Sigolin and Companions

ON SS. SIGOLIN AND COMPANIONS: SIGOLIN, GODWIN, ANGLINUS, ALBERIC, AND ODILO, ABBOTS OF STAVELOT IN BELGIUM,

IN THE SEVENTH, EIGHTH, AND TENTH CENTURIES.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Sigolenus, abbot of Stavelot and Malmedy. (S.)

Godwin, abbot of Stavelot and Malmedy. (S.)

Anglinus, abbot of Stavelot and Malmedy. (S.)

Alberic, abbot of Stavelot and Malmedy. (S.)

Odilo, abbot of Stavelot and Malmedy. (S.)

BY V. D. B.

§ I. The beginnings of Stavelot and Malmedy. Holy men, among whom are reckoned Saints Sigolin, Godwin, Anglinus, Alberic, and Odilo. The few deeds known of Abbot St. Sigolin.

St. Remaclus, whose Acts have been most diligently illustrated in our work at the 3rd day of September, [St. Anglinus, who presided over the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy, is praised today with the title of saint by Schindel.] was an Aquitanian by nation; but by the grace of God he became the apostle of the Ardennes and, about the middle of the seventh century, the founder of two celebrated monasteries, Malmedy in the diocese of Cologne and Stavelot in the diocese of Maastricht or Liège. Of the successors whom he had in the government of these churches, very many are counted among the saints; one of whom, St. Anglinus, Robert Schindel praises today in his supplement to the Benedictine Menology of Bucelin. For some time I was in doubt of mind whether he should be spoken of among the saints or among the passed-over. For on the one hand there stood very many writers who call him a saint, on the other the Breviary of Stavelot, a manuscript copy of which is kept in our Museum, was plainly silent about him. This at any rate seems certain and firm, that no ecclesiastical festivity was ever kept in his honor. But not only those are to be reckoned among the heavenly ones whose memory is recalled every year in the divine office; but also all those who a hundred years before the decrees of Urban VIII obtained any public cult whatever; an indication of which cult is the appellation of saint publicly used. Of this kind of honor St. Anglinus has not been without from ancient times; nor have the four other abbots of Stavelot whom I named at the beginning, and of all of whom the case is the same. For they are called saints in almost the same monuments; they flourished at no great interval of time; of most of them the day of death has not yet become known; no liturgical office has been celebrated in memory of any; very little could be gathered about each: which are so many arguments for treating of all together. And indeed these were joined also by François Laurentii, prior of Malmedy, in a brief commentary which he once destined for Fisen, to be printed in the appendix of the Flores Leodienses.

[2] Many holy men flourished in those cenobies; But since the origins and chief fortunes of the monasteries of Malmedy and Stavelot have long since been declared in the Acts of St. Remaclus, we may abstain from these. This one thing we shall note, that both monasteries were ruled by one abbot; who enjoyed many regal rights: so that they gradually grew into a principality; which principality stood together with the monasteries, until in the year 1796, the French Belgium

occupying, the institutions fell which had lasted 1146 years De Noue, Etudes historiques sur l'ancien pays de Stavelot et Malmédy, p. 460.. Through so long a space of time both monasteries held many distinguished men within their cloisters. Martène found at Stavelot in an ancient, as he himself says Voyage littéraire de deux religieux Bénédictins, vol. II, p. 158., manuscript codex a catalogue of the illustrious men who came forth from the monastery of Stavelot; which catalogue ends in Peter Lysius, also called Coelen, abbot of St. Mary of Münster near Luxembourg, who died in the year 1573 Gallia Christ. nova, vol. XIII, col. 604.. Nor is that catalogue much later than this year, since it was called ancient by a man very skilled in the age of manuscript books. The first fifteen names, which are of saints, have seemed fit to be recited here Voyage littéraire etc., vol. II, p. 159.:

St. Remaclus, bishop of Tongres, abbot I.

St. Theodard, bishop of Tongres and martyr.

St. Lambert, bishop of Tongres and martyr.

St. Floribert, bishop of Tongres.

St. Babolenus, regionary bishop, abbot II.

St. Sigolenus, abbot III.

St. Godwin, abbot IV.

St. Anglinus, abbot X.

St. Agilolf, archbishop of Cologne and martyr.

St. Albriacus, abbot XII.

St. Richarius, bishop of Liège.

St. Odilo, abbot XXXI.

St. Poppo, abbot XXXV.

St. Theoderic, abbot of Saint-Hubert.

St. Wolbodo, bishop of Liège.

[3] [concerning most of whom it has already been spoken in our work, of the rest it will now be spoken.] This series must be briefly surveyed. First, as I have already noted, the Acts of St. Remaclus have been set forth in our work at the 3rd day of September; those of St. Theodard at the 10th of the same month; of St. Floribert at the 25th of April; of St. Papolenus at the 26th of June; of St. Agilolf at the 9th of July; St. Richarius was passed over at the 23rd of the same month; St. Poppo was illustrated at the 25th of January; St. Theoderic at the 24th of August; and finally St. Wolbodo at the 21st of April. Now as in that place the five remaining abbots Sigolenus, Godwin, Anglinus, Alberic, and Odilo are called SAINTS, so they are honored with the same title by Fisen Flores ecclesiæ Leodiensis, p. 400., by François Laurentii, the aforesaid prior of Malmedy Ibid., p. 605, and in Bucelin, Germania sacra, vol. II, part I, p. 276 ff., by Bertholet Hist. de Luxembourg, vol. II, proofs, p. V ff., by Denis de Sainte-Marthe Gallia Christ. nova, vol. III, col. 940 and 941., by Arsène de Noue Etudes sur le pays de Stavelot etc., pp. 497 and 498., and in part by Martène [Voyage littéraire, vol. II, p. 153, and Ampliss. collect., vol. II, pref., p. II ff.], by our predecessors In the Commentary on St. Remaclus at the 3rd day of Sept., nos. 69 and 70., and by the Very Venerable A. Courtejoie Les illustrations de Stavelot, pp. 82, 104, 152, etc.. Schindel referred them, more or less by his own wit, to certain days: namely St. Sigolenus to the 23rd of August, St. Godwin to the 5th of November, St. Anglinus to the present day, St. Alberic to the 1st of July, and St. Odilo to the 2nd of October. But, what is chief, in the Catalogue of the abbots of Stavelot, written in the thirteenth century, Anglinus, Albricus, and Odilo are called saints Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae, vol. XI, p. 292.. An effigy of St. Odilo, with the words added: St. Odilo, was seen by Henschen Acta SS. vol. III of February, p. 701. among the images of saints with which the sides of the feretory of St. Remaclus are adorned; which feretory seemed to him to have been made in the twelfth century or the following one; and the Life of Saints Godwin and Sigolin was written by Jean Herbeto in the second volume of the Life of St. Remaclus; which volume, however, I have sought in vain [Here is the title of the first volume: Explication historique et morale sur la vie, la mort, la gloire et le triomphe de saint Remacle, de S. Sulpice, S. Eloy et S. Martin, ses maîtres, de S. Théodard, S. Lambert, S. Hubert, S. Floribert, S. Trond, S. Adelin, S. Babolin, S. Sigolin etc. ses disciples. Tome premier, contenant la vie et la mort de S. Remacle. Liége, 1703. [Historical and moral explanation of the life, death, glory, and triumph of St. Remaclus, of St. Sulpicius, St. Eligius, and St. Martin, his masters, of St. Theodard, St. Lambert, St. Hubert, St. Floribert, St. Trudo, St. Adelin, St. Babolin, St. Sigolin, etc., his disciples. Volume one, containing the life and death of St. Remaclus. Liège, 1703.]].

[4] [St. Sigolin, approved by the judgment of St. Remaclus, becomes third abbot and is said to have founded the estates of Ocquier and Tohogne.] Now to come to each one, it seems that we must first inquire in what time they lived. St. Remaclus had begun to rule the monastery of Solignac, founded according to the Rule of St. Columbanus by St. Eligius, in the 10th year of Dagobert, of Christ 632; and summoned thence into Austrasia, he had founded about the year 644 the Casa Congidunensis . But in the year (as it seems) 648 he was created bishop without title, two years later succeeded St. Amandus, who laid down the insignia of Maastricht, and about the year 655 raised up Malmedy and Stavelot; abbot of both and at the same time bishop of Maastricht, except that in his absence he put St. Theodard in his place as vicar in the government of the cenobies. Whom he willed to succeed him in the see of Maastricht, when about the year 660, in horror of secular tumult, he renounced his episcopal cares and went back to the beloved solitude of the Ardennes; where between the years 667 and 671 he fell asleep in the Lord. This is the chronology of Velde in the Acta Sanctorum Vol. I of September, p. 673 ff., approved by Joseph Ghesquière Acta SS. Belgii, vol. III, p. 417 ff.. On his death there succeeded St. Papolenus or Babolenus; but for a short time, since he seems to have died about the year 671 Ibid., p. 683 ff.. In his place was put St. Sigolin, equally approved by the judgment of the blessed father Remaclus, as Notger says In our ms. 37. and after him Heriger Deeds of the Bishops of Liège, in Pertz, Monumenta, vol. VII, p. 189.. St. Sigolin is recorded to have founded the estates or rustic villages of Ocquier and Johogne. The former is distant from Huy five leagues to the southeast Meisser, Dictionnaire géogr. de la province de Liége, p. 164., and is reckoned in the Catalogue of vicariates or parishes that the monastery of Stavelot conferred In de Noue, Etudes hist. de Stavelot et Malmédy, p. 495.; but nowhere do I find Johogne, although there is no lack of a supply of books and topographical maps: so that the name seems to be corrupted, perhaps from Tohogne, which is a village not far distant from Ocquier.

* Cougnon.

* Huy.

§ II. The times of Abbot St. Godwin. Diplomas obtained from Dagobert II and Theoderic III. When St. Lambert was compelled to live at Stavelot. Penalty imposed for breaking the night silence. The Rule of St. Columbanus observed there. Bishops in the manner of the Irish. Whether St. Godwin was a bishop. The completion and consecration of the church of Stavelot. The exaltation of the relics of St. Remaclus.

[There succeeded St. Godwin, who in the year 677 obtained from Dagobert II the diploma most celebrated in the question of the three Dagoberts,] Now the witnesses I have just adduced, Notger and Heriger, add: There succeeded next Godwin, full of years and of maturity of morals. This took place before the beginning of the month of August of the year 677, as is established from the diploma of Dagobert II, king of the Franks, by which he confirmed to the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy the estate of Germiniacum, granted by his father Sigebert. Now this is the most celebrated diploma of Dagobert II, by which above all Henschen demonstrated that this son of Sigebert II, king of the Austrasians, banished after his father's death to Scotia or Ireland, returned from there and was restored to the kingdom. It was first published by Henschen De tribus Dagobertis, p. 97.; and after him by Le Cointe Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks, at the year 677, no. 9, vol. III, p. 778., Foppens Supplem. ad opp. dipl. Miræi, vol. III, p. 282., Martène Ampliss. Collect., vol. II, col. 13., Bertholet Hist. du Luxembourg, vol. II, p. 210., Dom Bouquet Recueil etc., vol. IV, p. 657., and Bréquigny Diplomata etc. ad res Francicas spectantia, vol. I, p. 281.. The venerable man Godwin, abbot of the monastery of Stavelot and Malmedy, had suggested to the clemency of his reign that his lord and father King Sigebert had by his precept granted to St. Remaclus from the estate named Germiniacum, in the pagus of Reims, for the aforesaid monasteries that were in the Ardennes, which the same prince had built by his own work, the said estate of Germiniacum with all its integrity etc., to the said monasteries, which are in honor of the patron… St. Peter and Paul, and St. Martin, and the other saints who are known to be venerated there in those places. Whence the said venerable man Abbot Godwin brought forward the said precept, strengthened also by his hands or sign, for Dagobert to reread, and easily obtained that this donation be confirmed in perpetuity. At the end no notes of time are added; but the year in which, copies having been made, the diploma of Sigebert was shown to King Dagobert to obtain its confirmation, was indicated in these words in the parchments of Bamberg and Stavelot, on the witness of Henschen Ibid., p. 282.: Copies made on the day of the kalends of the month of August, in the 4th year of the reign of our lord King Dagobert, which is the year of Christ 677, the first day of August Compare Longuerue, Annales Francorum, in Dom Bouquet, vol. III, p. 693..

[6] and another from Theoderic III about the year 681. St. Godwin obtained another diploma from Theoderic III, king of the Franks, by which he confirmed the gifts conferred on the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy by Sigebert his uncle and by Childeric his brother, or by other Christian men. This diploma too has been published by many, namely by Henschen De tribus Dagobertis, book II, ch. 17., by Le Cointe Annal. eccles. Franc., at the year 681, no. 66, vol. IV, p. 28., by Martène Ampl. Coll., vol. II, col. 12., by Dom Bouquet Recueil, vol. IV, p. 653., and by Bréquigny Diplomata etc., vol. I, p. 294.. Again the chronological notes are wanting; nor do the critics agree on the year in which the diploma was written, some Martène, loc. cit. suggesting the year 673, others Dom Bouquet, loc. cit.; De Foy, Notice des diplômes etc., vol. I, p. 84. 674, others [Le Cointe, loc. cit.; Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, at the year 681, no. 32, vol. I, p. 525; Velde in the Commentary on St. Remaclus, no. 69.] finally about 681. On this matter there has been an excellent dispute by

Bréquigny. If one may weigh the matter, he says Diplomata etc., vol. I, p. 294., it must be noted before all that the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy obeyed the kings of Austrasia. Now in the year 673, Childeric (II, king of Austrasia) having been slain, the Austrasians appointed Ebroin as their duke against Theoderic, king of Neustria and Burgundy, to whom they were most hostile; and in the following year they recognized Dagobert II as king: from whom the monasteries in question obtained a diploma in the year 677, as was said a little above. Dagobert was slain in the year 678 (rather on the 23rd day of December of the year 679); nor did Theoderic therefore at once gain possession of Austrasia, which the dukes Martin and Pepin had occupied; but, these being defeated in battle in the year 680, Theoderic was made monarch of all Francia, and the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy were subjected to him; whence it is natural to conjecture that about the year 681 they asked of him the confirmation of their possessions. Each of these things has been accurately demonstrated by Louis de Longuerue In Dom Bouquet, Recueil, vol. III, p. 691 ff.. To the petition of the venerable man Godwin, abbot of the monastery of Stavelot and Malmedy, which were in honor of St. Mary and the holy apostles Peter and Paul and St. Martin and the other saints, built by his uncle Sigebert, formerly king, he assented out of reverence for those monasteries, considering also THE PRIESTHOOD of the said Godwin, OR THE REGARD OF HIS FAITH, BY WHICH TOWARD OUR KINGDOM, says Theoderic, HE IS SEEN FAITHFULLY TO SERVE; and he confirmed all his former gifts.

[7] [He translates and places in a most honorable spot the relics of St. Remaclus in the new church finished by him.] By no means, then, did St. Godwin neglect the temporal business of his monastery, and he recognized the lawful king as soon as his enemies were defeated, and proved his faith to him. Meanwhile he did not neglect sacred matters, for, on the witness of Notger and Heriger cited above, he also translated the body of the holy man Remaclus and placed it in the church of St. Peter, and adorned his bier with gold and silver. The same matter is set forth a little more explicitly in the anonymous commentary on the dedication of the church of St. Remaclus at Stavelot, made in the year 1040 by the care of Abbot St. Poppo: As it has been related by our fathers in a truthful report, says the monk of Stavelot In Martène, Amplissima collectio, vol. II, col. 64., and handed down in writing, Godwin, who was fourth in the government of the place to succeed the blessed confessor Remaclus as abbot, translated with dutiful devotion on the 7th before the kalends of July, from the oratory of St. Martin, where the body of St. Remaclus had before been held buried, into the principal monastery or church of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, built and consecrated by himself with shrewd industry, and whatever was needful in so magnificent a business he effectively carried out with fitting honor. For he prepared a litter, wrought at his own expense of gold and silver with the worthy prerogative of beauty; in which he placed the now dry bones, separated from his corrupted flesh, and set it up in a lofty place behind the altar of the aforesaid apostles, with fitting display, that it might be evident to all; he also bestowed the sincerity of the same kindly devotion on his tomb, since he committed it beneath, in the lower part of the earth, and fortified it with a firm pavement for protection, for faithful posterity, with no idle faith.

[8] St. Lambert did not live at Stavelot from the year 674 to 681, as most hold, From what we have brought forward so far it is established indeed that St. Godwin presided over the cenobies of Stavelot and Malmedy in the years 677 and 681; but in no way can it be gathered from this when St. Sigolin died or when St. Godwin succeeded him. Hence it comes about that it is doubted under which abbot St. Lambert, bishop of Maastricht, who some time after the death of King Childeric, slain at the beginning of the month of September of the year 673, was compelled to flee to Stavelot, betook himself there. But in my judgment this question is much more difficult. The most outstanding writers, both French and Belgian, seem to agree that St. Lambert withdrew to Stavelot through the machinations of Ebroin only one or two years after the slaying of Childeric, most of them in the year 674; where, having lived seven years, he returned to his chair by the authority of Pepin of Herstal in the year 681, in which Ebroin himself was slain. But what if St. Lambert was driven from his see in the year 680, namely after the battle at Lucofao , in which Pepin and Martin, masters of part of Austrasia, were defeated by Theoderic and Ebroin, and if the same man was restored in the year 687 by Pepin, after, that is, he had vanquished King Theoderic at Textricium and shortly afterward had stripped him of all authority, himself made monarch of the Gauls under the title of mayor of the palace? If this is so, St. Lambert could have lived at Stavelot under the successor of St. Godwin, Papolenus or Babolenus II. On this matter I should not wish to write a commentary, lest on the occasion of the abbots of Stavelot I should seem to inquire into the deeds of St. Lambert; but I shall try to point out only the chief documents.

[9] but, as is clear from his biographer, Before all, there must be considered the passage of Godeschalc, deacon of Liège and biographer of St. Lambert: Therefore, he says Acta SS. vol. [ , at the 17th of September, nos. 5, 6, and 10.], when the glorious King Childeric had been slain by the impious, then the devil, envious of all good men, swiftly rose up against the blessed man with most savage adversaries, devising unjust and false counsels to cast him down from the pontifical see. And so far did their iniquity prevail that they deposed him from his see without cause; and he was deprived of his honor without fault. After this they set Faramund in his chair. But God's elect, Bishop Landebert, went off to the monastery called Stavelot, nor did more than two boys remain in his service. One of whom, by name Theodoenus, who was accustomed to tell us much about his life and work, how for seven years he led there a holy life and angelic conversation… Therefore after seven years were completed Faramund was deposed from the pontifical see and cast out of the province of Maastricht. Then the troops of clerics and the common people together with one great voice asked of the Lord that they might receive their shepherd the lord Landebert. At that time Pepin was prince over very many regions and cities situated in Europe. Hearing of the works of the blessed man, within the space of one day he ordered him to be recalled with great honor to his own see.

[10] [he lived there in exile, not when Dagobert II was reigning in Austrasia, but while Theoderic III and Ebroin were lording it there, that is, from the year 680 or the following,] It is agreed among all, as I have noted, both ancient and more recent, that St. Lambert was driven from his see by the machinations of Ebroin; nor is there any doubt on that point. But which year, 674, or 680 or the following, this can be asked. In very truth, as I taught above at no. 6, the Austrasians in the years 673 and 674 followed Ebroin against Theoderic III: at which time certainly Ebroin could have put to flight St. Lambert, who opposed his perverse counsels; but before the month of August of the same year 674 many of the Austrasians fell away from Ebroin and recognized Dagobert II as king: among them the people of Maastricht, as appears from that very Stavelot diploma of Dagobert which I indicated above. But who would believe that under the rule of Dagobert the magnates and holy men driven by Ebroin into exile or into monastic cloisters did not return to their seats? For there was then no friendship between Ebroin and the Austrasians. In the year 675, that is, Ebroin had gone over to the party of Theoderic III, again set over the palace; and not long afterward war had flared up in the bounds of Langres between Dagobert and Theoderic; and after the death of Dagobert, who we have said is recorded to have been slain on the 23rd day of December of the year 679, and of Duke Wulfoald, who died in the following year, war again arose between the dukes Martin and Pepin of Herstal, princes of the Austrasians, and Theoderic and Ebroin, aiming at the monarchy of the Franks. The former were defeated in the year 680 at Lucofao, and Martin shortly afterward slain by the plots of Ebroin; but the authority of Pepin in Austrasia was altogether broken. Theoderic and hence Ebroin thus prevailed everywhere, but particularly in the diocese of Maastricht, as is established from the aforesaid Stavelot diploma of Theoderic. Nothing then stood in the way of Ebroin's compelling St. Lambert, who seems to have adhered to the party of Pepin, in the year 680 or the following, to quit the place and live with St. Godwin, who had proved to the king himself the regard of his faith, by which he faithfully served the kingdom of Theoderic. For, as is clear from what I discussed in the Acts of St. Childemarca, abbess of Fécamp, in the preceding volume, Ebroin wished his enemies to be kept in monasteries of whose abbots' faith he was confident; although these everywhere treated them with the greatest mercy. Nor was the abbot who received St. Lambert at Stavelot wanting in this office toward him.

[11] until 687, in which Pepin of Herstal came out victor over all his enemies. But in that year 681, Ebroin himself experienced savage hands, and in his place the Franks appointed Waratto as mayor of the palace. But Pepin did not for that reason recover the former power of his house, nor could he restore St. Lambert to his see; but this one thing he attained through those changes, that, as the Continuator of Fredegar says, Waratto, receiving hostages from Duke Pepin, they concluded peace with one another. This Waratto being slain in the year 686, Berchar, his son-in-law, was created mayor of the palace, but no less offensive to Pepin than his father-in-law. But the Franks, as Sigebert says in his Chronicle, turning away from Berchar, seek by hostages the friendship of Pepin and urge him against the rule of Berchar. By whose counsel Theoderic haughtily received the envoys whom Pepin sent to him. In the following year, then (687), war broke out again, in which Theoderic was routed in the battle of Tertry, fought in the autumn season, shortly afterward captured by Pepin and stripped of all power. Thence Pepin was made lord of the whole kingdom of the Franks, the name of king being left to Theoderic; and then for the first time was Pepin prince over very many regions and cities situated in Europe; which words of the biographer of St. Lambert all the ancients understood of the year 687, in which Pepin, as they say, obtained alone under King Theoderic the rule of all Francia. Nor do I grasp how most learned men could have referred these things to the year 681; in which year, although Pepin was, not mayor of the palace, but duke of part of Austrasia, yet he was not prince over very many regions and cities situated in Europe, but a fugitive from Ebroin, and soon, hostages being given, subject to Waratto, mayor of the palace, and to King Theoderic [On this whole series of events see the Annales Francorum of Louis du Four de Longuerue, in Dom Bouquet, Recueil, vol. III, p. 691 ff.]. Against these things one thing only is brought forward, that the biographer

Stephen speaks as if the machinations of Ebroin against St. Lambert had begun shortly after the slaying of Childeric. But first it must be noted that Stephen wrote at least forty years after the deposition of St. Lambert, and that things narrated after so great an interval are easily compressed, just as things seen from far off appear to stand within a short space; then, that it could easily have happened that the enmity of Ebroin against St. Lambert arose as early as the year 673, and that only in the year 680, after the defeat of Martin and Pepin, it advanced so far that the holy prelate seemed no longer to be borne in the see of Liège; being in the meantime hindered by the rule of Dagobert. Nor does Stephen indicate that St. Lambert was driven from his see immediately after the slaying of Childeric, but that a beginning was then made of the worst machinations.

[12] [St. Godwin accordingly received St. Lambert, whom for breaking the night silence he ordered to stand at the cross:] It seems manifest to me, then, that Ebroin, after in the year 680 he had vanquished the dukes Martin and Pepin, took the resolve of deposing St. Lambert and of putting another bishop in his place. Since this could not be done without a council of the bishops of the province of Cologne, it was probably not done until the beginning of the year 681. At which time St. Godwin was presiding over the house of ascetics of Stavelot. He then received the most holy exile; whom he also seems to have admitted to monastic profession Acta SS. at the 17th of Sept., Prelim. Comm. on St. Lambert, no. 65.. So the saint slept not in the guest-house, but in the common dormitory. Now a very ancient and very severe law concerning the night silence after Compline [Compare Haeften, Disquisit. monasticæ, book VI, tract. III, p. 584; Martène, Commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict, p. 573 ff.], which Suárez and others Compare Martène, Voyage litt. de deux religieux Bénédictins, vol. II, p. 172. judge cannot even now be violated without mortal sin, was rightly in force in Columbanian houses of ascetics; so that those who broke it were ordered to undergo the very heavy penalty of standing at the cross: (although this kind of penance is found neither in the chapter on the diversity of faults of St. Columbanus In Migne, Patrology, vol. LXXX, col. 216 ff., nor in the book on the measure of penances Ibid., col. 223., but this one thing, that a cross was set not far from the door; and if anyone going out of the monastery did not approach it, he was severely punished Ibid., col. 217..) Those who stood at the cross sang, with arms outstretched, twelve psalms, unless I am mistaken: this was the common division of the psalms, even among the Columbanians Ibid., col. 212 and 213.; and that number of psalms was sung four times in the eleventh century, with hands raised in the manner of a cross, by those who wished regularly to make compensation for one year of penance St. Peter Damian, book I, epist. 19.. While, then, the venerable man Bishop Landebert was in the aforesaid monastery, it happened that he awoke in the middle of the night according to his accustomed order, to go devoutly to solitary prayer; and having stretched out his hand and caught up his sandals, one of which slipped, and falling from his hand dropped on the pavement, and its sound disturbed the ears of those at rest. Hearing this, the father of the monastery, not knowing who had done it, said: "He who made that sound, let him at once go to the cross." St. Lambert did as ordered and, although shivering in winter and snow, barefoot and covered only by a cilice, he stood at the cross with arms bent, singing psalms until cockcrow, except that in the night time the cocks' crowing came rather early, or rather that the first cockcrow, which is sometimes heard not long after midnight, was taken for the morning cockcrow.

[13] St. Lambert performed this penance not without prodigy or wonder. No delay ensued: the brethren of the monastery, the signal being struck, go in to vigils. The office being finished, or one nocturn sung, which in winter among the Columbanians contained five psalms [Rule of St. Columbanus, ch. VII, in Migne, Patrology, vol. LXXX, col. 212 and 213.], they went out of the sanctuary hastily, on account of the excessive cold, going of course into the house to warm themselves. Meanwhile the saint of the Lord, contending more strongly, stood ever unconquered at the cross. Then the father of the monastery, inquiring, said: "And do we have all our brethren?" Of whom one said: "I heard you tonight assign the cross, but I do not know who it was." While he was yet speaking, another of the brethren came in, saying: "Truly the lord Landebert has persevered tonight a long time at the cross, barefoot." The abbot, terrified and turned to fear, said to the brethren: "Go quickly and humbly request him to come to us." They ran forth and found him standing at the cross. His head and shoulder were entirely covered with snow. The lord bishop himself was then uttering with his mouth: "A contrite and humbled heart God does not despise," and the rest. Those who had been sent, requesting, said: "Lord, our father begs and the brethren suggest that you now go to them in the guest-house." He went with them: and when he came in, at once the father of the monastery together with the company of monks, falling on their knees at the feet of the bishop, begging pardon, said: "Forgive me, father, forgive me, for I sinned unknowing, in acting so foolishly: grant indulgence to your devoted servants." But he: "May indulgence be given you by God, for you have not acted foolishly, but have done prudently, as Paul said: "In cold and nakedness I subject my body." And immediately the brethren prepared a bath for him, and changed his garments for others; and kissing his hands and feet, they said to one another: "The Lord did not wish to make it known to us this night, but for the increase of his glory and the earning of the gain of penance it was hidden from us." A like thing is narrated of St. Austreberta, who in the cenoby of Pavilly followed also the institutions of St. Columbanus Acta SS. vol. II of February, p. 423.. Where Bolland observes that no one can last more than a quarter of an hour with arms outstretched; which space of time Ghesquière extends to half an hour in the annotations to the Life of St. Lambert Acta SS. Belgii, vol. VI, p. 135.. Certainly they could stand while they sang twelve psalms; nor does St. Lambert seem to have lasted longer in this posture. But these things pertain less to St. Godwin; of whom this one thing must be noted, that it appears from this that he was a keen enforcer of regular discipline: which severity was proper to Columbanian institutions.

[14] [At Stavelot were kept the Rule of St. Columbanus and the Irish institutions, according to which bishops were created without title, just as priests are now in monasteries.] Once and again I have said that the Rule of St. Columbanus was employed at Stavelot. On which matter it seems something more must be said. In the diploma by which King St. Sigebert about the year 651 confirmed the beginnings of the monasteries of Malmedy and Stavelot, he uses these words Martène, Amplissima collectio, vol. II, col. 7.: We have granted them that there be built there monasteries according to the rule of cenobies or the tradition of the fathers, named Stabelacum and Malmundarium. These words indeed, if taken separately, designate neither the Rule of St. Columbanus, nor the Rule of St. Benedict, nor any other specially, since no rules received in the Gauls were held to be new, but collected from the writings and usages of the eastern fathers, and the variety proceeded not from novelty of matter but from diversity of selection: and so all were at times called rules of the fathers. Nothing, then, can be drawn from this. But it must be considered that St. Remaclus had earlier been a monk in the house of ascetics of Solignac, where beyond controversy the Rule of St. Columbanus was in use; then, that at that time the Columbanian monks were most tenacious of their institutions. But St. Columbanus brought from Ireland into the Gauls not only his rule, but many other customs; of which this was a singular one, that, just as now monks and other regulars are ordained priests without title of benefice or unincardinated, so in the monasteries of the Irish or Scots bishops were consecrated; whom very many call regionary, but who rather should be called bishops without title Compare Todd, St. Patrick, apostle of Ireland, pp. 4 and 5.: which regular bishops were subject to the abbot, even if he was only a priest [Bede, Eccles. Hist. of the English, book III, ch. 4. Compare Todd, St. Patrick, p. 10 ff.], just as now regular priests are to their superior, whom nothing obliges to be a priest; indeed even in Benedictine monasteries themselves bishops without title were very often consecrated in ancient times [Compare Martène, Imper. Stabulensis monasterii jura, p. 25 ff.; Roderique, De abbatibus monast. Malmund. et Stabul. disceptatio tertia, p. 42 ff.]. But it is certain that abbots themselves were at times bishops (a ready example is in St. Remaclus). Martène, then, held that all the abbots of Stavelot were distinguished by the episcopal character, until at the beginning of the tenth century lay magnates intruded themselves in their place. Against this rose up Ignace Roderique in the first two of his Disceptationes, in which he attempted to show that the people of Malmedy and of Stavelot have equal rights, although the seat of the abbot was at Stavelot; in which he denied that any besides St. Remaclus among the abbots of Stavelot was a bishop, or that there were bishops by any other title than that of their monastery. Against these Martène set the Imperialis Stabulensis monasterii jura propugnata; in which he again endeavored to defend his opinion on the quasi-episcopate of Stavelot. But in the third Disceptatio Roderique attacked this thesis with new forces. For my part I should not wish to warm up again this cabbage ill cooked on both sides. For the names of many abbots are hardly known; and of the seven others whom Martène contends were bishops of Stavelot, one, St. Godwin, comes among those whose deeds we are endeavoring to declare. Of this one, then, we must speak.

[15] Whether St. Godwin was a bishop. For two reasons Martène contends that he was a bishop; of which the first is that Theoderic in the diploma indicated above at no. 6 said: Considering the priesthood of the said Godwin; and that by the word sacerdotium in that age the episcopate was designated. But Roderique, adducing a good many places, whose number he could easily have increased, demonstrated that this word was often said also of the presbyterate; which no one will deny. The other is that in the Commentary on the dedication of the church of Stavelot St. Godwin is said to have translated, from the oratory of St. Martin, where the body of St. Remaclus had before been held buried, into the principal monastery of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, built and consecrated by himself with shrewd industry, …; and that it is the office of bishops to consecrate churches. Against these Roderique objected that the church was neither built by St. Godwin nor consecrated, but by

St. Remaclus; otherwise, it should have been said not by him, but by himself. But this is an ingenious cavil. No one, a stranger to partisanship and somewhat versed in the writings of the eleventh century, coming upon these words, will fail to understand them of St. Godwin. And indeed it is established from the first biographer of St. Remaclus that the basilica of St. Peter at Stavelot was built and consecrated after his death. For coming to his posthumous miracles, he begins thus Acta SS. Belgii, vol. III, p. 474.: For at that time, when the construction of the altar of our church was going on, it happened that there was there a certain man by name Joseph, who was so bent, etc. To which Roderique could oppose nothing sound. It is thus altogether credible that St. Godwin was a bishop; but this must be noted, that from this title, according to the institutions of the Irish, no singular jurisdiction arose; which Martène and Roderique chiefly had in mind in their controversies.

* Lafau

* Testry.

§ III. The times of St. Anglinus, abbot of Stavelot, and of St. Agilolf, bishop of Cologne. The diplomas of the former; the Passion of the latter.

After four other abbots St. Godwin was succeeded by the apostolic man and our father Papolinus [II], also called Bobolenus and wrongly Abolinus, bishop, who on the 25th of the month of June, in the second year of the reign of Clovis III, that is, the 25th day of June of the year 692, appeared as custodian in the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy, as is certain from the diploma of that Clovis, confirming an exchange formerly made by Childeric II and St. Remaclus Bréquigny, Diplomata etc., vol. I, pp. 330 and 331.. The sixth abbot, on the 2nd day of December of the year 719, the apostolic man Bishop Rabangarius, came to plea before Charles Martel and won the case of his monasteries of St. Peter of Stavelot and Malmedy Ibid., pp. 419 and 420.. Next comes Crodmar Ancient catalogue of abbots, in Pertz, Monumenta, vol. XI, p. 292., and then Amolgerus or Amingerus. This seems to have been one abbot, whom they have split down the middle from the variation of his name and made two abbots: for sometimes in polyglot or diglot German or Frankish names one word is substituted for the other; thus Ebroin or Eber-win was also called Eber-mer.

[17] [there comes St. Anglinus, whom Bréquigny wishes struck out on account of the times of St. Agilolf, archbishop of Cologne.] There follows St. Anglinus, who in the aforesaid catalogue Ancient catalogue of abbots, in Pertz, Monumenta, vol. XI, p. 292. is recorded to have been abbot for 44 years; whom Bréquigny Diplomata etc., vol. I, p. 487. wishes struck out as if he had never existed, since his age cannot be reconciled with the times of St. Agilolf, archbishop of Cologne, and since his name is not known except from diplomas published by Martène, but copied by an ignorant man, who put his name in place of Agilolf. In very truth the historians have here created what might be called palpable darkness; but it can be altogether dispelled, that the truth may shine. First of all it is plainly false that the name of St. Anglinus was unknown before Martène published those diplomas. For it is read in the thirteenth-century catalogue of the abbots of Stavelot that I have just indicated; it is read likewise in the book of Miracles of St. Quirinus, written at the close of the eleventh century by a monk of Malmedy; it is read likewise in the writings of Fisen, Laurentii, and very many others; so that this assertion escaped Bréquigny as his patience burst. Then, not only Martène's copyist handled those three diplomas; but François Laurentii also, the learned prior of Malmedy In Fisen, Flores ecclesiæ Leodiensis, p. 605., and in the controversy that burned between Martène and Roderique they were invoked on both sides, and the name of St. Anglinus put forward on both sides. And so all the laws of history would have to be overturned, for it to be called into doubt that St. Anglinus discharged the office of abbot at Stavelot.

[18] [The affairs of the church of Cologne from the year 745 to 748. In the meantime St. Agilolf is created bishop, a disciple of St. Anglinus, who could not have been his successor,] Now see in a few words what straits the series of the bishops of Cologne creates. At the end of April of the year 743 Reginfrid was still sitting as bishop at Cologne, who then took part in the First German Council [Among the letters of St. Boniface, in Migne, Latin Patrology, vol. LXXXIX, col. 807. Compare Acta SS. vol. XI of October, pp. 954 and 957.]. But at the end of the month of October of the year 745 the chair of Cologne had already been vacant for some months, for the occupying of which Pope St. Zachary designated St. Boniface, according to the petition of the Franks Epist. X, at the end, in Migne, Latin Patrology, vol. LXXXIX, col. 942.; which, the will of the Franks having changed, could not be done, as is established from another letter which the same St. Zachary gave at the beginning of the month of May of the year 748 Epist. XI, ibid., col. 942. to St. Boniface, who in that very year 745, or rather 746, took possession of the episcopal see of Mainz [Compare Seiters, Bonifacius, Apostel der Deutschen, p. 492 ff.; Binterim, Pragmat. Geschichte der deutschen Concilien, p. 307.]. Now those insignia were conferred on Agilulf, bishop of Cologne, to whom, as to many other Frankish bishops, the same St. Zachary sent his twelfth letter, written (as it seems) in the same year 748 Epist. XII, in Migne, vol. cit., col. 948.. But in the aforesaid book of the miracles of St. Quirinus the monk of Malmedy wrote these things of St. Agilulf, martyr and bishop of Cologne Acta SS. vol. V of October, p. 557.: Of the aforementioned man of blessed memory many things would be at hand that could be said to his praise; but since, brought to us, he has been translated elsewhere, we have thought it better to keep silence on the matter. Yet, lest it be reckoned to sloth … it has pleased us to explain in very few words who and how great that man was. Born of noble stock, he was delivered by his parents to Anglinus, abbot of this place (Malmedy as also Stavelot), to be formed according to rule under the instruction of a monk. And having spiritually imitated the morals and life of his spiritual father, by the will of God he became his successor; then given as bishop to the see of Cologne, he did not lay down the burden of abbot either, until, governing both most strenuously, he was crowned with martyrdom on account of his faith to the kingdom at Amblève, and with us, where he had presided as abbot in name and in deed, as long as God willed, he had his place of burial. To these things is added that in the often-mentioned Catalogue of the abbots of Stavelot no Agilolf comes before St. Anglinus, but after, in this order: VIII Amingerus. — X St. Anglinus 44 years. — XI St. Ailulf 5 years. The very catalogue of the bishops of Cologne, written in the eleventh or at any rate the beginning of the twelfth century, favors this; in which the order indeed is disturbed, but can be repaired by the succession of kings In Roderique, Disceptationes de abbatibus etc., p. 22.: Faramund, 13th Bp. — Agilolf, 14th Bp. under Childeric (who was held king from the year 742 to 752). — Reginfrid, 15th Bp. under Theoderic (who presided over the kingdom of the Franks from the year 720 to 737). — Hildiger, 16th Bp. under Pepin (who was recognized king of the Franks from the year 752 to 768). It follows then from the letters of St. Zachary that Agilolf was appointed bishop of Cologne at any rate in the year 748, but probably as early as the year 746, or even the year 745; and moreover, if the book of the Miracles of St. Quirinus is to be stood by, that he had then already been abbot of Stavelot for some time; and thus that St. Anglinus had died before that time.

[19] as is established from several diplomas obtained by the care of St. Anglinus, But was St. Anglinus then dead? Martène published a diploma Ampliss. collect., vol. II, col. 17., which after him Bertholet Hist. de Luxembourg, vol. II, proofs, p. 36., Dom Bouquet Recueil etc., vol. IV, p. 711., and Bréquigny Diplomata etc., vol. I, p. 485. again published, and by which Childeric III, who began to be held king of the Franks between the 3rd day of March of the year 742 Longuerue, Annales Francorum, at the year 742, in Dom Bouquet, vol. III, p. 704. and the 7th of September of the same year Gebhardt, Reges Francorum Merovingici, p. 171., at the request of Abbot Anglinus, who also had been ordered by the king's promise to rule the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy, which are placed in the forest of the Ardennes, and who brought forward the privileges of the monasteries to be reviewed, confirmed the ordinary immunities. Given in what was the month of July, in an uncertain year, but one that has seemed to most to be 744, although nothing stands in the way of its belonging to the year 743. To the year 746 they refer the diploma of Carloman, mayor of the palace, son of the late Charles Martel, made with supporting stipulation at the estate of Wasidium publicly, on the day that was the 6th day of the month of June, in the reign of King Childeric; which Martène also published Ampliss. Collect., vol. II, col. 20., and after him Dom Bouquet Recueil etc., vol. IV, p. 713., Bertholet Diplomata etc., vol. I, p. 487., and Bréquigny, and by which Bl. Carloman to Anglinus his abbot, for the monastery of Stavelot and Malmedy, the estates whose names are Lenione with all its appendages, in the pagus Condustrinsis, Caldina , Mosania , Warsipium and Barsina , and also Rudis , Pronote , Halma and Haist , in Gnoldo manso , Solania ; likewise also the estate called Wadolino with all its appendages, Rudis, Olisna , Serarium , Palatiolum , and Brabant [Compare Grandgagnage, Mémoire sur les anciens noms de lieux etc., pp. 20 and 21, Belgian Academy, vol. XXVI, Prize Memoirs.]. It is certainly likely that this diploma was given in the year 746, when Bl. Carloman, already free from secular cares, had resolved to embrace the monastic life; whereas in the summer season of former years he was waging continual wars against the Saxons and others in Germany.

[20] and by the plea of Bl. Carloman Now comes the plea of the same Bl. Carloman; who at Dunavilla or (as it seems) Dionavilla, an appendage of the palace of Attigny in the former diocese of Reims Compare Mabillon, De re diplomatica, pp. 280 and 249 with the following., sitting on the tribunal with four bishops, one abbot, and one count, adjudged the estate of Lethernau with its appendages Brastis , Feronium , Unalia , and Aldaniae , which Pepin of Herstal his grandfather had given by testament to the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy, and by his wadium * and by his festuca gave it back to Anglinus the abbot, ruler of the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy, who coming to Dunavilla asserted, having the said testament of Pepin in his hands and handing it over to be read, that it was being retained wrongly and unjustly by the said Carloman.

Given on what was the 15th day of the month of August, in the fifth year of the reign of King Childeric. It was published by Martène Ampl. Collect., vol. II, col. 19., Bertholet Hist. du Luxemb., vol. II, proofs, p. 37., Dom Bouquet Recueil etc., vol. IV, p. 712., and Bréquigny Diplomata etc., vol. I, p. 712.. What were the beginnings of the years of Childeric we do not know, except that these (as we noted above) are to be placed between the 3rd of March and the 7th of November; so that on this head the 15th of August of the 5th year of Childeric can be set in the year 746 and 747. But it must be noted that Bl. Carloman went to Rome about the month of March of the year 747 [Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, at the year 747, book XXII, no. 10, vol. II, p. 121.], before the expedition of Pepin against the Saxons undertaken in the same year Continuator of Fredegar, in Dom Bouquet, vol. II, p. 459., so that there seems to be no space in which he could have held pleas in the middle of the month of August of the same year. It is established, then, that St. Anglinus was then still alive.

[21] and above all from the charters of the end of the year 748 But he was still alive also at the end of the year 748, as is established from the following diploma; which, since it is read only in one very rare little work of Wilhelm Ritz Urkunden zur Geschichte des Niederrheins und der Niedermaas, pp. 3 and 4., we shall give in this place: In the name of the Divinity of the Holy Trinity. I, Alberic, for the reward of my soul and for everlasting rest, give and will to be given in perpetuity to the monastery of Stavelot, situated in the land of the Ardennes, where Abbot Anglinus, Christ being propitious, is seen to preside, in honor of St. Peter and St. Paul, St. Martin and St. Remaclus, who is known to rest there: that is, in the place named Linariae , which is situated in the land of the Ardennes estate; that is, whatever I am seen to have in the said place, that is, land, meadows, pastures, wood, waters and watercourses, with all adjacencies pertaining there, to the aforesaid monastery and to the monks abiding there, from the present day I give and deliver, that whatever they wish to do and make concerning the said property, they may have free and most firm power of doing in all things. If anyone indeed, which I in no way believe is going to happen, whether I myself, or any of my heirs or co-heirs, or any outside person whatever, who shall attempt to come against this donation or perhaps shall wish to change it, let him pay to the parts of the aforesaid church 3 pounds of gold and 5 weights of silver; and, so that what I have done cannot thus be broken, but may remain firmly for all time, with supporting stipulation. Done at the monastery of Malmedy publicly on the 6th day before the kalends of January, in the 6th year of the reign of King Childeric, the lord Abbot Anglinus being present.

[22] and of the year 752. He was still living after Pepin the Short came forth as king of the Franks in the month of March of the year 752, as is established from another diploma, which the same Ritz found in the Cartulary of Stavelot Ibid., 5.. Here it is: Anglinus, in Christ's name abbot, to you, Severus the priest. It is not unknown to all that at your entreaty we have granted you in usufruct, as long as you live, a certain property in Wadlinum , that is, the church of St. Martin, with slaves, houses, buildings, huts, lands, fields, meadows, woods, waters and watercourses, in like manner also in another place, named Machantum , on the little river Vemena * Compare Grandgagnage, Mémoire etc., pp. 35 and 52., that is, with slaves, huts, lands, fields, meadows, pastures, waters and watercourses, with all adjacencies pertaining there; and we so command that after your departure too it return, with all improvement, whatever you shall have been able to work, increase, or attract there, to the aforesaid church or monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy. Given in the reign of King Pepin.

* Leignon.

* Conneux?

* Massogne.

* Barcenne.

* Reux.

* Purnode.

* Heid?

* Guoldo, Mont Gauthier?

* Solanne.

* Wellin.

* Compare Rudes-Aleines.

* Forieres?

* Paliseul.

* Braibant.

* Attigny.

* Lierneux

* Bras

* Fairon

* read Walia, Vaux

* Odeigne

* pledge

* Lignieres.

* firmly.

* Wellin

* Mochamps?

* Wamme?

§ IV. The times and diplomas of Agilolf and of St. Alberic, abbots of Stavelot. At the end of the eighth century the Benedictine Rule not yet received at Stavelot. St. Alberic a proprietor.

[Agilolf, successor of St. Anglinus, is another than St. Agilolf, bishop of Cologne, who was slain about the year 716] Hence, then, it is manifest that the Agilolf who was already occupying the chair of Cologne in the year 748, or even 745, is another than the Agilolf who after St. Anglinus was made abbot of Stavelot; and so that the writer of the Miracles of St. Quirinus was altogether in error and led all others into error, when he narrated that St. Agilolf, bishop of Cologne and martyr, was the disciple and successor of St. Anglinus, and held at one time the abbatial and episcopal staff. Certainly about the middle of the eighth century there sat at Cologne an Agilolf, and likewise there was an abbot of Stavelot Agilolf; but they were very different men, having nothing in common but the name. But that writer of the Miracles of St. Quirinus himself corrected his error. For afterward he published the Life of St. Agilolf the martyr Compare Acta SS. vol. II of July, pp. 719 and 720., whom he had praised in passing in the Miracles of St. Quirinus; and in this Life, in which he applied much greater diligence (for we inquire more accurately into the times of events when we write a Life than when at some time we hastily praise some distinguished man), but in this Life he not only omitted that St. Agilolf was a disciple of St. Anglinus, but tied his martyrdom to about the year 716. Indeed in only one copy, which is perhaps interpolated, is it hinted that he was a monk of Malmedy, by no means abbot. But since it was certain to the learned that the martyr St. Agilolf had earlier been the disciple and successor of St. Anglinus, they could not but attack this Life of St. Agilolf, to which they denied all credit Compare Acta SS. vol. II of July, p. 719..

[24] [and whose Life is better than is commonly said. Pepin of Herstal and Bl. Carloman called kings.] But this severity does not please. And indeed there occur in it no blemishes that we do not sometimes find in the best writings. For that Pepin of Herstal and Charles Martel are called kings in it is not a solitary error. Namely, since from the times of Pepin Austrasia had been made a domain separate from the rest of the kingdom of the Franks, for that reason Pepin and his descendants were more than once called kings, and their duchy or principality a kingdom. Thus in the Life of St. Plechelm there occurs Pepin, incomparable king of the Franks Acta SS. Belgii, vol. VI, pp. 181, 216, 217, 224.; thus among the letters of St. Boniface of Mainz there is one in which to the most glorious and most excellent lord Ceorl (Martel), king of the Franks, Eanwulf, humble abbot, wishes desirable health, calling him: Glorious king Letters of St. Boniface, Würdtwein edition, p. 331.. Likewise in the Chronicle of Moissac In Dom Bouquet, Recueil, vol. II, p. 656. there is read Carloman, KING of the Franks, son of the aforesaid prince Charles Martel, brother of Pepin. Thus the same Bl. Carloman in the preface to the German Council uses these words Among the letters of St. Boniface, in Migne, Patrology, vol. cit., col. 807.: I, Carloman, duke and prince of the Franks, … have gathered the bishops who are in my KINGDOM with the priests to a council and synod. Other examples I omit, as in a manifest matter. As for the second point, that St. Boniface is said to have been created bishop by Pope Gregory II before he gave his effort with St. Agilolf to the conversion of the Saxons about the year 715, this is a blemish of a kind that sometimes occurs even in contemporary writings. Lastly, in reporting that in the battle at Amblève Charles Martel used a stratagem more wonderful than credible, he relates these things from popular tradition. Certainly the memory of the stratagem survived, as is clear from the Annals of Metz; but, as happens, in the course of the years some invented one thing, others another about this stratagem, sure that something wonderful, as in every stratagem, had happened. But what is chief, it is well explained in the Passion how it came about that St. Agilolf met a bloody death, nor does anything occur that is singular, does not cohere, or exceeds belief. For which reason this Passion seems to me to have enough authority for me to believe that St. Agilolf, bishop of Cologne and martyr, was slain about the year 716, more than thirty-six years before St. Anglinus died.

[25] The times of St. Anglinus and of the other abbots. For he, who was abbot for forty-four years, most certainly, as we saw above at no. 21, was still alive after Pepin the Short was proclaimed king of the Franks in the year 752. How long he lived thereafter is unascertained. For the catalogue written about the year 1200 and published by Pertz does not afford much light, where it shows this series: St. Anglinus 44 years. — Ailolf 5 years. — St. Albric 9 years. — Sichard 16 years. — Wirund 23 years, 10 months. — — Absalon 1 year 6 months. — Audo 33 years; so that between the funerals of St. Anglinus and Audo or Odo there are reported to have elapsed 88 years. But although it is everywhere recorded [Fisen, Flores Leodienses, p. 401; Gallia Christ. nova, vol. III, 942; de Noue, Etudes historiques etc., p. 116; Bouillevaux, Les Moines du Der, p. 80.] that Audo died in the year 836, by which the death of St. Anglinus would be brought back to the year 747, a manifest error, that tradition rests on no ancient testimony; so that it seemed good to Mabillon Benedictine Annals, at the year 836, no. 56, vol. II, p. 545. to write that Audo died about the year 836. It remains, then, for us to say that St. Anglinus departed from the living about the year 752.

[26] [Agilolf becomes abbot, then St. Alberic; who, since the Benedictine institutions were not yet observed at Stavelot, was a proprietor:] There succeeded, and for five years held the abbatial staff, Agilolf or Ailolf, whom (as I have demonstrated above) by an enormous error they have held to be the same as St. Agilolf, martyr and bishop of Cologne. There came next St. Alberic or Albric; of whom two diplomas survive, but without indications of time. The first, which Martène published Ampl. Collectio, vol. II, col. 21., is of St. Alberic himself, and is conspicuous for this singularity, that it appears from it that when the eighth century was well advanced the Rule of St. Benedict, by which monks are forbidden altogether to have property, was not yet

in use at Stavelot, and so that the monks there, according to the old institutions [Compare my Letter on the solemnity of vows; King, Primer of eccl. hist. of Ireland, p. 125.] and the Theodosian Code Book V, tit. 3, on the goods of clerics and monks., retained ownership of their goods. We shall recite only the beginning: We know that leave was given by our ancient and renowned fathers and elders, that each one should stand in his own decision of doing as he will with the properties he possesses. Therefore I, in God's name Albric, unworthy cleric and abbot, deliver to the thresholds of St. Peter and St. Remaclus at Stavelot one manse, which is called the manse of Wandeliacus , which my lord Pepin the king gave me (between the years 752 and 768) in the pagus of the Ardennes, lying on one side of the said fisc, which is called Palatiolus and Beveris , whence it was withdrawn, and on the other side Aldemega, to my muldiones from the estate of Graida under annual tribute, with no other service except of 10 solidi in denarii, for the remedy of the soul of my lord the aforesaid king, and every Nativity of the Lord.

[27] the same receives for the monastery the estate of Lineras. The other, which has seen the light only in the little work of Ritz Urkunden zur Gesch. des Niederrheins, p. 6., we shall give in full: In the name of the Holy Trinity. I, Angelramnus, for the mass of my sins, offer small things for great, perishable for heavenly, to almighty God, that I may merit to be relieved by him. Therefore I give to the monastery of Stavelot, in honor of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Martin, and the other martyrs whose pledges are venerated there, where Abbot Alberic, Christ being the patron, is seen to preside, what I am seen to have in the estate that is called Lineras , situated in the pagus Condustrensis on the river Chandregia , between the bounds of St. Maurice, and on another side of Adechelm, and on the third side of Wired, and on the fourth side of Anglinus; that the servants of God of the said monastery may hold and possess this, or whatever they wish to do with it, they may have free and most firm power of doing. But if anyone should wish to change this, let him first incur the wrath of God, and be excommunicated from the thresholds of the holy church of God, and be confined as a stranger. Moreover let there come upon him the curse which is contained in the 108th psalm, and moreover let him pay into the fisc 2 pounds of gold, and pay five weights of silver as a fine or under compulsion; and let this present donation made by me remain firm and stable, with supporting stipulation. Done in the monastery of Stavelot on the day that was the 16th day of the month of April. Sign of Angelramnus, who asked that this donation be made.

* Wanlin?

* Paliseul.

* Bievre.

* Groide.

* Lignieres.

* Hedree.

§ V. Beneficiary abbots are established at Stavelot; hence a sort of double series of abbots. Otto the Great restores election to the monks.

[Secular beneficiary abbots, or abbots revocable at will, are introduced into Stavelot by Lothar I;] From the Catalogue of Pertz I have already reported above the names of the successors, Sichard, Wirund, Absalon, and Audo. After whom in the same Catalogue there come Rathold 3 years, 8 months, — Harnid 4 years, 8 days, — Ebbo (archbishop of Reims) 1 year, — Ebbo the younger 2 months, 10 days, — Hartgar (bishop of Liège) 10 years, — Adelard (a count and secular man) 12 years, — Hildebald 13 years, — Leutbert, bishop (of Mainz) 13 years, — Lintfrid, count, 9 years, — Ragener, count, — Everard, count, — Gislebert, count, — Gundrad, count, — Richarius, bishop (of Liège), St. Odilo 17 years. From the middle of the ninth century, then, there began to be instituted at Stavelot outside abbots, some bishops, some lay magnates, not commendatory but beneficiary, who until the middle of the following century occupied the cenoby of Stavelot, a provost and sometimes a monk abbot taking care of regular discipline in some fashion. Secular abbots had already begun to be intruded about the year 840; but at the beginning this could have seemed a temporary calamity. But some years later, when it seemed that magnates should be increased in power and domains, and bound more to the royal authority by benefice right, — although it was soon understood that with this increase of power it was not fidelity that grew, but the boldness of resisting (if it pleased), — great labor and great industry were applied that, regular abbots being gradually eliminated, the wealthier abbeys should be converted into camps, in which those monks who were permitted to remain should be, as it were, clerics or chaplains. The author of this institution, or of the perpetual intrusion of outsiders, was Lothar, son of the Emperor Lothar I, who on the 20th day of June in the year 855 had come forth as first king of Lotharingia, as is established from a diploma given on the ides of April, in the 7th year, Christ being propitious, of the reign of the lord Lothar the glorious king, indiction XI, that is, the 13th day of April of the year 862. When we, he says there Amplissima collectio, vol. II, col. 26., had judged it worthy to distribute the benefices of our kingdom among our faithful, it happened that, compelled by necessity, on account of the smallness of the said kingdom, we granted a certain part of the properties from the monastery of Stavelot … by way of benefice to certain of our faithful, but left a certain part for the use and supply of those there serving God as soldiers. He left then to the monks eleven estates with appendages, most of them whole parishes, and 268 manses, each of about 10 hectares; so that for Stavelot and Malmedy there easily remained 5,000 hectares of arable land. But, however great these riches may appear, the monks were from then on needy in earthly things, as we shall presently hear from the mouth of Druthmar. How it came about that so great an abundance of fields did not suffice to relieve want in those times, we have taught formerly in the Commentary on St. Ursula and her companions Acta SS. vol. VII of October, pp. 217 and 218..

[29] [by which institution regular discipline, before most flourishing at Stavelot, could not but suffer very greatly.] But this was not the chief detriment. Since the abbatial benefice was in the hands of outside magnates, ecclesiastical or lay, the monasteries were bereft of their natural head; whence it came about that domestic discipline could not but gradually perish. This, however, before and even at the beginning of the intrusion of seculars flourished very much at Stavelot and Malmedy, as is established from the testimony of Christian Druthmar, monk of Corbie, whom I have just praised, and who taught sacred letters at Stavelot in the middle of the ninth century, and so knew by experience how holily they lived there; for from the authority of Sigebert of Gembloux [De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, ch. 72, in Fabricius, Bibl. eccles., part II, p. 101.] and Trithemius De Scriptt. eccles., ch. 280, ibid., part III, p. 75., and also from what Druthmar himself reports of the begun conversion of the Bulgars, it is established [Christ. Druchtmari Exp. in Matt., ch. 56, in Migne, Patrology, vol. CVI, col. 1456.] that it was by him, not in the times of Pope St. Gregory VII, as Fabricius believed Biblioth. latina, under Christianus ab Aquitania., deceived by the Anonymous of Melk De Scriptt. eccles., ch. 102, in Fabricius, Bibl. eccl., part II, p. 156., but not long after the year 850 Dom Rivet, Hist. litt. de France, vol. V, p. 86., that his Exposition on Matthew the Evangelist was published, whose inscription is this In Migne, Patrology, vol. CVI, col. 1261.: To the venerable fathers in Christ in the cenobies named after St. Peter, prince of the apostles, serving God with sedulous devotion and striving toward happier things, your faithful servant Christian, unworthy priest, wishes the peace and prosperity of the present age, and the fellowship of future eternal beatitude in the splendors of the saints with the King of kings, the judge of the ages. In the prologue of that Exposition, then, explaining what most of all impels him to write in future, he affirms that nothing has more weight with him than the exhortation of the brethren of Stavelot and Malmedy: For above all men, he says Ibid., col. 1263., your society is more pleasing to me; since it is sincere and without guile, and such as God taught and his holy apostles held and handed down to posterity to be held. For there is no gall of bitterness in you, nor zeal of iniquity: but firm faith, inviolable charity toward God and neighbor. And although you are needy in earthly things, yet you are full of virtues, so that he who has perfectly known you can no longer be separated from you in love. But if anyone stays with you a short time, he will understand for certain that God is your fellow-dweller and that the Holy Spirit rules your works. For an evil man will not dwell long among you, nor remain in your fellowship, who just as gold and silver in the furnace of proving cast off their dross, so also he who comes among you will either cease from evil work, or at any rate will be made a stranger to your fellowship. For those who live among you do not much wonder if many saints have been proved in these monasteries; but they will find for certain that he who is not good among you will doubtless nowhere else be good, since you are those who have truly heard the voice of the Lord saying: "Be wise as serpents and simple as doves." And if kings and princes and the common people knew you truly, they would love you as true disciples of Christ, they would venerate and cherish you above all men.

[30] St. Odilo, the restorer after this and other calamities, But this excellent ordering of the monasteries could not long persist without the diligence of true abbots. To whose absence and the intrusion of secular men there was added in the year 881 another disaster, namely the burning of both monasteries, inflicted by the Northmen, who were laying waste the whole region between the Meuse and the Rhine Nearly all the chronographers at the year 881.. But at length St. Odilo was given, to bring a remedy to so many evils. He, born of a noble family, these are the words of Martène Ampl. Coll., vol. II, p. IV., when he had first charge of the church of Verdun under the bishop, casting away all those biting cares and the resources of the world, devoted himself to holy poverty with many other servants of God in the monastery of Gorze, reckoning it far more precious than earthly wealth. And when he had now grown up in regular observance, being co-opted to restore monastic discipline among the people of Stavelot, he shortly gave the monastery a new form. That this happened in the year 938 we learn from an old manuscript codex of Stavelot, in which at the paschal cycles of Dionysius his election is recorded at that year. The first care of the most vigilant abbot was that every way to monastic dignities should be shut to secular abbots. For this reason he obtained from Otto the Great the faculty of electing thereafter an abbot according to the Rule of St. Benedict, and the confirmation of the primary endowment of the monastery with certain tithes. Then all the wicked things that he found he corrected to the line of a holier discipline, calling in to instruct his monks Notker, monk of St. Gall; who afterward became bishop of Liège.

He also repaired the buildings that had burned down. He is praised in the book of the Miracles of St. Remaclus and in Flodoard, book IV of the History of Reims, chapter 33; where he is said to have taken part in the Council of Verdun in the year 947. Barthélemy Fisen calls him a SAINT, and refers his death to the year 954; and in that year at any rate he already had a successor. But if these things are weighed one by one, it will appear much more plainly how great are the praises of that blessed man.

[31] [he was first archdeacon, not primicerius, of Verdun; about the year 933 he becomes a monk of Gorze.] No one has left us more on St. Odilo than John, abbot of St. Arnulf of Metz, in the Life of Bl. John of Gorze, which Labbe in volume I of the Bibliotheca manuscriptorum, our predecessors in volume III of February, Mabillon in the Fifth Benedictine Century, and finally Pertz with new care in volume VI of the Monumenta Germaniae have published. Narrating, namely, how many outstanding men came to Bl. John after in the year 933 he had begun the cenoby of Gorze: In like manner, he says In Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae, vol. IV, pp. 352 and 355., Odilo, first under the bishop in having charge of the church of Verdun, a man renowned by birth, sufficient in means, very strenuous in the conduct of affairs, and, if clerical status perhaps did not hinder him, in no way, of what the ambition of the world brings, unequal to anyone of his rank, casting away all those biting cares, made poor in spirit, betook himself to this holy poverty, and judged the slight and cheap thing more glorious and sufficient than all the wealth of the world. He too, after the strength of holy conversation had well matured, being sought for the reform of the monastery which is called Stavelot, and promoted there, corrected, by Christ's help, to the lines of rectitude whatever he had found crooked: where also he finished the course of nature. As for what is said there at the start, that he governed the diocese of Verdun first under the bishop, it has authority from elsewhere. For he was one of the archdeacons, as is established from a little writing of Sarovard, chancellor of Verdun [In Wassebourg, Antiquités de la Gaule Belgicque, and Pertz, book III, fol. CLXXXII, Monum. Germ., vol. IV, p. 38.]. When, namely, in the episcopate of Dado the instruments of the cathedral church had been destroyed by fire, together with almost the whole city, and in the first year of the ordination of Barnoin, his successor, of Christ 925, the most cruel nation of the Hungarians had unexpectedly attacked the bishopric itself, and, having burned nearly all the estates, had either given to death or destined for captivity the men found outside the towns, pressed by these two grievous calamities, its venerable and elder canons gathered together, namely Ewenard the provost, Bertarius the dean, with the archdeacons Leutfred and Odilo, and with a few villagers who had remained in the estates of the brethren after the aforesaid devastation, lest the ancient institution and the revenues of the estates and their rents should be altogether abolished by ignorance, for the common benefit of those present and to come they judged it worthwhile to compose by skillful investigation a pulegium or polyptych on the property of the canons. At the beginning, then, of the episcopate of Barnoin, who in the year 925 invaded rather than occupied the see of Verdun, St. Odilo was already archdeacon; so that he must have been born somewhat before the beginning of the tenth century; and indeed, since in the middle of the tenth century he was already broken with old age, he was easily born about the year 870 or 880. But because he is said to have had charge of the church of Verdun first under the bishop, some have thought it likely that he was not only archdeacon, but also primicerius Tabouillot and François, Hist. de l'Eglise de Metz, vol. II, p. 24.. (Which dignity in the dioceses of Metz, Verdun, and others of Lotharingia was the highest, called in the common tongue dignite de princier; for it was so great that he who held it presided over the chapter, instituted and ruled the parish priests of one archdeaconry, presided over synods of the clergy, and enjoyed other rights not without detriment to episcopal authority Dictionnaire de Trévoux, under Princier..) But from the year 921 to 939 Ewenard was primicerius Gallia Christ. nova, vol. XIII, col. 1258.; so that St. Odilo is excluded.

[32] He is created abbot of Stavelot in the year 938. As if by the spirit of the Lord the whole of Lotharingia was then stirred; so that everywhere the clergy of cathedral churches returned to a better way of life, monasteries were reformed to the ancient laws, and many men, putting everything after the salvation of the soul, sought God alone Compare Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, p. 228 ff.. St. Odilo too felt the goad of divine grace; for he betook himself some time after the year 933 to the cenoby of Gorze; where the income or substance was at first very slight; which however the treasure of the inner soul made easily tolerable Life of Bl. John of Gorze, ch. 44, in Pertz, vol. VI, p. 349.. Being a man of excellent nature, taught by experience of human affairs and skilled in their disposition, in a few years he became one who could bring the business of another monastery to a better condition. That he was elected or requested as abbot of Stavelot in the year 938 Martène, François Laurentii, and Roderique found inscribed on the Dionysian Cycle. But this Cycle with its affixed chronological notes was seen also by Alexander Wiltheim, who copied them; whose transcript is now kept in the library of Brussels, no. 2104, and was published under the title of Annals of Stavelot by Reiffenberg three times [Annales Stabulenses in the margin of the Dionysian Cycle, in Documents p. s. à l'h. de Namur etc., vol. VII, p. 202; Bulletins de l'académie de Bruxelles, 1843, vol. X, part II, p. 247 ff.; Compte-rendu de la Commission d'histoire, 1845, vol. VII, p. 243 ff.], not with new study or labor, but from I know not what lust for publishing. Now Wiltheim in all the places I have examined erred by one year in copying, both from the true chronology and from that very way of reading which others observed. This must have arisen from this: the Annals were not written in the usual order, but spread out on the margin of the Dionysian Cycle. Which it has pleased me to explain, since further below we shall also use these Annals. Wiltheim then read: In the year of the Lord 937 Odilo is made abbot. — In the year of the Lord 938 Gislebert and Everard went beyond the Rhine, and by the nod of God were slain. But others have rightly seen the years 938 and 939; and indeed Gislebert and Everard perished in the year 939 on the testimony of all.

[33] The series of abbots from the year 842 to 938. How it came about, however, that after lay magnates had so long occupied the place of abbots, monks again obtained the abbatial staff does not appear. Yet if I see anything, matters were ordered at Stavelot quite otherwise than has so far seemed. For I seem to detect two series of abbots succeeding one another, of which I should call one secular, the other monastic, yet both at times interrupted or hindered for many years.

SECULAR SERIES

In the monastery of Stavelot on the 5th before the kalends of July, in the 3rd year of the reign of the lord King Charles (of Christ 842), the lord and venerable in Christ Hartuin, abbot of Stavelot and Malmedy, leased out two estates; which contract was confirmed on the 4th before the kalends of December, in the 3rd year of the reign of the glorious King Lothar the younger (of Christ 843), by Adelard, count and abbot; which Adelard, at the same time abbot of Echternach and probably of Sithiu, had to give up his place to Ebbo of Reims, after he had ruled Stavelot one or two years. It is very difficult to define in what year (for he was abbot only one year) Ebbo, formerly bishop of Reims, was set over the monastery of Stavelot. He seems to have been dismissed in that very year 845 [Compare the Letter of Hincmar in Dom Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 528; Letter of the clergy of Reims, ibid., p. 280; Lüntzel, Gesch. der Diöcese Hildesheim, vol. I, p. 15.]; to whom for one or two months succeeded Ebbo II.

Then for ten years (understand hollow years) the abbatial staff was held by Harcharius, bishop of Liège, who died on the 30th day of July of the year 854 [Annals of Liège, in Pertz, vol. IV, p. 14; Fr. Laurentii in Bucelin, Germania, vol. II, p. 277; Giles in Chapeaville, vol. I, p. 155.].

After the death of Harcharius, Adelard recovered his abbatial benefice and held it another ten years, dying in the year 864, as Mabillon records.

A diploma granted on the 26th day of May of the year 877 did not prevent Leutbert, from abbot of Ellwangen made archbishop of Mainz, from being made abbot of Stavelot by the king in the same year; which dignity he kept until he died on the 7th day of September of the year 889, in the 13th year of his administration.

Leutbert was succeeded by Count Liutfrid, who on the 30th day of October of the year 890 received from King Arnulf a diploma by which a certain exchange of estates was confirmed. The same Count Liutfrid obtained from King Zwentibold, on the 30th day of May of the year 895, the place Bilsanch for the monks of Stavelot. Both diplomas Martène published. Liutfrid presided for 9 years, dying in the year 898.

In the year 902, on the 10th day of September, Count Reginar and his monks of the monastery of St. Remaclus exchanged some estates, with the approval of Louis, king of the Austrasians.

In the year 905, on the 21st day of July, Gislebert, venerable duke, and also the glorious abbot of the monastery of Stavelot Ragener, duke of Lotharingia, and Everard the advocate procured, the usufruct being reserved to Ragener and his son Gislebert, the restitution of certain properties from a nobleman.

In the year 907, on the 6th of April, in an act of precarial grant Count Rainer is said to rule the church of Stavelot.

In the year 911, on the 1st day of June, Reginar, count and missus dominicus and abbot of the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy, with the consent of all the brethren of Stavelot, exchanged some things with Harduin, his faithful man.

In the year 912, on the 12th day of April, Charles the Simple, at the request of Reginar and Berengar, venerable counts, gave two demesne courts to a certain priest and cenobite Fulrad, on the condition that after his death they should go to the profit of the table of the brethren of Stavelot.

Everard, nephew of Ragener, is read in the Catalogues of abbots; but he subscribed diplomas in the capacity of advocate.

Gislebert, who succeeded his father in the duchy of Lotharingia (which duchy he kept with varying fortune until he perished in the year 939), occurs with the title of abbot in many diplomas published by Ritz. In a charter of the 14th day of April of the year 915 he is called the venerable and illustrious Abbot Gislebert; in a second of the 3rd day of June of the year 922, the venerable illustrious man Gislebert, count and abbot of the monastery of Stavelot; likewise in a third of the next 25th of August; in a fourth of the 2nd of October, Count Gislebert and abbot; in a fifth of the same day, Gisalbert, by the grace of God count, marquis, and abbot of Saints Peter the apostle and Remaclus the confessor, serving by their piety as a native of the holy church of God; in a sixth of the year 924, published by Martène, our lord Duke Gislebert; in a seventh of the 3rd day of December of the year 930, Gislebert, duke of the kingdom of Lothar; and in an eighth of the year 932, ruling the abbey, Gislebert, renowned duke.

In the year 935, on the 8th day of June, the household at Jupille

was given to the congregation of the cenoby of Stavelot by Henry, king of the Germans, at the intervention of his faithful Duke Adalbert; which intervention was customarily made by abbots. But when Henry I, king of Germany, on his death in the year 936 had left Lotharingia to his son Otto I, his brother Thankmar took this ill; at whose counsels Eberhard, duke of the Franks and count of the Palace, Gislebert, and Wigmann are said in the year 938 to have broken out in open rebellion, and to have been soon put down. On which occasion Gislebert might seem to have been deprived of the abbey of Stavelot. But this conclusion is not correct. In the following year, having experienced war against Otto, he at last fell by a miserable death. Of these things more below.

Count Gundrad is written in the most ancient Catalogue of abbots; but we must read Conrad or Cuno, duke of Franconia, son-in-law of Otto I, and in the year 944, after the death of Henry, son of Gislebert, created duke of Lotharingia; of which duchy he was despoiled by Otto in the year 953, because he had favored Prince Liudolf in rebellion. For this reason we must read the 12th year of Otto, not the 20th, of Christ 948, in a diploma which we shall indicate below in its place. And in this diploma, drawn up at Stavelot, Conrad being absent, there is read: I approached the highness of our Duke Conrad, who at that time was ruling the abbey of Stavelot by order of the lord King Otto, entreating that he would grant me, of the land of St. Peter and St. Remaclus which was held in benefice, to make a certain precarial grant in the monastery of Stavelot, with the consent of Abbot Odilo, who is known to preside over that monastery. But Duke Conrad does not seem to have been abbot, but provincial count, exercising in the emperor's name the supreme authority in these parts; and in this very diploma he discharges the office not of abbot, but of provincial count.

MONASTIC SERIES

Hildebald, who from Louis, king of Eastern Francia, on the 10th of June, in the year 874, obtained a diploma by which the goods left by Lothar I to the monks of Stavelot and Malmedy were again secured to them, seems to have been a monk and abbot, living with the monks. On the 26th day of May of the year 877 he obtained also another diploma, by which the remaining lands were restored to the people of Stavelot. Both were published by Martène. To Ritz we owe a third, by which the same Hildebald in the year 880 received as a gift some fields, the usufruct being reserved to the donors. He died on the 29th day of September. Since he is read to have presided for thirteen years, he does not seem to have received the abbatial staff before the year 867; so that there was some interregnum.

In the year 882, on the 13th day of November, Antony, venerable bishop, to whom were committed the brethren of the monastery called Stavelot, through the prayer of Liutbert, archbishop of the see of Mainz and abbot of Stavelot, obtained from Charles the Fat the little fisc by name Blandonium, with the added order that none of the king's faithful who should hold the aforesaid abbey in benefice,… should convert it to other uses.

Bishop Antony was succeeded by Abbot Gutmar or Guntmar, in whose stead Wilulf, the most worthless chancellor, subscribed on the 24th day of October in the castle of Huy a diploma on the sale of an estate.

In the stead of the same Abbot Guntmar, on the 11th day of April of the year 895, the same Wilulf the chancellor subscribed an instrument of sale of two fields. Both diplomas were published by Ritz.

Richarius is recorded to have been abbot of Prüm and Stavelot, when in the year 921 he was ordained bishop of Liège, by Giles in the additions to Anselm's Deeds of the Bishops of Liège; and his name is reckoned in the most ancient catalogue of abbots which I produced above: so that it is not to be doubted that he truly was abbot, but in what year is hidden; nor do any documents survive of his administration. Yet in the new Gallia christiana he is said to have been created abbot from monk of Stavelot in the year 898; but never to have held his benefice peacefully. Certainly he found Gislebert of Lotharingia everywhere an adversary: for when he was elected bishop of Liège, Gislebert saw to it that Hillin was consecrated in his place. Richarius made an end of living in the year 945.

In the year 938 St. Odilo is made abbot of Stavelot; so the almost contemporary Annals of Stavelot. He is said in the most ancient Catalogue to have ruled the monasteries for 17 years; understand hollow ones, for he died in the year 954. Whether he had helpers will be disputed below.

The monastic abbot next was Werenfrid until the year 980; in which year Ravinger also is read with the title of abbot of Stavelot in diplomas; who occurs also in others thereafter.

[34] Elsewhere too there were then two abbots. St. Odilo was not made abbot And from this review it is manifest that at times in those periods two abbots were set over the monasteries of St. Remaclus, one a faithful man of the king or emperor, whether a lay or an ecclesiastical prince, designated by the king or emperor and holding the monasteries by benefice right, that is, at the will of the grantor, the other perhaps elected by the monks or appointed by the first, so that, while the former discharged military and civil offices, the latter should take care of domestic discipline and the part of the goods left to the monks. And elsewhere also, for example at Cluny in Burgundy and at Beaulieu in the Limousin, we meet two abbots in that age [Deloche, Chartulaire de l'abbaye de Beaulieu, p. CCLXXXIX; Mabillon, Annal. Bened., at the year 967, no. 12, vol. III, p. 544.]; what were the parts of either no one would readily define. For this reason, if a two-headed authority is detected in regular monasteries, it is assuredly not to be wondered at that this monster should appear in houses of ascetics whose election of abbots was by the laws of foundation and the confirmation of princes in the hands of the monks, but over which by open tyranny and the overthrow of all right outsiders were set, not for the good of the monks and churches, but for the increase of the wealth of magnates. Yet this institution of two abbots was not stable; as is clear from that same review; nor could a second abbot be present if the more powerful did not bear with him.

[35] in the year 938, because Gislebert then rebelled, Nor did the beneficiary dukes of Lotharingia, who at the beginning of the tenth century obtained the abbeys of Stavelot and Malmedy, bear with a second; the less so in that they held Richarius, who was afterward made bishop of Liège, in the place of an enemy. Nevertheless in the year 938 St. Odilo was created abbot, as we have shown above by a certain document. But let no one suppose that this was done because in this year Gislebert, rebelling against Otto I or the Great, elected and crowned king of Germany, lost his benefices. In very truth in the Saxon Chronicle In Dom Bouquet, Recueil, vol. IX, p. 38. and by Sigebert of Gembloux Ibid., vol. VIII, p. 313. it is recorded that in the year 938 Eberhard, duke of the Franks, Gislebert, duke of Lotharingia, Wigmann, and the wicked Thankmar conspired against the king Otto; but that that iniquitous conspiracy was put down; and that some time later Eberhard and Gislebert with Henry, the king's brother, conspired again against the king. But although the Maurist writers of the Art of Chronology, Dom Bouquet, and other French accept these things, it is yet altogether false that Gislebert was already faithless to Otto in the year 938; and at this period the Saxon Chronicle and Sigebert continually err in the years or mix up diverse matters. Assuredly Gislebert was never of faithful mind toward anyone; but, as appears from other chroniclers nearer, more abundant, and thus better, and above all from the series of events, it was only in the year 939 that he openly violated the authority of Otto, shortly expiating his perfidy by a miserable death in the waters of the Rhine. These things have been accurately narrated by Struve Corpus hist. Germanicæ, p. 234 ff., Calmet Histoire de Lorraine, vol. I, col. 846., and more accurately Leibniz Annales imperii Occidentis Brunswicenses, vol. II, p. 466 ff..

[36] [but because Otto I or the Great had resolved to increase ecclesiastical men and diminish lay magnates.] There must then be another cause of the election of St. Odilo; which, as the ancient historians are silent, who will divine? This one thing may be affirmed, that the people of Stavelot owed this favor to King Otto I or the Great; who everywhere restored not only civil but also ecclesiastical and monastic matters; who indeed already in the year 940 had given back to the monks of St. Maximin of Trier the right of electing their abbot Bertholet, Hist. de Luxembourg, vol. II, p. LXX., and had resolved within himself for the good of the commonwealth to amplify the authority of ecclesiastical men, in order to diminish the power of lay magnates: for that change could not be made without his intervention. Certainly Otto afterward approved that at Stavelot there should be only regular abbots, as is abundantly established from his precept or edict which Martène published Ampl. Collect., vol. II, col. 42.. We shall excerpt a part: The abbot by name Odilo, of the monasteries, namely, of Stavelot and Malmedy, … approaching the highness of our mildness, requested us to grant to his monks, serving there as soldiers, regular election… To whose just and right petition piously assenting, we have given our assent with willing mind… We have decreed and by all means enact that the monks who now and thereafter shall serve in the divine offices in the aforesaid cenobies shall have from among themselves, according to the institution of St. Benedict, the election of an abbot, who according to the form of holy religion shall preside over both monasteries, because formerly, before the aforesaid abbot was ordained there, we have heard that they by the falsity of money *… dare to introduce any person into the same, but according to the institutions of the ancient fathers let them elect for themselves regularly an abbot, so that, abiding unceasingly in the divine worship, they may be able to implore the mercy of God for the salvation of our kingdom.

* a lacuna is present.

§ VI. The cares of St. Odilo in restoring the church and in preserving its goods. The Synod of Verdun of the year 947 and the assembly of Aachen of the month of September of the year 953. The death of St. Odilo in the year 954.

St. Odilo restores the church, overturned by the Northmen; When therefore St. Odilo was brought to the helm of Stavelot, his last cares were not spent on repairing the monastery or church, which had been laid waste and burned by the Danes in the year 881. Above we reported from the Brief narrative of the dedication of the church of Stavelot what Bl. Godwin did both to finish this church and that the bones of St. Remaclus should be continually exposed to common veneration; but hear the writer of that narrative continuing in these words Martène, Ampl. Collect., vol. II, col. 62.: But as the persecution of the pagans grew strong, and frequently laid waste the province of Lotharingia and the others with hostile savagery and incursion, after the aforesaid monastery was burned by the hated nation of the Danes, and therefore threatening to fall *, it was restored by Abbot Odilo in its very foundations with a more inclined and more eminent work. No hindrance was laid on the tombs, because the same breadth brought occasion of all detriment. St. Odilo therefore repaired the old church almost from the foundations, and by no means designed a new one. A new one was built afterward, and on that occasion the relics of St. Remaclus were lost for some time. But these things do not pertain here.

[38] the temporal estate, as is established from the remaining St. Odilo seems to have cared for the temporal estate with no less diligence, if judgment is to be passed from the remaining diplomas. The first of which was written in the monastery of Stavelot

publicly on the 18th before the kalends of May, in the 7th year of the reign of the glorious King Otto, of Christ 942 or 943: for although the years of Otto are to be reckoned after the 6th before the nones of July of the year 936, in which his father Henry the Fowler died, they are often found in diplomas begun at the start of the years of the incarnation Bessel, Chronicum Gotwicense, prodromus, vol. I, p. 188.. There we read these words Ritz, Urkunden des Niederrheins, p. 34 ff.: I, Odilard, and my wife Judith together, deliverers of our own properties, namely 4 manses, that is, at Rouz 2 manses, and one cambra; at Rohum 2 manses, a wood for fattening pigs; good and ample pasture between the two bounds of Paulegia and Isna ; a household of 6 by these names: Thietherus, etc. These things we have delivered to the portion of the church of St. Peter and St. Remaclus of the monastery of Stavelot, where the lord himself rests in the body; whence the venerable Abbot Odilo together with the company of monks is seen to be ruler and custodian. Wherefore in return we have received from the properties of the said monastery in precarial grant, with the consent of the aforesaid abbot and of all the brethren, namely 8 manses, which lie together in these places, namely in the estate of Caventonia 1 manse, at Faid 1 manse, at Colnidus 1 manse, at Carbium 5 manses; in the county of Huy, of the domain of Lenion *, a household of 12, whose names are these: Witger, etc.; on this condition, namely that, as long as we live, namely I, Odelard, and my wife Judith and my son and namesake Odilard, we should every year on the feast of Blessed Remaclus be zealous to pay 12 denarii… After our departure the aforesaid properties with all improvement and all things set upon them shall return to the portion of the aforesaid church.

[39] diplomas, he takes care of; In the same year St. Odilo entered a contract concerning another precarial grant Ibid., p. 36 ff.. A certain nobleman, by name Engo, approaching the highness of Odilo, the venerable abbot, to entreat that a certain precarial grant be made him of the land of St. Peter and St. Remaclus in the monastery of Stavelot, over which the abbot is known to preside… The aforesaid Engo therefore delivered from his own land to the altar of the aforesaid saints in the monastery already named, before suitable witnesses, namely the estate called Tanton , in which there are two manses, a church, a mill, a brewery, a wood, meadows, between the bounds of the waters Wembria and Cenelia in the county of Huy, with a household of 8, by these names: Diard, etc. In return he received from the same abbot, in the proper properties of the monastery, with the consent of the whole congregation, the advocate by name Erenfrid being present, namely the estate called Ceneils, in which are three manses, and a fourth in the place called Joherina, with a wood and meadows which lie between the aforesaid bounds; and in the said county with a household of 16; … on this condition, namely that he may hold both the aforesaid properties for his own use, he himself, and my wife Duoda, and my son … as long as they live.

[40] [he takes part in the year 947 in the Synod of Verdun; he obtains confirmation of the goods;] Three years later, that is, in the year 945 or 946, in the presence of the venerable Abbot Odilo, who was known to preside in the monastery of Stavelot, Remgeldis, widow of John, delivered some part of the inheritance of her right, namely to the monastery, in an estate adjoining the aforesaid monastery, by name Boldau, now Bodeux, near Stavelot, with a household. At the end of the diploma these words are read Ibid., pp. 38 and 39.: Done in the monastery of Stavelot, on the 8th before the kalends of April, in the 10th year of the reign of the lord King Otto. Sign of Abbot Odilo, who confirmed this (little charter)… I, Werenfrid, a sinner, at the order of the lord Abbot Odilo, wrote it. At the close of the year 947 St. Odilo took part in the Synod of Verdun, held on account of the case of Artold, designated archbishop of Reims. Here are the words of Flodoard, book IV, ch. 34 of the Ecclesiastical History of Reims In Dom Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 169.: A synod was afterward held at Verdun, with Robert, bishop of Trier, presiding, with Artold of Reims, Odalric of Aix, Adalbero of Metz, Gozlin of Toul, Hildebold from beyond the Rhine, who is also of Mimigardeford and Münster, Israel the Breton, there being present also Abbot Bruno, brother of King Otto, and also the abbots Agenold and Odilo, with some others. The same man repeated almost the same things in his Chronicle at the year 947 Ibid., p. 201.; likewise Hugh of Flavigny in the Chronicle of Verdun Ibid., p. 293.. The Anonymous Ibid., p. 305. substitutes Odo, abbot of Cluny. Three years later, that is, on the kalends of February, in the year of the Lord 950, indiction VIII, in the reign of the pious King Otto, at Basen villare, afterward called St. Wendelin, Abbot Odilo, of the monastery of Stavelot and Malmedy, obtained from Otto himself a diploma; by which diploma was confirmed and defined the donation of King Childeric together with the tithes and chapels granted by his predecessors from certain royal fiscs, that is, Duira, Clodonna, Barnia, Sinciacum, Andernaicum, Bodobrium, Wasiticum, and Avinianum, Astanmum, and of Tumbiae, Glaniacum, Carangum, Tecti, and Wiria Martène, Ampl. Collectio, vol. II, col. 43 and 44..

[41] he makes an exchange; Now to come at last to his final deeds and to the much-vexed question of the time of St. Odilo's death, he was still alive on the 6th day of August of the year 953. For on the 8th before the ides of August, in the 18th year of the reign of the lord King Otto, of Christ 953, it was agreed between Abbot Odilo and a certain man, … by name Adelelm, that they should make between them a certain exchange… The aforesaid Adelelm and his brother Leutbold gave to Odilo, the aforesaid venerable abbot, for the work of the church… 1 free manse in the pagus Condustrinsis in the estate of Wasipia… in the county also of Huy… In return Adelelm and Leutbold received… from the abbot from the properties of the monastery in exchange… two free manses between the two estates of Fals (Faulx) and Olhais (Ohey); which land lies between the bounds of Arx (Haute and Basse Arche), Suva, and Mozenc (Mozet) and Mataigne? in the county of Huy Ritz, Urkunden, pp. 31 and 32..

[42] [to the assembly of Aachen, which St. Bruno of Cologne held at the end of the month of September of the year 953, as is clear from the deeds of Ratherius of Verona, on the highest affairs of the kingdom,] He was likewise alive about the 21st day of September of the same year. For although the holy abbot had obtained two diplomas from King Otto, one by which the sincerity of election was confirmed, the other by which the possession of the goods should be in safety, these charters yet did not suffice to restrain the boldness and contention of certain nobles. Wherefore the blessed man had more than once approached the excellent king, chiefly that he might be free of the vexations of Emmo of Longia, who was a knight of Duke Hugh or Capet; which Emmo in the year 976 was wounded by a mortal blow in fighting Chronicle of Flodoard at the year 976, in Dom Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 214.. But sentence had been postponed. But when Wichfrid, archbishop of Cologne, had died at the beginning of July of the same year 953, there was immediately after put in his place St. Bruno, brother of King Otto Acta SS. vol. V of October, p. 709 ff.. Who also was made, with almost no delay interposed, duke of Lotharingia in place of Conrad, who had lately rebelled and taken Metz Ibid., loc. cit.: And soon he hastened to the palace of Aachen, says Ruotger, contemporary biographer of St. Bruno Ibid., p. 773.. There he met or gathered the princes of the kingdom, whom it concerned, instructed them in various and many ways, and treated with them above all of this, that they should not believe seducers or their empty promises, nor fear threats, and should prefer no pledges to the royal majesty and their own faith; promising that he would always be ready, before time and in time, to restore the violated peace of the church, if thus it were necessary, even at the danger of his own life. (For Liudolf, son of Otto, fearing that his father would assign part of the kingdom to his younger brother Compare Leibniz, Annales imperii, vol. II, p. 624 ff., had taken up arms and was joining to himself as many as he could.) This done, he went gladly to Cologne; the time of his ordination and the salutary joy of his anointing were awaited. Now we understand that St. Bruno was at Aachen on the 21st day of September of the year 953 and at Cologne on the 25th of the same month from the deeds of Ratherius, who, again driven from the see of Verona, had come into Germany and, first received among the household of St. Bruno, his disciple, had then by his intervention been promoted to the see of Liège. For Ratherius was then elected twice, once at Aachen by the metropolitan and nobles, chiefly bishops, once at Cologne by the people, men of Liège being intermingled on both occasions; that the election might appear canonical. Hear Ratherius himself in the proem of his Phrenesis Works, p. 217 ff.: Driven from the bishopric of Verona in Italy, … by the intervention and doing of the brother of King Otto, Archbishop Bruno, after, having been elected before the same at what is called Aachen, the palace of Grannus, not only by those whom it concerned more specially (the people of Liège), but also by bishops, abbots, counts, and the chief men of the whole kingdom, on the Wednesday of the solemn fast of the seventh month, which in the year 953 coincided with 21 September, the birthday of St. Matthew, he had been sought; again on the following Sunday, or 25 September, by the same, that is, by the people of the church of Liège, he was elected by seven fellow bishops (of whom two were archbishops, the others bishops), namely the aforementioned Bruno (of Cologne), Robert (of Trier), Baldric (of Utrecht), Hildibald (from beyond the Rhine), Drogo (of Osnabrück), Berengar (of Verdun), and Fulbert (of Cambrai), … with the highest favor of the whole multitude that was present, he was destined for the same church and solemnly enthroned.

[43] St. Odilo went there, and there won his case against Emmo of Longia. To the most splendid and most weighty assembly of Aachen there was summoned also the most blessed abbot of Stavelot and Malmedy, who on account of the recovered and increased wealth of the monastery occupied no lowest place among the nobles of the kingdom. This occasion he was unwilling to let pass, that he might at last obtain sentence against Emmo of Longia. Receive the words of the other biographer of St. Bruno: Then, he says In Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae, vol. IV, pp. 276 and 277., the king (Otto) having set out for various needful causes to Italy (rather Bavaria), the holy Archbishop Bruno came to the palace of Aachen with Adalbero, bishop of Metz, whom Duke Cuno, having taken the city by treachery, had driven from the bishopric. There there met him the lord Abbot Odilo, already wearied by old age and continual illness, and commended himself and all his possessions into his hands, repeating the claim postponed in past years before the king (Otto). Whence Emmo, roused, became no longer in secret, but publicly, an enemy of the abbey, and having collected a band of robbers plundered the goods of the church without mercy or discretion. Not

further did the most pious St. Bruno bear this injury; but, a military force being sent, he seized the guilty man as he was making for the hiding-places of flight, and having seized him consigned him to very strict custody; until, the pledge of the bishop of Liège, whose kinsman he was, being received, and his oath, that he would presume no such thing further, he ordered him to be released from the public fetters.

[44] St. Odilo died on the 3rd day of October of the year 954, not of the year 964. Since then the holy man was already wearied by old age and suffering from continual illness, he could not be far from the end of life. And indeed in the Annals of Stavelot, published from the transcript of Wiltheim, at the year 953 is read Monuments p. s. à l'h. d. l. p. de Namur, vol. VIII, p. 203.: Odilo died. In the same year Weringfrid is put in his place. But, as I have already noted above at no. 32, there is an error of one year in this edition; and in that place François Laurentii [In Fisen, Flores Leodienses, p. 606; and in Bucelin, Germania sacra, vol. II, part I, p. 279.] and Roderique Disceptationes de abbatiis etc., p. 39. read the year 954, which was most certainly written. Doubtless from the Necrology, which is now in the hands of Pertz, there became known to François Laurentii [Syllabus chronologicus abbatum, in Bucelin, Germania sacra, vol. II, part I, p. 279.], and thence to Denis de Sainte-Marthe Gallia Christ. nova, vol. III, col. 943., the day of his death, the 5th before the nones of October, or 3 October. St. Odilo therefore presided at Stavelot for 17 years, but hollow ones. Wherefore I do not at all doubt that Odilo of Stavelot was preposterously inserted among the praisers and witnesses of the diploma by which St. Bruno on the 22nd day of May of the year 964 confirmed the foundation and immunity of the cenoby of St. Pantaleon of Cologne Lacomblet, Urkundenbuch f. d. Geschichte des Niederrheins, vol. I, p. 62.; although Bertholet Hist. de Luxembourg, vol. II, proofs, p. VI. agrees that St. Odilo died in the year 964. Nor is there any authority in the copy which the editor Lacomblet followed; since the years of Otto too are wonderfully altered there. But lest it be supposed that the year of the incarnation 964 was written in place of 954, the names of the bishops stand in the way, most of whom were sitting not in the year 954, but in the year 964.

* Minante re, edition.

* Reux-Famenne?

* Reux-Leau? Bohon?

* Palange?

* Aisne?

* Chevelogne.

* Notre-Dame de Foy.

* Conneux.

* Corbion.

* Leignon.

* Tanton, dependency of Voneche.

* La Wimbe.

§ VII. Whether St. Odilo had abbots as helpers; whether he called Notger, afterward bishop of Liège, from St. Gall.

St. Odilo seems to have had neither Alberic nor Werinfrid as abbot helpers; But did not St. Odilo have first Alberic as coadjutor, and afterward Werinfrid? I should not dare to affirm it. In very truth at the end of the diploma on the precarial grant Ritz, Urkunden, pp. 33 and 34. by which the monastery of Stavelot acquired in the estate of Restania (Resteigne) 6 manses with oblations … a mill, a wood, with a household of 25, and which was drawn up in the monastery of Stavelot publicly on the 6th before the nones of March, in the 20th (12th?) year of the reign of the lord glorious King Otto, in the 4th year of Duke Conrad, of Christ 948, these words are read: Sign of Abbot Odilo, who confirmed this precarial grant by the authority of the king and the duke. Sign of Abbot Alberic. Sign of Erenfrid the advocate, etc. But that Abbot Alberic could have been a visiting abbot, who set his sign for the sake of solemnity; nor is he found subscribed to the other charters of St. Odilo. Nor have we anything more certain about Werinfrid. Assuredly there exists a diploma subscribed by Abbot Werinfrid, which they refer to the year 946; but in my judgment it was drawn up in the year 959. In it a nobleman, by name Rambert, is said to have approached the highness of the lord * Bruno, archbishop and duke, with the help of Erenfrid, advocate and count Ibid., p. 39., seeking confirmation of a precarial grant conceded by the abbot of that place (Stavelot), by name Werenfrid, and the advocate Erenfrid … These things were done publicly in the monastery of Stavelot on the 9th before the ides of May, in the 10th year of the reign of King Otto, in the 6th year of Duke Bruno. Sign of Abbot Werinfrid on the 8th before the ides of May, etc. But St. Bruno was created archbishop and duke of Lotharingia only after the middle of the year 953: so that we must read the 24th year of Otto, not the 10th; of Christ 959.

[46] [but Werinfrid succeeded him in the year 954 before the end of the month of October.] But there exists a diploma of St. Bruno, archbishop of Cologne Martène, Ampl. coll., vol. II, col. 46., given as is read at the end, publicly at the palace of Aachen, on the 2nd before the kalends of November, in the 18th year of the reign of King Otto, our brother, Godfrey being duke; in which diploma a certain religious abbot of the monastery of Stavelot and Malmedy, Werinfrid by name, is said to have approached the clemency of St. Bruno. Now at the end of October of the year 953 the 18th year of Otto was running, so that it would be necessary either that St. Odilo was by then no longer alive, or that Werinfrid was his helper. But neither of these seems to be what should be said, but that the diploma was written on the 31st day of October of the year 954. For first of all it must be noted that Meyer errs Aachensche Geschichte, vol. I, p. 206., who believed that this diploma [a] was drawn up while there was being held there the assembly of nobles of which we have heard the biographer Ruotger speaking. For that assembly was held not in the month of October, but in September. Thence St. Bruno returned to Cologne, nor is he recorded by Ruotger, who pursued his first years very accurately, to have gone again to Aachen, but he shows that he settled at Cologne; nor is it credible that St. Bruno, scarcely back from Aachen, returned there, who on account of his supreme and double dignity could not move without a huge retinue. On the contrary it is very probable that in the following year the nobles again assembled, to resist Conrad, infamous for calling in the Hungarians. Finally by the 18th year of Otto, even after the month of July, the year 954 is designated as well as the year 953; since, as Papebroch first observed Propylæum antiquarium, part I, no. 46, in Acta SS. vol. II of April, p. XI. and others Compare Bessel, Chronicum Gotwicense, vol. I, p. 188. after him confirmed, in the diplomas of Otto himself the first six months of his reign were sometimes not counted: and who would wonder that this style of the Ottonian court was at times observed by St. Bruno? Wherefore it stands that St. Odilo died on the 3rd day of October of the year 954; that he does not seem to have had helpers called abbots; and that he was succeeded by Werinfrid (who is rightly said by Martène Ampliss. coll., vol. II, pref., p. V. to have earlier been chancellor); and that before the 31st day of October of the year 954, on which he was in the palace of Aachen.

[47] [St. Odilo did not call from the monastery of St. Gall to Stavelot Notger, afterward bishop of Liège.] What we heard above, at no. 30, Martène saying of St. Odilo, I find recorded everywhere [Fisen, Flores eccl. Leod., p. 402, and Hist. eccl. Leod., vol. I, p. 147; Fr. Laurentii, in Fisen, Flores, p. 605; Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, book XLIII, no. 46, vol. III, p. 385; Rivet, Hist. litt. de France, vol. VI, p. 41, and vol. VII, p. 208; de Noue, Etudes hist. sur Stavelot, p. 141; Courtejoie, Illustrations de Stavelot, p. 125 ff.; de Gerlache, Hist. de Liége, Œuvres complètes, vol. IV, p. 49 etc.]: namely that by him letters were brought back to their former honor at Stavelot, Notger having been called to him from the monastery of St. Gall, a young man of great learning; who then ruled the church of Liège from the year 971 to 1008. Hence Notger is called schoolmaster of Stavelot, master of Stavelot, head of the school of Stavelot; indeed there is inquiry into his disciples, who afterward became very great men; and St. Odilo is established as the author of this so great glory. But when I wished to investigate the origin of this fame, I caught nothing in my hands but smoke. Fisen, the standard-bearer of all, in his Flores produced no witnesses, but in the History of the Church of Liège cited Trithemius in the Illustrious Men and the Chronicle of Hirsau, and Bruschius. But Trithemius, who mentions Notger twice in the Illustrious Men Book I, ch. 69, and book IV, ch. 216, works, Busaeus edition, pp. 43 and 143., once in the Writers No. 279, p. 74, Fabricius edition., and once in the Chronicle of Hirsau St. Gall edition, vol. I, p. 22. (sometimes establishing that he lived in the middle of the ninth century, sometimes in the middle of the tenth or more recently, but everywhere confusing Bl. Notker the Stammerer or Hymnographer and Notker the abbot with Notker or Notger of Liège), nowhere says that he was schoolmaster of Stavelot, but rather abbot of St. Gall. Bruschius, in the Chronology of Monasteries, mentions indeed both Stavelot and the cenoby of St. Gall; but is silent on the name of Notker. What of the fact that François Laurentii, who had earlier agreed with Fisen, then in the Syllabus chronologicus of the abbots and princes of the imperial monastery of Stavelot, which he sent to Gabriel Bucelin a little before the year 1669, omitted Notger, holding it enough to have praised St. Odilo because he stirred up regular discipline and literary studies Germania sacra, vol. II, p. 279.? Moreover among the monks who subscribed as witnesses the diplomas of Stavelot in the administration of St. Odilo and Werinfrid, the name of Notger never occurs. Lastly in the Annals of Hildesheim In Pertz, Monum. Germaniae, vol. III, p. 93., and thence in the Saxon Chronicle Ibid., vol. VI, p. 658., Notger is recorded to have been provost of St. Gall, by no means schoolmaster of Stavelot. Here are the words: In the 7th year of the reign of Henry, indiction VI, 1008… Notger, provost of the monastery of Blessed Gall, bishop of Liège, passed to Christ. Nor is it credible without irrefragable testimony that he was called as a young man to Stavelot, then called back to St. Gall, where he was provost, and afterward returned to Liège, to be bishop; and it is much less credible that a provost, second superior after the abbot in a most powerful monastery, came to another province to rule schools. As for his having let himself be prevailed upon by the abbot of Stavelot to write the Life of St. Remaclus, it is nothing; nor does he profess in the prologue that he venerated the holy bishop at Stavelot, but that he is his successor at Liège.

* of the lord.