saxons send envoys" (Legates) "to Dagobert, asking that he would remit to them the tributes which they paid to the dominions of the fisc: and they for their part pledge by their own zeal and usefulness to resist the Wends, and promise to guard the frontier of the Franks in those parts. Which Dagobert, having obtained the counsel of the Neustrians, granted to the Saxons who had come to make these petitions. They confirm an oath, as their custom was, upon their arms at peace" (others: agreed) "on behalf of all the Saxons. But this promise has little effect; nevertheless the Saxons have the tribute which they used to pay remitted by the order of Dagobert: they used to pay, as assessed by Chlothar the elder, five hundred inferendal cows" (so called, namely, because they were brought in every year); "which was cancelled by Dagobert."

[53] And in the following number Page 442.: "In the XI year of the reign of Dagobert, when the Wends at the command of Samo were raging fiercely, and often, having crossed their frontier, entered the kingdom of the Franks to lay it waste, Thuringia and the other districts, Dagobert, coming to the city of Metz, with the counsel of the bishops or nobles, and with all the chief men of his kingdom consenting, raised his son Sigibert as king among the Austrasians, and allowed him to have the city of Metz as his seat… Thenceforth the Austrasians are known to have usefully defended by their own zeal the frontier and kingdom of the Franks against the Wends." A little lower, N. LXXVII: "Duke Radulf, son of Chamar, whom Dagobert had appointed duke of Thuringia, fighting many times with the army of the Wends, turned them conquered to flight. Puffed up with the pride of this victory … he had little by little already then" (namely while Dagobert was alive) "begun to rebel against Sigibert."

[54] N. LXXIX Page 443 and following.: "In the XVI year of his reign Dagobert began to be ill with a flux of the belly at Spinogelum, a villa on the river Seine, not far from Paris: thence he is carried by his people to the basilica of St. Denis… After a few days Dagobert gave up the spirit, and was buried in the church of St. Denis." Neustria and Burgundy were obtained by Clovis, a boy of four or five years; Sigibert, his elder brother, had obtained the kingdom of Austria while Dagobert his father was still living, as was said above from Fredegar, who then at N. LXXXVII has these things, which bear especially on our matter Page 446..

[55] "And when Sigibert was reigning in his VIII year" (Clovis in his III year), "and Radulf, duke of Thuringia, had determined to rebel vehemently against Sigibert, at the command of Sigibert all the Leudes of the Austrasians were banned" (that is, summoned: for Bannum is an edict or proclamation of something) "to march in the army. Sigibert crossing the Rhine with the army, peoples from every side, from all the districts of his kingdom beyond the Rhine, were assembled with him. In the first place Sigibert's army, slaughtering, broke the son of Chrodoald, named Fara, who had a common counsel with Radulf, and killed him: all the people of this Fara who escaped the sword they consign to captivity. And all the chief men and the army gave their right hands to one another, that no one would grant life to Radulf: but this promise had no effect. Sigibert then, crossing Buchonia with the army, hastens to Thuringia. Radulf, seeing this, building a stronghold fortified with timber on a certain hill above the river Unstrut in Thuringia, collecting an army from every side, as much as he could, established himself in this stronghold with his wife and children to defend himself: and Sigibert coming there with the army of his kingdom, the army surrounds the stronghold on every side: but Radulf sat within, strongly prepared for battle. But this battle was entered upon without counsel. The youth of King Sigibert brought this about, since some wished to proceed to the fight on the same day and others on the morrow, not having a common counsel. The dukes Grimoald and Adalgisel, seeing these things, and anxious for Sigibert's danger, guard him on every side without intermission. Bobo, duke of the Arverni, with part of the army of Adalgisel, and Aenovalaus, count of the Sogiontenses, with the men of his district, and a very large remaining band of the army, at once went to fight against Radulf at the gate of the stronghold. Radulf, since he had confidence in some of the dukes of Sigibert's army, that they would not wish to rush upon him with their forces, bursting out of the stronghold through the gate and rushing with his men upon Sigibert's army, so great a slaughter of Sigibert's army is made by Radulf with his men that it was a wonder. The men of Mainz were not faithful in this battle. And it is said that many thousands of men were there slaughtered by the sword. Radulf, the victory having been accomplished, enters the stronghold. Sigibert, with his faithful men, seized with heavy grief of bitterness, sitting upon his horse, tears bursting from his eyes, lamented those whom he had lost: and Duke Bobo and Count Aenovalaus, and the other bravest fighters of the nobles, and also a very large band of the army of King Sigibert, who had gone with them into the encounter of the combat, were slaughtered in this battle while Sigibert looked on. For Fredulf also, the domesticus, who was said to have been a friend of Radulf, fell in this battle. Sigibert remained that same night with his army in the tents not far from the stronghold itself. On the morrow, seeing that they had prevailed nothing against Radulf, messengers running to and fro, that they might cross the Rhine again peaceably, by agreement with Radulf, Sigibert and his army return to their own homes. Radulf, puffed up with pride, reckoned himself to be after the manner of a king in Thuringia, confirming friendships with the Wends, and bound the other peoples which he had as neighbours by the bond of friendship. In words, however, he did not deny the rule to Sigibert; but in deeds he strongly resisted his dominion."

[56] [It is therefore established that under Clovis II a grave war was set in motion by the Wends against the Franks.] From this narrative of Fredegar it is therefore established that under Dagobert and his sons Sigibert II and Clovis II the Franks frequently had to do with the Wends, and that these can rightly be called barbarians making disturbance in the furthest borders of the kingdom. In particular, from N. LXXXVII, which we have copied last from Fredegar above, it is undoubted that in the reign of Clovis II a difficult war arose in the same parts, namely when Radulf, duke of Thuringia, rebelled against Sigibert, king of Austrasia, brother of Clovis; that Radulf, to whom the care of guarding the borders of the kingdom against the incursions of the Wends had been committed by Dagobert, acted slackly, nay rather, when he had determined to rebel vehemently against Sigibert, attached those barbarians to himself, and had already before the war entered into friendship with them, as also after the war confirmed it, Fredegar declares in express words. What, then, should prevent there being referred to this Thuringian rebellion those words which are read in the Acts of St. Aquilinus: "Meanwhile, called by King Clovis, who at that time held the empire, with the other prefects of the cities

to resist the barbarians, who in the furthest borders of the kingdom had begun to break loose"? Let the single words be weighed; there is none which does not fit our hypothesis most aptly.

[57] [The difficulty is solved from the fact that that war was waged against the Austrasians while Clovis II presided over Neustria.] I know it can be objected that the Thuringian war was set in motion not against Clovis, who held Neustria and Burgundy, but against Sigibert, who presided over the Austrasians; and accordingly that it is falsely assumed that Clovis called the prefects of his cities to arms. To solve this difficulty it is well before all to recall to memory what was recited above at n. 52 from Fredegar: namely, "in the X year of the reign of Dagobert, when it had been announced to him that an army of the Wends had entered Thuringia, with an army of the kingdom of the Austrasians … having crossed the Ardennes … he (Dagobert) approaches … Mainz, purposing to cross the Rhine; having with him a scara of chosen brave men from Neustria and Burgundy with dukes and grafs" (counts). Although therefore Dagobert wished that war to be carried through with the forces of the Austrasians, he nevertheless took with him a scara, that is, a troop, of chosen brave men from Neustria and Burgundy with dukes and grafs. There is therefore nothing to conflict if we say that the very same thing was done in the rebellion of Radulf.

[58] [Nothing prevents the King of Austrasia from having called his brother Clovis into alliance in the war;] Nor will it greatly move anyone that Dagobert ruled over both, the Austrasians and the Neustrians together, whereas Clovis presided only over the latter and Sigibert over the former. For it is well known that in those centuries each kingdom, even while they were subject to the rule of one man, was administered for the most part separately. It is therefore natural to conclude that in a war which was waged in the same region and against the same enemy, the two kings kept to the footsteps of their father. And that is the more likely because Clovis lived in perpetual peace with Sigibert; and that war arose in the second year after the death of Dagobert, and both kings were of boyish age (Sigibert, as Hadrien de Valois has it [Rerum Francicarum, vol. III, book XX. Compare §1 of this Preliminary Commentary, where the council of Rouen is treated.], was in his tenth year, Clovis had scarcely entered his seventh). Whence it follows that the kingdom was still for the greatest part under the guardianship of those to whom Dagobert himself had commended it, and accordingly that the manner of administration was not greatly different. Add that that part of Neustria from which Aquilinus came is not so very distant from the borders of Austrasia: whence the very neighbourhood called him into alliance in the war.

[59] which things being posited, all things duly cohere. On this reasoning all things cohere: Aquilinus under Clovis II, towards the year 640, set out to war against the barbarians who had begun to break loose in the furthest borders of the Frankish kingdom; he succeeds Aetherius in the see of Évreux; he is present at the council of Rouen towards the year 688; he dies an old man. There is nothing in all these which does not agree with the Acts; whereas to establish the other opinion the Acts must be both adulterated and mutilated. Wherefore it remains undoubted to us that there is a single Saint of this name who ruled that church.

§ IV. On the time and years of the Episcopate of St. Aquilinus. On the Acts and their writer.

[In what years and for how long St. Aquilinus held his see is not agreed among the writers.] Above, in §2, we have already noted that the writers do not agree among themselves about the year in which St. Aquilinus was made bishop of Évreux; nor about the number of years for which he held his see. "Aquilinus," says Le Cointe Ann. Ecclesiast. Franc., at the year 633, n. XLVI., "took up the pontificate of Évreux in this year (653). For he ruled the diocese two-and-forty years, and passed to heaven an old man in the six hundred and ninety-fifth year of Christ, as we shall prove from the deeds of SS. Ansbert, bishop of Rouen, and Leufroy and Sidonius, abbots, compared together." But Le Cointe does not keep his word: for nowhere do I find that he proved, or even undertook to prove, what he here promises he will prove. Le Brasseur Histoire du comté d'Evreux, p. 41. puts the beginning of St. Aquilinus's episcopate in the year 663, the end in the year 695, whence he concludes that he sat only thirty-two years. The New Gallia Christiana Vol. XI, col. 567 and 568., in the catalogue of the bishops of Évreux, leaves both the beginning and the end of St. Aquilinus's pontificate undecided, since it assigns a year to neither. Dom Bessin Concilia Rotomagen. Provinciae, later part, p. 373. has the year 670 as that in which Aquilinus was made bishop, whose death he seems to refer to the year 698, since he assigns this year to what he relates of Desiderius, whom he presents as the immediate successor of Aquilinus. Many similar things from others could be added here, but in place of all we write down from Le Cointe Annal., at the year 652, n. LVIII.: "On account of the scarcity of acts, almost all the things remain wrapped in silence which the kings of the Franks Sigibert and his son Dagobert, and also Clovis, Sigibert's brother, and his sons Chlothar, Childeric and Theuderic, did from the six hundred and fortieth year of Christ, where the chronicle of Fredegar ends, to the six hundred and eightieth year of Christ, in which Theuderic began to obtain the monarchy of all Francia." Compare what we disputed at length about the chronology in §1 of this commentary, nn. 8–15.

[61] According to the Acts, St. Aquilinus presided for 12 years; In so great a scarcity of acts and obscurity of times, nothing else can reasonably be demanded of us than that we show that, whatever chronology be assumed, whatever his Acts relate of St. Aquilinus remains unshaken, which are judged by all to have been written by a grave and prudent man. And since he expressly affirms that St. Aquilinus held the see of Évreux for forty-two years, one is not to depart from this number without evident reason. And hence also Pagi In the Critica at Baronius's year 682, n. IX., Longueval Hist. de l'Égl. Gall., vol. V, p. 397., Baillet In the Life of St. Aquilinus, XIX Oct., Le Cointe Annal., at the year 653, n. XLVI. and other writers of better note give the same number of years to the pontificate of our Saint. Nor is little weight accordingly added to our opinion even from the fact that forty-two years of episcopate are claimed for Aquilinus, notwithstanding the chronological diversity which exists among various writers.

[62] which is shown in no way to conflict with other historical facts. For, to set to the single facts the chronological limits most remote from one another: Aquilinus followed military service under Clovis the second, who, according to Bouquet Vol. II, in the chronological Index, p. CIII and CV. and the Art de vérifier les dates L'Art de vérifier les dates, p. 530., reigned from the year 638 to the year 656; according to Henschen in the Diatribe At the end, in the chronological Index., from the year 646 to the year 662. The rebellion of Radulf, which took place in the second year of Clovis, falls according to the former in the year of Christ 640; according to Henschen in the year 646; the council of Rouen was celebrated according to Sirmond in the year 682, according to Dom Bessin in the year 693. Therefore between this council and the rebellion of Radulf there will be an interval of time of at least 36 years, or at most 47. If therefore Aquilinus be established to have been raised to the see of Évreux in the first year after his return from the war, so that forty-two years of episcopate are had, it will have to be said that he survived the council of Rouen by seven or eight years. But if the said rebellion be separated from the council by a longer interval of time, it will follow that St. Aquilinus's episcopate began later, but ended a little after the council was held. And in all these things there is nothing which cannot be reconciled with the Acts and other monuments of antiquity.

[63] The Acts of St. Aquilinus. "The Life of Aquilinus," says Le Brasseur Histoire du comté d'Evreux, p. 40., "was written by Hecelo, a Benedictine monk, a learned and prudent man. It breathes gravity and a sense of piety; and it deserves, by the judgment of the learned, so much the greater faith because its author seems to have flourished not later than towards the end of the eighth century. The work is inscribed to a certain Audoenus or Auduoinus, who however was not a bishop, as some have believed, but himself also a Benedictine monk, who pursued St. Aquilinus with peculiar veneration." I find similar things in the Literary History of France [Histoire littéraire de la France, edited by the Monks of St. Maur, vol. IV, p. 198, Paris 1738.]: "The Life of St. Aquilinus, the second bishop of Évreux of this name, who according to some flourished in the year 663, and died according to others in the year 695, has as its author Hecelinus, a Benedictine monk, a learned and prudent man, who wrote it about a century after the death of the holy Prelate. It breathes gravity and piety, although Surius has changed the style. It begins with a very fine preface, and ends with a prayer, from which it shines out that the author was then staying at Évreux. Again and again there occur sentences full of wisdom and edification. The author is recognized to have been quite well acquainted with the things concerning St. Aquilinus."

[64] Their author a Benedictine Monk. These things indeed have been said by them very confidently; yet it is far from true that each deserves the same credit. I pass over what is asserted of Aquilinus, the second Prelate of Évreux of this name. It is evident, however, that the authors of the Literary History did not examine this question: for this was not the place for it with them. Yet they would have spoken more correctly if they had pronounced less expressly; unless one should think that they were ignorant that this matter is disputed among the learned, which, however, is not easily to be supposed. It is undoubted that the Life was written by a Benedictine monk; that is manifest from the prologue, especially at the end, where is read: "Only obeying your request I will begin, and as our Blessed lawgiver commands concerning all things grave and impossible, etc." The author alludes to the sixty-eighth chapter of the Rule of St. Benedict, whose title is: "If impossible things are enjoined on a brother." It is also far more probable that that Audoenus to whom the Life is inscribed was a monk of the same order, and not a bishop; for if he were, the writer would have indicated it at least by some words; nay he says the contrary quite openly in the prologue: "to the Lord Audoenus, a very honourable and useful member in the body of our congregation … the last brother." Since, however, the author displays great respect and veneration, it is natural to conclude that Audoenus was either a prelate of the order, or a man notable for age or wisdom. It is otherwise with the name of the author and the time in which he flourished. For these two things at least are very uncertain.

[65] According to some he is called Hecelo, And indeed, as far as the name is concerned, besides Le Brasseur and the compilers of the New Gallia Christiana, whom the authors of the Literary History probably simply followed in this matter, there is no writer of better note who makes mention of Hecelo; nor

does Mabillon, either in the annals or in the Acts of the Saints of the order of St. Benedict, nor Ziegelbauer in the literary history of this order; nor Baillet, nor Longueval, nor Baronius, nor Pagi, nor Le Cointe, nor Butler. Surius asserts that the name of the author is found in none of the codices which he saw.

[66] which however is not proved. In one of the two copies or transcripts of the Life of St. Aquilinus which we have at hand there is read at the beginning of the prologue: "To the Lord Audoenus, a very honourable and useful member in the body of our congregation, a brother almost the last among the others" (then, a space being left suitable for holding seven or eight letters, there follows) "celo whatever a sound mind in the Lord judges worthy." But in the other: "a brother almost none among the others, whatever a sound mind in the Lord judges worthy," and between the words "brother" and "whatever" there is a sign which refers to the margin, where Hecelo is written. Both, the sign and the marginal word, were written by the hand of one of our predecessors, perhaps Papebroch. Surius has thus: "A brother N., almost the last among the others, whatever a sound mind in the Lord judges worthy of heaven." The inscription is this: "The Life of St. Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux, written to Audoenus. It is a grave history; but the Ms. codices do not have the name of the author. J. Laur. Surius has here and there corrected the style somewhat."

[67] A conjecture on the origin of the word hecelo. Since, therefore, no writer of the affairs of the order of St. Benedict has made mention of Hecelo, and on the other hand the Ms. codices generally do not have the name of him who wrote the Life of St. Aquilinus, it is not so easy to make out whence others drew that name. Did the word Hecelo or Ecelo perhaps creep into certain codices, first through carelessness, then through the error of copyists, namely by not separating the preposition e from the word it governs, coelo, but contracting two words into one? This being admitted, one would have to read: "whatever a sound mind judges worthy from heaven"; which reading would agree well enough with the text of Surius.

[68] The Acts fairly ancient. As to what regards the time in which the author of the Life of St. Aquilinus flourished, nothing certain can be defined. Who those learned men are by whose judgment this Life was written at the end of the eighth century, or even earlier, I have not found. It is ancient at any rate; on this all agree. Nor does it contain in itself any mark which would argue a more recent age. But this argument is merely negative, and accordingly the age cannot be certainly established from it.

[69] Two copies of them with us. We have in our hands, as we have already intimated above, a double Life of St. Aquilinus, transcribed from two different manuscripts. The one from the Ms. of Rubea Vallis; the other from the Ms. of Gigny, sent by Chifflet to our predecessors. They differ very little from each other. If at any time the reading varies, the Annotations appended to the text of the Acts will indicate it.

§ V. On the relics of Saint Aquilinus and their translation.

Where the sacred body first rested. As regards the relics of St. Aquilinus, we have the following from a Life of the holy Prelate, written in French, which the Rev. M. Delanoe, canon of Évreux and formerly Vicar General, deigned to submit to us on the third of February 1847. The sacred body of St. Aquilinus had scarcely been laid down when at once it was held by all worthy of the highest veneration. It was carried and laid in the oratory which he himself, while he lived, had caused to be built outside the enclosure of the city; where afterwards a parish church was erected under the invocation of the same Saint. Suppressed and sold off by the government in the year 1792, it was redeemed in the year 1824 by the Most Illustrious Du Châtellier, of venerable memory, bishop of Évreux; who also had it restored at his own expense; and in the year 1839 gave it as an oratory to his minor seminary, which the same man had built next to the said church.

[71] Then raised and kept at Évreux until the Norman incursion, The frequency of the miracles which were wrought at the tomb of St. Aquilinus moved one of his successors (who he was I have not found) to raise the sacred bones from the earth, so that due honour and cult might be rendered to them. And so the city of Évreux was enriched with the relics of its holy prelates, which it deservedly regarded as its protection and most solid monument; when towards the middle of the ninth century a barbarian whirlwind driven from the North invaded and devastated Gaul. That Norman nation destroyed churches, ravaged monasteries, slew priests and monks, burned the relics of the Saints.

[72] it was translated to the Castrum Laudosum; When they were approaching, Guntbert, bishop of Évreux, together with some brothers of the monastery of St. Taurinus and several of the most respected priests of his clergy, departed from the city, carrying with him part of the relics of St. Taurinus and the whole body of St. Aquilinus, which, reverently enclosed in a casket, he bore to the Castrum Laudosum, a village of Auvergne (in the vernacular Lezoux), whence Guntbert himself seems to have come, and whither he was taking refuge for a time. Guntbert, of whom there is question here, held the see of Évreux after the year 842. He was present at the synods of Paris of the years 847 and 849, and at the synod of Soissons in the year 862, about which time he must be said to have died, since Hilduin, his successor, is read among the subscriptions of the council of Pîtres in the year 864. Guntbert raised the body of St. Leufroy, abbot, which on account of the incursions of the Normans had been buried in the ground, on the XX of June in the year 851, laid it in a casket and translated it to the monastery of the Holy Cross. These things from the Gallia Christiana Vol. XI, col. 569.. Where there is nothing about the relics of St. Aquilinus; nor is there talk of them either in the historiographer of Évreux, Le Brasseur, in the deeds of Guntbert Histoire du comté d'Evreux, p. 65–67.; but we shall treat these things more fully below. We return to the narrative of the Rev. M. Delanoe.

[73] and thence to the monastery of Gigny, where in the year 1794 it was burned. The sacred relics remained there until the year 912, when they were translated to the monastery of Gigny in the county of Burgundy, where they were received with immense joy and thenceforth kept with the greatest solicitude and veneration until the X day of September 1794: for on the following night an incited mob burst into the church, and, having broken the seals, burned the relics they had taken out, at daybreak on the XI of September, at the foot of the tree, as they call it, of liberty. The faithful, however, secretly withdrew part of the sacred deposit, which, peace having been restored to the church, they gave back into the hands of the presbytery of Gigny. Those relics are still venerated at Gigny today; but they are so mixed together that they cannot be distinguished from one another, nor can it be indicated what of them belongs to St. Taurinus and what to St. Aquilinus.

[74] [In the year 1158 it was solemnly carried round through the cities and villages of Burgundy.] In the year 1158 a solemn translation (rather a carrying round) of those Relics was made through the cities and villages of Burgundy, as far as Lyons. Very many miracles were then wrought, as may be seen in the Bollandists at the XI day of August. After this they were brought back to Gigny. And these things are from the Life which the Rev. Canon Delanoe composed for us in the French language with the greatest kindness, who seems to have drawn his narrative, as far as it regards the relics of St. Aquilinus, chiefly from the various Documents with which the Acts of St. Taurinus were illustrated by our du Bois Acta SS., vol. II of August, at the XI day, p. 635–636.. Those documents bearing on our matter are three: the History of the first finding of St. Taurinus; the second, the History of his translation to the Castrum Laudosum and thence to the monastery of Gigny; the third finally, the Carrying round of the same body undertaken in the year MCLVIII.

[75] The History of the Finding of St. Taurinus. Further, according to du Bois Ibid., p. 644. Annotation, letter a., the First finding is more probably referred to the times of Chlothar II (in the Acts there is only: "in the time of King Chlothar, while blessed Laudulfus etc."), who from the year 584 was king of Soissons, and from the year 613 to the year 628 monarch of Gaul L'Art de vérifier les dates agrees, p. 528 and 529.. "For since," du Bois continues, "Licinius sat as bishop at Évreux beyond the year 549, in which he was present at the fifth synod of Orléans; and after Licinius sat Viator, between whom and Ragnericus (who in the year 650 attended the synod of Chalon) only Laudulfus came in between among the Sainte-Marthes" (in the second Gallia Christiana), "it appears more likely that the Finding ascribed to him happened long after the year 561, in which Chlothar I died, than before that year." But here before all our du Bois is to be corrected a little. The first to publish the Gallia Christiana, complete in one volume Lutetia. Paris, year 1626., was Claude Robert, priest of Langres; then a second came out Likewise Lutetia. Paris, year 1656., consisting of four volumes: the work of the twin brothers Scévole and Louis de Sainte-Marthe, enlarged and first brought to light by Pierre Abel and Nicolas de Sainte-Marthe, sons of Scévole, nephews of Louis. To this du Bois appeals, where the bishops of Évreux are treated Vol. II, fol. 571 verso.. Finally, in the eighteenth century, through the zeal of the Maurists, the New Gallia Christiana was published, far more enlarged, and not yet brought to an end. In its volume XI comes the province of Rouen, and accordingly the church of Évreux. This volume du Bois did not see, since our volume II of August was published in the year 1737, but volume XI of the New Gallia Christiana in the year 1759. In this, however, the succession of the bishops of Évreux is arranged somewhat differently. Licinius subscribed the III council of Orléans in the year 538 and the V in the year 549; Ferrocinctus, who subscribed the synod of Paris in the year 557, the name of his see being suppressed, which Le Cointe Annal. Ecclesiast. Francor., at the year p. 557, n. XXXVII supposes to be Évreux; Viator, St. Landulfus Of whom with us at the XIII of Aug., of this month, vol. III, p. 96., Deodatus, these three without a certain chronological note; Ragnericus, who subscribed the council of Chalon about the year 648 Nov. Gall. Christ., vol. XI, col. 566 and 567.. And from these the assertion of du Bois is confirmed (not to say made undoubted), since Chlothar I died in the year 561, and Ferrocinctus still held the see of Évreux in the year 557, whom Landulfus succeeded not immediately, but after Viator. The History of the finding was written under Charles the Bald, that is in the IX century du Bois, in the Annotations, letter i, vol. II of Aug., p. 645., in which also the translation was made of which we shall speak presently. And yet in the History of the finding itself is read: "The body of blessed Taurinus translated to Laudosum, an honourable village of the province of Auvergne" Ibid., p. 644, n. 6.. What the village of Laudosum is du Bois writes that he had not yet learned Ibid., p. 645, Annotation, letter n.. It is in fact a town or small city distant from Claromontium (Clermont-Ferrand) four, or rather five, leagues, that is 22 kilometres, in the vernacular Lezoux Expilly, Dictionnaire géographique des Gaules et de la France.; Besides the parish church

and a hospice, there was there a collegiate church and a convent of the fathers of St. Augustine Dictionnaire universel géograph., etc., de la France, Paris year XIII (1804).. It numbered a little more than 3000 inhabitants, but today, according to Adrien Guibert, 3600 Dictionnaire géographique et statistique, Paris 1850.. Lastly let us note that in the oft-mentioned History of the finding no mention is made of St. Aquilinus.

[76] The History of the translation of the same St. Taurinus; It is otherwise in the history of the translation of the same St. Taurinus: for from this it is expressly had that the body of St. Aquilinus was joined to the Relics of St. Taurinus Vol. II of Aug., p. 646, n. 7.: "Certain of the clergy … fervent with wonderful devotion towards the most holy confessor Taurinus, placed his body, dearer to them than all treasure, in a portable coffin most fittingly adorned, and with it laid the pledges of Aquilinus the confessor, who after him ruled the church of Évreux; they also laid the body of Florentia the Virgin, placed together with these two confessors. Their intention was that the holy thing of God should not be trodden by dogs, nor the pearls more precious than all price by swine, that is, by the Normans… The aforesaid heroes, providing both for themselves and for the bodies of the Saints, believed it useful to go not only far from Normandy, but even out of Francia, and to depart within the province of Auvergne … to Laudosum, an honourable stronghold, where there was no fear, no mention of the Normans, and especially because the bishop of the city of Évreux" (namely Guntbert), "who in his flight was carrying the aforesaid bodies with him, seemed to be a native of the same province. There, therefore, the bodies of the Saints, after the death of the aforesaid bishop, remained, flashing with miracles, through many courses of years." Namely until about the year 912, in which Rollo was initiated with sacred baptism, and the catholic religion was thereafter restored throughout Neustria. For then certain men set out from Évreux to Laudosum Vol. II of Aug., History of the Translation, chapter 1, n. 9 and 10, p. 647. with the intention of carrying off the sacred pledges, and after some time carried out their design at least in part, bearing the Relics away as far as Gigny, where afterwards, for various causes which are given in the history of the translation Ibid., chapter 2., they remained. Whence also towards the end the writer exclaims: "Happy, I say, the church of Gigny, which three luminaries, shining like the splendour of the firmament in the heavenly Jerusalem, illuminate. Blessed the congregation which Taurinus, the gem of priests and honour of the priesthood; Aquilinus, the glory of the people and praise of God; Florentia too, the mirror of virginity, adorn with the rays of their merits, etc." If, therefore, credit is to be given to the said writer, it is established that the Relics of St. Aquilinus were laid up at Gigny.

[77] at what time it was written. It is to be noted nevertheless that this history of the translation was written almost three centuries after the event. For, as our du Bois rightly thinks, it follows from the style that the same anonymous man is the author both of the history of the translation and of that of the carrying round. Now the Carrying round took place in the year MCLVIII, in which Gigny was consumed by an unhappy fire. That the history of the Translation was composed a little before is clear from the text itself, since to St. Taurinus is ascribed the perpetual immunity of the monastery of Gigny from misfortunes, which after the said fire would no longer be true. Rightly, therefore, is it asserted, as we were advising above, that the document of the translation was composed towards the middle of the twelfth century, that is, almost three centuries after the event. Let the learned reader judge whether its credit totters on this account, as also from the silence of the anonymous writer who composed the history of the first finding in the reign of Charles the Bald. This is certain, that from this time, that is from the year 1158, undoubted testimonies are at our disposal, by which it is established that the body or Relics of St. Aquilinus were preserved at Gigny, and found there in the year 1547. That they remained at Gigny until the year 1794, in which they were sacrilegiously burned, the Rev. M. Delanoe testifies, above at n. 73. See the preliminary commentary on the Acts of St. Taurinus, by du Bois Ibid., p. 636, n. 4 and 5., and especially the authentic document recited there, part of which we have thought fit to subjoin here. "On this day, the XIX of the month of May, in the year MDXLVII, on the feast of the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the church of the conventual priory of St. Peter of Gigny … the noble and religious persons Fr. Simon de Grandmont, almoner and vicar general of the reverend father and Lord in God Louis de Rye, bishop and prince of Geneva … and Louis Chappon, notary of the said Gigny, and called for this … that we might visit the casket in which rests the body of our Lord St. Taurinus … in which we found the head and bones of the said Lord St. Taurinus… And on the same day and moment we took one of two large bones which were in the casket of the Lord St. Aquilinus, and placed it in the casket of the Lord St. Taurinus." And again in the history of the carrying round of St. Taurinus Where above, p. 637, n. 6.: "In the year from the incarnation of the Lord one thousand one hundred and fifty-eight … the town of Gigny, which through many courses of years, under the protection of the most holy confessors Taurinus, Aquilinus … and Florentia, had been immune from fire, from pestilence and from storm, learned by true proofs … how terrible are the judgments (of God) … a flame … bursting out … reduced the houses and everything in its way to embers and ashes." And this was the occasion of that truly magnificent carrying round.

[78] Notwithstanding the silence of Flodoard, It is worthy of note that Flodoard in his Chronicle at the year 851 records indeed of Guntbert of Évreux that he translated the body of St. Leufroy, but has no mention of SS. Taurinus and Aquilinus. "In the year of the Lord 851," he says, "and the 12th of the reign of Charles the Bald, on the 22nd day of June, Guntbert, bishop of Évreux, raised thence the body of St. Leufroy, abbot, which on account of the incursions of the Normans, still unbelievers, had been buried in the ground, and, having placed it in a single and seemly casket, translated it to the principal church of the monastery, dedicated to the Holy Cross and to blessed Audoenus, archbishop of Rouen."

[79] [it is nevertheless probable that the body of St. Aquilinus was translated to Gigny together with St. Taurinus.] Notwithstanding these things, however, it cannot be denied that it is probable that the Relics of St. Aquilinus were in fact carried to Gigny together with the body of St. Taurinus, although the author of the first finding is silent about it; for if anything must be concluded from his silence, would it not be necessary also to conclude the same or something similar from the silence of Flodoard about St. Taurinus? An ancient tradition stands at any rate, resting on arguments by no means to be despised. Which is certainly a presumption not to be struck down except by altogether certain arguments; to do otherwise would be rash. We note, however, with our du Bois, that when a body is spoken of, it does not forthwith signify the whole body, but often only some parts of the body: for in expressions of this kind the figure of synecdoche frequently occurs, by which some notable part is put for the whole [Essai historique et littéraire sur l'abbaye de Fécamp, p. 327 and 328, Rouen 1840.]. And hence it is explained how the body of the same saint is said to be preserved in various places at once. This note being applied, what Leroux de Lincy writes of the Relics of St. Aquilinus at Fécamp will not seem to be rejected in every respect [ ].

[80] What is to be thought of the Relics of St. Aquilinus at Fécamp. Peter Cervasius, abbot of Fiscannum (Fescamp or Fécamp), twenty-second in order, had been consecrated by Urban VI in the year 1381. Afterwards he crossed over into England to visit certain estates dependent on his abbey. While he was away, the prior of the monastery opened the casket in which the sacred remains of St. Taurinus were laid up under this inscription: "here rests St. Taurinus, first prelate of Évreux, and another with him." (These words are so presented in Latin by the said writer.) We do not know who that other is. Perhaps it would not be absurd to say that St. Aquilinus, another bishop of the see of Évreux, is meant in this place: both because his body is nowhere found at Évreux (what if it is found at Gigny? This reason adduced by the author is therefore of slight weight); and because ancient tradition holds that it was laid beside the body of St. Taurinus, in the place where a church was built under his invocation. Moreover, in the monastery of Fécamp the feast of St. Aquilinus was formerly solemnly kept. Whence it may be conjectured that his Relics were translated to Fécamp together with the sacred body of St. Taurinus. Ordericus Vitalis asserts that this translation of St. Taurinus took place towards the end of the eleventh century. The place of Ordericus to which reference is here made has thus: "After a long time" (from the death of St. Taurinus) "the Christian religion grew; and the clergy of Évreux with the faithful natives sought the polyandrum" (tomb) "of their first prelate Taurinus, and, God showing it, found it. Then it was reverently raised from the earth." (These things manifestly regard the first finding, which, as we said above, falls in the VII century.) "And after some time it was translated by the faithful to Fécamp. There a venerable monastery of monks was built for the continual performance of the worship of the Godhead, and there the body of the holy Man was reverently placed in a precious casket." These words of Ordericus in no way regard St. Aquilinus; further, du Bois notes that Ordericus here either shamefully contradicts himself, or puts forward things which do not cohere with one another. See the Preliminary Commentary on the Acts of St. Taurinus, n. 7 Vol. II of August, p. 637..

[81] Conclusion. And from all these things we seem deservedly able to conclude that it is far from true that all the things related by various writers about the Relics of St. Aquilinus are clear and proved on every side. We think that the narrative of the Rev. M. Delanoe contains those things which are the more probable in this question, and, as we have already advised, not easily to be rejected.

THE LIFE OF ST. AQUILINUS, BISHOP OF ÉVREUX.

From the Ms. of Rubea Vallis and another of Gigny; Surius has it with the style changed.

Aquilinus, Bishop of Évreux, Confessor, in Gaul. (S.)

BHL Number: 0655

FROM THE MSS.

PROLOGUE.

Inscription or salutation. To the Lord Audoenus, a very honourable and useful member in the body ^a of our congregation, a brother almost the last among the others … ^b whatever a sound mind in the Lord judges worthy of heaven.

[2] The writer excuses his unskilfulness and unworthiness. When ^c one placed in the midst of sheep, seeking wool, sends to the goats, either he himself does not know what he has; or he wishes to show his own poverty to another who does not know what he lacks. For if ^d your love has invited me to a work not within my ability, it is as though, being yourself in so great an abundance of men perfect in letters, you were ignorant of it, or wished to set my unskilfulness before my eyes. Moreover, you know that the praise of God is not comely in the mouth of a sinner, and that he who breaks and teaches one of the commandments ^e is to be called least in the present kingdom of heaven, but in the future is to be reckoned as nothing. For when one's life is despised, what remains but that his preaching too be here contemned, and

his prevaricating conduct be punished there, where no tree will be weighed by its leaves, but by its fruit? Hence, therefore, the will to compose fails me, even if the ability seems to be present; because as often as I busy myself to praise any good things, I dispute against myself, in whom I find nothing of the virtue praised. Hence that sloth creeps upon me, by which I would rather be silent than put forth something at which I myself should first be forced to blush, I who try to show others the way. Shall I myself, falling into the pit, carry the lamp for others? Shall I myself remain in darkness and, having nothing in me of that brightness, go headlong, and afford leadership to the rest? For to speak well and live ill, what else is it than to condemn oneself with one's own voice? It is better for me, therefore, hiding myself under silence, to conceal my private poverty within my own hut, than, the door of my mouth being opened, to proclaim another's riches and reveal my own penury, so that ^f both the poverty of my wit may be betrayed by the showing of my words, and the quality of my life, once heard and examined by that very preaching of my tongue, such as it is, may be found discordant with its own sentence.

[3] He sets out the reasons by which he is induced to write. But perhaps you will think that I ought to obey ^g, because this bashfulness of mine, from which arises the inertia of this silence, profits me nothing, since it is better for a man to be judged by himself and rebuked by his own voice, and thus to be shaken out of the sleep of torpor, than, sleeping under the shadow of taciturnity, neither to speak of virtues possessed nor to meditate on virtues to be possessed. For it often happens that a praiser who is not to be praised, while he proclaims what he does not have, rising within himself against himself, blushes to lie any longer in the things in which he lay, and begins to study how he may become a fit preacher and be the first to obey his own admonitions. I believe moreover that you will add ^h that that servant who hid his Lord's talent in the earth may not undeservedly be believed to be he who plunges into earthly exercises and transitory advantages the gift of literary knowledge once applied to him, by which he could be raised to heavenly things, if he would, shaking off the chaff, embrace the grains and grind them by the study of pious working. Whence I cannot excuse myself ⁱ, because many times I ought to give myself to the divine scriptures, when, intent upon any other little works whatever, I spend the time accommodated to my life on the rest rather than in holy readings. Which ^k arises from the said sloth, so that we would rather advance in any way whatever by inquiring into high things than be further burdened with the knowledge of the truth; and from the infirmity of the flesh, which, continually afflicting me, drives me to such little works, occupied with which I may live, bearing somehow the trouble of sickness, and not incur idleness, the enemy of the soul. Perhaps it will please you also to append this, that it seems a foolish show of conversion ^l if a poor man should blush to use another's house until he has his own; and that it is thereby proved not unfitting if I proclaim the virtues of others for so long until I may be able to attain my own; as a little child is wont to do, who is carried on his mother's feet for so long until he can stand by his own steps and walk on his own feet. Lastly, if it should be necessary, putting forward ^m the title of fraternal obedience, by which, hedging in all the (ways) of my excuses, you will leave no hole of escape: if you are going to do this, what would it profit me to answer the objections? Only obeying your request I will begin, and as our blessed Lawgiver commanded concerning all grave and impossible commands ⁿ, I will do ^o, and will enter the ford proposed to me of writing the Life of blessed Aquilinus. And lest I remain short of the shore to which I am making, let your intercession watchfully provide, together with the support of the merits of him of whom I am to treat.

ANNOTATIONS.

Chapter I. The birth and youth of Saint Aquilinus. He enters into marriage; under Clovis II he serves against the Barbarians. Returned, together with his wife he vows perpetual chastity, and, remaining under the same roof, they excel in every kind of virtue.

How profitable to us are the examples of the Saints, Almighty God, still working the ancient miracles, does not cease to make the present time illustrious, manifesting both by bodily and by spiritual signs how unfading is His goodness, and liable to no age. For, to drive away the weariness of our minds, He has set forth various medicines of virtues, so that out of so many kinds each may be pleased to take one, and to take for his own infirmity whatever antidote ^a is chosen: so that by one or another example of virtue each may be kindled who desires to pass from the parts of the North to the south of the Holy Spirit. Hence it is that in the night of this life as many spiritual stars rise for us as there are illustrious deeds of the Saints set before us, in their various solemnities, distributed ^b through the seasons of the whole year, so that as one departs another succeeds, as if they were stars set in the firmament, following one another in rising and setting by an alternation ordained by God.

[5] which are like the pillar of cloud and fire going before the Israelites. We read ^c that a pillar of cloud and fire went before when the people of Israel, about to cross the sea, were leaving the borders of Egypt and dedicating the first Passover with a happy beginning; which we see is done now also, if we weigh the matter. For what else is it to celebrate the pious birthdays, now of the holy Martyrs, now of the blessed Confessors, than to follow the pillar of fire and cloud to the crossing of this world, as of the Red Sea, so that we may be kindled by those by whose blood we see our road glow red, by whose teachings we ought to temper the heat of the world? And lest we should distrust that we can attain what we read they attained, we not only hear of virginal triumphs, but also behold the palms of widows and of the married, and not only from ancient days but also from modern times, so that we, who are raised up by such great remedies, may not be weighed down by the torpor of any excuse ^d.

[6] Thus St. Aquilinus is set before us to be imitated. Behold, the most blessed confessor of the Lord and bishop of the city of Évreux, Aquilinus, is set before us to be imitated, who, taken from the lowest state of marriage and raised up to the grade of pontifical dignity, passed first from the Egypt of carnal union into the desert of widowed chastity, and afterwards through the Jordan of episcopal grace into the land of eternal promise. To whom the title of his very name bears witness that, contemplating the sun of justice with unaverted gaze, he changed the feathers of his love, and, renewed and restored after the manner of an eagle, took on newness of life in holiness and justice and truth. For he walked as if bent with a certain old age while he still retained carnal marriage. But he changed his feathers in ascending, when he transferred the love of his wife into the love of eternity; and, setting the pledges of spiritual sons before the sons of the flesh, he failed from himself that he might advance in God.

[7] His native place, birth and youth. He, then, sprung from the city of the Bajocenses, shone with the nobility of his parents, but, made more illustrious by the dignity of his character, he overshadowed the ancient insignia with new praises. And when he had been instructed in sacred letters and nurtured with the greatest diligence, and the morning cloud had drunk in the rain to be given back in its season,

the spaces of boyhood having passed, the time of youth arrived, in which, the flower of childhood having been shaken off, the fruit of human uprightness is wont to burst forth, and the tillage of the crop began to approach maturity.

[8] He takes a wife, of whom he also receives children. A wife ^e suitable to his nobility is sought: she is found, she is married, and joined to him with nuptial celebration. Earthly offspring is begotten first, so that afterwards heavenly may be brought forth. Carnal love is felt, so that spiritual love, the former being left behind, may be felt more fervently; just as the flesh of a child, when it perceives the strength of solid food, puts milk aside. For the love of neighbour, which goes before, is accustomed to be the nurse of divine love, which excels it in dignity, although it follows it in order ^f: if, however, that is to be called love which is shown carnally. For in a higher understanding he loves neither himself nor his neighbour as himself who does not know how to love God and to love himself in Christ. But, after a certain manner, each one learns in his neighbour what he should show to God. And as a servant older in birth becomes the tutor of his Lord while still a little child, so love of a brother nourishes love of the creator. Therefore Aquilinus, being about to take up, after his union with one bride, the manly care of many souls, and to fill the place of Christ, learns in his wife what faith he ought, when made prelate, to show to the church that was to be specially joined to him.

[9] He is sent by King Clovis to rout the barbarians. Meanwhile, called by King Clovis, who at that time held the empire, with the other prefects of the cities, to resist the Barbarians, who had begun to break loose in the furthest borders of the kingdom ^g, he sets out, and before he enters upon the contest of the special ^h fight, he is exercised by victories over visible enemies. At length, three years having been completed and an interval of six months added, the discharge of all was made, and the opportunity of returning home was given.

[10] His wife binds herself by a vow of temporary chastity. The happy wife of the blessed Man, not idle meanwhile from prayers for her husband's return, had been as solicitous as she could be in every way. For she had even vowed a vow for him, and in a manner against him, that, if divine grace should give him back to her, she herself would abstain from him for the circle of a year: trusting indeed so much in the oneness of mind of him whose chastity she had sufficiently found out, that without him she promised what she could not carry out except by his consent.

[11] She goes to meet her returning husband as far as Chartres, Having heard, therefore, of his longed-for return, she could not bear but, going to meet him, anticipate the festivity of her joy. Taking with her the household, and provisions suitable to so great a preparation, she hastened so much that, coming to Chartres, she was there before her husband, and received him, as though in her own house, in a lodging of a foreign city. There, embracing each other with mutual kisses, they marvelled with alternate affections, the wife at the sincerity of her husband's love, the husband at the integrity of conjugal chastity and love, by which, anticipating his return, she had hastened to see him even before he had happened to arrive; whereas unfaithful wives are wont rather to fear than to desire the sight of their returning husbands. At length, that solemn office of mutual congratulation being performed, and the desire of conversing fulfilled or restored, they refresh their bodies, and their hearts, satisfied, meanwhile rest. These things being finished, the household departing, as the silence of night came on, goes to bed. The happy spouses remain in the privacy of the chamber, where the secrets were to be disclosed of the counsel which, in Aquilinus's absence, his chaste bride had conceived through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

[12] and discloses to him what she had vowed. She, seeing that an opportunity of familiar converse was given her, said: "Most beloved husband, I beg you not to accuse me of presumption; do not think grave what I have done, if you know that I did it out of zeal of my exceeding love for you. For, fearing lest I should be ever deprived of you, if what I would not should befall you, I preferred ⁱ to promise God that I would contain myself from you, when present, for a year, and that you meanwhile should suspend conjugal pleasure, rather than that, you not being left me in safety, I should learn, bereaved by perpetual widowhood and under compulsion, what I would not have learned of my own will. In which vow, if I seem to have done anything unadvisedly, your charity compels ^k me to presume what I have presumed. For my own rashness urged me that, hoping for your consent, which I did not know, I should vow what I knew of my own will."

[13] Aquilinus not only approves his wife's vow, What was Aquilinus to do, or how should he make return to a woman so excellently deserving of her husband's safety? For he did not think she was to be rebuked, whom he proved more faithful to him than himself, and who, for his safety, had promised what he himself desired and had not promised. He gives thanks, therefore, to almighty God, who had joined to him such a bride, who offered of her own spontaneous devotion the chastity which her husband had conceived in desire and had not uttered, when it was scarcely thought she could grant it if asked. The servant of God marvels at his own heart in the woman; he marvels ^l that, forestalled by his wife, he could not be first in virtue, he who was first in his manly condition, and would have been thought to be so in the desire of chastity, had he not been found later in the uttering of the will he had conceived. "You," he said, "my dearest, have forestalled me in speaking, whom you could not forestall in desiring. For this is what, long desiring it, I hid; but I waited for an opportune time, in which I might win your assent to accomplish it. Now, therefore, I see the land of your heart, which I wished to till, divinely tilled and rained upon from heaven; I rejoice, and give thanks to the supreme husbandman."

[14] but he also proposes to render it perpetual, "One thing, however, I wish to add, which I perceive was passed over by you, and which I acknowledge to be necessary: for you ^m promised a yearly continence; I desire and promise a continual one, so that we may be able to obtain a perpetual, not a yearly, crown. And I believe that He who promises that the ability is to be given to everyone who has, namely, a good will, will give us a persevering affection of chastity, so that grace may be added to grace, as promise is added to promise."

[15] to which she too gladly consents. And she yielded most gratefully. O blessed union, in which carnal affection was made spiritual emulation, and earthly conjunction was made a heavenly mingling, so that those who had been in one flesh might be in one soul, and the partners of corruption might become sharers of eternity. Bodies are divided, hearts are joined: the yoke of contagion is thrown off, the yoke of holiness is taken up; that night, turned into day, passed through, working the fruit of day, in spiritual counsels, where the flesh was renounced and they were made over and professed to the spirit; where a happy union is dissolved, a happier is knit together.

[16] On the following day they set out and complete the road which remained to their home. There is great joy for all; there is a running together of everyone, Returned home, they give their goods to the poor, and due congratulation is shown on the return of so great a man as from exile. They remain together in the same house, joined in mind, divided in carnal fellowship. They spend their goods after themselves; and that the sacrifice of chastity may be perfect, the bestowal of their goods in mercies to the poor is added, so that it may pass into a holocaust.

[17] given to every kind of virtue, as to fasts and vigils. Great was the former charity, and greater the latter, which surpassed the former: and as death kills the body, so it slew their souls from carnal desires; because indeed it followed that they should love each other more in the spirit than they had loved in the flesh, who were burning with that fire which the Lord sent upon the earth and willed to be vehemently kindled. Whence it came about that no one perceived in them the change of the right hand of the Most High, seeing the form of their former conduct, and gathering the evidence of their customary fellowship from their living together in one dwelling. And thus that treasure known to God was kept hidden from thieves; seeing, however, under the habit of oldness, the work of newness, and under a secular covering, most evident (signs) of special grace. For you might see that pair of innocent spouses glowing in emulation in the study of piety, so that you might wonder how they themselves ⁿ were changed; because whoever saw their faces would recognize them; whoever considered their works would think them other persons. Thus, in a word, they furrowed their bodies, tormenting them with fasts and vigils, and refreshed their souls with alms, so that you would judge them to owe nothing to monks fully made and wearing even the garments of the cross.

[18] Their excellent hospitality. For you would see them so minister to guests and serve Christ in them with all humility that you would reckon that house a hospice rather than anything else; and yet they lived alike under lay dress, as if they were still living joined in carnal fellowship. Who would seek better cenobites, if he were not ignorant of the secret of their chastity? But here was the bushel under which candles so shining lay hidden: namely, the worldly habit which they wore, and by which they defended themselves from human praises. But He who would not have them lie hidden any longer certainly provided an occasion by which Aquilinus, the lover of hiding, should be placed upon the candlestick, and thus be seen by all, and set before all to be gazed at and imitated.

ANNOTATIONS.

c. Exodus chapter XIII.

k. Surius: "compelled."

Chap. II. St. Aquilinus, in

elected successor of Bl. Aetherius, bishop of Évreux, ascends through the various grades of Orders to Pontifical consecration. He discharges the office most holily. Deprived of the light of his eyes, he watches over his flock the more vigilantly. His precious death and burial.

St. Aquilinus is elected successor to Aeternus, bishop of Évreux. For when Blessed Aeternus ^a had been translated from this light to the eternal, so that he might truly be what he had hitherto been called ^b, namely bishop of Évreux, the heart of the whole people and clergy is divinely inflamed, that that hidden servant of God Aquilinus, who, hiding himself, denied to his neighbours an example of piety, should be substituted. Not one voice there, nor the acclamation of one party, resounds, but a general election harmonizes in the proclamation of diverse voices, so that it might be plainly clear to all that what the populace asks is commanded and inspired by God. Leave is not even asked of him who is elected; since he who had learned to lie hidden, and had determined to be content with Christ as witness, would not wish to appear if anyone required his consent; but he is seized by all and dragged, as one no longer to remain his own, but rather soon to belong to all.

[20] [Ascending through the various grades of Orders he receives Episcopal consecration] First a cleric, then promoted in order, he is carried up to the episcopal summit, so that he might rule the house of the whole church and bear the pastoral care, he who had so excellently ordered his own house that, remaining in the world with carnal marriage, he was dead to the world and lived to God; who, joined to his wife in spirit, separated in flesh, had grown accustomed to beget spiritual sons, and to pour out new wine from old wineskins. And when he had been ordained and consecrated with the apostolic blessing of so great a priesthood [c] (for it was not difficult for him), he changed his wife, and espoused her whom he was commanded to espouse, he who had learned to live with the former without her, whom by keeping he had left ^d.

[21] He is received with exultation by the people. There was a paschal ^e exultation of the people, and so great a reception of his coming, all going forth and all acclaiming in his praise, that there was no doubt that that fire was sent from heaven which had made this uniform burning in so many hearts, so that such and so catholic a harmony, with no one dissenting, should be made where Aquilinus came to be enthroned.

[22] His wife, who was already secretly a sister to him, he openly shows as such. Having received, therefore, the priesthood, not with a raven's gaping but with a dove's simplicity, the wife is now openly turned into a sister, into which she had passed before, but secretly. Nor is the ardour of chaste love extinguished, nay it is doubled; both because chastity remains immovable in the one promoted, and because the multiplied spiritual fruitfulness is to be reckoned to the crown of both, as the cause of that fruitfulness, the promised continence, is ascribed to both: for the advantage is common, just as the planting of the sacred purpose is common. Which, because it grows a hundredfold, so many sons being adopted by one father: the sister loves the brother of so great a blessing, through whom she is made a sharer of so great an increase; and by whose hands, anointed with priestly grace, both she herself and the whole church, of which she is a member, is blessed and expiated. For she sees that he who had been designated her own spouse alone has been made the mediator and advocate of the whole people, and intermediary towards God; and that the tree which seemed cut down is spread out into so many branches, when, torn from marriage with his wife, he appeared thereby in a manner a trunk: nor is she who loves less loved than she loves, because the flame of charity, although it is divided into so many parts, is yet not diminished there where it is known to have been born and from where it was propagated; but it glows the more fervently the more abundantly it overflows.

[23] [That he may be more freely at leisure for prayer, St. Aquilinus dwells in a cell.] He, then, who watched before he was a pastor, much more, having taken up the flock, as an eternal watchman, extending his vigils, intent on prayers, gave his labour to contemplation, so that he might grow in holiness as he had advanced in dignity, and be such in work as he was signified by his name, new and keen-sighted. For in order that he might be more freely at leisure for contemplation ^f, and pray for those in tumult, he chose for himself a cell not far from the wall of the city, a hundred paces distant from the church, situated namely in the quarter of the gate which is called that of Rouen, and there, seeking again the seclusion which he had lost through the disquiet of pastoral care, he transacted the business of souls, so much the better as [g] he declined that of bodies; profiting more in the causes of the people by praying than he could profit by preaching.

[24] The difference between good and bad. For this is proper to the elect, always to desire seclusion, as it is to the reprobate to desire tumult. For the former, not wishing even to see the world which they do not love, thirst so for the face of Christ that they strive to break the very bonds of mortality which they bear; and, because they cannot keep the gaze of the heart continually upward on account of the heaviness of the body, they return grieving into themselves, and unwillingly see the world which they had almost escaped, though they could have persisted in that brightness. But the latter always love to see what they will not to forsake, and therefore seek out crowds when they do not have them, so that they may continually find vanity on which to fix their eyes, they who, being darkened within, are wholly ignorant of any other light than that which they look upon outside.

[25] St. Aquilinus is at leisure for sacred readings and other pious exercises. But blessed Aquilinus, a true Israelite, desiring rather to be an anchorite than to lie on a dunghill like a worthless pearl, sought a secluded oratory, and withdrawing there avoided the din of episcopal crowds; so much the more truly a bishop as he was less frequented and more joined to heaven. There, in a word, reading and prayer, succeeding by turns, persevered unceasingly; there the melody of psalms and canticles, drawing the grace of the Holy Spirit, resounded; there, immolating himself, that dove-like soul, not torn off from the body of his church but with its head bent back to its wings, poured out, instead of a flow of blood, a torrent of tears, expressing not without groaning the desire which he bore, that his sojourn should not be prolonged, but that, his exile being shortened, the vision of the heavenly fatherland should be opened to him.

[26] What the difference is between a good and a bad pastor. Do you think he sought softness in his bed, or spread anything under him but the pavement, as carnal pastors are wont to provide for themselves? For they, that they may feed themselves the more richly, pretend in their very refection that they are providing for the feeding of Christ's sheep, and clothe themselves in soft garments as though they were in the houses of kings, as if lest others should remain uncovered, who, namely, would be better covered in the spirit: if they are pastors, let them be clothed in less precious and more religious garments. But they say they cannot bear labour unless they are refreshed and clothed, and while they pretend to provide for necessity, they provide for pleasure and indulge superfluity, not at all imitating the footsteps of that Martin the Great of Tours, or of Germanus of Auxerre, who, campaigning not for a daily but for an eternal reward, [fed] the flock of the poor ^h of Christ with their fasts and vigils and labours, so that by their examples it might learn to return by fasting whence it fell in the first parent by eating. For no one so attracts by preaching as by doing; nor does he well recommend fasts who under whatever pretext is intent on feasts. Guarding against which, Aquilinus fed his subjects better by abstaining and watching than if, preaching ⁱ abstinence to them, he himself took refreshment [k], and, treating himself softly, tried to commend to others the harshness of mortification.

[27] He drives away diseases with the sign of the cross. Christ therefore rendered him lawful testimony. For as he himself inwardly enlightened, raised up and healed whom he could, so, having obtained outwardly the grace of enlightening, raising up and saving, he freed with the sign of the Cross those whom he preached were to be freed through it; and no bodily infirmity resisted his prayers, by whose example and teaching spiritual sickness departed. For why should Christ deny silver to one to whom He gave gold? To one to whom He granted the grace of healing in minds, why should He not grant it in bodies? Whose medicine is both lighter and the loss smaller. Nay, by these evident gifts which He afforded, He confirmed and declared the hidden charisms in him.

[28] He is deprived of the light of his eyes, as he had asked. But the man of the Lord, not relinquishing the guard of himself in all the things which Christ did through him, while bearing the care of his sheep, feared so much where there was fear, that he very often trembled even where there was no fear. On account of this he always prayed the Lord either to block up or to guard the gates of his body, lest through them the appetite of concupiscence should enter, with which death is wont to creep in. For he testified that he would rather enter the kingdom maimed than be cast whole into the abyss of gehenna. Assenting to his petitions, He who hears all who ask in His name, that is, who ask truly for their salvation, both closed outwardly, with the same mercy with which He was asked, the windows of his head, the ministers of light; but, opening more abundantly those of the heart, He compensated with manifold interest what He took away.

[29] Nor was he hindered by this from watching over his flock. For he came to the church without the help of his eyes as if, supported by the aid of them all (perhaps: of every), he saw the way he was keeping. Nay rather, in that he did not require a light in the night hours, as he would do if he saw, he went on more freely, and acted wonderfully, so that he left no one in doubt that he had an Angel of light as his guide. Securely, therefore, and mercifully, did He give him the blindness He had been asked for, who saw the sincerity of his prepared mind, and foresaw that the brightness he was to lose would be doubled to him. He, then, who granted sight to the blind himself endured blindness, heard no less in himself for not seeing than in others for seeing. For what harm did outward darkness do to a sense ever-watchful and keen in divine things, which took from him the appearance of the world, but did not cover the face of Christ? Nay, it profited him so much as it held him back from visible forms.

[30] His virtues and pastoral solicitude. For he was a guardian of innocence, a lover of continence, a cultivator of sobriety, a detester of cupidity, an enemy of detraction, a persecutor of depravity, for the detesting of which the blindness he had obtained availed him much. But for pursuing the former and admonishing the people with fatherly piety and guarding them with pastoral diligence, it hindered nothing; for he did not pray more sluggishly, nor preach or watch less; but he dealt so much the more fervently in Christ concerning heavenly things as, bearing a smaller burden of earthly senses, he was freer on that side by which earthly man sins more quickly and easily: and he had begun to see more sharply there where the more excellent part of man consists, and whence sight is sent across to things above, so that the divine brightness is seen. Therefore, the more readily tending thither he drank from the fountain, the more splendid were the rays of preaching he directed to things below, and he brought forth things so much the sweeter in his exhortations as he drew them more from truth itself than from the books, the witnesses of truth, which he could not read. Nor did his words fall to the ground, since indeed the manifest power which he displayed in curing all infirmities raised them up.

[31] After forty-two years of Episcopate he dies. Proved by these pious exercises of good works and holy edifications, and polished by zeal for refreshing the poor, at the last, purged also by the medicinal cautery of the blindness he had desired from every filth of worldly vanity, when

he had passed forty-two years in the episcopate, as so many stations as far as the Jordan of his calling, by which he was to cross over to where he had always desired to be, he gave back to Christ his spirit unimpaired and undefiled, to cleave ever to the Lord, about to hear without doubt that voice of exultation and blessing which the good and faithful servant had merited, Matt. 25. who gave back the talent which he had received of his house increased with such manifold gain that he consigned to his Lord the entire guardianship of one church, and presented to the supreme pastor as many parish peoples, conceived by his word as well as brought forth by his example, as he could not have begotten sons. That blessed army certainly rejoiced, once mutilated by the ruin of certain ones, little by little restored by the salvation of many: rejoiced, I say, at the coming of him through whom not one but many sinners, doing penance, were gathered into its heavenly fellowship. For if they rejoice over one penitent, Luke 15. much more do they exult over that one through whom not one but many pass from the number of the impious into the company of the elect.

[32] The grief of the faithful. But as great as was the joy that arose among those to whom that blessed soul passed, so great was the sadness that remained among those from whom so pious and so excellent a pastor had departed. For the sons would not have wished to send their Father before them, but rather, as subjects, to be sent before by their pastor: and they would rather have been without this new patron in heaven than without their accustomed solace on earth. Therefore, with all reverence, a throng of priests and people standing by, the obsequies having been celebrated and the vigils due to so great a funeral having been performed, He is buried. that heavenly pearl is buried in the basilica ^l which he had built for himself in the suburb of the city; and there is laid up the deposit to which the crown of justice is due, until it is rendered to him by the just judge on the day of regeneration.

[33] A prayer to St. Aquilinus. We implore, therefore, your goodness, most blessed Confessor and eminent prelate, St. Aquilinus, that you who from the little things received gave back great and many, and made illustrious that see which you ruled, may deign to obtain for us from God that what we profess in prayer we may carry out in deed, and, walking in newness of life, and changing, like eagles, the feathers of vices into those of virtues, as we have changed our habit, we may be able to please Him who lives and reigns for all ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

g. Surius adds: "more."