ON ST. AGRICOLA OF SOISSONS, PRESBYTER AND CONFESSOR, IN GAUL,
AT AN UNCERTAIN TIME.
HISTORICAL COLLECTION.
Agricola, presbyter and confessor, at Soissons in Gaul (S.)
V. D. B.
St. Agricola, presbyter, not bishop, of Soissons, In the Auctarium of Molanus to the Martyrology of Usuard is read at the 1st day of June: At Soissons, the elevation of the holy bishops Principius and Lupus, confessors, of Gaudinus, Martyr, and of Agricola, presbyter. Of St. Gaudinus it has been spoken in our work at the 11th day of February Vol. II of February, p. 553 and following; of St. Principius, brother of St. Remigius, at the 25th of September Vol. VII of September, p. 60 and following; of St. Lupus in the present volume at the 19th day of October See above, p. 448.. It remains for us in this place to vindicate St. Agricola from oblivion; from oblivion, I say, since besides his name almost nothing is known of him. Du Saussay writes of him at this day: At Soissons, of St. Agricola, bishop and confessor, glorious by the grace of his merits more than by the renown of his deeds; Giry has similar things Vies des Saints, vol. II, col. 1478.. That the title of bishop is erroneous Henschen has already observed Acta SS., vol. I of June, p. 7., and has established that St. Agricola was a presbyter; and certainly the Auctarium of Molanus has it so, and besides no Agricola comes among the bishops of Soissons Compare Gall. Christ., vol. IX, col. 334 and following.
[2] is perhaps the same as the Agricola whom St. Remigius brought up It can be asked rather than defined whether St. Agricola, presbyter of Soissons, is the same as he who, together with St. Lupus, bishop of Soissons, was instituted heir by St. Remigius. That he should be held different is urged by his upbringing among the people of Reims and his enrolment (if Flodoard is to be believed) in the clergy of Reims: but that he should be held the same is argued by his kinship with St. Lupus; by reason of which it could have come about that he followed St. Lupus when the latter was promoted to the see of Soissons, or that he betook himself to him afterwards: which indeed would conflict with the discipline of that age; but, although formerly much less than now, dispensations from the ecclesiastical laws were nevertheless sometimes granted; then, in the testaments of St. Remigius, from which alone, however, Flodoard drew his statements, nothing occurs from which it may be established for certain that Agricola was a presbyter of Reims. I leave these things, therefore, to the judgment of the reader, no differently than those which rest on this conjecture. Further, if it be admitted that St. Agricola was a kinsman of St. Lupus, Flodoard will tell us this of him: There were, he says [History of the Church of Reims, book I, chapter XXIII, Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, vol. XVII, p. 526.], finally, in the times of this our most blessed Father (Remigius), in this city most illustrious men, acceptable to God by their virtues, as well from the clergy as from the lay order, inasmuch as they served such a father, so venerable and so most holy. Among whom the eminent Agricola appears, his nephew, a venerable presbyter, and, as he himself testifies, pleasing to him by his services from boyhood, which he spent within his domestic walls: whom too, together with the church of Reims and the blessed bishop Lupus, his brother's son, he appointed heir in all his substance, except what he had specially given or ordered to be given to each. To him too, assigning specially some slaves with vineyards, he handed them over, confidently enjoining on him this, that on feast days and all Sundays an oblation should be offered at his sacred altars, and that annual banquets should be furnished to the presbyters and deacons of Reims.
[3] and instituted him his heir, Flodoard took these things from the testament of St. Remigius, either the shorter or the fuller Ibid., book I, chapter XVIII, p. 518 and following; to the latter this subscription of Agricola is added: † Agricola, presbyter: whom my father Remigius cursed, I have cursed; and whom he blessed, I have blessed; I was also present and subscribed; which are not found in the shorter testament, whose genuineness our predecessors defended Acta SS., vol. I of October, p. 106 and following, and of which it was again spoken in part above Compare above, p. 450., but the rest indeed which pertain to the praise of Agricola and to the legacies are found. We pluck a few things from it Acta SS., vol. I of October, p. 167.: Whenever I, Remigius the bishop, shall pass from this light, be you my heir, holy and venerable catholic church of the city of Reims; and you, son of my father, Lupus the bishop, whom I have always loved with 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 to each, etc.; and further below: To you, moreover, my nephew Agricola the presbyter, who spent your boyhood within my domestic walls, I hand over and transfer the slave Merumvastes, etc. These things from the shorter testament.
[4] and who seems to have been his nephew by a sister. Hence I wonder that the following was written by our Suysken Ibid., p. 66.: Finally Flodoard, book I, chapter XXIII, records three other NEPHEWS of St. Remigius, namely Agricola the presbyter, Aetius and Agathimerus; but these perhaps became known to him only from the more prolix testament of the same Saint, already commonly and deservedly rejected by the learned; for he himself shows elsewhere Ibid., p. 106. that the shorter testament too lighted Flodoard's way, in which (as is manifest from the recited fragment) mention is made not only of Agricola, nephew of St. Remigius, but also of his nephew Praetextatus Ibid., p. 168, c., his nephew Aetius Ibid., in the place cited, and also his nephew Agathimerus Ibid., p. 168, d.. There is therefore no room for doubting that Agricola was the nephew of St. Remigius. But what does that word nepos mean, whose signification here seems other than brother's son, which seems to be reserved for St. Lupus alone? First
nepos here cannot indicate the son of a son or of a daughter, since St. Remigius, never joined in matrimony, ascended the episcopal see in youthful age Ibid., p. 69.; nor a paternal or maternal cousin, since St. Remigius was born long after his brothers Ibid., p. 66., and accordingly could not have taken care of a cousin's boyhood; wherefore I should believe that these four nephews were born of a sister of St. Remigius unknown to us, and are called nephews just as, to use the phrase of John of Salisbury Epistle 89, Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, vol. XXIII, p. 437., the common people are accustomed to call a sister's son a nephew. For the rest, on the kinsfolk of St. Remigius, and accordingly of Agricola, see more in Suysken Acta SS., vol. I of October, p. 66..
[5] He was buried with other Saints outside the city, To define anything certain about the age of St. Agricola is no less difficult. If according to what has been set out you hold that he was the nephew of St. Remigius by a sister and the cousin of St. Lupus, you must establish that he flourished about the year 532 See above, p. 450. But if you distinguish him from the nephew of St. Remigius, it will be possible to conjecture something from the companions and place of his burial rather than to gather it for certain. St. Agricola was first buried with SS. Principius, Lupus and Gaudinus in the cemetery chapel of St. Thecla Compare Acta SS., vol. VII of September, p. 62, d.; of these St. Principius belongs to the end of the 5th century, St. Lupus to the beginning of the 6th, St. Gaudinus finally to the end of the 7th Compare Gallia Christ., vol. IX, col. 334 and following; hence it is natural to believe that St. Agricola is to be referred at least to these times. From Le Moine Antiquités de la ville de Soissons, vol. I, p. 181. someone will perhaps try to tighten the knot further. He observes here, namely, that the cemetery of St. Thecla was situated outside the walls of the city, and indeed on the southern side of the river Aisne, between the village of Saint-Germain and Milempart; as Claude Domay seemed to himself to have found, after he had put much labour into investigating the ancient cemeteries of Soissons. He establishes, then, that a beginning was given to cemeteries within the walls of cities at the end of the 6th century, under the pontificate of St. Gregory the Great.
[6] as was the custom until the 8th or 9th century. But whatever examples may perhaps occur in this age are altogether rare. On this matter I attempted something in the commentary on St. Mummolenus at the 16th day of October Vol. VII of October, p. 955, d e., and since in the Life of that Saint (which for that reason I judged must be referred to the 8th century) it was read that he was buried outside the walls in the church of the Holy Apostles, because the city is said to be of the living, not of the dead, it seemed to me that before the 9th century the custom of burying within the walls had little prevailed; and certainly that the antiquary of Soissons is not altogether to be agreed with is evident even from the burial of St. Gaudinus himself, and much more from these words of Gervase of Dover, or of Canterbury, about Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury, who flourished in the middle of the 8th century [Actus Pontificum Cantuariensium, in Twysden, Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores X, col. 1641.]: Cuthbert, bishop of Hereford, who, having gone to Rome, received the pallium and the fullness of power from pope Gregory (II), obtained also that all archbishops should henceforth be given burial in the church of Canterbury, and that he should make a cemetery within the city of Canterbury. For from the first times until his death the kings of Kent, the archbishops also and the monks of the church of Christ, and the people of the city too, were accustomed to be buried in the court of the church of the apostles Peter and Paul. For the Romans first sent into England said that the city is not of the dead but of the living; but, God willing and blessed Cuthbert procuring it, by the authority of pope Gregory and the assent of king Eadbrith it was decreed that all the archbishops of Canterbury should be buried in their own church of Canterbury, namely that they might have in rest that which they had ruled with honour in life. Wherefore from the place of burial I should dare indeed to deduce that St. Agricola is older than the 9th century, but nothing further.
[7] [then he was translated into the cathedral church of Soissons, where his relics were burned in the year 1568.] How long, however, St. Agricola lay in the cemetery chapel of St. Thecla, or when he was elevated, or rather translated with other Saints into the cathedral church of Soissons, is a very uncertain matter. Since an arm of St. Principius was preserved in the church of St. Amatus at Douai, our Cleus judged Acta SS., vol. VII of September, p. 62 that it was brought there after the Norman persecution; and indeed we have taught elsewhere Ibid., vol. VII of October, p. 1105. that in the year 901 the people of Soissons themselves, for fear of the Normans, fled elsewhere with the sacred pledges, and so carried some bodies of Saints to Douai. Wherefore I hold it probable that already before these times, as of St. Principius, so too the remains of St. Agricola and of others were carried from the suburban little chapel of St. Thecla within the walls into the cathedral church, so that they might be withdrawn from the fury of the invading Normans; and in the year 901 were taken to Dijon Chronicon Besuense, in Dom Bouquet, vol. IX, p. 20., Douai Acta SS., vol. VII of October, p. 1105. and other stronger fortresses. The people of Soissons afterwards received back their pledges; but, as was said in the commentary on St. Lupus See above, p. 451. and more often elsewhere in our work, they were burned by the heretics in the year 1568.