ON ST. LUPUS OF SOISSONS, BISHOP,
ABOUT THE YEAR 535.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
The fame of his holiness. St. Lupus is not the son of St. Principius; he was born of another brother of St. Remigius. At what time he held the see of Soissons. His deeds. Relics.
Lupus, bishop of Soissons, confessor in Gaul. (S.)
B. B.
Synopsis of what is to be said. Little has come down to us about this saint. Which must also be said of the other prelates of the same see in the earlier centuries: for the Charters of that church have perished, as the collectors of the New Gallia Christiana note Nova Gallia Christiana, volume IX, column 335.. In so great a dearth of documents, then, we shall briefly examine the following heads: namely, whether Lupus is in fact to be numbered among the Saints; whether he was the son of St. Principius, brother of St. Remigius of Reims, or rather was born of another brother of the same St. Remigius; then at what time he held the see of Soissons; what of his illustrious deeds have come down to us; finally what was the fate of his relics.
[2] The testimony of his holiness As regards the first, there is no doubt that he is to be inscribed on the roll of the holy Bishops. His name indeed is not found in the more ancient martyrologies of Bede, Ado, Usuard; nor yet in the auctaria of the latter in Sollerius; nor in the Roman. But it occurs in the Gallican Martyrology of du Saussay, whose elogium you will find below entire. It occurs also
in Chastelain, on this same 19th day of October: "At Soissons, of St. Lupus I, bishop, nephew of St. Remigius"; and in the margin is written: "About the year 535." Likewise on the same day he is commemorated in the French Martyrology which is annexed to the history of the Gallican church of our Longueval [Histoire de l'Église Gallicane, last volume, at the end. Edition in 12mo, Paris, 1825 and following.]. He is called blessed or saint by Hincmar of Reims and Flodoard; likewise in the Gallia Christiana he is expressly called Saint; and by Baronius in the Annals Volume IX, p. 69, no. XXV. Lucca edition, 1741. at the year 507, to which he wrongly attaches the first council of Orléans, he is reckoned among those who, conspicuous for holiness, were present at the said council. Moreover, his relics were preserved up to the later centuries at Soissons in the cathedral church with the pledges of other Saints, whose elevation is recorded by certain Martyrologists at the 1st of June. Le Cointe Annales ecclesiastici Francorum, volume I, p. 581. also has thus: "after the death of St. Lupus, whom the people of Soissons venerate on the 14th day before the Kalends of November."
[3] [whether St. Lupus was the son of the Bishop St. Principius, or rather his nephew?] Baronius, in the place cited, says: "He was the son of St. Principius (in the vernacular S. Prince), bishop of Soissons, and his successor in the episcopate; and the nephew of St. Remigius, bishop of Reims, as appears from his (namely Remigius's) acts, and also from the Testament of the same St. Remigius." Du Saussay, at the 25th of September, in the encomium of St. Principius, calls him the paternal uncle of blessed Lupus, whom, however, afterwards at the 19th of October, he writes succeeded his father Principius in the episcopal government. The collectors of the Gallia Christiana leave the matter undecided.
[4] Those who call him son rely chiefly on Flodoard; But here Fr. Jean Clé is to be heard, in our Work at the 25th of September Acta Sanctorum, volume VII of September, p. 61, no. 7., where, examining whether St. Principius had entered into marriage before his episcopate and had begotten Lupus, he has the following: "That Lupus was the nephew of St. Remigius is beyond doubt from the testimony of the same Saint and of other writers. That he was begotten by St. Principius" (whose acts are illustrated in the said place) "Baronius and others affirm, among whom also Longueval. Colvenere protests in the notes to Flodoard, and Sirmond, Robert Estienne, Savaron, Baillet and others adopt them. The continuators of the Gallia Christiana have left the matter untouched." So our Clé. The patrons of the former opinion rely on Flodoard, who in the history of the church of Reims [Book 1, chapter X. It exists in the Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, with the Notes of Colvenere, volume XVII, p. 500 and following.] writes of Cilinia, mother of St. Remigius: "This blessed mother, long before in the flower of youth, had borne by her one husband Aemilius Principius, afterwards holy bishop of the city of the Suessiones and father of blessed Lupus, the successor of the same Principius." The obvious sense of the words (at least if they are viewed outside the context of Flodoard's work) certainly seems to be this, that St. Principius was both father and predecessor of blessed Lupus. And so the writers cited above interpreted the words of Flodoard, as also Claude Dormay in his history of the city of Soissons, where Volume 1, p. 144., treating of St. Principius, he says: "He received an education worthy of his birth, and the morals drawn from it answered the expectation of his parents. Afterwards, joined in marriage, he begot a son by the name of Lupus. Edibius having died, he was elected bishop by the wishes and votes of all."
[5] but that he was a nephew is established from the narrative of Hincmar, Those who follow the contrary opinion, namely that St. Principius was the paternal uncle and not the father of St. Lupus, appeal to Hincmar. "If the dispute were to be decided from Hincmar," says Fr. Jean Clé Acta Sanctorum, as above., "I should not hesitate long: for he speaks thus in the life of St. Remigius: 'She (Cilinia) in the flower of youth had borne by her one husband Aemilius Principius, afterwards holy Bishop of the city of the Suessiones, and his brother, the father of blessed Lupus, the successor of the same Principius.' Those who would have Principius to have been the father of St. Lupus take the words of Hincmar ... in this way, namely that the pronoun 'his' is referred to St. Remigius; 'brother,' 'father' being continued titles of the same Principius. But Hincmar's phrase is not a little ineptly twisted so, which altogether intimates that 'his' is to be referred to Principius, who is named immediately before: whereas, on the contrary, the name of Remigius has nowhere preceded, of whom accordingly he is not judged to speak." And these things indeed Fr. Clé rightly deduces according to the rules of grammar; but there is also another reason which persuades more effectively to embrace this opinion.
[6] the narrative, Hincmar, namely, narrates In the Life of St. Remigius, Acta Sanctorum, volume I of October, p. 135. that the birth of Remigius was divinely announced in sleep to a venerable monk by the name of Montanus: "Cilinia, conceiving in her womb, shall bear a son by the name of Remigius, to whom the people to be saved by me shall be committed." To which words Hincmar immediately subjoins: "For blessed Cilinia, intent on pious works, although she was held in the world by her body, yet conversed in heaven with her mind. She in the flower of youth had borne," and the rest as above. And these things at numbers 2 and 3. Then at no. 4 he narrates that Cilinia, when she heard the divine oracle about Remigius who was to be born, said to Montanus: "How can it be that an old woman should suckle a son, since what is usual with women has failed me from times long past, and my husband Aemilius is old?" In the numbers next following he sets forth how the infant was brought into the light. From the very progress of the Hincmarian narrative, then, it becomes evident that Cilinia in the flower of youth bore Principius... "and his brother," surely another than Remigius, whom she bore when already advanced in age, and whose altogether wonderful birth is described far and wide. Let the copulative word "and" be duly noted; nor will it now, I should think, come into anyone's mind that the words "and his brother" can be referred to St. Remigius, not yet born.
[7] according to which Flodoard is to be interpreted; As concerns Flodoard now, it becomes plain to anyone reading even cursorily the tenth chapter of his book I of the history of the church of Reims that he followed the footsteps of Hincmar exactly. Remigius about to be born is announced to Montanus; the oracle is reported to Cilinia: "She long before in the flower of youth had borne Principius," etc. Blessed Cilinia wonders, being already advanced, how an old woman is to bear or suckle offspring. So that in Flodoard, as also in Hincmar, it becomes beyond doubt from the very sequence of the narrative that the words of the former, praised above, are to be explained so that the sense is: that Cilinia in the flower of youth bore Principius, and another son, the father of blessed Lupus, the successor of the same Principius.
[8] as Colvenere rightly notes; But here it will help to set down certain things from Colvenere [Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, volume XVII, Scholia of Colvenere on Flodoard book 1, chapter X, p. 622.]. "For the rest, although these words" (namely Flodoard's, on which Colvenere here comments) "could be taken to signify that B. Cilinia, mother of St. Remigius, had not two sons in her youth, but that Principius himself was the father of B. Lupus, as is expressly said in the French translation: yet in the life of St. Remigius by Hincmar it is expressly signified that she had two" (here the words of Hincmar praised by us are cited). "That Flodoard, who abridges Hincmar, meant to say the same is not doubtful... Indeed Jean Savaron, in the notes to letter 14 of book 8 and 8 of book 9 of Sidonius, says that Principius was the paternal uncle of Lupus, bishop of Soissons and his successor, not his father. Consulted by me on this difficulty, Master Guillaume le Bègue, doctor of Sacred Theology and head-master of the college of Reims, answered in conformity with what Hincmar and Savaron have, adding the testimony of a certain anonymous writer of the monastery of St. Remigius, who he writes lived about the year 1400, which runs thus: 'Cilinia in the flower of youth bore by her one husband Aemilius two sons, namely Principius and another, whose name is unknown to us, who had taken a wife, from whom he begot a son by the name of Lupus, who indeed after St. Principius his maternal uncle'" (he means to say paternal uncle) "'took up the bishopric of Soissons.'" Thus far Colvenere.
[9] with whom Marlot agrees. Marlot agrees in his history of the Metropolis of Reims, writing Book II, chapter II, volume I, p. 139. Lille edition, 1666.: "Cilinia in the flower of youth had borne two sons, namely Principius and" (here in place of a name some points are interposed) "the father of St. Lupus; but, the course of a rather long life having elapsed, she was so advanced in age that there was no hope of generating offspring again, whence Cilinia could scarcely give credence to the words of Montanus." It is established, therefore, from Hincmar, nay also from Flodoard, that our Lupus is to be called the nephew, and not the son, of St. Principius. Add that nowhere among the ancients is even the least mention found of a marriage entered into by Principius before the priesthood. And from the testament of St. Remigius nothing else is drawn than that blessed Lupus was his especially beloved nephew.
[10] At what time did St. Lupus sit? The opinion of Dormay, Now let us pass to another question: namely at what time St. Lupus presided over the see of Soissons. Claude Dormay reports that St. Principius died on the 25th of September at the beginning of the fifth century (but it is an error; he means the sixth century). It is certain that St. Lupus was present at the first council of Orléans, which was held in the year 511 (Baronius errs when he would have it celebrated in the year 507) [Compare the Acts of St. Levangius, illustrated in this volume, no. 4 and following.]. In this year, therefore, he was already bishop at Soissons; for he subscribes as such. "He reached an advanced age" (says the praised Dormay Histoire de Soissons, volume I, p. 240., whose words we here render in Latin), "since he is written as heir by St. Remigius, who met his last day 24 years after the synod of Orléans was celebrated. It follows from that that St. Lupus discharged the honour of the pontificate for no less than 38 or even 40 years. Moreover, since St. Principius, his paternal uncle, presided over the same church for no less a space of time, it is established that St. Lupus died at least an octogenarian. Nay, a still greater age would have to be attributed to him if, as Flodoard would have it, whom certain others follow, St. Remigius survived up to the year 543. It could indeed be replied that the testament could have been drawn up by the holy prelate of Reims long before his death, nor is it inconsistent that a paternal uncle should have survived his nephew. But the difficulty will vanish if it be attended to that Remigius in the praised testament declares that two other instruments of this kind had already been written by him: the other 7 years after the one just mentioned. Hence, then, it follows that the one from which the present difficulty is drawn was drawn up towards the end of his life (or at least 21 years after the council of Orléans). I have said that Remigius died in the twenty-fourth year after the praised synod; although there are not lacking those who would have him reach a more advanced age: but undeservedly, as to me
it certainly seems: since Flavius was present at the council of Arvernum (or Clermont, in the year 535) and subscribed it as bishop of Reims. Some, to escape the force of this argument, attribute the aforesaid subscription to Flavius of Rouen." Thus Dormay.
[11] which is attacked from the testament of St. Remigius, But here it must be well noted that two testaments of St. Remigius are put about: the one more prolix, which may be read in Flodoard Historia Remensis ecclesiae, book 1, chapter VIII.; the other shorter, which Chifflet and Labbe published in the library Bibliotheca manuscriptorum librorum, volume I.; and which is found in Le Cointe Annales ecclesiastici Francorum, volume I, p. 407, at the year 533, no. L. and in our Work at the 1st of October Acta Sanctorum, volume I of October, p. 167.. Claude Dormay relies on the former: since only in the more prolix are these words read: "nor have the two former testaments, the first indeed, which I drew up fourteen years ago, and the other, which I drew up seven years ago, been able to stand in the way of it (my present testament), to oppose it, or in any way to harm it." In which words indeed not a space of 21 years, as Dormay intimates, but of 14 only is comprised: for the seven later years are not to be added to the other fourteen earlier. But besides, this more prolix testament "is increased with so many interpolations," says Le Cointe As above., "which smack neither of the times nor of the genius of Remigius, that to most it seems supposititious." Which our Constantine Suysken also relates, who in the acts of St. Remigius discusses of set purpose Preliminary Commentary, § XV. his twin testament, and concludes that the more prolix is spurious, inasmuch as it is nothing else than a certain amplification of the shorter, written much later, not by the hand of Remigius but of another. Our Ghesquière, in the annotations to § XV of Suysken Acta Sanctorum Belgii, volume I, p. 605., has thus: "With the critics praised (by Suysken) (Le Cointe, Pagi, Natalis Alexander, Longueval and others), likewise with Suysken and De Bye, I acknowledge that (more prolix) testament as supposititious or substituted. And by supposititious or substituted I understand a false testament put in and produced in place of the true testament." This being laid down, however, Dormay's argumentation collapses in great part from its foundations.
[12] from which, however, nothing certain can be gathered. For the rest, from either testament scarcely anything certain can be concluded to our purpose, since neither the one nor the other shows a fixed date. For both are signed: "Done" or "Accomplished at Reims on the day and under the consul written above" or "said above." On which words Suysken notes In the Annotations to the Testament, letter ll, volume I of October, p. 170. that hence it is clear that the copies of this (shorter) testament which exist are not altogether entire, since neither time nor consul is mentioned above. The more prolix testament, which we think was increased from this shorter one, labours under the same defect. Nevertheless, since it is easy to judge that St. Remigius wrote this testament not much time before his death; and since, besides, the truer opinion, which also prevailed in our Work at the first of October, is that the holy prelate met his last day about the year 532, it is probably concluded that blessed Lupus survived at least up to about the same year, since he is written as heir by his paternal uncle.
[13] [From the acts of St. Bandaridus it seems that St. Lupus survived up to the year 535.] Moreover, the acts of St. Bandaridus, who succeeded our Saint in the pastoral dignity, persuade us to add some years, so that one arrives up to about the year 535. The hinge of the matter, namely, turns on this, that the year be fixed in which St. Medard of Noyon died and was buried near Soissons. For it is certain that St. Bandaridus was present while the funeral of St. Medard was being conducted. This solemn deposition, further, is attached by Le Cointe and in our Acts at the 8th of June not to the year 565, as seemed to the Sainte-Marthes, nor to the year 560, as Dormay would have it, but to the year 545; which indeed is far more likely, as the collectors of the new Gallia Christiana Volume IX, column 336. also admit, who assert that the funeral of St. Medard was celebrated in the year 545 on the 8th day of June, correcting the Sainte-Marthes. In this year, therefore, Bandaridus already held the mitre of Soissons, since, not a few other prelates being present, he presided over the said solemnity. It is established moreover from his legend, published by our Sollerius at the 1st of August, where the acts of St. Bandaridus are had, that on his return from his exile he took care of the burial of St. Medard. It will help to add here certain things from Le Cointe Annales Ecclesiastici Francorum at the year 538, no. LXXIX, volume I, p. 581.. "Bandaricus" (so he calls him), "bishop of Soissons, when he had ruled the people for some years after the death of St. Lupus, whom the people of Soissons venerate on the 14th day before the Kalends of November, with a singular example of blameless life..., by order of King Clotaire ... at the tumult of certain malevolent persons, was compelled in this year (538) to depart from the city and the bishopric. He crossed into England, where in a monastery for seven years ... he lived, discharging the mean office of a gardener... The certain epoch of the exile is gathered from this, that a little after his return he celebrated by his presence, with many other bishops, the funeral of St. Medard, namely in the year of Christ DXLV. Whence you may correct those who write that B. Lupus, the predecessor of Bandaricus, died in the year of Christ DXLIII." So Le Cointe. And our Sollerius: "That St. Bandaridus was in exile in Britain for a whole seven years," he says, "our said legend expresses so expressly in more than one place that, if it is deceived in this, the whole must collapse. And since, returned from exile, he certainly took care of the celebrated burial of St. Medard in the year already said, 545, what follows more evidently than that he must have ascended the chair of Soissons a full seven years before, and at the least in the same year 538, nay, if he ruled that church some years before (as Le Cointe intimated), that he obtained the sacred mitre much earlier" Acta Sanctorum, volume I of August, p. 61, no. 5.. From these things it is quite probable that the beginnings of that one's episcopate are to be fixed not much after the death of St. Remigius.
[14] [The beginning and end of the episcopate of St. Lupus are probably deduced from the foregoing.] To embrace, then, the whole disputation in summary: we say it is certain that St. Lupus presided over the church of Soissons in the year 511, since in that year he subscribed the council of Orléans; nay, it can without difficulty be admitted that this did not happen precisely in the first year of his episcopate, whence its beginnings are placed with sufficient probability at the beginning of the sixth century in Dormay. Again, it becomes probable from the testament of St. Remigius that St. Lupus was still surviving about the year 532, to which the death of the holy Prelate of Reims is more probably referred; nay, that he survived Remigius by some years, say up to about the year 535, is not absurdly concluded from the acts of St. Bandaridus.
[15] The deeds of St. Lupus scarcely known. The illustrious deeds of our Saint have almost entirely perished. The Gallia Christiana Volume IX, column 335. thus comprises his elogium in a few words: "St. Lupus, the son of a brother of St. Remigius, whom he always loved with a special love, ordained, as is believed, by him, succeeded Principius. He was present at the council of Orléans in the year 511. He was instituted heir by St. Remigius in the testament drawn up in the year 533" (compare no. 10). "His relics, when he had died on the 14th day before the Kalends of November, were translated into the cathedral." No more has the historian of Soissons Dormay, following du Saussay, who, after his custom, supplies the dearth of deeds with an abundance of words. Since, however, he has some things said neatly enough and conducive to piety, it will not be out of place, especially in the lack of others, to set down here the encomium of the latter.
[16] Encomium from du Saussay, "At Soissons, of St. Lupus, bishop and confessor, who, nephew through a brother of St. Remigius, apostle of the Franks, succeeded his father" (rather paternal uncle) "Principius, a perfect exemplar of holiness, in the episcopal government on account of his shining merits. And a faithful guardian of the sheep, he showed himself a wolf indeed to the enemies of the flock: but he showed himself a lamb to those who had the spirit of peace and justice and the affection of piety. And while St. Remigius was still living in the flesh, he entered upon the episcopate. In which he conducted himself so laudably that he shone among the chief lights of Gaul with the splendour of admirable virtues. Wherefore, at the first Council of Orléans, assembled by the pious urging of St. Remigius himself to restrain the morals of clergy and people slipping from the right path and to repair sacred discipline, he was present among the first pontiffs of Gaul, and sat in a conspicuous place not so much on account of his age as of his surpassing holiness. With which regard St. Remigius, when he was drawing up his testament, summoned him, that he might strengthen it with his signature together with Saints Vedast, Genebaud and Medard, bishops of most holy life." (These things are applied to the more prolix testament of Remigius which is put about, which we have seen to be supposititious.) "To whom also he left the pledges of a stronger affection: and constituted him the vindicator of his last wishes. Further, Lupus not only fulfilled his desires, but also pursued his examples so vigorously that, as Elisha recalled most nearly in his deeds the rapt-away Elijah, he represented Remigius himself, carried up to those above, both by the morals of a blameless life, and by the zeal of pastoral vigilance, and by a most holy pontifical administration. Who at last, having fulfilled, to the heaping up of grace and merit, assiduous worship of sacred things, study of divine meditations, care of the poor, diligent formation of the clergy, instruction of the people, thirsting for the streams of eternal happiness, flew away to the perennial fountain of life; and shone after death with very many rays of merited glory."
[17] and from the testament of St. Remigius The chief praise of blessed Lupus is drawn from the testament of St. Remigius, from which we judge that the things which serve our purpose should be transcribed here. "I, Remigius, bishop of the city of the Remi, possessing the priesthood, have drawn up my testament by praetorian law, and have ordered it to be valid as codicils if anything of law shall seem to have been lacking to it. Whenever I, Remigius the bishop, shall have passed from this light, be you my heir, holy and venerable catholic church of the city of the Remi; and you, son of my brother, Lupus the bishop, whom I have always loved with a special love; and you, my nephew Agricola the presbyter, who have pleased me by your service from boyhood, in all my substance which has fallen to my lot before I die, except what I shall have given, bequeathed or ordered to be given to each, or shall have wished each of you to have as a preferential legacy." And below, where he treats of various legacies in particular: "Another silver vessel, which my Lord of illustrious memory King Hlodowic, whom I received from the sacred font of Baptism, deigned to give me, that I might do with it what I myself should wish, I order to be made for you, my heir, the church above mentioned, into a censer" (Chifflet and Marlot read turriculum; if this be the true reading, a little tower will be designated, or a reliquary, fashioned in the manner of a tower, for keeping the Holy Eucharist) "and an imaged" (namely of chased work) "chalice; which I shall do by myself if I have space of life" (these words intimate that Remigius, when he drew up the testament, did not consider himself near to death
); "if I close my last day before, you, son of my brother, Lupus the bishop, mindful of your order, shall make the aforesaid articles." And again where he treats of the slaves whom he makes freedmen: "I commend to your holiness, son of my brother, Lupus the bishop, those whom I order to be freedmen, Cattusio and Auliateva his wife, Nonnio ... Vasanta the cook, Caesaria," etc. "All these, son of my brother, Lupus the bishop, you shall defend as free by priestly authority." Finally towards the end these words are read, which certainly savour especially of the genius of those times: "My heirs, Lupus the bishop and Agricola the presbyter, you shall divide my pigs equally between you."
[18] The relics preserved in the cathedral, burned in the XVIth century. That the relics of St. Lupus were laid up through a long series of centuries in the cathedral church of Soissons, dedicated to St. Mary and to SS. Gervasius and Protasius, an ancient and constant tradition reports; nor is it called into doubt by anyone: nowhere, however, have I found authentic instruments either of the deposition or of a translation. About those sacred pledges Dormay relates the following Histoire de Soissons, volume I, p. 144 and following.. He narrates, namely, that St. Principius was first buried in the oratory of St. Thecla, and then proceeds in this manner: "Then the sacred body was raised from the tomb and laid in a more honourable place in the cathedral church, with the relics of St. Lupus the bishop and St. Agricola the presbyter. Heretical rage despoiled us of this Treasure in the year 1568, when, having broken open and plundered the Reliquaries, they burned the bones of the saints." The devastation of the city and of the churches is described at length and of set purpose in the same place Book VI, chapter XLII and following, volume II, p. 470..
[19] A certain Elevation of the same. On the witness of Sollerius in the Martyrology of Usuard, Molanus notes at the 1st of June a certain Elevation of the relics in these words: "At Soissons, the Elevation of the holy bishops Principius and Lupus, confessors, of Gaudinus, martyr, and of Agricola, presbyter, confessor." This same Elevation is celebrated by du Saussay, Galesini, Ferrari.