ON ST. BASIL OF LUNI, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN ITALY,
AT THE OPENING OF THE 5TH CENTURY, PERHAPS THE 7TH CENTURY.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY
Basil, bishop of Luni. (S.)
BY B. B.
§ I. The series of the bishops of Luni hitherto admitted is shown to be faulty in many points; in its place another is proposed.
The ancient catalogues, composed, as they say, from the records or the tradition of the church of Luni, mark St. Basil as Seventh in order in the series of bishops. The series of the bishops of Luni Nor up to now, as far as I know, had any other place been given to him. Yet for some years now not a few blemishes have been found in the aforesaid catalogues, so that our Bollandus himself hesitated in doubt what was to be decided about the prelate who comes first in order, namely St. Habetdeus Acta SS. vol. III of February, the 17th day.; then Papebroch Vol. III of June, the 16th day. judged that St. Cechardus, who is referred to the year 600, should be moved to the end of the 9th century; later Du Sollier Vol. III of July, the 15th day., treating of St. Terentius, found it uncertain whether he was Italian or Gallic; finally I myself in the acts of St. Salarius Vol. IX of Oct., the 22nd day. again marked several difficulties, although I judged that one should stand with Orlendi by the ancient tradition. Today the question returns much more either entangled or disentangled. For about the time of the publication of our volume IX of October, there was made public in two volumes in quarto the work of Giovanni Semeria under the title Christian Centuries of Liguria Secoli cristiani della Liguria. Turin 1843., in which the series of the first prelates of Luni is plainly overturned. It is therefore necessary for us to weigh that author's opinion, especially because in it St. Basil, whose acts we are illustrating, held the see of Luni not as seventh in order, as before, but as the very first; to whom St. Salarius (eighth in order in Ughelli) succeeded.
[2] Used by Ughelli, That the disputation may be clearer and more expeditious, we subjoin Ughelli's catalogue Italia sacra, vol. I, col. 834 and following., adding to the individual names only those things which pertain to our question. 1 St. Habetdeus. He lived at the time of the Vandal persecution, under which he was beheaded by the Arians. — 2 St. Terentius, whom some affirm to have been a Gallic bishop, killed by robbers. — 3 Victor was present at the Roman council under Symmachus in the year 504. — 4 Verecundus, banished with Pope Vigilius in the year 553. — 5 St. Cechardus, killed by savage men about the year 600. — 6 St. Venantius, of whom St. Gregory to Constantius of Milan, letter … whom some make a prelate of Lodi. Ferrari at the 13th of Oct. mentions the same Venantius as abbot at Sarzana. — 7. St. Basil. — 8 St. Salarius, crowned with martyrdom. — 9 Lucius, of whom mention is made in the acts of St. Venerius at Reggio, to whom he dedicated a church on the island of Cirnus (Corsica). — 10 Lazarus lived in the year 640. (Coleti inserts Thomas, who was present at the Roman council in the year 649.) — 11 Severus was present at the council under Pope Agatho in the year 680. After these there follow: Lenthecorius, Apolonius (Petroaldus in the year 826 added by Coleti), Theudolasius in the year 867, Gualcherius in the time of Charles the Fat, Adelbert, Anselm, Godfrey. And so Ughelli numbers ten bishops down to Severus; and all these, except Cechardus, as Papebroch judges, have Latin or Greek names; after whom come with Lombard names Lentechorius … Godfrey; wherefore he expunged St. Cechardus from the former class and inserted him in the latter. The first nine are listed under the same names and in the same order by Moroni Dizionario, under Luni., while of the rest only certain more illustrious ones are praised. On the testimony of Semeria Secoli, vol. II, p. 3., there is to be seen in the episcopal palace at Sarzana an ecclesiastical hierarchy, that is, the prelates depicted in the order (I should not doubt, the Ughellian) in which they succeeded one another, a brief notice being added under the image of each. Finally Orlendi Orbis sacer et profanus, part II, book III, chapter 30; vol. III, p. 1020., although he records only some of the more distinguished, nowhere disapproves the Ughellian series, as neither does Semeria himself in the Ecclesiastical History which he committed to print in the thirty-eighth year of the current century [Storia ecclesiastica di Genova e della Liguria dai tempi apostolici sino all' anno 1838.]; so that it appears that down to that time the credit of the old catalogue remained quite firm among the learned. But the same Semeria, as I mentioned above, in another work printed a few years later, having examined the matter more deeply, judged that the succession given by Ughelli, as far as concerns the older bishops, was by no means to be admitted, and undertook to establish a new one; with what success must be inquired by us here. Let us therefore see in what way the credit of the old catalogue may be weakened or shattered; then let us examine how far one can adhere to the views of Semeria.
[3] It errs in many points; and first indeed St. Harbetdeus, not in Italy, The old catalogues, as we have said, begin from
St. Habetdeus; but he was bishop of Tamalluma in the African province of Byzacena, and does not appear ever to have come to Italy. And this is the chief blemish in the Ughellian series. The first trace of the error is found in the Catalogue of Equilinus, otherwise Peter de Natalibus, who writes at the 13th before the kalends of March (17 Feb.) Book XI, chapter LIX, fol. CCLXI verso. Lyons edition, 1534.: Habetdeus, bishop of Luni and martyr, suffered martyrdom in Italy at the time of the Vandal persecution. Who, while he resisted the Arian profession, was first banished into exile. Then the Vandals, recalling him, stopped his mouth and rebaptized him with water in the Arian manner, thinking by this to violate his conscience. But while he still resisted them more bravely, he was beheaded by them. Ferrari Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, 17 Feb. recites the same, the words slightly changed, from the office of the church of Sarzana, where in a single lesson the aforesaid things are narrated, taken from Peter in the Catalogue, book II, chapter 59; and he appends the following annotation: In the Tables of the church of Sarzana St. Habetdeus is entered as bishop of Luni, just as in Peter… Yet I fear that, since that persecution raged in Africa, he may have been an African bishop, as the name itself, which is read to have been given to other Africans, seems to indicate; which however I say without affirming. From these two, Peter and Ferrari, Bollandus likewise treated of the same holy prelate on the 17th of February, but very briefly Vol. III of Feb., pp. 15 and 16.. The summary written in the margin is this: St. Habetdeus, bishop — banished by the Arians — then killed. — Bishop of Luni or African? — He is venerated on the 17th of February at Sarzana. And where he speaks of the see: Ferrari however, he says, doubts whether he was not rather an African bishop, both because that name is familiar to African Christians, like "Quodvultdeus, Deogratias," etc.; and because, though the Vandals often overran the maritime coast of Italy, they never had firm seats in Italy, such that they could appear to have banished bishops into exile and then recalled them. Then Bollandus adds: What if, harassed by them with various injuries in Africa, and finally proscribed, like very many others, he came to Italy, and there was afterwards killed by the Goths, likewise Arians? But we affirm nothing, especially as the tradition of the church of Luni opposes it. Peter therefore affirms that St. Habetdeus sat at Luni; Ferrari leaves the matter open; Bollandus also hesitates, inclining however to the side agreeing with the tradition of the church of Luni.
[4] But he had his see in Africa, But Ruinart does not doubt at all that he should not be assigned to the people of Luni. Peter Equilinus, he says [Commentary on the history of the Vandal persecution, no. 20. Migne, vol. LVIII, col. 388 and following.], reports a compendium of the life of St. Habetdeus, martyr, whom he asserts to have been bishop of Luni. From this Ughelli lists Habetdeus first among the prelates of the same church, whose festival under that name the church of Sarzana, to which the episcopal see of Luni was transferred, celebrates every year on the 17th of February, on which day likewise Ferrari in the General Catalogue of the saints of Italy and the Bollandists also recall the memory of that saint, reporting these things of him on the authority of Peter: "Habetdeus etc., as above, though neither Ferrari nor especially the Bollandists use the same words. After this Ruinart continues: But Ferrari and the Bollandists torment themselves in vain in discovering this Habetdeus, whom they divine to have been one of those bishops who at the time of the Vandal persecution fled to Italy as fugitives or as driven out of Africa, and whom they suspect to have been killed by the Arians in Italy for the defence of the Catholic faith. For this man, as seems certain at least to me, is no other than Bishop Habetdeus, who, as Victor of Vita relates, book V, no. 12, being banished to the city of Tamalluma, was there rebaptized by Antonius and suffered the same things which Peter Equilinus narrates of his martyr of Luni. Hence doubtless Habetdeus of Luni found no place in the Roman martyrology.
[5] As is established from Victor of Vita, And surely whoever compares Victor, at the place cited, with Equilinus cannot but agree with Ruinart. But another (the words are those of Victor of Vita Migne, the same, col. 250. bishop of ours, similarly banished to the city of Tamalluma, in which Antonius (an Arian bishop) was: how much he could harass him the matter itself shows: for when he afflicted him with diverse persecutions, and could not make him an Arian … he binds the bishop tight with huge bonds, his feet and hands tied, and, his mouth stopped lest his tongue should cry out, he sprinkles water on his body, as he thought, of rebaptism. As though he had the power to bind the conscience with the body. Then the bishop is released from the bonds, declaring that in the prætorium of his heart, the angels subscribing, he had protested against the violence done to him. And after saying this in chapter XII, Victor adds a little afterward Chapter XVI, as above, col. 253. that the holy man set out to Carthage to King Huneric, to whom he offered a petition; the king sent him back to the Arian bishops; but Bishop Habetdeus, rejoicing in the good of his conscience, preferred to return to the place of exile. Moreover the see of St. Habetdeus is designated in the Notitia of the provinces and cities of Africa, where are listed the names of the Catholic bishops of the various provinces who came to Carthage by royal order to render an account of the faith, on the day of the kalends of February, in the sixth year of King Huneric, of Christ 583 Ibid., col. 269 and following., and among the bishops of the province of Byzacena comes Habetdeus of Tamalluma, of which city I shall say more below. And these are the things which have come down to us about the holy bishop from certain documents. Nor should I think that there remains any doubt that Peter and the others after him, whom we mentioned above, speak of the same man. Compare Tillemont Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 569 and following..
[6] In the city of Tamalluma, province of Byzacena, We have seen at no. 4 that St. Habetdeus, after enduring many harassments in the city of Tamalluma, of which he was bishop, returned to the place of exile. But what that place may be is not agreed among all. Habetdeus, says Ruinart On the history of Victor. Migne, as above, col. 250., is called in the Notitia of Africa bishop of Tamalluma in Byzacena, who accordingly was banished from the city of Tamalluma in Byzacena to Tamulluma of Mauretania; which however seems alien to Victor's sense, as Ruinart himself has it Annotations on the Notitia of Africa, col. 324.; for Victor speaks of the Tamalluma which was next to the province of Tripolitana; but between Tripolitana and Mauretania Sitifensis lay Byzacena and Numidia. These difficulties I leave to be solved by the more acute. The question, namely, is whether there was only one city in Byzacena by the name of Tamalluma, or several, or at least two. Tillemont hesitated, uncertain: Habetdeus, he says Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 567 and following., is called in the Notitia bishop of Tamalluma in Byzacena; but the same is reported as banished to Tamalluma, near the desert, toward Tripolitana, which can suit only the province of Byzacena, and by no means Mauretania Sitifensis; whether then there is an error in these names, or whether there were two cities so called, etc. The matter was afterwards made clear by Morcelli, in the excellent work which he entitled Africa Christiana. Where first in the List of churches which are proved from certain monuments to have existed in Africa in the fourth and fifth century Africa Christ. vol. I, pp. 34–43. Brescia 1816., he lists in the province of Byzacena: Tamallensis, Tamallumensis, and Turretamallumensis, which is also Turrium Tamulus Ibid., p. 40.; and in the province of Mauretania Sitifensis: Tamallumensis Africa Christ. vol. I, p. 42.. So then there is one city of this name in Mauretania; three, with the letters varying slightly, in Byzacena. They are marked in the same way in the other edition of the aforesaid List, and indeed a more correct one, as the author thinks, which is found in the French little work of Jean Yanoski [L'Univers, Histoire et description de tous les peuples. L'Afrique chrétienne by J. Yanoski, p. 46. Paris, Didot, 1844.].
[7] And he was exiled at Tamallene, another city of the same province. Then elsewhere the aforesaid Morcelli treats distinctly of each of those cities or towns of Byzacena. And first indeed of Tamalluma, whose situation, he says Africa Christ. vol. I, p. 303., Victor of Vita describes, where he censures the cruelty of Antonius, the Arian bishop dwelling there On the Vandal persecution, book V, chapter XI. Migne, vol. LVIII, col. 249.: "He was," he says, "in a certain city" (which a little afterward Chapter XII, col. 250. he calls "Tamallumensis") "next to the desert, which adjoins the province of Tripolitana." He adds that St. Habetdeus was bishop of this town; in which, after he had suffered many things from Antonius, he was exiled at Tamallene; which town was situated in the province of Byzacena, where the region was most desert, toward the south. And to that place the most holy Eugenius, bishop of the Carthaginians, was banished by Huneric, who leads the column in the Notitia: for it begins thus: "Eugenius of Carthage at Tamalleni," in the sixth case, for they also wrote "Carthagini" for "Carthagine." In the same tract, but on this side of the desert, was "Tamalluma," where the Arian bishop Antonius was lodging, "who," on the testimony of Victor of Vita, "like an insatiable beast … ran out roaring hither and thither to plunder." For that reason, says the same Victor, the impious Huneric, knowing the ferocity of Antonius, wished St. Eugenius to be banished to those very parts of the desert. And after Victor had said this, he subjoins Book V, chapter XI.: But another bishop of ours, Habetdeus, similarly banished to the city of Tamalluma, in which Antonius had been: how much he could harass him the matter itself shows. Morcelli observes on this passage Morcelli, as above.: Certainly he does not appear to have been ordered to be exiled in the town of Tamalluma itself, who is said to have addressed the king thus: "What, I ask, have you now to do with outcasts? Why do you fight daily with those whom you have banished into exile?" Victor of Vita, chapter XII. From which it follows that St. Habetdeus was bishop of Tamalluma, where, having suffered many things from Antonius, he returned as an exile to Tamallene, in which city likewise St. Eugenius, expelled from Carthage, was living. And these are the things which have come down to us about that holy man from certain documents. Nor should I think that any doubt remains that Equilinus and the others after him, whom we mentioned above, speak of the same man Compare Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 567 and following.. He is therefore wrongly numbered among the bishops of Luni.
[8] [St. Verecundus too is wrongly written to have sat at Luni; he was bishop of Junca in Africa;] Similarly St. Verecundus is to be expunged, who is listed by Ughelli as fourth in order, and is written to have made for Constantinople in the year 551, where with many other bishops he subscribed the sentence given by Pope Vigilius against Theodore Semeria, vol. I, p. 14.. And in very truth in the aforesaid sentence in Baronius At the year 551, no. XI, vol. X, p. 68, Lucca 1741. we read: *And therefore in the person and
authority of blessed Peter the apostle, whose place we, though unworthy, hold, with Dacius of Milan… Verecundus of Luni… we decree that Theodore, formerly bishop of the city of Cæsarea of Cappadocia, has been stripped of every episcopal office or power, etc. Compare Labbe Councils, vol. V, col. 234 and following., who reads in the same way in the Fragment of the condemnation of Theodore the bishop … made by blessed Pope Vigilius. It is nevertheless a faulty reading. Let Pagi be heard At the year 551, no. XII, as above.: The tenth who subscribed was "Verecundus of Luni"; others read "of Lucca"; but Cardinal Noris shows that all are in error … for that "Verecundus" was bishop of Nicæ (read Junca) in the province of Byzacena (to which also we saw above that St. Habetdeus is to be referred) and, called with his colleague Primasius to the synod by Justinian, he adhered to Vigilius, on the testimony of Victor of Tunnuna, in the 11th year after the consulate of Basil: "Reparatus, archbishop of the church of Carthage, Firmus, primate of the Numidian bishops, and Primasius and Verecundus, bishops of the council of Byzacena (it was faultily read Benzanteni Chronicle of Victor, bishop of Tunnuna, Migne; vol. LXVIII, col. 959.) are summoned to the royal city for the cause of the faith by the order of the same prince." Hence Cardinal Noris gathers that it is false that Primasius alone of the Africans adhered to Vigilius, as Baronius thought, no. XIII, who judges that "Verecundus was a bishop of Italy." Which things are copied almost word for word from the aforesaid Noris Historical dissertation on the fifth ecumenical synod, p. 30. Louvain 1702.. But both, Pagi with Noris, are mistaken in calling Verecundus bishop of Nicæ, deceived namely by the corrupted text of Victor of Tunnuna; in the genuine text at the 12th year after the consulate of Basil (of Christ 552) is read Ibid.: Verecundus, bishop of the church of Junca, in defence etc. And Morcelli notes Africa Christiana, vol. I, p. 195.: Scaliger's edition has "of the church of Nicæ," which never existed in Africa, much less in Byzacena.* The same Morcelli emended the text of Victor of Tunnuna; for in the Migne Patrology, at the place cited, Nicensis is also read, without an asterisk. I should think that one must wholly stand with Morcelli, and accordingly that St. Verecundus, no differently from St. Habetdeus, is to be struck from the roll of the prelates of Luni.
[9] [St. Felix, assigned by Ughelli to the bishops of Lucca, seems to have to be added to the bishops of Luni;] But these two having been expunged, Semeria inserts one other, namely St. Felix, whom he asserts to have been wrongly assigned to the people of Lucca, since he belongs to the people of Luni. In the Roman council, he says Secoli cristiani, vol. II, p. 14., under Pope Hilary, Felix "bishop of Lucca" is read as a subscriber. Whence Ughelli numbers him among the prelates of that church; but the more correct reading has "of Luni." Labbe Councils, vol. IV, col. 1060., where in the preface of the council the bishops present are named, reads: (with) Felix of Lucca; but Mansi observes Supplementum, vol. I, col. 337 and following.: Of the Roman Council under Pope Hilary, the same things occur generally in printed and manuscript codices, with few variations. But the catalogue of the bishops who were present at the council is not everywhere read the same, nor anywhere complete, at least in the printed editions. And after some intervening matter, he adds: I judged accordingly that it would be pleasing to the learned if I myself likewise brought forth the catalogue which I obtained in a manuscript codex of Lucca, of the 11th century as I judge, which I found to differ in many things from the printed editions, etc. And it has here: Felix of Luni. Mansi then subjoins: In this edition of mine I set down entire the other catalogue of Christian Lupus, dug out from the Vatican codices See Lupus's works, vol. VII, at the title. Venice 1726.. Lupus further lists Ibid., p. 386.: Felix of Cumium. There are thus three readings: Mansi: of Luni; the printed catalogues: of Lucca; the Vatican one of Lupus: of Cumium. Which is to be preferred? I should not wish to determine. Certainly Mansi gives the first place to his own. Semeria agrees Secoli, vol. II, p. 14., adding Hardouin, vol. II, p. 799, in the margin. Lupus published the Vatican catalogue without a scholium; there is likewise no observation of Hefele on the bishops present Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 702 and following..
[10] St. Cechardus to be moved to the end of the 9th century; Besides, St. Cechardus must be moved from his place, who is marked as fifth in order in the Ughellian catalogue, and indeed before St. Venantius, to whom letters of Pope St. Gregory the Great are extant. As I mentioned at no. 1, Papebroch (to whom P. M. Renaldi adheres, of whom below) judged that St. Cechardus should be moved to the end of the ninth century, namely the year 892. Repetti agrees, at least in part Dizionario geografico della Toscana, under Luni, vol. II, p. 247. Florence 1835., saying it is certain that St. Cechardus ascended the chair of Luni after, and by no means before, St. Venantius: both because his name is doubtless to be held Lombard, and because in the year 600 (which Ughelli assigns to Cerchardus, deceived by an inscription which was set up at a more recent time) St. Venantius is found to have had a correspondence by letters with St. Gregory. And in fact it is established from those letters that St. Venantius was promoted to the mitre in the year 594, which he still held at the opening of the following century Semeria, vol. II, pp. 17–20.. It suffices to have noted these things in this place, because the holy prelate of Luni, most illustrious among the pontiffs of that church, will have to be treated at the 25th of November.
[11] St. Terentius claimed for the people of Luni. Du Sollier hesitated in doubt Acta SS. vol. IV of July, the 15th day. whether St. Terentius was Gallic or Italian, and thus killed by robbers perhaps at Luni, when he was returning to his native land from Rome, to which city he had gone for the sake of fulfilling a vow Semeria, vol. II, p. 15.. But Father Master Renaldi, a most learned man of the family of the Conventual Minors, supposes that St. Terentius certainly sat at Luni about the middle of the sixth century, because his name is found among those seven bishops of Tuscia Annonaria to whom Pope Pelagius II, elected in the year 555, wrote. Those prelates, namely, had withdrawn from the communion of the Roman pontiff, because he approved the fifth ecumenical synod (on the Three Chapters) not without injury to the council of Chalcedon, as they supposed, and this, as it appears, in good faith, since Pelagius, to call them back from error, sent a long letter full of benevolence, whose inscription is this: To the most beloved brethren Gaudentius, Maximilian, Gerontius, Justus, Terentius, Vitalis, and Lawrence, through Tuscia Annonaria. The sees of the named bishops are not marked, but, in the judgment of the aforesaid Fr. Renaldi, Tuscia Annonaria was situated between the rivers Arno and Macra; whence it is necessary that the bishops in question sat at Luni, Lucca, Pistoia, Fiesole, Pisa, Florence, and Arezzo, which are so many sees of that tract. And since the learned commonly hold it uncertain at what time Terentius flourished, and his name occurs in the aforesaid letter of Pelagius, and finally the see of Luni is proved by certain testimony to have belonged to Tuscia Annonaria, it is right to believe that St. Terentius, perpetually recognized and venerated in the diocese of Luni, in fact sat there, and indeed about the middle of the 6th century. So Semeria As above, p. 16..
[12] The series of the first bishops of Luni established by more recent writers. These things having been set forth, let us come to the succession which the aforesaid writer proposes. It is of this kind:
1 St. Basil.
2 St. Salarius.
3 St. Felix in the year 465, wrongly assigned by Ughelli to the people of Lucca.
4 Victor, under Pope Symmachus, in the year 501.
5 St. Terentius, about the middle of the 6th century.
6 St. Venantius, at the end of the 6th century and the opening of the following. Finally, with many others intervening:
St. Cechardus about the end of the 9th century.
§ II. Whether St. Basil is rightly listed as first in order among the prelates of Luni. His probable age. His deeds wholly unknown. Whether the cathedral church of Luni was formerly called by his name. Relics. Memory in the sacred calendars. The chief vicissitudes of the see of Luni-Sarzana.
Whether St. Basil is to be marked as first in order But on what foundations he rests, both to mark St. Basil as first in order, and to give each of those following his own place, Semeria himself declares. I have placed Basil, he says Ibid., p. 10., before all others, following Bonaventura De-Rossi and Emmanuele Gerini. The latter wrote not long ago on the Illustrious Men of the region of Luni [Memorie storiche d'illustri scrittori e d'Uomini insigni dell' antica e moderna Lunigiana, by the abbot Emanuele Gerini of Fivizzano. Massa 1829, vol. I, p. 18.]. And elsewhere Semeria, where he treats in general of the historical sources, besides the Pelavicino manuscript codex, which he magnificently extols Semeria, the same, p. 1 and following., and in which he asserts that documents of the 12th century and following are collected, lists likewise the manuscript work of Bonaventura De-Rossi, a man of whom Muratori gives a distinguished encomium. The writing bears the title: La Lunigiana descritta, dedicated to the Marquis Abbot Giuseppe Malaspina di S. Margarita Ibid., p. 2.; likewise another manuscript codex, whose title is Ibid., p. 3.: Notes and additions to the Italia sacra of P. M. Giovanni Giacinto Sbaraglia, of the Order of Conventual Minors: a posthumous work. Father Master Francesco Antonio Contareno arranged it; the part lost from the autograph was restored, and the whole revised, corrected, and enlarged by Friar Stefano Renaldi, Master of Sacred Theology of the same order. Fr. Stefano, whom Semeria honours before the others, died in the city on the 12th of September 1837, when an epidemic (cholera-morbus) was raging Ibid.. With those most diligent writers as guides, Semeria subjoins, I have not feared to depart from the "Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" painted in the episcopal palace of Sarzana, which however, on the testimony of Fr. Bonaventura De-Rossi, "is not well arranged." Nor is this surprising, since it was begun in times at which historical criticism had hardly been born Semeria, p. 10.. Compare above, no. 2. From these things it appears that the author in composing his catalogue chiefly used the manuscript work of Fr. Stefano Renaldi; yet he does not expressly cite him, when he begins the series from St. Basil, naming only Bonaventura De-Rossi and Emmanuele Gerini. Compare the following number.
[14] And at what time he flourished. It is not known at what time St. Basil lived; so in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, of which above, and no. 2. Nor do Semeria and his guides record that they have found anything from which light may arise. This alone is clear, that the holy Prelate flourished before the middle of the 5th century (if however he is really to be marked as first in order among the bishops of Luni); since St. Felix, third in the Semerian catalogue, sat in the year 465 (compare no. 12); whose predecessor St. Salarius had followed St. Basil; so that it would not be absurd to assign him at least to the closing or perhaps even to the waning 4th century. The matter at any rate depends on the years in which the said three bishops had presided. Nor indeed is it excluded that Felix attained the mitre of Luni no short time before the aforesaid year 465; nor
similarly are we prevented from assigning a sufficiently long time to the episcopate of St. Salarius; and if we assume the same for St. Basil, and account is further taken of the vacancies which perhaps intervened between the death of one and the election of another, nothing at all prevents our fixing the beginnings of St. Basil about the middle of the 4th century, his death about the beginning of the following. They are conjectures, I gladly confess; but in the absence of certain documents, let it be permitted to indulge a little in slighter indications. If you object that there remains a doubt whether Felix did not rather rule the church of Lucca than that of Luni (compare no. 9), and that the first of whom we have a certain year is Victor, who it is established subscribed in the year 501 the third Roman council, the fourth according to Sirmond (in which the election of Pope Symmachus was treated, in the time of Genseric), I shall reply that the opinion of Mansi, asserting that Felix sat at Luni, seems to me to be preferred. For the rest, even if this were rejected, the beginnings of Basil would nevertheless not improbably be placed in the waning 4th century. If one stands by the ancient catalogues, where St. Basil comes seventh in order, he would have to be said to have flourished at the beginning of the 7th century, as will appear in the following numbers.
[15] [On St. Salarius, who is held by more recent writers to be second in order among the bishops of Luni;] Something must be said here a little more amply about St. Salarius, who among all, whether ancient or more recent, is held to be the successor of St. Basil, with this difference, that by the former the one is numbered seventh, the other eighth; but by Semeria Basil, as we have seen, is listed in the first place, Salarius in the second. For my part at the 22nd of October Acta SS. vol. IX of October, p. 618., adhering to the old catalogue and to some conjectures, and preserving the order of the Ughellian succession, I referred St. Salarius to the beginning of the 7th century. Granted, I said, agreeing with Orlendi against Papebroch, that St. Cechardus was killed in the year 600; since SS. Venantius and Basil succeeded him one after the other, and after these our Salarius, it is already clear from this that the 7th century had begun at least some years before, when he ascended the chair of Luni: for it is likely that SS. Venantius and Basil presided for some space of time, and this all the more because St. Basil "is the tutelary of the church of Luni." It is to be noted besides that between St. Salarius and Thomas, who was present at the Roman council of 649, two other prelates of Luni are listed by Ughelli, namely Lucius and Lazarus. All which things taken together indicate that St. Salarius flourished at Luni, as I have said, in the 7th century not much advanced; yet begun by some years, say ten or twenty. But having weighed the matter more maturely, I judge that Cechardus is to be moved from his place, whence on this side too the opinion which I formerly held collapses. Yet since from what was said at no. 10 it is established that St. Venantius occupied the throne of Luni at the end of the 6th and opening of the 7th century, if Salarius succeeded him after St. Basil, it follows that he flourished at nearly the same time that I said.
[16] The reasons of which opinion are weighed. Nor however does Semeria bring firm reasons why he placed St. Salarius in the second place. He himself gives notice that he has so decided Secoli etc., p. 13. not because there is available a document on which I may safely rest, but because at a time now remote Schiaffino wrote in his "Manuscript Genoese Annals" that the end of the pontificate of St. Salarius falls about the year 383, nor have I a solid argument for departing from his assertion. Then Semeria adds in the same place that it seems to him consonant with reason to refer bishops whose memory has been obliterated by antiquity and the iniquity of the times to a more remote age. Nor, I confess, would these things move me; both because the authority of Schiaffino is certainly not so great, and because the reasoning from an obscured or obliterated memory is merely conjectural and negative, indeed proves little or nothing; so that what Orlendi notes on Cechardus applies Orbis sacer et profanus, part II, vol. II, p. 1020.: Since the ground of the conjecture is weak, I should not have departed from the old catalogue which the church of Luni preserves. But on the other hand, since that catalogue is proved to be in many things faulty or defective, and, as seems to me at least, SS. Habetdeus and Verecundus are certainly to be expunged, and St. Felix probably to be inserted, and St. Cechardus moved from his place, and the credit of the catalogue is thus vehemently weakened; since moreover the pontificates of SS. Basil and Salarius are defined by no note of time in the same catalogue, and those men whom Semeria uses as guides are known to have investigated the affairs of Luni more diligently: for these reasons I should not wish plainly to contradict either the views or the conjectures of more recent writers, although certain and solid testimonies and documents from antiquity are wanting.
[17] The age of St. Basil remains uncertain. Thus by the opinion of Semeria and others the age of St. Basil is earlier than the 5th century, indeed it will easily rise to the middle of the 4th century, perhaps even a little higher, account being taken of vacancies and of prelates whose names may have perished; but if we follow the old catalogues, he more probably flourished at the opening of the 7th century, and St. Salarius a little later. I wrote in the margin at the opening of the 5th century, because I judge from the conjectures alleged that the death of the holy Man should not be moved far from there. And enough of these things. It is to be wished that a clearer light may arise, when at the 25th of November St. Venantius will have to be treated, where, as I trust, the series of the prelates of Luni will be able to be illustrated from more abundant and clearer sources by my successor colleague; that this may come to pass I desire with all my strength, congratulating him even now and praying him to be mindful of his deceased associate at the altar.
[18] The deeds of St. Basil almost wholly unknown. After what we have so far related and disputed, it will seem surprising to no one that few things have become known about St. Basil. Besides his prelacy and cult, there is nothing that can be asserted even probably. I shall gather in this place what is found among Italian writers (since others are silent). Ferrari in the general catalogue: At Luni in Tuscany, he says, of St. Basil, bishop, from the tables of the church of Sarzana on this day (29 Oct.), though his birthday falls on the preceding. And a little more explicitly in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy: Basil, bishop of Luni, flourished in sanctity in such a way that, when he had met his last day on the 4th before the kalends of November, he merited those honours which are due to the Saints from the church of Luni. His body is preserved in the cathedral church (which was once called St. Basil's after his name, but when restored was called St. Mary's (see below). And his feast day is kept on this day (29 Oct.) at Sarzana, which succeeded the destroyed city of Luni. "From the tables of the church of Sergiana or Sarzana." There is added the annotation: The Acts of this holy Bishop have perished, so that neither his native land nor the time at which he was renowned could be known. The Italian Hagiology concurs, where the same things are recited, but a little more contractedly. Similarly Ughelli Italia Sacra, vol. I, col. 834.: St. Basil, bishop and tutelary of the church of Luni, flourished in such sanctity that, when he had met his last day in peace on the 4th before the kalends of November, he merited those honours which are given to the saints from the church of Luni. His body is preserved in the cathedral church (which was once called St. Basil's on account of his memory). Whose acts have perished. Of whom the church of Luni retains these few things. Lucenzi agrees Italia S. restricta, aucta, veritati magis commendata, vol. I, col. 1270.: St. Basil, prelate and tutelary of this (of Luni) church. He died in peace on the 4th before the kalends of November, the course of his rule and life being most holily completed. His body is preserved in the cathedral of Luni, which also, belonging to the virgin Mary, Mother of God, was from him proclaimed as St. Basil's. Finally Semeria likewise asserts Vol. II, p. 9 and following. that nothing at all has become known about St. Basil, except some things pertaining to his cult and relics. That I may omit nothing, I add what Emmanuele Gerini has, the credit of which must rest with him: In the second century of the church, he says [Memorie storiche d'illustri scrittori e di Uomini insigni dell'antica e moderna Lunigiana, vol. I, p. 18. Massa 1829.], St. Basil, bishop of Luni, flourished in distinguished virtue and integrity of life; he was a man eminent in piety, by whose work God willed that several miracles be performed. But the barbarous darkness and the disturbances of that rude age have taken away the memory of such great works of his. This alone we know from the obscure tradition of the church of Luni, that Basil, eminent for sanctity of life, was the first bishop of that city, whatever Ughelli may say in the "Italia sacra," and probably one hundred and sixty years after the Gospel was promulgated at Luni. Gerini adds that Sergius, disciple of St. Paul, in the year 30 from the resurrection of the Lord, when he was making for the Gauls, preached at Luni, and was thrown into prison by the proconsul Sapritius, but was freed by the people, not without prodigies. And the evangelical sowing was cultivated by SS. Paulinus of Lucca and Calimerus of Milan, so that the whole Lunigiana speedily believed in Christ. Which things surely do not suffice for the age of St. Basil to be defined even probably. Whence also Semeria, and surely not imprudently, passed over this passage of Gerini, delivering from it this alone, namely that St. Basil is to be placed first in order among the prelates of that church. Compare no. 13.
[19] In what sense he may be called tutelary of the church of Luni; Writers unanimously assert that St. Basil was once the tutelary of the cathedral church. Compare the preceding number. But how and when this came to pass is not clearly established. Ferrari hints that it was called first after St. Basil and later after St. Mary, and Ughelli seems to agree. But Lucenzi has corrected him: The cathedral of Luni, he says, which we read to have been entitled to St. Basil of Luni, we find from a diploma of King Berengar, granted to Odelbert, bishop of Luni, in the year 890, to have been called that of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary. Pope Eugene the Third, when he took the church under the immediate jurisdiction of St. Peter (in the year 1149), recognized as its titular the blessed Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary; the same is asserted by Innocent the Third, confirming, in the year 1202, all the goods and rights of the church of Luni. Perhaps that of St. Basil attached itself to the more important and primeval title, the devotion of the flock acclaiming this holy pastor of theirs, there laid to rest after he had put off mortality, and implored from God as chief patron. Thus far Lucenzi, abbot of the Cistercian order, as was Ughelli, in the Italia sacra aucta etc. Vol. I, col. 1269., which singular work, as is in the title itself, was recently divided into twenty provinces and three volumes, with a fourth to follow; but the first alone appeared, at Rome in 1704, from the Barnabò press. That volume is found in our hagiographic museum, and is very rare and almost unknown to bibliographers. From it Coleti greatly enlarged his edition of Ughelli (Venice, in the year 1717). According to Lucenzi's mind therefore, from all past antiquity the cathedral church of Luni is found to be named after the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and it was not afterwards called after St. Basil, except secondarily, as they say, and this from
the devotion of the acclaiming flock. And indeed in the three diplomas cited by Lucenzi there is no mention at all of Basil. Thus Berengar in the year 900, in express words, in Ughelli Italia S. vol. I, col. 835.: Odelbert, bishop of the holy church of Luni, which is named in honour of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary. Odelbert presided from the year 890 to the year 941 Ibid., col. 836.. And Pope Eugene III, in the year 1129: The church of the Blessed Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary of Luna … we take under the protection of Blessed Peter and our own Ibid., col. 845.. Finally Pope Innocent III in his diploma of the year 1202 recites plainly the same words, making mention of the aforesaid charter of Eugene Ibid., col. 851.. From these monuments it certainly follows that in the 9th and 10th centuries and afterwards down to the 13th century, at the opening of which the translation of the see from Luna to Sarzana was made by Innocent III, the title of the church was named after St. Mary; and that in these and other diplomas of the same age no mention of St. Basil is found.
[20] [Ughelli wrongly presumes that this arose from the body of the holy Prelate having rested at Luni in the cathedral church.] Was then his invocation, as Lucenzi suspects, added on from the devotion of the acclaiming flock? For my part I do not think so. The cathedral church of St. Basil, asserts Ughelli Vol. I, col. 833., Innocent III, on account of the inclemency of the air, transferred from the ruins of Luni to Sarzana to the church of St. Andrew, in the year 1204 (rather the year 1202)… And this cathedral, of ample and ancient structure, has the Virgin Mother of God as patroness. And again Ibid., col. 850.: Walter (the bishop) … granted the churches of St. Andrew and Basil with their appurtenances to the chapter of Luni, and transferred the ancient cathedral from the same church of St. Basil to St. Andrew's, by the authority of Innocent III, in the year 1204, as is held in the Vatican register. Ughelli does not recite the instrument, nor have I found it anywhere. To Ughelli therefore the cathedral at Luni was named after St. Basil; but at Sarzana, after the translation, the title of St. Andrew being suppressed, it was called after St. Mary. The former seems to me wholly false, as I said in the preceding number. The latter I think likewise false, at least in part, as will be made plain from what follows. Before the 13th century, namely, there were two parishes or plebes in the city of Sarzana Compare Du Cange's glossary under this word.; one named after St. Basil, the other after St. Andrew. To the former, not to the latter, the cathedral was translated from Luna, the title of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary being however preserved; and in this manner it is truly said to have once had St. Basil as tutelary, that is at Sarzana, but not at Luni. Whence Semeria Secoli etc. vol. II, pp. 9 and 10.: In his (St. Basil's) honour was dedicated the parish of St. Basil (la pieve di S. Basilio), whose church after the year 1200 was made the cathedral of Sarzana, with the title of St. Mary. And elsewhere Ibid., p. 49.: Finally on the 15th of June of the year 1202 (Ughelli has 25 April 1204) the translation of the see took place, when the canons collegially betook themselves from Luna to Sarzana, into the church of St. Basil (not however of St. Andrew, as Ughelli writes), of which thereafter the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary was patroness. Similarly Emmanuele Gerini Memorie Storiche di Lunigrana, vol. I, p. 19.: The people of Sarzana in later centuries dedicated to the blessed Prelate the parish called after "St. Basil," which church after the year 1200 was made the cathedral of the Lunigiana under the title of the Blessed Virgin Mary, after Luna was deserted. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in the palace of Sarzana agrees (of which nos. 2 and 13): St. Basil, bishop of Luni and confessor; it is not known at what time he lived. The cathedral church of Sarzana was once called the plebs of St. Basil, whose body lies buried in it Compare the same.. Ughelli therefore slips where he asserts that the cathedral at Luni was consecrated to St. Basil; nor does the conjecture of Lucenzi about an added title avail either; much less is the opinion of Ferrari to be admitted, who asserts that the cathedral church was once called St. Basil's, but when restored was called St. Mary's, unless we wish these words to be understood not of the ancient church of Luni, but of that of Sarzana: in which latter sense Ferrari's assertion is correct. See no. 18. Moreover the same Ughelli errs (whom Moroni has followed Dizion., under Luni. and we also in the acts of St. Salarius at the 22nd of October Acta SS. vol. IX of Oct., p. 619.) in reporting that the cathedral was translated to the plebs of St. Andrew.
[21] On the relics of St. Basil As concerning the title of the church, so the things read in various authors about the Relics of St. Basil are confused. Ferrari in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy: His body, he says, is preserved in the cathedral church. And Ughelli in almost the same words: His body is preserved in the cathedral (church), which was once called St. Basil's on account of his memory. If these things, as indeed appears, concern the ancient church of Luni, they are by no means to be admitted, as is shown from the foregoing. Wherefore Gerini Memorie etc., as above.: The church of St. Basil at Sarzana after the year 1200 was made the cathedral, the title of St. Mary being taken up. But the body of the holy Prelate lay hidden for a thousand years in St. Venantius of Ceperana, beneath the high altar; from which place it was afterwards carried to the aforesaid cathedral of Sarzana, as is gathered from the synod of Bishop Benedetto Lomellini, p. 63. I should think the acts of this synod are extant in manuscript; certainly I have found them nowhere published. Semeria has the same Secoli etc. vol. I, p. 10.. Lomellini presided at Sarzana from the year 1565 to the year 1572, when he passed to the see of Anagni; a most distinguished man and especially dear to Pope Paul V, by whom he was sent as legate a latere to Flanders, and a little before he ascended the chair of Sarzana was enrolled in the college of the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. He died at Anagni in the year 1579 Ibid., p. 95.. On the testimony therefore of Gerini and Semeria (if there are others, they have so far escaped me) the body of St. Basil never at any time rested at Luni, nor even at Sarzana in its own church; but it was carried to this when it had already been distinguished with the title of cathedral and had its appellation from St. Mary. Nor have I anything else available to say about the Relics.
[22] [And the abbey of St. Venantius at Ceperana, where the body of St. Basil is reported to have rested.] Since mention has fallen of the church of St. Venantius, as also of the town of Ceperana, it will be of use to subjoin some things from Ripetti's Dictionary. Cepperana or Ceperana, where there was once to be seen the abbey of St. Venantius of the order of St. Benedict, was at the confluence of the rivers Vara and Magra. The forum or market of Ceperana, with the whole court and district, is read to have been granted to the bishops of Luni by the emperor Otto I in the year 963, and confirmed in the year 1185 by Frederick, likewise emperor, the First. And in fact it follows from the Pelavicino codex (compare no. 13) that the prelate of Luni already had a procurator there in the 10th century: for a colonus is recorded at that time to have bound himself to pay an annual rent "in your court of Ceperana." No mention of the abbey of St. Venantius is found older than the 12th century. It had moreover greatly declined in the 15th century; a little afterwards it came into the hands of the Olivetans; finally the old monastery of St. Venantius is now a rustic house, or, as is commonly said, a villa of the family of the Giustiniani, nobles of Genoa [Ripetti, Dizionario geografico fisico storico della Toscana, under Cepperana. Florence 1833.].
[23] Memory. The memory of St. Basil is almost lacking in the sacred calendars. There is nothing of him either in the Roman or in the classic, as they say, martyrologies; nor are the additions to Usuard in Du Sollier excepted, in which the name of the holy Prelate is nowhere marked. He is found only in each of Ferrari's catalogues; likewise in the Italian Hagiology and finally in the universal martyrology of Chastelain, where at the 29th of October: At Sarzana in Italy, of St. Basil, bishop of Luni, from whom the cathedral once obtained its name.
[24] The chief vicissitudes of the church of Luni. In the opinion of the writers of Luni, the origin of this see ascends to the first times of our era, although, as we have shown, no mention of the cathedral occurs from certain documents older than the 5th century. At the opening of the 13th century it was translated from Luna, on account of the inclemency of the air, under Pope Innocent III to Sarzana, a nearby city; and thereafter the bishop was called of Luni-Sarzana. Finally Pope Pius VII, on the 8th day of the month of December in the year 1820, by the bull Sollicita quam pro muneris apostolici, united the church of Brugnato with that of Sarzana; wherefore the titular, residing at Sarzana, today goes by the name of bishop of Luni-Sarzana and Brugnato, and remains by force of the same constitution immediately subject to the holy see, as is read to have obtained already from ancient times. Compare the acts of St. Salarius Acta SS. vol. IX of October, p. 619.