ON ST. EUSTERIUS, BISHOP OF SALERNO,
ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE V CENTURY.
COMMENTARY.
Little concerning St. Eusterius has come down to us. His feast celebrated on various days. At what time he flourished. The chronology of the church of Salerno.
Eusterius, bishop of Salerno, confessor in Italy. (S.)
B. B.
Civil and ecclesiastical notice of the principality of Salerno. It is helpful to make our beginning from the notice of the principality of Salerno which our Cantel, after his manner, wove compendiously [Metropolitanarum Urbium historia civilis et ecclesiastica, by Pierre-Joseph Cantel S.J., Paris, 1685. Only one volume appeared.]. "Salerno," he says, "which is now the capital of the Hither principality, on the shore of the Tyrrhenian sea, they fable to have been founded of old by Shem, son of Noah: its name was given it from the river Silarus. It was once a colony of the Romans. By the Lombard kings this city was ordered to serve the dukes of Benevento, until in the year MCCCLI it began to have princes of its own as well. Sicard, duke of Benevento, having been slain in a tumult, as we said before, Adelgisus seized his dominion: Landulf, Gastald of Capua, set up Siconulf, son of Sicard, as prince of Capua. Between the two a fierce war thence broke out, which was waged with varying fortune; the matter was at length so settled by the emperor Louis in the year DCCCLI that Aldegisus should rule at Benevento, and Siconulf both at Capua and at Salerno, which he had recovered by arms. These, as they report, were the first beginnings of the principality of Salerno: nor, however, were all the princes afterwards of the same family or nation; but some, either at the pleasure of the emperors or for their own services to the state, were either cast down or adopted as princes. In the year MLXXV Gisulf was despoiled of the principality by Robert Guiscard, already then duke of Apulia: to him succeeded his son Roger, to Roger William, to him Roger count of Sicily, who a little after was called king of the Two Sicilies. Finally the city of Salerno was given with the title of principality to princely men, such as Giordano Colonna, the dukes of Sanseverino and others, until, by the defection of the prince from the king, it was again annexed to the royal Chamber, as they say." Thus far Cantel [Metropolitanarum Urbium historia civilis et ecclesiastica, by Pierre-Joseph Cantel S.J., part III, Dissertation III, chapter VII, p. 406. Paris, 1685.]. In our age it is also the capital of the Hither principality (Avellino is of the Further), numbering about 11,000 inhabitants Balbi, Abrégé de Géographie, volume I, pp. 401 and 408. Brussels edition, 1840.. "From the first times of the nascent church," adds Cantel Ibid., place cited., "it is commonly believed that the Christian faith was received at Salerno, and that a bishop was established there to foster the piety of the citizens; whether truly or otherwise, let others see. The names of the bishops, certainly, if there were any, have either perished or are so given out by authors in no order that it is in no way possible to discern at what time each sat." But the discourse will return to these below. Let it suffice here to have noted that Gaudentius, bishop of Salerno, subscribed to the Roman council under Pope Symmachus in the year 499. Now let us come to St. Eusterius.
[2] The memory of St. Eusterius in the Roman Martyrology and in Baronius; The Roman Martyrology makes mention of him at this day: "At Salerno, of St. Eusterius, bishop." On which place Baronius notes: "We have seen the Tables of the church of Salerno and the ancient documents of the same brought to Rome, and also the Breviary of the same church. His body is laid up in the cathedral church in the lower crypt, under the confession of the altar, where also are placed the venerable bodies of other holy Bishops of the same city; as of Bishop Bonosius, whose birthday is kept there on the 13th of May; of Bishop Gramatius, of whom on the 11th of October; of Bishop Valentinian, whom they celebrate on the 3rd of November; and likewise of the bishops Verus and Eusterius, of whom treatment is given below. There are preserved in the same place the bodies of other holy Confessors, as of Elpidius, Cionius and Elpigius, whose celebration is kept on the 24th of May; and likewise of Cyrinus and Quinsegius, whose anniversary day is kept on the 5th of December. These things we have copied from the ancient documents of that church." So Baronius in the Notes to the Roman Martyrology Letter g, at the 19th day of October..
[3] and in Ferrari Mention of the same Saint is made in Ferrari, in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, at the 19th of October, in these words: "Eusterius, bishop of Salerno, governed the church of Salerno fourth after St. Verus: which he administered with such holiness that, when he had died on the 14th of November, he merited to be enrolled in the number of the Saints. His body is preserved in the Crypt of the greater church with the bodies of other holy Bishops. On his birthday (the 19th of October), which has long been accustomed to be celebrated on this day, this prayer is recited: 'O God, to whom blessed Eusterius the pontiff, adorned with the grace of holiness, was so pleasing that he merited the fellowship of thy Saints in heaven; grant, we beseech thee, that thy church may by his intercession obtain perpetual joy, the solemn day of whose deposition it celebrates with rejoicing.' From the ancient Breviary of Salerno." Then Ferrari appends this Annotation: "His Acts have perished, so that neither his fatherland nor the time in which he lived could be known." In the Hagiologium Italicum Bassano, edition of 1773, volume II, p. 246. Ferrari's encomium is repeated almost word for word, with the Prayer and the Annotation removed. Usuard has nothing about St. Eusterius, and, what is more worthy of note, nothing occurs about him either in the innumerable Auctaria scraped together from every side by our Sollerius in his edition of the Usuardine Martyrology.
[4] Ughelli has little about St. Eusterius, as also the Salernitan Propers. Nor will you find more things pertaining to the deeds of our holy Prelate in Ughelli. Treating of the church of Salerno Italia Sacra, volume VII, column 252. Venice edition, 1721., he comprises in these few words what he had to say about St. Eusterius: "Eusterius, bishop of this city, is mentioned in the tables of the church of Salerno, and in the Roman martyrology on the 14th day before the Kalends of November, on which day his feast is celebrated with solemn rite." In the Proper of Salerno, which first appeared at Naples in the year 1594 under the title: Proper Offices of the feasts of the church of Salerno, reformed by apostolic authority in the manner which follows by the Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Don Marco Bolognini, archbishop of Salerno and royal counsellor; in this Proper, I say, nothing more is had about the Life of St. Eusterius. The office is indicated in the following manner: "On the feast of St. Eusterius, bishop of Salerno, which is celebrated on the 14th day of October. All from the common of a Confessor Pontiff, except the prayer, which we set down here. 'Graciously hear, most kind God, the people devoted to thee, that they who with pious affection recall the venerable solemnity of blessed Eusterius, thy confessor and pontiff, may by his merits obtain remission of sins before thee. Through our Lord.'" This prayer is very different from that other one which we gave a little before from Ferrari.
[5] They do not agree in assigning his feast day; It is also worthy of note that here, as also in the calendar which is prefixed to the Proper, the feast of St. Eusterius is assigned to the 14th day of October, whereas Ughelli asserts that that feast is celebrated with solemn rite on the 14th day before the Kalends of November, or the 19th of October. Which diversity was already pointed out by our predecessors. For it is read at the 14th day of October Acta Sanctorum, volume VI of October, p. 396. among the Passed Over: "St. Eusterius, bishop of Salerno, is venerated today by the church of Salerno, as I learn from the proper offices of its festivals. Of this Saint we must treat, according to our plan, at the day on which he is celebrated in the present Roman Martyrology, the 19th of October."
[6] which seems from the beginning to have been celebrated on the 19th of October. It seems, however, that in fact that feast was formerly celebrated at Salerno too on the 19th of October; since Gaspare Musca writes in his Catalogue [Catalogue of the Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of Salerno, by Gaspare Musca, priest of the same city, to the Illustrious and Most Ample Lord Don Mario Bolognini, prelate of Salerno, Naples, 1594.]: "St. Eusterius, bishop of Salerno: of whom the same Breviary" (which he had noted a little above as published more than four hundred years ago) "and the Roman Martyrology: whose birthday is venerated at Salerno on the 19th day of October." Then he adds: "In that Breviary indeed we have a prayer about him in this manner" Ibid., p. 13.. (It is the same which we transcribed above from Ferrari.)
[7] In the year 1594 the Salernitan Proper is reformed. But in the year 1594 that same Mario Bolognini caused to be printed the Proper of the church of Salerno, which there is scarcely room to doubt was quite different from the preceding, even from the title itself: "Proper Offices ... reformed by apostolic authority in the manner which follows." This is established still more clearly from the Brief of Sixtus V, which is presented at the head of this Proper, and has among other things the following: "Truly we have learned from the representation of our beloved sons of the chapter of the church of Salerno that the divine office customarily celebrated by them, which was compiled two hundred years ago and more, and perhaps also confirmed and approved by the Apostolic see, is in many respects ill-arranged, if it be compared with the Roman office, and has rubrics also confused, and many things too prolix, some also partly curtailed, and finally is so intricate that it happens very often that in the choir of that church altercations and differences arise among our beloved sons its canons over the recitation and celebration of the first-mentioned office, and on occasion of it. We therefore, who with our whole affections desire the convenience and quiet of ecclesiastical persons, and the reformation of divine worship in the recitation and celebration of the divine offices, ... indulge to the aforesaid chapter, with the consent of our venerable brother the archbishop of Salerno, by apostolic authority, by the tenor of these presents, that from now on for all future times it may freely and lawfully recite and celebrate the divine office in the Roman manner and use in all respects. And nevertheless to the same archbishop we grant by the same authority and tenor licence and faculty and every kind of authority for reforming, changing, correcting the several festivals of Saints, male and female, customarily celebrated in the said church, and other festivals of the place, as to the manner of celebrating them, and other things and other matters thereupon, as shall seem to him fitting and better, and for doing and executing the other things necessary or whatever is opportune... Given at Rome at St. Peter's, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand five hundred and eighty-six."
[8] [The Ordinance of Archbishop Mario Bolognini prefixed to the reformed Salernitan Proper.] Relying, then, on this indult, Mario Bolognini set his hand to reforming the Proper, which, at length printed in the year 1594, he wished to be observed by all through his diocese, as is had from the ordinance which is read prefixed to the same Proper: "Since," he says, "that office which they used was both defective in many respects, and what it contained, in many
things, narrated prolixly, and with confused and disordered indexes, those which they commonly call Rubrics, so that it happened in choir very often that altercations arose among the canons themselves over the recitation of the said office; the same canons of Salerno supplicated the Roman pontiff Sixtus the Fifth of holy memory that he would in some way provide for these matters by the authority which he exercised. He most kindly assented to their requests, and by the Brief which we have set down above gave the archbishop of Salerno the charge of changing, reforming and correcting whatever things should seem fit in the office of the church of Salerno, and commanded the whole college that all should receive it emended and use it in future. The business, therefore, having been deferred until now in order that the matter might be done considerately, we have now at length accomplished it, using the labour of our reverend brothers, some of the dignitaries and canons, and of other most weighty theologians, both secular and regular, chosen for that matter, and the work, reduced into this volume, we commit to print (God helping well). Therefore, by that authority which is attributed to us by His Holiness in the said Brief, we admonish in Christ the chapter and canons of Salerno, and command it and each of them, that they receive this office within fifteen days from its printing and publication, and use it inviolably when the feast days and solemnities of those Saints, and other things, should occur which are specifically contained in it and its Rubrics: but in all other things we will that the observance of the feasts, Rubrics and all other matters be directed according to the prescription of the Roman breviary published by order of Pope Pius the Fifth... Given at Salerno ... on the XIXth day of the month of April MDLXXXXIIII."
[9] [On this occasion the feast of St. Eusterius seems to have been transferred to the 14th of October; afterwards cast back again to the 19th] On this occasion, then, we think that both the prayer or collect of St. Eusterius was changed, and his festival transferred from the 19th of October to the 14th of the same month. Otherwise so great an error in Gaspare Musca would not be conceived. It is otherwise with Ughelli, who flourished long afterwards, since his work Italia Sacra in its second printing first came to light at the beginning of the eighteenth century; at which time the feast of St. Eusterius was again being celebrated on the 19th of October, as is clear from another Proper of Salerno, which we have, printed in the year 1696 under the care of Gaetano Antonio Marotta, and under the auspices of Biagio de Vicariis, Vicar general of the chapter, the see being then vacant. There exists in our library also a third copy of the same Proper, of larger format, printed in the year 1798; here too the feast of St. Eusterius is indicated at the 19th day of October. Nor should I think that this day was afterwards changed. For the rest, in the two Propers just praised the office is arranged as in the Proper of Mario Bolognini.
[10] On the Bishops of the church of Salerno. Both writers, Musca and Ughelli, assign to St. Eusterius the fourth place in order of time among the prelates of Salerno. 1. St. Bonosius, of whom in our work at the 14th of May; 2. St. Grammatius, whose sylloge is had in the same at the 11th of October; 3. St. Verus, of whom treatment will probably be given at the 10th day before the Kalends of November; 4. St. Eusterius. He, if we adhere to the two praised authors, flourished in the fifth century; since, according to them, St. Valentinus or Valentinianus succeeded Eusterius; to him St. Gaudentius, who last, as Ughelli has it Italia Sacra, volume VII, column 352, "governed the church of Salerno in the year 500 (or 499), Symmachus being pontiff, under whom he took part in and subscribed the Roman synod." And a little before he had said Ibid., column 345.: "Rightly, in my judgment, have they judged who thought that Salerno received the sacraments of Christ either from the Apostles themselves or from their disciples, and had its own pastors in those early times, whose memory does not survive. The church of Salerno is most noble and ancient; from the five hundredth year of the Lord, from which time to the present day, namely in the space of one thousand and fifty years, eighty-nine prelates are numbered, of whom thirty-three were bishops and LVI archbishops. Of the bishops six have been enrolled among the Saints, namely Donatus, Gramatius, Gaudiosus, Verus, Eustasius and Valentinian, whose bodies rest in the greater basilica. It was adorned with the Metropolitan dignity in the year of Salvation 984 by Pope Benedict VII."
[11] The relics of St. Eusterius and others in the metropolitan church. And elsewhere Ibid., column 349., enumerating the relics which are found on the various altars of the metropolitan church of Salerno: "On the altar," he says, "which was built in honour of the confessors, on the south side, rest the bodies of the confessors B. Bonosius, bishop of Salerno; B. Gramatius, bishop of Salerno; B. Verus, bishop of Salerno; B. Eusterius, bishop of Salerno; B. Gaudiosus, bishop of Salerno; B. Valentinus, bishop of Salerno," who certainly are those six bishops whom he had said above were enrolled among the saints. Why then is Ughelli not consistent with himself in writing their names, some of which, say Donatus, Eustasius, are altogether different from those which are read in the other enumeration? Moreover, with both the enumerations of Ughelli here set down the catalogue does not agree which he himself Ibid., column 352 and following. wove of the Prelates of Salerno: for in this six, nay seven, of those bishops are enrolled among the saints: SS. Bonosius, Gramatius, Verus, Eusterius, Valentinus, Gaudentius and Gaudiosus. This diversity in writing the names indicates indeed a discord occurring in the old documents, but at the same time also convicts Ughelli of a certain negligence, who, appending no warning, uses those names promiscuously.
[12] The ancient chronology of the Church of Salerno is very obscure. Of the time at which St. Eusterius flourished there is scarcely anything which you could confidently assert. For the ancient chronology of the church of Salerno is wrapped in the densest darkness. Ughelli observes from Antonio Caracciolo (in the Sacred documents of the church of Naples) that Musca (whom, however, as regards at least Bonosius, Gramatius, Verus and Eusterius, Ughelli himself follows) does not seem to have had complete regard for time in ordering the series of his bishops. Our elders, whenever in the Acta Sanctorum they had to treat of the blessed Bishops of the said city, constantly remained doubtful about the chronology. So Henschen, in the life of Bonosius at the 14th day of May Acta Sanctorum, volume III of May, p. 374., preferred to abstain from determining the century in which that Saint had flourished; at the same time, however, he indicates that the chief reason used by Caracciolo, by which namely he would throw Bonosius back to the IXth century, is not approved by him on every side. So too Cornelius De Bye, in the life of St. Gramatius, at the 11th of October Ibid., volume V of October, p. 671 and following., disputes many things by which he sufficiently betrays that he inclines to the opinion of Caracciolo. Yet since his arguments do not seem to us such that you could call the matter defined and settled; and since we have not found other, clearer ones; we shall partly tread in the footsteps of Henschen, who thought it better to determine nothing as to the time. Nevertheless we assume as sufficiently probable that St. Eusterius flourished in the fifth century.
[13] From the Roman Synod I under Pope Symmachus, Nay rather, standing on the one hand by the catalogues of Musca and Ughelli, and looking on the other at the Roman council celebrated under Pope Symmachus, St. Eusterius would certainly have to be said to have flourished in the Vth century. For it is admitted to be beyond all doubt that Gaudentius subscribed this council. Hence also Cantel has: "Of none (of the bishops of Salerno) do certain traces exist before Gaudentius, who is read to have subscribed in the year D in the Roman synod under Symmachus" Metropolitanarum urbium Historia civilis et ecclesiastica, p. 407.. "The church of Constantinople, namely, had been cut off from the communion of the Roman see, because the bishops of that city would not, or dared not, erase from the sacred tables the name of Acacius, who had died in heresy and schism. To recall whom to duty and concord the Roman Pontiffs omitted nothing: Gelasius in the first place, who in the year 492 was substituted for Pope Felix. He in the following year, through Faustus, master of the Offices, sent to Constantinople by Theodoric (who, king of the Ostrogoths, having conquered Odoacer, obtained Italy in the year 493), approached Euphemius and Anastasius in vain. The same both Pope Anastasius, who succeeded Gelasius in the year 496, and Symmachus, who received the succession from Anastasius in the year 498, tried to obtain. But peace and concord could so little be urged upon the emperor Anastasius that he poured back the pest of his dissension upon the very Roman church that was exhorting him. A certain Festus, a Roman senator sent to Constantinople by Theodoric, having secretly promised the emperor Anastasius that he would bring it about that the Roman pontiff Anastasius should subscribe the Henoticon of Zeno, when he returned to Rome, Anastasius being already dead and Symmachus having been elected by lawful votes, bribed certain factious persons with money and set up against him another pontiff, Laurence, in the year 498, from which slaughters and robberies were committed in the city" Petau, Rationarium temporum, part I, book VII, chapter III.. "When," says Severinus Binius, "for composing the pernicious schism an importunate necessity of the church had invoked the judgment of a secular and Arian king (namely Theodoric, who followed the heresy of Arius) against the laws and ecclesiastical canons, and the Arian king, having by his judgment quieted the schism of the church and the tumult of the people, had already adjudged the Apostolic see to Symmachus as having been elected by the votes of the majority, and room had already been granted for assembling a lawful synod, presently Pope Symmachus gave letters to the bishops of Italy, by which they were ordered to come together to a synod as soon as possible, so that the lawful bishop of the Roman church, whom the Arian king had by his sentence confirmed as lawfully elected, might be approved also by the cognizance and judgment of all the bishops. This the acts of the council have... Anastasius in the Life of Symmachus in these words: 'Pope Symmachus assembled a synod.' Theodore the reader therefore errs in his collectanea, where he writes that this synod was assembled by King Theodore" In Labbe, Concilia, volume IV, column 1317. Paris edition, 1671.. Further, there subscribed, as is commonly said, LXXII bishops, or even LXXIII, as the Acts report, the subscription of Symmachus himself, namely, being counted Ibid., columns 1312 and 1314.; presbyters LXVII; deacons V Ibid., column 315 and following..
[14] [it is more probably inferred that St. Eusterius flourished in the middle of the Vth century.] It was celebrated, according to Labbe, Binius and others L'Art de vérifier les dates, p. 181., on the Kalends of March in the year 499; whence Cantel must be corrected, or at least interpreted, who, as we saw above, puts the year D. To this synod subscribed Gaudentius of Salerno. And this is a certain chronological note. If, then, the catalogues of the bishops of Salerno woven by Ughelli and Musca were equally certain, there would now be no doubt that St. Eusterius flourished in the Vth century: since between him and Gaudentius, in the Ughellian catalogue, only one, St. Valentinus, is placed in the middle; namely in this order: I. St. Bonosus, II. St. Grammatius, III. St. Verus, IV. St. Eusterius, V. St. Valentinus, VI. St. Gaudentius; Musca agrees, except that he numbers two intermediate ones, in this manner, namely: St. Eusterius, St. Gaudiosus, St. Valentinianus, St. Gaudentius. But, from what has already been said at no. 12, those catalogues do not stand firmly enough; whence the time or epoch also wavers at which he governed Salerno
St. Eusterius. It is probable, however, that this took place towards the middle of the Vth century.
[15] Conclusion. And these are the things, few indeed, which it has been possible to write about the acts of St. Eusterius. Documents, namely, are lacking. Perhaps, when discourse is to be undertaken hereafter about other Prelates of the church of Salerno, something more will occur to be said from approved sources.