Maurontus

ON ST. MAURONTUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, AT MARSEILLE IN GAUL,

PERHAPS IN THE YEAR 786.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Maurontus, bishop and confessor, at Marseille in Gaul. (S.)

BY V. D. B.

§ I. The name of St. Maurontus on various days in the sacred calendars. The time of his episcopate and death.

We noted in the preceding volume, among those passed over, that St. Maurontus, abbot of St. Victor and bishop of Marseille, is praised on October 18 by Castellanus and by the martyrologists of Paris and Évreux; [The name of St. Maurontus is entered in the calendars at June 12 and October 18, 20 and 21.] where we also promised that we would speak of him on the present day, on which he is venerated at Marseille and is said in the sixth lesson of the proper Office to have passed into heaven Cf. vol. VIII of Oct. page 281.. And we now keep faith with these promises. Further, mention is made of him in few sacred calendars. In Greven's auctarium to Usuard, at this day, his memory is celebrated in these words: Of Maurontus, bishop of Marseille and confessor. Ferrarius in his General Catalogue of the Saints: At Marseille, he says, of St. Maurontus, bishop of the same city; to which he adds in the annotations: From the tables of the church of Marseille which we recently received from that city. The body is preserved in the cathedral church. So he in the year 1625: which lit the way for Du Saussay when he published his Gallican Martyrology in the year 1637 In the supplement, page 1184., since he too asserts that the body of St. Maurontus is preserved in the cathedral church: which we shall show below was not rightly related; meanwhile we wish this one thing to be noticed here, that the feast of St. Maurontus is placed by Ferrarius, according to the tables of Marseille or the diocesan calendar of the beginning of the seventeenth century, on October 21, on which it was also celebrated in the century just past De Belsunce, Hist. des évêques de Marseille, vol. I, page 300. and is celebrated now as well: so that Antoine Ruffi Hist. de Marseille, vol. II, page 17. must be judged to have erred, and following him Denis de Sainte-Marthe Gallia Christ. vol. I, col. 640., when the former in 1696 and the latter in 1715 wrote that the feast of St. Maurontus is kept at Marseille on October 20. Add that it has long been accepted at Marseille that St. Maurontus died not on the 20th but on the 21st: so it is entered in the Necrology of the church of Marseille [Cf. Le Cointe, Annales ecclés. Franc. at the year 804, num. 57, vol. VII, page 87.]; so it is related by Guesnay in Cassianus illustratus Book II, chap. 25, num. 43, in Le Cointe loc. cit. and also in the Annals of the province of Marseille Page 241.; since it is manifest that the sigla 11 are put there for 24. And credit is rather to be given to these than to the brothers de Sainte-Marthe Gallia Christ. vol. III, page 649., who assert that in the old Necrology of the cathedral basilica the death of St. Maurontus is noted at October 18: although (as we saw at the beginning) Castellanus followed them and by his example drew the Martyrologists of Paris and Évreux into the same opinion. From Yepes, Ménard announced St. Maurontus under the name of Maurus Martyrolog. Benedict. page 50 and 600. on June 12; which error Henschenius has already corrected Acta SS. vol. II of June, page 505., and after him Mabillon Acta S. Ord. SS Bened. saec. IV, part II, passed over..

[2] Various opinions on the time of his life. For the rest, very little is known about St. Maurontus. Robert, the first writer of the Gallia Christiana, did not know of St. Maurontus Cf. page 407 and 657.. Those who trod in his footsteps, Scévole and Louis de Sainte-Marthe Vol III, page 647 and following; vol. IV, page 950., attach his episcopate to the year 780; and before them Severt Chronologia hist. successionis hierarchiae. vol III, page 256.. Guesnay in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the province of Marseille Page 241 and following. extends the episcopate of St. Maurontus from the year 768 to the year 781; but in Cassianus illustratus In Le Cointe, at the year 804, num. 57, vol. VII, page 17., to the year 804. Ruffi Hist. de Marseille, vol. II, page 17. is content to refer his episcopate to the age of Charlemagne, but his death to about the year 781. Le Cointe begins his episcopate in the year 767 Annales ecclés. Franc. at the year 767, num. 29; vol. V, page 710. and ends it in the year 804 Ibid. at the year 804, num. 57, vol VII, page 17.: from which opinion Denis de Sainte-Marthe does not dare to depart Gallia Christ. vol. I, col 640 and 641.. De Belsunce Hist. des évêques de Marseille, vol. I, page 295 and following. fixes the beginnings of his episcopate after the year 774 and the end before the month of March of the year 781; and finally Papon Hist. générale de Provence, vol. I, page 544. places him in the see of Marseille from the year 767 to 781. And from this conflict of opinions it must be more than sufficiently manifest how obscure a matter we are engaged in: which is the more obscure because there is even less agreement about the predecessors and successors of St. Maurontus: some putting some before and others after, or even intruding and excluding them: so that there scarcely seems to be a place on which at last to set your foot.

[3] From the Notice by which this becomes known, not to be struck out Yet something must be attempted. First of all it is certain that St. Maurontus was bishop of Marseille and abbot of St. Victor about the year 780 or 786. For to the instrument, which we shall try to explain below according to our powers, these chronological notes are added: For it was done on Wednesday, the 8th of the kalends of March, in the 12th year of the reign of the lord Charles, indiction II. Le Cointe and the rest, who interpret these of the year 780, emended these indications somewhat; so that they retain only the following: For it was done on the 8th of the kalends of March, in the 12th year of the reign of our lord Charles. Le Cointe explains his reasons thus Annal. at the year 780, num. 20, vol. VI, page 184.: The twelfth year of King Charles, during the month of February, together with the year of Christ 780, because it was a leap year, was furnished with a double dominical letter, B and A, B before the intercalation of the bissextile day, A after that intercalation. The eighth day before the kalends of March, then, to which the letter D is prefixed in the calendar, was a Tuesday in the year of Christ 780, and Wednesday, or dies Mercoris, was wrongly intruded. We have also removed the indiction, because neither was the note of indiction then used by the Franks, nor did the second indiction agree with the twelfth year of King Charles during the month of February, in place of which the third would have to be restored, already begun in the previous month of September. I would not wholly oppose these things, since, whichever way you turn, it is certain that this diploma is entangled in chronological knots. I should prefer, however, to take another road by which one arrives at the year 886.

[4] the words dies Mercoris First of all, it does not please me that dies Mercoris be struck out, since it is by no means probable that it was smeared in afterward. For, as Fumagalli observes Delle istituzioni diplomatiche, vol. II, page 83., only in the twelfth century in some places were the days of the week inserted into the subscription according to the profane form of the gentiles: which, however, seems to have been so rare even in the twelfth century and afterward Cf. Nouveau traité de diplomatique, vol. IV. page 727 and 728. that, if you were to say that dies Mercoris must be deleted from this charter of Marseille or Digne because it was not the custom to add it, by the same right it will be permissible to remove a similar designation of days from absolutely all diplomas, even those later than the twelfth century, since these notes of time were singular throughout the whole middle age. And so, since old notes of time are usually changed or augmented by ill-intentioned men in order that they may agree with the customs of their own age, it is understood from this that there never existed any reason why anyone should intrude dies Mercoris into this Notice. At the end of the eighth century, however, it had long been in common use to designate the days of the week by the names of the planets: on which matter Barnabé Brisson [Commentarius ad L. Dominico, de spectaculis, in C. Theod. et L Omnes dies, cod. de feriis. In Gronovius, Thesaur. antiquit. graec. vol. VIII, col. 2362 and following.] and our Antonio Lupi Sepulcrum Severae illustratum, page 18. 19, 99. 100. have spoken with such diligence, the former citing the sayings of ancient writers, the latter chiefly stone monuments, that almost nothing is left. And this very form Mercoris in place of Mercurii is ancient. For die Mercoris is read in the Tironian notes, written in the fourth or fifth century and published by Gruter at the end of his Thesaurus Ibid. page 100.; likewise die Mercuris in the epitaph of Matrona, a Christian woman Aringhi, Roma subterranea, book III, chap. 3, vol. I, page 248., and dies Mercoris in the precept which King Zwentibold gave in the year 898 In Martène. Anecdot. vol. I, col. 58.. Besides, dies Lunis and dies Saturnis were said likewise. This expression, then, the scribe may have brought into the subscription from common speech, just as that class of men sprinkled so many other singular things over diplomas: which Le Cointe wished here and there to be removed, yet very often without proving his case to the learned.

[5] nor the indiction, which was in use before the empire of Charlemagne: Nor does it please me to remove the note of indiction. In actual truth Le Cointe Annal. eccles. year 801, num. 12, vol. VI, page 763 and 764. deeply conceived this law, that the indiction was not used by Charlemagne before he obtained the empire, nor by the kings his predecessors, lest they should seem to be subject to the emperors of Constantinople; and according to this law he attributes to forgers either the diplomas themselves or at least their subscriptions, as many as bore the sign of the indiction; nay, he even wished indictions to be removed from the copies of councils Ibid. at the year 575, num. 5, vol. II, page 157. and pursued them here and there elsewhere. Papebroch held almost the same opinion Acta SS. vol II of April. Propyl. antiquar. page VII and passim.: but Mabillon judged that it should be somewhat moderated: With the most distinguished man (Le Cointe), he says De re diplomatica, book II, chap. 24, num. 2, page 178., I agree that the use of the indiction in Frankish diplomas before the beginning of the ninth century was almost none, in historical matters very rare: but I am persuaded that it sometimes had place in the acts of councils and in other monuments: and he then establishes this by certain monuments. Nay rather, with his candour, he admits as authentic the diploma of St. Arnulf of Metz, which concludes, he says Ibid. book II, chap. 26, num. 4, page 190., in this manner in the autograph: Given on the kalends of May in the 15th and 9th year of our reign, and in the year from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ seven hundred and eighty-three, on the day of the Lord's Ascension, on whose vigil the

our sweetest wife died in the 12th year of our union. Done at the villa of Thionville, our palace, in the name of God, happily. Indict. VI. To which he adds that he would not easily have held it genuine had he not inspected an authentic copy of the best mark; for Charles passed over the solemn conditions of other diplomas; but that he did this out of longing for and memory of his wife Hildegard, buried at St. Arnulf's: from which it may appear that he too adhered somewhat to that opinion that indictions were brought into Frankish diplomas through the transfer of the empire to the Franks. But truly I do not know whether it would please more than a few that Charles passed over the solemn conditions of other diplomas because his wife had died the day before! Besides, this diploma is not singular; and so the writers of the Art of chronology Art de vérifier les dates, vol. I, page 556. openly confess that the indiction is found in some diplomas of Charlemagne given before the beginning of his empire. And certainly the diploma of Kremsmünster, which Charles granted on January 3 of the year 791 and which is accused of forgery by no one (so far as I know) [Cf. D. Bouquet, vol. V, page 755; De Foy, Notice des diplômes, page 195; Migne, Caroli M. Opp. vol. I, col. 1066.], is closed with these words Rettenpacher, Annales Monast. Cremifanensis, page 30.: Given on the 3rd of the nones of January, in the 14th indiction, in the 23rd year of the reign of the lord Charles, most serene king. Done at Worms, in the name of God, happily. Nothing, therefore, prevents the indiction from having been added also to the Placitum of Digne; especially since in this kind of instrument the notes of time are as various as possible, while in diplomas the same norms commonly tend to recur.

[6] that St. Maurontus died on October 21 of the year 786, from this Further, although we judge that the dies Mercoris and the note of indiction are to be retained, we must nevertheless confess that no small difficulty arises from this. For about that time Wednesday and the 8th of the kalends of March coincide only in the years 775 and 786: neither of which agrees with the 12th year of the reign of Charles in Francia, from wherever you draw the beginning of this era Cf. Art de vérifier les dates, vol. I, page 556.; but the year 786 accords with the 12th year of the reign of Charles in Italy, or of the Lombard reign, which therefore seems to be retained. This year is marked with the 9th indiction in the common tables, whereas in the Placitum of Digne, as the de Sainte-Marthe brothers published it, indiction II is read, by a most certain error of the printers, or a confusion of Arabic numerals with Roman: for earlier the de Sainte-Marthe brothers had reported these notes of time in another way Gallia Christ. vol. III, page 647.: In the 12th year of the reign of Charles, indict. XI, the 8th of the kalends of March: so that there can be no doubt that they found the number 11 in Peiresc's papers, which they followed in publishing that writing. How easily these two numbers XI and IX are confused with each other there is scarcely need for me to point out. Whatever else one may please to suppose, much graver corrections have to be made. For if you judge that the 12th year of the reign in Francia is to be held, you fall either on the year 780, or 783, and perhaps also 784 Cf. Art de vérifier les dates, vol. I, page 556.: with which none of the remaining notes agree.

[7] and it seems it can be deduced from the time of his successor Yvo. Since, then, it is more probable to us that St. Maurontus was bishop of Marseille in the month of February of the year 786, we give him shortly after as successor Yvo, whom de Belsunce Hist. des évêques de Marseille, vol. I, page 301. also places after him, but whom the Gallia Christiana Vol. I, col. 641 and 681. omits and places only among the abbots of St. Victor. But that he was at the same time abbot of St. Victor and at the same time bishop of Marseille will appear below. Here this one thing is to be sought, in what year he succeeded St. Maurontus, so that from this we may arrive at the time of the latter's death. Now de Belsunce states that Yvo was already abbot and bishop on March 12 of the year 781 Ibid. page 301 and 302., because in a certain Notice of St. Victor Cf. Gallia Christ. vol. I, page 681, and de Belsunce, page 301., made on the day after the 4th of the ides of March in the 13th year of the reign of the most glorious lord Charles, king of the Franks and the Lombards and patrician of the Romans, in the 9th indiction, Yvo is called by the grace of God bishop, rector and governor of that church (of St. Victor). Further, in the month of March the 13th year of Charlemagne reigning in Francia coincides with the year of Christ 781 or 784 Cf. Wailly, Éléments de diplomatique, vol. I, page 270.; but the 13th year of his reign in Italy with the year 787 Cf. ibid. loc. cit.. To this year, according to the common reckoning, the 10th indiction was attached; but according to that computation which begins the indictions from the year 314, the indiction will be the 9th: which is seen in the Notice. And, although interpretations of this kind please little, they are nevertheless better than the remedies which are applied to books and charters by everyone at pleasure: wherefore, until something better occurs, the death of St. Maurontus seems to be placed at the year 786, namely on October 21; so that Yvo succeeded shortly after and was present at the drawing up of that Notice in the month of March of the following year.

[8] [His predecessor cannot be learned from the fables about the consecration at Aniane;] About the beginnings of St. Maurontus's episcopate all things are far more uncertain. De Belsunce Vol. I, page 293 and following. judges that John I preceded him, whom almost all the others [Sainte-Marthe, vol. III, page 647; Gallia Christ. vol. I, col. 640; Papon, Hist. de Provence, vol. I, page 344, etc.] prefer to ignore. For inserting John in the lists of Marseille these arguments are put forward. In the inscription on the consecration of the altar of Aniane in the diocese of Maguelone it is read that 366 bishops were present at this solemnity:

O by what and how many prelates was this place consecrated! Three hundred and six, and in number also six tens Ap. de Belsunce, vol. I, page 294 and Guesnay, Annal. eccles. page 247..

This tradition is propped by the authority, such as it is, of a certain sermon on the same consecration, falsely ascribed to Ardo Smaragdus, in which it is read of Charlemagne Ibid. locc. citt. and Acta SS. Ord. S. Benedicti saec. IV, part I, page 225.: After whose establishment (of the church of Aniane), returning from the siege of the city of Narbonne, in which he had expelled the Agarene nation, having held a synod there, he invited CCCLXVI pontiffs and gathered them for the work of consecration. Further, in tables written in Gothic script these things are found Ibid. locc. citt.: These are the names of the archbishops and bishops who were at the consecration of the altar of the monastery of the Holy Saviour of Aniane in the diocese of Maguelone, who are CCCL[X]VI in number, at the time when Charles the Great was king of Francia, patrician of the Romans and emperor of the Germans; the bishops of the province subscribed: Felix, archbishop of Arles, Valentinus, archbishop of Aix, John, bishop of Marseille, etc. Guesnay referred these things to the year 795 Annal. page 247.; by which chronological order John would be later than St. Maurontus. But de Belsunce Vol. I, page 293 and following. attached them to about the year 774: warning, however, that these things are full of fables; but that the fable-makers, who may easily have lived in the tenth century, had good catalogues before their eyes, from which they collected these 366 bishops. But since in other matters they plainly indulged their fancy and forged the most rotten fables, why should they not similarly have conceived the names of these prelates in their own brain? But if de Belsunce's opinion should please anyone, let him at least not place John before the year 782, since it is established from the Life of St. Benedict of Aniane [Acta SS. vol. II of February, page 614; Acta SS. Ord. S. Benedicti, saec. IV, part I, page 200.] that this consecration was not made before the said year.

[9] nor, accordingly, the beginning of St. Maurontus's episcopate. Le Cointe, on the contrary, rejects these things and gave St. Maurontus a wholly different predecessor, writing thus at the year 767 Annal. eccles. Franc. at the year 767, num. 28, vol. V, page 710.: In the same year, the sixteenth of King Pepin, Maurontus, from being abbot of saint Victor, is said in Jean-Baptiste Guesnay's Ecclesiastical Annals of Marseille to have been taken up into the see of Honoratus, bishop of Marseille, deceased. This author had thought otherwise in Cassianus illustratus Chap. 25, num. 43., when he wrote thus of Maurontus: Maurontus, from being abbot of saint Victor of Marseille, is said to have been taken up into the see of Berengar, bishop of Marseille, deceased, in the Christian year 780, the 9th year of the pontificate of Adrian I, Charlemagne being king of the Franks and Lombards. He seemed then to have followed the catalogue of the bishops of Marseille published by Severt, in which Berengar is placed in the year 769 and St. Maurontus in the year 780. We do not deny that Maurontus sat in the year of Christ 780. But about the year in which he undertook the pontificate and about his predecessor we do not agree with Severt. Hear our opinion in a few words. Under King Pepin, Bishop Honoratus ruled the diocese of the people of Marseille, Abbot Maurontus the monastery of saint Victor. Honoratus died in the year of Christ 767; then Maurontus was made bishop from abbot, of whom we shall say more in the following volume at the year of Christ 780. This is the opinion of Le Cointe, but nothing more than an opinion. For as that Berengar is recorded at the year 769 on no authority, so is Honoratus at the year 767 on no testimony of antiquity; and so the brothers de Sainte-Marthe Gallia Christ. vol. III. page 647., Denis de Sainte-Marthe Gallia Christ. nov. vol. I, col. 640., de Belsunce Hist. des évêq. de Marseille, vol. I, page 293., Papon Hist. de Provence, vol. I, page 344. and long before them Ruffi Hist. de Marseille, vol. II, page 17. struck out both Berengar and Honoratus from the diptychs of Marseille. We must therefore confess that it is wholly unknown who was the predecessor of St. Maurontus and in what year he first put on the infula. But this we firmly hold in mind, that from the beginning St. Maurontus was at the same time abbot of St. Victor and bishop of Marseille; and that perhaps the cathedral see was at that time established in the monastery of St. Victor, and that the most holy man lived there with his clerics in place of the former monks: and that this condition of things persisted until the year of Christ 973. But these things are to be pursued more broadly in the following paragraph.

§ II. St. Maurontus and his successors at the same time bishops of Marseille and abbots of St. Victor.

[A great part of the history of the monastery of St. Victor has been rightly written.] That the abbey of St. Victor was founded at the beginning of the fifth century by St. Cassian the Collator is a certain thing. Innumerable writers have spoken of this matter; among whom Cuper, in our work at July 23, on which St. Cassian is venerated at Marseille

Acta SS. vol. V of July, page 478 and following.. The abbots who succeeded him in holding the government are either hidden or very uncertain until Magnus, who presided over the monastery of St. Victor at the beginning of the eighth century. Then much darkness until the year 973, in which that house of ascetics was placed under the Benedictine Rule. The fortunes that followed were first excellently illustrated by Martène Ampliss. collect. vol. I, pref. page XLVII., who recalled to correct chronology the time of the restoration of the monastic life there, explained the manner and reason of this matter, and unrolled the long series of abbeys which from the beginning of the eleventh century were joined and subjected to the monastery of St. Victor. In our work also you have the Life of St. Isarn Acta SS. vol. VI of Sept. page 728 and following., abbot of the renewed monastery, from which much can also be drawn about this palaestra of virtues. Guesnay, Ruffi, Denis de Sainte-Marthe, de Belsunce, Helyot and others explain the more recent deeds; a great part of which can do little for edification: so that after innumerable efforts at reformation attempted from the end of the twelfth century, this abbey was at length secularized by Clement XII and Benedict XIV and changed into a secular canonry of nobles; which most wretched thing was at last carried into execution in the year 1751. Since, then, all these things are sufficiently explained elsewhere and pertain little to the praise of St. Maurontus and the elucidation of his actions, it is manifest that they are to be set aside by us. But that part of the fortunes of the house of St. Victor which is nearer to the age of St. Maurontus and has hitherto (so far as I know) been unfolded by no one seems to need to be explained somewhat more broadly: yet so that we treat almost solely the argument of the union of the episcopate of Marseille with the office of abbot of St. Victor.

[11] [That from the eighth century until the tenth was well advanced the abbey of St. Victor and the cathedral church were wholly united is made out by five kinds of arguments.] Now, that we may make this union certain, here in a few words is the series of our arguments. First, that from the time of St. Maurontus until the year 973 no abbot is found at St. Victor's, no monk; second, that one or another bishop of this age is openly called bishop of Marseille, and at the same time presides in the church of St. Victor, or is bishop of the church of Marseille which is built in honour of holy Mary ever Virgin, where St. Victor rests in body; from which it is plain that the church of St. Victor was then the cathedral; third, that in all the placita and diplomas of that time the bishops of Marseille bear the person of the abbots, are reinvested with the goods of St. Victor; that the advocates of St. Victor are called the advocates of the bishops, and other things of that kind; fourth, that it is not monks who consent to alienations, but the clerics of the bishops, or the cathedral chapter, who seem to have been possessors of the same goods together with the bishop; and fifth, lastly, that when the monks are restored, only a part of the goods is given back by the bishop and clerics, the rest being retained. Wherefore I do not at all doubt that the bishop of Marseille with his canons succeeded the Cassianite monks, the former title of the first dignity in the abbey being, however, retained (as usually happens).

[12] St. Maurontus was at the same time bishop and abbot; These arguments indeed cannot be put forward concerning each of the bishops singly; but some concerning some, others concerning others, so that the matter must be considered as a whole, not piece by piece. Further, that St. Maurontus was at the same time bishop of Marseille and abbot of St. Victor is established from the Placitum of Digne, which we have already said will be explained by us below. For in it not only is Maurontus read as bishop of the city of Marseille, but as having come with the instruments of holy Mary and saint Victor (for the monastery of St. Victor then had two patrons); and so the missi dominici, when they had judged that the cause of St. Victor was good, are said to have caused Bishop Maurontus himself to be reinvested, so that for all time thereafter he should have that house called St. Victor's, and that villa with its appurtenances, as claimed: it is plain, then, that in the Placitum of Digne St. Maurontus entirely sustained the part of the abbot of St. Victor.

[13] likewise Yvo; That Yvo, whom we have called his successor, was likewise bishop of Marseille and abbot of St. Victor becomes manifest from the great Cartulary of St. Victor, fol. 24 verso, in which is read Gallia Christ. vol. I, col. 681; cf. de Belsunce, vol. I, page 301.: Yvo, by the grace of God bishop, rector and governor of that church (of St. Victor). Nor say that very often in that age abbots were adorned with the episcopal infula, not that they might administer a diocese, but that they might celebrate episcopal offices in their abbey: which we ourselves established above in the Commentary on St. Anatolius See above, page 314.: for, lest this exception be made, we have advised that the matter be considered not singly but as a whole; nay more, we think a longer series of these bishops should be run through; namely so that it may become clear that at that time it was the custom at Marseille that the diocesan bishop should at the same time be abbot of St. Victor, not that the abbot of St. Victor should be bishop for the advantage of his own monastery alone, or abbot and bishop of the monastery, as they liked to say in that age.

[14] likewise Wadald; After Yvo, de Belsunce places Gulfaricus and Babo in the see of Marseille; about whom nothing certain is established, not even in what order they ought to be recorded in the catalogue of Marseille. But in the year 817 or 818 Wadald, Vadald or Guadald was most certainly at the same time bishop of Marseille and abbot of St. Victor. For in the record of a certain agreement made Gallia Christ. vol. I, instr. col. 106; De Belsunce, vol. I, page 310 and 311. Vadald is called by the grace of God bishop of Marseille, and he so conducts the cause of the abbey of St. Victor that, no less than St. Maurontus, he must be held wholly as abbot. For the lands about which the suit was are said to be the property of St. Victor, martyr of Marseille, or of the pontiff of that church, Bishop Vadald, or of the clergy of that city, and they are adjudged to the house of God of St. Victor of Marseille itself or to the agents who ought to have its affairs. and if the other party should wish to sell that plantation, they ought to offer it to Bishop Vadald or his successors or to the clergy of that church, as it has been valued by good men… The agreement made on the tenth day of the kalends of June in the fourth year of the empire of our lord Louis. Indiction XI. The 4th year of the empire of Louis coincided in the month of May with the year of Christ 817; which year was designated by indiction X: but if the beginnings of the indictions are placed at the year of Christ 312, according to this computation indiction XI agrees with the year 817. To about the same time belongs a charter of the convent of the Holy Saviour, whose title is In De Belsunce, vol. I, page 313: Description of the serfs of the territory of Columbarium, made in the time of Bishop Guadald, indiction XI.

[15] likewise Theodebert; Theodebert, or Teupert, succeeded Wadald in both offices, episcopal and abbatial. For he had confirmed by Louis the Pious the privilege formerly given to the monks of St. Victor by Charlemagne D. Bouquet, vol. VI, page 533.: in which he is called the venerable man Theodbert, bishop of Marseille; he plays all the parts of the abbot of St. Victor; he shows that it had been granted by Charlemagne that he should concede the toll to the aforesaid church of saint Victor, martyr of Marseille, or to its rectors; and he earnestly asks that the aforesaid church of St. Victor, over which Theodbert himself presides as bishop by God's authority, may merit to have also the authority of Lothair. To which diploma this is the closing clause: Given on the kalends of November, in the [IX] year, Christ being propitious, of the empire of the lord Louis, most pious Augustus, in the first indiction. Done at Isemburg, the royal palace. Theodebert obtained a renewal of the same privilege [Gallia Christ. vet. vol. III, page 649; Nova, vol. I, instr. page 107. D. Bouquet, vol. VIII, page 372 and 373.], conceived in the same words, from the emperor Lothair on the 8th of the ides of February, in the year, Christ being propitious, of the empire of the lord Hlothar, most serene Augustus, in Francia the I, in Italy the XII , indict. XIII . Done at Aachen, the royal palace. On the same day he obtained also another diploma by which royal protection is confirmed to the monastery of St. Victor D. Bouquet, vol. VIII, page 373.. In it is read: Teubert, bishop of the church of Marseille, which is built in honour of holy Mary ever Virgin, where saint Victor rests in body; and then he plays all the parts of the abbot before Lothair. The first diploma was granted in the year 822 or 823, the second and third in the year 841.

[16] likewise Alboin: Alboin came after Theodebert; and that he, no less than his predecessors, was at the same time abbot of St. Victor and bishop of Marseille is made manifest by the Notice of the restitution of the toll of the villa of Leguinum made to the monastery of St. Victor at the request and action of Alboin, bishop of Marseille. For in it a certain Alexandrius is called the advocate of Bishop Alboin for that house of God of St. Victor, martyr of Marseille, and further on the same man is called now the advocate of Bishop Albuin, now the advocate of St. Victor, and the restitution of the things taken away is ordered to be made to Alexandrius, advocate of St. Victor, or to Bishop Albuin… This notice was made on the 8th of the kalends of August in the 5th year of the empire of our lord Lothair the emperor, indiction VI. The common indiction VI coincides with the year of Christ 843; with which the 5th year of the empire of Lothair does not agree, if you draw its beginnings from June 20 of the year 840, on which his father died; but otherwise if you reckon it from the end of the month of May of the preceding year, in which Louis the Pious divided his empire among his sons.

[17] likewise Berengar; But whether Leodoin, who wore the infula of Marseille at least from the year 875 to 879, was abbot of St. Victor, there is nothing from which it can be drawn out. After him comes Berengar; while he held the episcopate of Marseille, Denis de Sainte-Marthe makes a certain Hugh abbot of St. Victor Gallia Christ. vol. I, col. 682.. But de Belsunce Hist. des évêq. de Marseille, vol. I, page 329. thinks entirely otherwise, supposing this Hugh to be an abbot of the dominion of Carloman. And certainly no one will doubt that this is that celebrated Hugh, son of Hugh count of Altorf and Auxerre, abbot of St. Germain of Auxerre, St. Martin of Tours, St. Bertin, St. Vaast and St. Columba of Sens, guardian of Carloman and greatest defender of the kingdom, duke of Burgundy, Neustria and Francia, or administrator of the kingdom, who has compared the diploma given on the 3rd of the ides of August of the year 883 for the church of Orléans In D. Bouquet, vol. IX, page 431. with the diploma given on the fourth of the nones of February of the following year, in which Denis de Sainte-Marthe seemed to himself to have found an abbot Hugh of St. Victor, and by which the villa of Cilianum is restored to the monastery of St. Victor of Marseille Ibid. page 432.. And so, since in this diploma Berengar, bishop of Marseille, entreats that Carloman restore to the church in

honour of the Mother of God and of St. Victor the villa of Cilianum, we judge that it is he who is spoken of when it is said there: That as long as the present abbot and his successors shall live, they shall possess the same villa under the dominion of St. Mary and St. Victor …; especially since a little before Carloman professes that he has restored the aforesaid villa to the already mentioned church of Marseille in honour of the most blessed and undefiled virgin Mary and of saint Victor, under the protection of the pastoral care of Berengar, pontiff of the same place, etc.

[18] likewise perhaps Magnus, and certainly Drogo; Whether Venator occupied the see of Marseille after Berengar is uncertain; it is not, then, to be inquired whether he was abbot of St. Victor. But in the year 904 at first sight one seems to have been abbot and another bishop of Marseille. For in the diploma of Louis, king of Provence Ibid. page 682., given on the 11th of the kalends of May in the year of the Lord 904, indiction VII, in the 4th year of the rule of our lord Hludovic, it is read that Rostagnus, metropolitan (of Arles), and Teubert, count, … very earnestly asked that King Louis grant by proper right to his faithful Magnus, abbot of the church, namely, of Mary the Mother of God and of the glorious martyr Victor… the fisc which is named Pinus. Yet I would dare assert nothing, since under Drogo, who was created bishop some years afterward, the episcopal and abbatial croziers seem still to have been joined: so that Magnus is perhaps called abbot either because he was only elected, or because he acted under the title of abbot. But as regards Drogo, these things are read of him in the Gallia Christiana Vol. I, col. 548 and 549.: There exists in an old copy of St. Victor of Marseille an instrument by which Manasses gives to Drogo, bishop of Marseille, an allod of the right of his church … for the food and clothing of the clerics of Marseille … on the nones of January of the year 923. The church of Marseille had suffered many losses in the incursion of certain barbarians, namely the Saracens; in which storm the bishop was cast out of his church. Since this instrument was preserved in the archive of St. Victor with the rest recounted above, it is a firm argument that it was granted when Drogo (as we have seen openly asserted of Theodebert) had his see in the monastery of St. Victor; especially if the things which we have set forth about the other bishops be duly considered. Moreover the church of Marseille, which is said to have suffered so much, is held to be the church of St. Victor itself Cf. de Belsunce, vol. I, page 337.. Besides, in the same archive was preserved a composition entered into by Drogo with a certain Pontius in the year 925 or 935 or 936 Gallia Christ. vol. I, col. 642; de Belsunce, vol. I, page 338.: from which the same argument can be constructed.

* XXI

* IIII.

§ III. The end and cause of this state of things. The first Benedictine abbots.

St. Honoratus II brought Benedictine monks into St. Victor's. St. Honoratus also, whom some call the III, but we with others the II, seems to have joined the abbatial office with the episcopal, until he brought monks of St. Benedict into the monastery of St. Victor. For he saw to it that certain goods were restored to this house of ascetics by Count Boso, and in the Notice of that restitution Ibid. vol. I, instrum. page 108 and 109. he is introduced acting in such a way that he manifestly seems to be dealing with his own affairs. That this pertains to the year 962 de Belsunce has shown Vol. I, page 345., having refuted the opinion of Denis de Sainte-Marthe Gallia Christ, vol. I, col 643., who refers the same to the year 994. But this was the greatest praise of St. Honoratus, that to the monastery of St. Victor, once pre-eminent and most famous, then brought to nought and reduced almost to nothing and already almost fallen, he himself and some other leading men stretched out the hand of raising up, who not only gave back something to it from its own (namely from the monastery's own goods), but also bestowed much from their own possessions, and, gathering monks, ordained an abbot there. So says Pontius, St. Honoratus's successor, in the year 1005 Gallia Christ. vol. I, instrum. page 109.. Before, then, the abbey of St. Victor had no monks, nor an abbot of its own; nay rather, the bishop with his clerics held the goods of the monastery: and these things become even more evident from the diploma by which St. Honoratus and his clerics restored many, though not most, things to the monastery of St. Victor: With my clerics, says St. Honoratus in this instrument Ibid. page 108., kindled with divine love, in honour of God almighty and of saint Victor the martyr, we desire that a congregation of monks according to the rule of St. Benedict be established in the abbey of the same saint Victor, that they may daily intercede with the Lord for me and our successors and for the state of our church, that the goodness of the Lord may pardon us our sins and grant us eternal life; and, that they may be able to live there more profitably according to the rule, we grant them something of the land which is known to belong to the same abbey; then the restored goods are enumerated. Not all, however, are given back; nay, at the end the monks are forbidden to claim for themselves those lands of St. Victor which St. Honoratus himself is to possess: so that it is clearer than the sun that the monastery of St. Victor had previously been possessed entire by St. Honoratus and his clerics, and that no one else had any further right in it, nor accordingly were all its goods to be restored when monks were again brought into it.

[20] not in the year 966, but in 975. That these things were done after the 13th of the kalends of September in the 31st year of the reign of Conrad, king of the Alamanni or of the Provinces, is certain; for from the Placitum held on this day before William, count of Provence, between Honoratus, bishop of Marseille, and Garibald and Avonancius concerning a certain land, it is plainly evident that the property of St. Victor was then entirely in the hands of St. Honoratus. Further, since the years of King Conrad, surnamed the Peaceful, are to be computed from after the month of June, but before September 15, of the year 937, as is easily gathered from many diplomas In D. Bouquet, vol. IV, page 695 C; 697 note b and c; 703 D; 704, note a., that placitum must have been held on August 20 of the year 967, not 968; as Martène and Durand said Amplissima collectio, vol. I, col. 322.. And from this fall the things which de Belsunce brought together Hist. des évêq. de Marseille, vol. I, page 352. to show that monks were brought into the house of St. Victor by St. Honoratus in the year 966. It remains, then, that the arguments be admitted by which Martène and Durand Ampliss. collect. vol. I, pref. page XLVII. established that the monastic life was restored at St. Victor's in the year 973.

[21] The succession of the new abbots. From these things, further, it must be clear that Benedictine monks were brought into the monastery of St. Victor by St. Honoratus and an abbot ordained. Then most certainly the abbot there in the year 984 was Adelard Ibid. page XLVI; and Gallia Christ. vol. I, col. 682.; to whom Pontius himself is witness that he succeeded Ibid. locc. citt.; that Warnerius, or Garnerius, came after is made manifest by several diplomas [Gallia Christ. loc. cit. and Mabillon, Annal. Bened. at the year 1004, num. 6, vol. IV, page 163.]; and that he was not a secular abbot, as Mabillon suggests Annal. Bened. loc. cit., but rather a regular one, is intimated in the instrument of the election of Wifred, his successor, formerly provost under Warnerius. For when Warnerius in the year 1005 saw the number of his monks increasing daily (for within the five years in which Wifred discharged the office of provost they had risen from the number five Chron. S. Vict. Massil. in Labbe, Biblioth. nov. Mss. vol. I, page 339. to above twenty [Cf. the subscriptions to the election of Abbot Wifred in Martène, Ampliss. coll. vol. I, col. 367 and 368.], and when fifteen years afterward he laid down the abbatial crozier with his life, fifty brethren were present Chron. S. Vict. Massil. loc. cit.), when, I say, Warnerius saw that these things were to be credited to the cares and solicitude of Wifred, and that he himself was perhaps unequal to ruling so great a multitude, he asked Pontius, bishop of Marseille, that Wifred be substituted for him with the consent of the monks: and when this had been done and confirmed by a solemn instrument, Warnerius is said in this charter to be so attached to the monastery of St. Victor that he plainly seems to have been from the very bosom of the monks; for he is called, from the monastery dedicated * in honour of St. Victor, father lord Warnerius In Martène, Ampliss. collect. vol. I, col. 367.. Besides, why would St. Honoratus and his successor Pontius, who laboured so greatly that the rule of St. Benedict should be observed at St. Victor's, have permitted a secular abbot to intrude himself there? Nor would Mabillon have come to that opinion, as Martène observes Ibid. pref. page XLVI., if he had had another guide than the Chronicle of St. Victor, or rather if he had rightly understood it: for what is said in it, that in the year 1000 the monastery of Marseille began to be restored, does not pertain to the introduction of the Benedictine rule, but to the beginnings of that wonderful growth by which thereafter the congregation of St. Victor was spread far and wide.

[22] Similarly one may set aside the bull which they say is of Benedict IX; [The writing which is called the Bull of Benedict IX refers this change to the beginning of the eleventh century:] by which the restoration of the monastic life in the monastery of St. Victor is also referred to the beginning of the eleventh century. In this writing, namely, after it has been set forth that the monastery, founded by Cassian, flourished for a long time, it is subjoined [In Faillon, Monuments sur l'apostolat de Sainte Marie Madeleine, vol. II, col. 635, and in several others.]: From the sheath of the Vandals a cunning exactor is drawn out, which he purposes to wish to slay with the corrupted * sword of the ancient serpent. This being extinguished, and the flower of its offspring lost, with the tear of widowhood it remained lamentable and unhappy and consumed by excessive old age. Namely, after the courses of many years, in the times of John XIX of the Roman see, there shone with sacred virtues Abbot Vinfred, ruler of this place, who crucified himself to the world and the world to himself. He therefore, founding these buildings, enlarged them with wonderful teachings, by the will and also the power of the viscounts, or of the excellent prelate of Marseille: and after his death Ysarn took up the ruling of the monastery, that by his merit it might flourish for ever, through which the cenobitic pursuit received its beginning in our parts; that is, that then the monastery of St. Victor flourished again, whose founder Cassian had spread the monastic life through Provence.

[23] but this is at most a notary's instrument, Whether this writing is genuine or not, I for my part would not dare to define; in it, namely, Benedict IX is stated to have consecrated the church of St. Victor and enriched it with notable privileges on the ides of October of the year 1040; while yet it seems to be held that the pontiff at the end of the year 1040 was living not in Provence but at Rome

from the journey of the envoys who went to Rome to see to it that Casimir, a monk of Cluny, be absolved of his vows by Benedict IX, so that he might go to the kingdom of Poland. Besides, in the Chronicle of St. Victor of Marseille written in the year 1055 In Labbe, Biblioth. Mss. nova, vol. I, page 339., and in the Life of Abbot St. Ysarn Acta SS. vol. VI of Sept. page 737 and following., under whom this consecration would have been made, although it is long, accurate and contemporary, there is no memory of those splendid events. This argument is not merely negative, since its force lies in this, that that contemporary chronicler and likewise the biographer, eyewitnesses of so great a celebration, seem to have been bound to speak of it, and yet did not speak of it. Nevertheless this authority is not in every way certain. However that may be, it would surely be absurd to contend that this is a bull of Benedict IX. For the other bulls of this pontiff, which the Rev. Mr. Migne not long ago published in a collection Patrologia, vol. CXLI, col. 1343 and following., are in fairly good Latin; nor in examining the pontifical rescripts of the eleventh century is that law to be neglected which prescribes that credit is not to be given to them if they contain a manifest fault in construction De rescriptis, chap. ad audientiam, (book I, tit. III, chap. 11).; whereas this one is everywhere conceived in a most horrible and incurable style. Second, it has neither the reason nor the manner of any bull that was ever given. Third, in it Benedict IX, a Roman by nation, is introduced calling Provence our parts; by which words the Marseille scribe, plainly forgetting the person of Pope Benedict, substitutes himself for him. Launoy raises many other objections [Disquisitio disquisitionis de Magdalena Massiliensi advena, Opp. vol. II, part I, page 262 and 263.]; which de Belsunce removes Hist. des évêques de Marseille, vol. I, page 388 and 389. by throwing them all back on the notary, who wrote not a bull but a record or public instrument of the consecration of the church and of the privileges granted by Benedict IX. And certainly there is no other way of defending the genuineness of this writing.

[24] Let us grant, then, that it is a notary's instrument; but let this also be granted us, that he was so unskilled that he was ignorant of or confused even contemporary events. having errors about contemporary events, and accordingly to be little regarded. For in the passage cited above he substitutes for John XVIII, who held the papacy in the time of Abbot Wifred and granted the monks of St. Victor a diploma of protection [Marini, Papiri diplomatici, vol. I, page 64, and in Migne, Patrologia, vol. CXXXIX, col. 1492.], John XIX, who immediately preceded Benedict IX. Indeed in numbering the pontiffs of that name a diversity has long been observed, since some call John, son of Robert, who was elected but seems never to have been consecrated, John XV, whom almost all the others omit, calling his successor John XV Cf. Papebroch, Propyl. Maji, page * 169 and 170.. But this diversity did not exist in the eleventh century, and is to be attributed to the more recent chronologers of this era: for many bulls of John XV In Migne, Patrologia, vol. CXXXVII, col. 827 and following. and XVIII Ibid. vol. CXXXIV, col. 1477 and following. still survive, in which it is indicated, either by numbers or by whole words, which in order they were; but in all of them no account is taken of John, son of Robert. From which it may be plain how badly Desiderius the notary had been taught the affairs of St. Victor. But if he stumbled thus in a matter so near (for John XVII sat from the year 1004 to 1009, and John XIV from the year 1024 to 1033 immediately before Benedict IX), what credit shall we give him in more ancient matters?

[25] [What the Rev. Mr. Faillon thought of the causes of the ruin of the monastery of St. Victor;] Now if it be asked how it came about that the Cassianites ceased in the house of St. Victor, the answer is not so easy. The Rev. Mr. Faillon Monuments inédits, etc. vol. I, col. 787 and 788. first shows that the Saracens were accustomed to preserve some churches on this condition, that the Christians who went to them should pay a fixed tax and that all offerings should be made into their hands; and that for this reason mercenary presbyters were here and there instituted by them: which things are entirely true: further, that since the privilege of a plenary indulgence, long since granted to the church of St. Victor, drew many pilgrims thither, this church was not overthrown by them on account of that foul avarice, and that, since the Cassianites and the clergy of the city did not sufficiently consent to this wringing out of money, a mercenary presbyter, or cunning exactor, was drawn out of the sheath of the Vandals, that is, out of the region and dominion of the Saracens, namely Africa or Spain, and established at St. Victor's: on which interpretation, or divination, let others pass judgment: for my part I do not see that the Saracens ever ruled Marseille for a few weeks; that afterward secular abbots came, so that what the locust left the mildew ate Joel, I, 4., until Wifred at the beginning of the eleventh century restored the monastery: and indeed these things conflict as much as possible with what we gathered a little before from the diplomas.

[26] what it seems to us should be thought. What I myself think I will indicate in a few words: first, that it is more than sufficiently established that southern Gaul, especially the sea-coasts, from the beginning of the eighth century until almost the end of the tenth, was very often harassed, despoiled, and defiled with slaughter and ruins by the Saracens; yet that no special mention is made of Marseille, except that at the year 838 it is read in the chronicles [Cf. the annals of Prudentius of Troyes, in Pertz, Monum, German. vol. I, page 432.] that the pirate fleets of the Saracens, rushing upon Marseille of Provence, having carried off the nuns, of whom no small congregation lived there, and all and every one of the male sex, clerics and laymen, and having laid waste the city, carried away with them also the treasures of the churches of Christ universally. Second, that Marseille does not seem to have been much harassed by the Saracens before the Notice of Digne was written in the year 786 or, if you prefer, 780; since this is not at all intimated in that charter. Third, that the origin of the ruin of the monastery of St. Victor seems to be traced to the despoiling which the patrician Antenerus, or Anthemius, perhaps judging all the goods of St. Victor to be demesne, perpetrated at the beginning of the eighth century: this is explained at length in the Notice of the Placitum of Digne, which we shall give a little later. Fourth, that from this it necessarily came about that, since the monastery of St. Victor no longer had those resources by which the monks might live, they partly melted away by dispersion and partly gradually ceased by death. Fifth, that since that monastery was not exempt, by common law it passed into the power and ownership of the bishop as soon as the Cassianites had failed. Sixth, that the title of the abbey, however, was not extinguished, but assumed by the bishop; who perhaps migrated thither because the cathedral church and the episcopal buildings were in a worse state: Seventh, that when the Saracens filled Marseille with slaughter and ruins, the cathedral church seems to have suffered much more than the church of saint Victor; so that the latter preserved its diplomas, but the cathedral church lost them. Eighth, that hence it happened (unless this had been done already before) that in the year 822 Theodebert, bishop of Marseille, had his see with his clerics in the monastery of St. Victor. Ninth, that it does not, however, follow from this that he and the other bishops who wrote themselves abbots of St. Victor professed the monastic or canonical life, and accordingly that it can be made out by no argument that St. Maurontus was ever a monk, much less a Benedictine, and so that he was rightly and deservedly placed by Mabillon among those passed over in the fourth Benedictine century. Lastly, tenth, that when St. Honoratus II brought monks back to the same place and gave them the rule of St. Benedict to fulfil, this was a new foundation, and that he (so far from having acted against justice when he did not restore all its former goods to the monastery of St. Victor) acted liberally when he gave a part. For long since all things had been made subject to the right and full ownership of the bishop.

* honori dicato.

* others corrupta

§ IV. The tomb of St. Maurontus and his recent ecclesiastical Office.

St. Maurontus was buried in the crypt of St. Victor in a pagan sarcophagus, The monastery of St. Victor was formerly situated outside the walls of the city, as has often been shown from old diplomas: wherefore, by the discipline of that age, there was no hindrance to St. Maurontus being buried in its crypt. A drawing and explanation of this crypt you have in the work of the Rev. Mr. Faillon on St. Mary Magdalen and the other saints of the same house [Monuments inédits sur l'apostolat de Sainte Marie-Madeleine, etc., vol. I, col. 541 and following.]. An image of the tomb of St. Maurontus was given long ago by Ruffi Hist. de Marseille, vol. II, page 129., and more recently by Millin Voyage au midi de la France, vol. III, pl. XXXVII, 3., who also showed the former tomb of St. Victor of Marseille Ibid. vol. III, pl. XXVI, 4., in which the forge of Vulcan is seen: for it had first received profane ashes. The first use of the mausoleum of St. Maurontus was no other; it, carved from deep marble, once contained the remains of a pagan girl: of which similar examples are shown by the Roman catacombs and other cemeteries [Raoul-Rochette, Tableau des Catacombes, chap. 4, page 296 and following, Brussels ed.]. On the shield (I speak of the tomb of St. Maurontus), on which two genii, furnished with toga, wings and palm, lay their hands, and which rests on a trunk with a captive man and woman seated beside it, these words are read:

D. M

IVLIAE QVIN

TINAE. QOSSV

TIA HYCLA

MATER FILI

AE PIISSIMÆ.

[28] on which some things concerning Bacchus are carved. From each side two centaurs, male and female, drawing a chariot, approach this shield. On the left of the onlookers the female centaur bears a horn of plenty, and on the back of the male centaur stands a little boy, laurelled and covered with a chlamys; unless I am mistaken, Cupid. In the chariot stands a naked youth, leaning on a long staff, with his right hand embracing the neck of a naked woman; this is to me Bacchus with Ariadne or Libera. On the right the female centaur holds a branch in her right hand; on the back of the other centaur stands a winged genius, holding something in his hand, and his shoulders covered with a cloak: I should believe it to be Psyche. In the chariot stands a girl clothed in a stola, holding a palm in her left hand. This is Julia Quintina herself. Fairly similar to this sculpture is Gori's marble XXVII Inscriptiones Antiquae, vol. I, table XXVII.; in this, however, the deceased and Bacchus occupy the same chariot, and two naked youths the other chariot. Lami Eccles. Florentinae Monum. vol, I at the end. also published an image of a sarcophagus preserved in the archbishop's palace at Lucca; whose left part is similar to the left part of the sarcophagus of St. Maurontus;

but the right shows Bacchic orgies. The same appear in image LXXXVI of volume II of Montfaucon's Antiquities. Nor is the image of Liber rare on tombs: since this was the error of the ancients, that men initiated into his mysteries would after death be partakers of beatitude and free from all punishment; nay more, that Bacchus had gone down to the underworld and brought back many souls of the dead into their former life Ibid. vol. III, page CVIII and CIX.. Cupid and Psyche seated on centaurs will be given by the Giustiniani marble Montfaucon, Antiquité expliquée, vol. I, part I, table CXX., to pass over others. Lastly, Bacchus with Ariadne or Libera borne in a chariot by Centaurs, with Cupid standing by, may be seen on the marble of Buonarroti, to which they have given the name of the triumph of Bacchus Ibid. part II, table CLVI.. It is notable that the tomb of Blessed Guido of Cortona, a copy of which, such as it is, our predecessors gave Acta SS. vol. II of June, page 604., is not so unlike the tomb of St. Maurontus. It too is profane and shows centaurs fighting with armed men and drawing a chariot in which are a psyche and a youth; whether Bacchus or cupid I do not clearly see. But on these fables see the mythologists. We, for our purpose, have said enough about the profane tomb of Marseille.

[29] Recent lessons of lesser credit. In this tomb, then, as Ruffi Hist. de Marseille, vol. II, page 129. and de Belsunce Hist. des évêques de Marseille, vol. I, page 300. testify, and not in the cathedral church, the ashes of St. Maurontus were preserved until about the beginning of this century. The tomb, then, empty of relics, was placed in the public museum of Marseille. In the ancient breviaries there are no lessons of St. Maurontus, nor anything historical in the ancient hymn Ibid. loc. cit.. The lessons which de Belsunce presents Ibid. page 300 and 301. are, on his own testimony, very recent. It is not worth while to recite them here; for they are still read among the proper Offices which the people of Marseille use, and besides they continually conflict with the things which we have tried to elucidate: namely, it is related that St. Maurontus from his earliest youth took the habit of saint Benedict under Abbot Magnus, whereas nothing suggests that the rule of St. Benedict was in use at St. Victor's before the time of Honoratus II, and that St. Maurontus was a monk there. The same I should say of what you have there about his election as abbot. The rest are commonplaces or pertain to the rescript of Digne. And the end is this: At length, famous for miracles and full of days, he passed to heaven on the twenty-first day of the month of October, in the eight hundred and second year after the birth of Christ; his body, buried at saint Victor's and laid in the lower basilica, is there honourably venerated to this day. It remains that we give the Notice of the Placitum of Digne, illustrated with notes as far as can be done.

THE PLACITUM OF DIGNE,

By which the villa of Caladius and other goods were restored to St. Maurontus.

Maurontus, bishop and confessor, at Marseille in Gaul. (S.)

BY V. D. B.

The origin of the patricians of Marseille; In order that some light may be shed on that placitum, which all agree is most difficult to understand, first of all some things about the patricians of Marseille must be kept well before the eyes. The dignity of patrician, instituted by Constantine the Great, surpassed the others, even the praetorian prefecture. The same obtained in Francia too, at least in the kingdom of the Burgundians, and was of almost the same rank as among the Byzantines; since it seems to have been next after the royal. Further, that name and dignity, says Du Cange Glossarium med. et inf. latinitatis, under Patricius., whom we have chosen as our guide in these matters, may be conjectured to have obtained among the Burgundians rather than among the Franks from the fact that it is read to have been given first to Sigismund, king of the Burgundians, by the emperor of Constantinople; in whose court, since it was pre-eminent, so the Burgundian kings established it as the first in theirs: unless we say that the dignity of the patricians was preserved in the kingdom of Burgundy and indeed of Provence, and the administration of affairs attributed to it, because the kings of the Goths in Italy, who ruled this part of Gaul when the power of the Romans in Italy and in Gaul was declining, committed it to be governed by illustrious men who held the dignity of patrician… But that before these times also the Roman Augusti sent illustrious men of patrician dignity into Gaul to govern it is sufficiently proved by what the Frankish writers have about Aetius, Aegidius and other patricians. However the matter stands, it is established that the Frankish patricians indiscriminately styled themselves patricians of Gaul or of the Gauls, of Burgundy or of Marseille, because it was the principal city of the kingdom of Burgundy, and the kings of the kingdom of Burgundy as well as the Prefects lived in it.

[2] the names of those who are designated in the Placitum of Digne; Du Cange then wove together a catalogue comprising more than thirty patricians of Marseille or of Provence or even of Burgundy. Only the last, who are certain, concern our matter, namely Memphidius, whose wife was Adaltrude; then Antener, patrician, who seems to be no other than the one who is called Antherius, patrician of the Provinces, in a very old charter published by Columbi in the Bishops of Viviers, book I, num. 35, in which Sulpitia his wife is also named; Metrano, patrician; lastly Abbo, patrician; and he seems to be the last who occurs among the patricians of Provence, since this dignity was extinguished under the second line of kings, the kings themselves otherwise claiming this title for themselves. Nor is it to be doubted, since the times agree excellently, that this is the same Abbo the patrician who in the year 726 founded the monastery of Novalesa and in the year 739 made his testament in its favour: of which matter enough was said in the preceding volume Acta SS. vol. VIII of October. page 374..

[3] [The suit about Caladius and other lands, from what circumstances it arose; arguments for St. Maurontus's cause] Now this suit was being argued before the missi dominici, namely whether the villa of Caladius and other lands, which were then for some years past reckoned in fact as belonging to the royal fisc, were truly of royal right, or the property of the monastery of St. Victor. Possession, which avails as title, stood for the royal fisc, since all the things which the patrician Antener had formerly possessed by beneficiary right had been assigned to the fisc, and Caladius also had been held as part of the benefice. But St. Maurontus contended that that possession was illegitimate, as having arisen from Antener's old despoiling and having been at times interrupted. He therefore first of all brought forward the original title of St. Victor, namely the donation of Adaltrude, widow of Nemphidius, formerly patrician of Marseille, and of her sons. The genuineness of this diploma Abbo the patrician approved by his judgment, before whom Antener's iniquity had been demonstrated and at the same time it had been shown how that diploma had been saved from the flames. St. Maurontus strove to make the same genuineness manifest by exhibiting the judgment of the causarii, or procurators, of Charles the mayor of the palace, or Martel; who, since he expelled in the year 737 Maurontus, count of Marseille and perhaps the last patrician, who had impiously made a pact with the Saracens, it is probable that that declaration of the procurators of Charles Martel belongs to about this time. St. Maurontus set forth besides how nevertheless the villa of Caladius had afterward returned again to the royal fisc: namely, that when in the year 766 Provence had fallen to Charlemagne, and there accordingly came into his hands all those things which Antener and other patricians had formerly possessed in the name of benefice, it came about through the confusion of all things that the villa of Caladius was held as royal and added to the allod of Charlemagne. Besides, several witnesses declared that formerly after Antener the villa of Caladius had been given to Metrano by beneficiary right, and then by the same title to Abbo the patrician, and by him under the same name had been granted to the monastery of St. Victor; probably because Abbo, when it had been shown him that Antener had taken this villa from the monks of St. Victor by force and wrong, wished to repair this iniquity by a middle way, ceding to them by a libellary contract, or giving in libellum, the same villa of Caladius. St. Maurontus brought forward besides the polyptych of St. Victor, in which the villa of Caladius was described with the other goods of the same house of ascetics. But what the witnesses had said about the grant in libellum so stood in the way that certainly St. Maurontus would have lost his cause had not two witnesses, an oath having been interposed, made it certain that the patrician Nemphidius and his wife and sons had possessed the villa of Caladius not by title of benefice but by proper right, and that they had transferred all their right to the monks of St. Victor by a charter of cession: for if Nemphidius had held Caladius only in the name of a benefice, he could indeed, as long as he was patrician, have given the usufruct to the monks of St. Victor, but by no means have transferred the ownership to them; and so, when Nemphidius lost the patrician dignity by death or deposition, Caladius would have returned to the king with the other beneficiary goods: for at that time offices were not yet perpetual, much less hereditary; since the beginnings of feudal law are commonly referred to the age of Charles the Bald. The hinge of the whole suit, therefore, turned on this, whether Caladius was of the proper right of Nemphidius the donor, or whether he held that villa by reason of his office, or by way of a stipend.

[4] The judges. When in the name of God at the city of Digne ^a there were sitting publicly the missi ^b of our lord Charles, king of the Franks and the Lombards and also patrician of the Romans: namely Viernerius and Arimadis, together with the lord's rationesburgi ^c, Marcellinus, Jerome, Gedeon, Regnaricus, Corbinus ^d, scabini of suits, scabini of that city ^e, or good men ^f, who were present there with them to hear the altercations of very many men, and to settle the business of causes, and to end them with just or right judgments: the plaintiff, and there came the venerable man Maurontus, bishop of Marseille, into their presence, together with the instruments of holy Mary and saint Victor ^g, which the most venerable and most consecrated to God Adaltrude, widow of Nemsidius ^h, had formerly delegated in that church of holy Mary and saint Victor of Marseille, in which there is inserted as follows: the matter of the suit, That the villa of Caladius ⁱ, together with its appurtenances, or all its adjuncts, the serfs both rustic and urban, freedmen, colonists, tenants, both those dwelling there and those brought there from elsewhere, which is situated in the district of Digne, and also Alpes, which is situated in the district of Embrun ^k, or all that is seen to belong to those villas. But as that charter had been left ^l there before them, so afterward he showed there another report … the instrument of donation renewed, That Abbo the patrician, according to the order of the law concerning the destruction of charters, to write it out in public, or before good priests and illustrious persons, as the law has been confirmed ^m, showed concerning those charters which Antener the patrician had in evil order and with wicked craft drawn out of the very chest of St. Victor and ordered to be burned: after vain attempts to destroy it. that is, the charters which Gotricus and the aforesaid Adaltrude, or which many other persons, had given there to that house of God, of holy Mary or to the most glorious

saint Victor of Marseille. But the abbot at that time was Magnus, when Adaltrude herself, out of good zeal and good wit, kept hidden in her sleeve those charters of Adaltrude which Bishop Maurontus presented there, when she placed the other charters on the altar itself, and there gave an oath and swore thus, that thenceforth there were no more charters in all Marseille concerning that account of saint Victor except so much as was contained on the altar itself. And those charters which were there Antener ordered to be burned up entirely by fire in his presence. And those charters which Adaltrude had kept hidden in her sleeve there in the church she restored again to the chest of saint Victor ⁿ. And the aforesaid bishop showed there another judgment. The right of St. Maurontus already acknowledged by the missi of Charles Martel; How, by the ordinance of the lord Charles, mayor of the palace, he ordered his causarii [p], his missi, to reinvest that house of saint Victor therewith, which he so accomplished; but how, through those quarrels or contentions which there were in Provence [q], that house of God was thereafter divested, and as Antener would take to himself through that confusion [s] the other things which justly fell to the lord king Charles [r] in allod, the error in the time of Charlemagne. so he was seen to have drawn away from that house of God the villa of Caladius as well. But when the missi themselves had seen those authorities and asked that they be read over, they made all those free men who were of the district of Digne and had knowledge of this swear by the interposition of oaths that they must tell the whole truth of the matter therein. The witnesses say that the lands were for a long time beneficiary; Thus they all thus affirmed that he had ceded that villa of Caladius as a benefice to Metrano, who was patrician in Provence for the affair of Marseille, and that afterward Abbo, patrician for the affair of Marseille, granted it as a benefice to holy Mary and saint Victor, because they saw Ancemund, vicedominus of Marseille [t], make the description there for the part of saint Victor of Marseille. And the bishop himself showed the polyptych [v] there in their presence to be read over. The polyptych of St. Victor is produced. But when they had heard those authorities, the missi themselves also thus questioned and adjured them that they should tell the truth therein. But against the bishop himself, or against those charters, someone thus rebelled, that by length of years or by the thirty-year law [x] in time of peace they were able to carry it over to the benefice of his lord, or to the part of the lord king Charles. Prescription is objected to St. Maurontus, but wrongly. But in no way did he undertake to do this. And since no man wished to contradict or contend this, the missi, by those authorities of the writings which had been shown or read over there, caused the bishop to be reinvested, so that for all time thereafter that house of the said saint Victor should have that villa with its appurtenances as claimed. Taurinus and Sanctebert testified, an oath being interposed, [St. Maurontus won, because two witnesses assert that the lands were formerly the property of Nemphidius.] that that villa of Caladius had been the property of the late patrician Nemphidius, and that he had had a wife Adaltrude, by whom he had three sons. And that Nemphidius himself and Adaltrude and the sons had delegated that villa by a charter of cession to that house of God M *. And they themselves saw and had knowledge when Ansemund the vicedominus, by order of the late patrician Abbo, described it for the part of the aforesaid church, and held that villa by the consent or cession of the patrician Abbo for the part of the aforesaid church, and received every event therefrom. Transuarinus and Amatus testified likewise, Venantius the presbyter and Villarius; Hunoald and Theodolin testified likewise; Christian and Theudigilius testified. These are they who were present, whose confirmations or signs are held inserted below. For it was done on Wednesday, the 8th of the kalends of March, in the 12th year of the reign of our lord Charles, indict. XI [y]. Count Marcellinus confirmed. Gedeon, Corbinus, Regnarius, Taurinus, Magnebert, Sanctebert [z] confirm.

ANNOTATIONS.

which was the more useful the more the scabini's skill in law was a help and a light to the counts, as being military men.

p. On this very passage Du Cange has already given his opinion Glossarium, under Cauciarius., judging that we should read causarios, namely those who judge causes; but I nowhere find that judges were ever called causarii Cf. Ibid. under Causarius.. Were not these cauciarii, or causarii, those who at Marseille, when it was wrested from Maurontus in the year 737, conducted the causes of Charles Martel, or were his procurators? For the rest, since the judges and procurators had the norm of the missi dominici, the matter comes to almost the same thing.

q. What these quarrels and contentions were is not clear. Were they the machinations of the partisans of Maurontus?

r. Charlemagne is pointed to, who obtained Provence in the year 768.

s. Misculatio, or mixture, about which many things are laid down in the laws, does not pertain to immovable things; but here this word indicates that by the missi of Charlemagne Caladius and the other villas, formerly occupied by Antener under whatever title, were all held as demesne fields and indiscriminately attributed to the king.

t. Du Cange, treating of this vicedominus of Marseille: Vicedominus, he says Ibid. under Vicedominus., was formerly the name of the judge of Marseille who administered justice under the patrician of the province, from whom appeal was made to the same patrician. These things he took from Guesnay Annal. Massil. at the year 768, num. 6, page 242., who attributes the institution of the vicedomini of Marseille to Charlemagne. Certainly Ansemund, contemporary with the patrician Abbo, was earlier than King Charles. Nor is he read in this charter to have been a lower judge, but rather to have fulfilled the part of notary.

v. Politicum for polyptych, commonly Pouillé, or the catalogue of the goods and rights of a monastery. These and the rest were produced according to the prescriptions of Roman law, by which it is laid down that under the name of instruments are to be understood all those things by which a cause can be furnished; and therefore that both testimonies and persons are held in the place of instruments Digest. book XXII, tit. IV, chap. 1.. Many other things of the same kind Cod. book IV, tit. XXI. seem to be omitted.

x. The thirty-year law pertains to prescription. This head again is drawn from the civil law. There is talk here only of the prescription of thirty years, not of forty, since that privilege was granted to religious houses only afterward [Cf. Eichhorn, Deutsche Staats und Rechtsgeschichte, num. 200, vol. I, page 452 and 453.].

y. Of these indications of time there was discussion above at numbers 3, 4, 5, 6.

z. That Jerome is absent here we noted at letter d.

* Matris