ON ST. FREDALDUS, BISHOP AND MARTYR,
OR FRODOALDUS, AT MENDE IN OCCITANIA
Between the years DCCCXIV and DCCCXL.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.
An account of the place in which the Saint is venerated: his announcement in the Martyrologies; whether he was bishop of Mende? the time of his martyrdom, the place of his burial, his Acts.
Fredaldus or Frodoaldus, bishop and M., at Mende in Occitania. (S.)
BY C. S.
The situation and description of the place in which this holy Bishop and martyr is venerated is given by Baudrand, volume 1 of the Geography, page 656: An account of the place in which the Saint is venerated. Mimatum or Mimate, he says, (by the natives it is called Mende) is a city of France, formerly in Aquitaine, now in Occitania, the capital of the Gabali, toward the Cevennes mountains and the sources of the river Lot; it is episcopal under the archbishop of Albi, and is called by some Anderitum or Gabalum; but in truth it is four leagues distant from the ruins of Anderitum, where there is now a village called Javoux, on the testimony of Catel, and it grew out of its ruins, since before it was only a village at the roots of Mount Gredon, where today it is situated, and where St. Privatus the martyr fell: it is ten leagues distant from Saint-Flour toward the south-east, as also from Le Puy, and fourteen from Rodez toward the east, and it is in a mountainous but fertile tract. Denis de Sainte-Marthe in the Gallia Christiana of the latest edition, volume 1, column 83 and following, almost agrees, differing however in this, that he makes the city of Mende almost equally distant from the three cities assigned. But of Javouls he says thus: Some will have it that the village or little town of Javouls, which is four leagues distant from Mende, was formerly the capital of the nation of the Gabali, being led by the likeness of the name rather than by any certain testimony. He adds also that Mende was formerly an episcopal city under the metropolitan of Bourges, and is now under that of Albi, and is contained within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Toulouse. Further, of the Gabali (in the vernacular les Gevaudans) Hadrian Valois treats at length in the Notitia Galliarum, page 213 and following. But from what time the see of the nation of the Gabali was translated to Mende we shall discuss. Meanwhile receive the Saint's memory in the Fasti.
[2] His cult from the Martyrologies. The Paris Martyrology published in the year 1727 announces him thus: Among the Gabali, of St. Fredaldus, bishop of Gévaudan and martyr, whose reliquary was in the sixteenth century preserved from the fury of the Calvinists. Castellanus in the Universal Martyrology, written in French, adds the place in which his sacred bones rest. His words, turned from French into Latin, are these: In the county of Gévaudan in Occitania,
St. Frodoaldus, bishop of Gévaudan (in French, de Javoux); whose body is honored at Canonica (in French, à la Canourgue) in the church of his name. The same is assigned by Sainte-Marthe, praised above, at column 88, where in the series of the bishops of Mende he has this: St. Fredaldus was carried off by martyrdom in the time of Louis the Pious by impious men, whose leader was his own nephew, another Judas, using a kiss to betray him; and he is commemorated on the IV of September in the Office of the saints of Mende. His body is kept in a church distinguished by his name near Canonica. Ferrarius expresses the place of his cult in the general Catalogue of the Saints in these words: In the city of Mende, of St. Fredaldus, bishop of that same city, and martyr. André du Saussay agrees, saying in the supplement to the Gallican Martyrology: At Mende of the Gabali, the birthday of St. Frodoaldus, bishop and martyr. Then he weaves a lengthy elogium of him from the Saint's proper lessons, which we shall reprint below. Finally Simon Peyronet in the Catalogue of the Saints writes the following in his Notes about his cult: By Claude Robert and Saussay he is called Frodoaldus, by Chenu Fredoaldus; but in the Proper of Mende, Fredaldus, commonly Fresal, in our Catel …; under which appellation he has churches and places dedicated to him in the aforesaid diocese of Mende, and indeed in the archpresbytery of the Cevennes there is a parish or place commonly called St. Fresal de Ventalon, and in the archpresbytery of Barjac, St. Frezals de Grèze, and St. Frezalles-lès-la-Canourgue, St. Fredaldus near Canonica, and there is shown the place where he was slain by his nephew.
[3] That our holy Martyr held an episcopal see among the Gabali in Occitania is granted by all. He was bishop of Gévaudan: Hadrian Valois in the Notitia Galliarum, page 213 and following, treating at sufficient length of the Gabali, holds that Anderitum, a very ancient city, was formerly the capital of the nation of the Gabali, which, laying aside its own and older appellation, took the name of the nation, after the example of other cities of Gaul, and began to be called the city of the Gabali, and Gabali. That the see of the bishops was fixed here is manifest from their subscriptions in various councils of Gaul. Hear Sainte-Marthe, praised above, discoursing at column 83 about the church of Mende: Mimas on the river Lot, now the episcopal see of the Gabali, was formerly only a village, so called from Mount Mimat, to which it lies adjacent; which, being made illustrious by the martyrdom and tomb of St. Privatus, bishop of Gévaudan, became more famous, and at length was ennobled with an episcopal see and made a city: which Hadrian Valois in the Notitia Galliarum thinks happened not long before the year of Christ one thousand. Before this, therefore, the bishop of Gévaudan had his see in the city of Gabalum or of the Gabali, as very many subscriptions of the earlier councils of Gaul prove. Further, that that city was called Anderitum, many testimonies of the ancients teach. Thus far Sainte-Marthe, with whom the other learned men also agree.
[4] But it is uncertain from what time the see was translated from the city of the Gabali to Mende; but it is uncertain whether he sat at Gabalum or at Mende. whence a further doubt arises, whether St. Fredaldus had his see in this one or in that. The matter would be placed beyond controversy if sure credit could be given to the longer Acts of St. Privatus, whose martyrdom our Cuper, volume IV of August at the day XXI, places after the middle of the third century or at the beginning of the fifth: for in these both St. Privatus and all who had preceded him are said to have sat at Mende. Take the words: At that time St. Privatus presided over that region or church, having his see in the little village of Mende, for this reason, that those who before him had held the rank of the episcopate had both dwelt and been buried in that place. If, I say, undoubted credit could be given to those Acts, it would have to be said outright that St. Fredaldus had his see at Mende, since he is later than St. Privatus by several centuries. But those Acts, as the praised Cuper noted at page 436, number 15, displease the learned for these very reasons; among whom Tillemont, volume 4 of the Monuments of the Church, page 651, and others suspect that they were composed after the tenth century: and Cuper confesses that he cannot defend their antiquity by sure arguments.
[5] [The opinion of the author of the Acts of St. Privatus is rejected: the mind of Denis de Sainte-Marthe is set forth:] They displeased Sainte-Marthe also at the place cited, where after the words we have reported he thus continues: And so, according to these Acts, from the beginning of the Christian religion Mimas would always have been an episcopal see, which fights against the custom of the ancients and against the canons, by which it was provided that episcopal sees should not be established in little villages. And a little after: Besides, from these Acts it is held that several bishops (whereas St. Severianus alone was known to him) preceded St. Privatus in the episcopate; which is by no means approved by the learned, especially by those who will have it that St. Privatus was slain in the irruption of the Alamanni made under the leader Chrocus in the year CCLXV or CCLXVIII: which opinion our Cuper thought should be followed in a doubtful matter until surer things be produced for the contrary. Then the same learned Benedictine opens his mind in these words: It is likely however that the village of Mimas, after St. Privatus's martyrdom, when peace had been restored to the church, became famous by the throng of people who flocked to his tomb; and that in this place the bishop and clergy fixed their see. This vague expression determines no certain century: but from what he adds it is sufficiently gathered that Sainte-Marthe thought this translation of the see was accomplished long before the times of St. Fredaldus: for he presently meets the objection which he knew was formed by the learned out of the subscriptions of the earlier councils of Gaul. Nor does it stand in the way, he says, that these prelates were nevertheless called Gabalitani; for they were not so called from the village of Javouls but from the whole nation of the Gabali over which they presided: just as those who sat at Clermont were long called bishops of the Arverni, not of Clermont; and those at Le Puy were called bishops of the Velavi, not of Anicium or of Le Puy. And so, according to the mind of Sainte-Marthe, St. Fredaldus, whose martyrdom happened under Louis the Pious in the ninth century, held his see in the city of Mende, already long since established there.
[6] [against whom Valois and the writers of the History of Occitania hold the contrary,] But Hadrian Valois in the place already cited thinks that that translation happened not long before the year of the Lord one thousand. Close to Valois come the learned Benedictine writers of the History of Occitania, who, in volume 1 in the Notes, pages 640 and 641, disputing about this controversy, judge that the epoch of the translated see is most probably to be referred to about the middle of the tenth century. Take the reasons by which both these and he are led. Their chief argument they draw from the earlier councils of Gaul, at which several bishops of Gévaudan, but no bishop of Mende, are read to have subscribed. For example, at the first council of Arles of the year 314 there subscribed: Genialis, deacon, of the city of Gabalum, province of Aquitaine; at that of Agde of the year 506, Optimus, deacon, sent by Leonicus, bishop of the city of Gabalum; at that of Clermont of the year 535, Hilarius, bishop of the church of Gévaudan; at the fourth of Orleans of the year 541, Evanthius, bishop of the city of Gévaudan; at that of Reims of the year 625 or 630, Agricola, bishop of Gévaudan. What need of more? Sainte-Marthe himself, in the series of the bishops of Mende, confesses that Agenulf, who is later than St. Fredaldus, subscribed in the year 876 at the council of Ponthion as bishop of Gévaudan: nay, he even notes that Ragamundus or Raimundus was the first of all to subscribe himself, in the year 1031 at the council of Bourges, as bishop of Mende.
[7] Since therefore Valois found none who before the year one thousand called himself bishop of Mende, [who think that Mende was made illustrious with an episcopal see only in the tenth century.] he gathered hence that Mende was first made illustrious with a bishopric about that time. But the praised writers of Occitania cite a certain charter drawn up in the year 950, in which is plainly read: I, Stephen, bishop of the church of Mende. That charter Mabillon recites in the De Re diplomatica, page 569. Whence they infer that the translation of the see cannot be deferred beyond the middle of the tenth century. They do not bring forward any certain occasion for the transfer of the see; yet they suspect that Gabalum was perhaps then overthrown by the Hungarians, who about the year 925 harassed Aquitaine. And to Sainte-Marthe's answer, brought forward at number 5, they reply that the difficulty is not dissolved by the example of the bishops of Clermont or of Le Puy; for it is no wonder that the former were called Arverni even while they sat at Clermont, since the city of Clermont, with a changed name, is the same as the old Arvernian one; and so no translation of the see intervened here. As to the bishops of Le Puy, they admit indeed that after they had fixed their see at Anicium they kept the title of prelates of the Velavi, but yet in such a way that at the same time they were also written Anicienses, as may be seen in the same Sainte-Marthe, volume 2 of the Instruments, column 221 and following: but they deny that anything similar is found about the bishops of Mende.
[8] The writers of Occitania further establish their opinion from Ado, the martyrologist of the ninth century, they judge it to have been made illustrious. who mentions Mimas under the name of a village, announcing thus at the day XXI of August: In the territory of the city of Gévaudan, in the village of Mimas, the birthday of St. Privatus, bishop. To the same opinion they cite Regino, who in his Chronicles, written at the beginning of the tenth century, book 1, reckoning the martyrs who suffered under the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, has this: In the territory of Canallitanum , in the village of Mitanum , Privatus, bishop. If therefore in the ninth century, and at the beginning of the tenth, Mimas was only a village, on what ground are bishops said to have resided in it at that time, against the ancient canons? Certainly the praised Denis himself holds the Acts of St. Privatus suspect, because according to these, he says, from the beginning of the Christian religion Mimas would always have been an episcopal see, which fights against the custom of the ancients and against the canons, by which it was provided that episcopal sees should not be established in little villages: but the same custom and the same canons were in force in the centuries assigned, and therefore, if Mimas was then only a village, it did not yet shine with that dignity. To this argument it can be objected that the cited authors speak of Mimas not as it was in the ninth century and at the beginning of the following one, but as it had been when St. Privatus was crowned with martyrdom. I cannot deny that this is the genuine sense of Regino; but of Ado I think otherwise: for the latter assigns the arena, the former the place in which in his own time the holy martyr was venerated. Now Mimas, when Privatus suffered, was certainly not a city, and consequently he ought not to have been said to have fallen in the city of Mende; but if in St. Ado's time it had already turned out to be an episcopal city (which could not have been hidden from him), it would have been ineptly announced by him that the birthday of St. Privatus was in the territory of the city of Gévaudan, in the village of Mimas.
[9] Answer is made to the difficulties, Let us now see what difficulties are brought forward against the opinion reported. The often-mentioned writers of Occitania set them out, and try to answer each of them. From the Acts of St. Amatius, volume 1, book 3, number 82, they had said that the city of the Gabali was utterly laid waste by the Vandals under the leader Chrocus at the beginning of the fifth century. Things agreeing with this are related in the Acts of St. Privatus, which may be read in our Cuper at the day XXI of August; and by Gregory of Tours, book 1 of the History of the Franks
chapter 32. Hence, they hint, it can be inferred that, the Gabali being overthrown, Mende grew into a city and was enlarged by the see being translated thither. But this argument ought not to detain us much: for in the first place, as the cited Benedictines noted, Gregory of Tours nowhere plainly asserts that the city of the Gabali was destroyed by the aforesaid barbarians; nor do the Acts of St. Privatus affirm it, although both these and he relate that that whole region was afflicted and laid waste in a pitiable manner. What the Acts of St. Amatius set forth to our purpose I do not know: but the cited Benedictines answer that they seem too recent for one safely to stand upon their authority. Perhaps these same Acts will come to be discussed in our Work: I meanwhile can neither reject nor admit them: yet I do not see that the opinion set forth above can be solidly assailed on this side: for that this argument might have any strength, it should have been shown that the aforesaid city was not only utterly destroyed, but so destroyed that, peace being afterwards restored, it was not rebuilt: and that this was not the case, the reasons brought forward at numbers 6, 7, and 8 seem to persuade.
[10] which are opposed to this opinion: They put to themselves another difficulty from the same St. Gregory of Tours, who, they say, in book 10, chapter 29, seems to suppose that Mende was already adorned with a bishopric about the end of the sixth century: for, treating of St. Aredius's death, he brings in a possessed woman speaking thus: Behold, Julian is here from Brioude, Privatus from Mende. But I can hammer nothing else out of this than that St. Gregory there seems to speak of Mende as of a place of burial or even of cult, as Baillet observed in the Life of St. Privatus: but this does not prevent the bishops of that time from being said to have still resided at old Gabalum. The praised writers go on and try to increase the objected difficulty from another passage of the same holy historian. In book 6, chapter 37, St. Lupentius is called abbot of the basilica of St. Privatus, martyr of the city of Gévaudan. From these words, they say, it can be concluded that, since the monastery of the said martyr was most probably built at his tomb and indeed at Mende, Mimas, in the waning sixth century in which St. Lupentius is reported to have lived, already enjoyed the title of the old metropolis of the Gabali, and therefore also the episcopal see.
[11] are opposed: and the praised Benedictines are subscribed to. But from this argument, in which everything is doubtful, nothing certain can be dug out. It is doubtful, first, whether the aforesaid monastery was built at the very tomb of the saint at Mende. It is doubtful, secondly, whether that holy martyr was committed to burial in the place where Mende is now founded: certainly this is nowhere, so far as I know, plainly handed down. In the Acts, in Cuper cited above, no place is determinately assigned. Here are the words: Because at that time so great a rage of the persecutors burned against the Christians that they did not spare even the ashes of the Saints, a crypt was made underground, in which the holy body was placed with honor. Besides — which is the main point — on what ground will they prove that by those words of the city of Gévaudan Mende is designated? For that these are to be referred not to the word "basilica" but to the Martyr, the natural connection of the words itself manifestly hints: so that the sense is that St. Lupentius was abbot of the basilica of St. Privatus the martyr — that is, who was martyr — of the city of Gévaudan: for at Gabalum, not at Mende, which was then only a village, St. Privatus was residing as bishop when he underwent martyrdom, as Sainte-Marthe admits: in vain therefore would anyone wish to dig out of the cited words that Mende in the sixth century, having taken the name of metropolis of the nation of the Gabali, was a metropolis and episcopal. Yet I confess that the opinion of the writers of Occitania is not so certain as wholly to destroy the probability of the other: nor indeed do they themselves contend for this, being content to defend theirs merely as very likely. These men, until surer things be brought forward for a see of St. Fredaldus at Mende, I judge should be followed as resting on more probable reasons. Perhaps to these shadows of antiquity the Acts of SS. Amatius and Lupentius will bring some light on one side or the other, when they come to be examined in our Work.
[12] Of the year in which our Saint was crowned with martyrdom The time of the martyrdom: I find nothing certain handed down to memory, except that he is reported to have undergone it in the time of Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, in the proper Office of the church of Mende, to be reprinted below. Further, Louis the Pious was in the year 781 given the kingdom of Aquitaine by his father: and in the year 814, on Charles's death, he obtained the empire. Wherefore, if the words of the Office designate the Aquitanian reign of Louis, the Saint's martyrdom could have fallen in the eighth century as it drew to a close: if they denote the empire, it is to be placed only in the ninth century when it had already begun some years: yet I think that the time of the empire is here noted. Since therefore Louis reigned from the year 814 to 840, the Saint's death is to be placed within the limits of these years. But I would not dare to divine in what year determinately it happened. Castellanus in the Universal Martyrology binds it to 820; the Paris one places it about the same year or 830: Denis de Sainte-Marthe keeps deep silence about it, content to have referred the saint's martyrdom to the times of the aforesaid emperor: to me nothing appears more certain than that the true year of his death is unknown.
[13] More distinctly do the writers treat of the place of his burial, the place of his burial although the Acts which I have seen are silent about that also. Saussay in the supplement, at the IV of September, assigns the place in these words: The sacred Prelate, taking up his severed head in his own hands, wonderfully carried it, walking, to the place where he was honorably buried by the mourning faithful people, not far from the town and castle of Canonica, where in a little monastery of his name, of the Order of St. Benedict, he is even now kept and venerated. The writers of Occitania, volume 1, book 9, number 103, distinguish the place of burial from the monastery in which, according to Saussay, his sacred bones rest. Their words from the French are these: He was buried in a church near the castle of Canonica (la Canourgue), and a little afterwards translated into a certain monastery of the Order of St. Benedict built in the same place. This monastery, dedicated under the name of St. Martin, was afterwards subjected to the abbey of St. Victor of Marseilles, to which it still obeys with the title of a conventual Priory. About the church dedicated to St. Fredaldus they add nothing: but Sainte-Marthe, volume 1 of the Gallia Christiana, column 88, plainly mentions it among the bishops of Mende, subjoining about Fredaldus: His body is kept in a church distinguished by his name near Canonica.
[14] is assigned. Further, the cited author reckons Canonica among the destroyed abbeys of the diocese of Mende at column III, where he also briefly assigns the situation of the place: Canonica, commonly la Canourgue, under the patronage of St. Martin, was anciently a most famous monastery, situated in the bishopric of Mende, in the district of Bearnec: and it is 5 great French leagues distant from Mende, according to his own map prefixed to volume 1. He then relates that in the eleventh century, when the simoniacal heresy was rife, that monastery came under the dominion of laymen, until at last, under bishop Aldebert I in the year 1060, it was subjected to the abbey of St. Victor of Marseilles. Whether in this place the Saint's relics were still kept when in the sixteenth century, on the testimony of the Paris Martyrology, they were preserved from the fury of the Calvinists, I have nowhere found. This is certain, that Occitania in the said century was laid waste by those heretics in a pitiable manner, as may be seen in the writers of Occitania, volume 5: where you will also find that the city of Mende was several times taken by them, and in the year 1579 destroyed for a great part by sword and flame.
[15] What Acts are to be reprinted. The same Benedictines, volume 1, book 9, page 494, mention certain Acts of the holy Prelate, citing in the margin Saussay in the supplement to the Gallican Martyrology, Le Cointe at the year 831, number 6, and Sainte-Marthe, volume 1, page 88. But that those Acts are nothing else than St. Fredaldus's own Office, or the lessons which were printed among the proper Offices of the church of Mende, the cited authors themselves make manifest. Denis de Sainte-Marthe refers to this Office: Le Cointe copies Saussay's words: and Saussay finally so abridged the aforesaid Lessons that in more than one place he has kept their very phrases and very words, and added nothing except that he designates the place in which he was buried and his sacred bones are kept with due honor. Therefore, since other records about this holy Martyr are not at hand for me, I transfer hither this very Office. And the one I have in hand was published at Lyons in the year 1619, and besides the account of his death and the punishment of the sacrilegious parricide, contains hardly anything but elogia.
Annotationsread Gabalitano* read Mimatensi*
THE PROPER OFFICE.
Fredaldus or Frodoaldus, bishop and M., at Mende in Occitania. (S.)
The Saint's proper Office. On the IV day of September. On the feast of St. Fredaldus a, bishop of Mende and martyr, double.
Collect. O God, the rewarder of faithful souls, who hast consecrated this day by the martyrdom of blessed Fredaldus our pontiff: grant to us thy servants, we beseech thee, that we may by his prayers obtain pardon, whose venerable festival we celebrate. Through our Lord, etc.
In the first Nocturn, the lessons from the Scripture occurring.
In the second Nocturn.
[17] Lesson IV. Fredaldus, bishop of Mende, in the time of Louis the Pious b, son of Charlemagne, the devil, not bearing the Saint's apostolic labors, came to cultivate the minds of the Gabali c, then rough and untilled, being still for a great part heathen, with an abundance of the divine word and with the example of all virtues. And already, by the working of so great a Husbandman, these fields, before unfruitful, having received the divine seed, which sprang up and came to ripeness, were abundantly filling the Lord's barn; when the most foul enemy of the human race, envying God's Servant so many fruits, and despairing, while so great a Shepherd survived, that he could snatch the sheep from his hand and carry them off to be torn for ever in eternal torments, stirs up various men — but in vain — to lay violent hands upon the most watchful Prelate. ℞. He made him honorable.
[18] Lesson V. Meanwhile the evil demon does not desist from his undertakings, stirs up against him his own nephew, he contrives and lays snares; and at length by his devices, deceits, and solicitations he prevails so far that he finds even one of the Bishop's kinsmen and nephews a fit instrument, who, obeying his persuasions and deceived by the hope of coming into an inheritance d, should lay sacrilegious hands upon him. The unhappy wretch therefore comes to his Uncle's house, and is received kindly and with fitting ceremony by the Prelate's household, all applauding; the greeting which all bestow with the greatest affection, he returns with a fraudulent mind. He asks for the place where Fredaldus was, as was his custom, engaged in divine prayers; the servants show the place: thither the wicked man runs, to give, as he said, a greeting. ℞. The desire of his soul, etc.
[19] Lesson VI. As his nephew entered the place, Fredaldus came to meet him to greet him, [who treacherously beheads him. The Saint carries his severed head; and is buried: the punishment of the parricide.] when behold, the debauchee, driven by a demoniac impulse, betraying with a kiss God's Servant, his own uncle, lays violent hands upon him and cruelly cuts off his head. Wonderful to tell!
The Shepherd carried his own head with his own hands e to the place where his body was honorably committed to burial by the mourning people f. The murderer, returning to his own home, God avenging the crime committed, was strangled by a demon and perished. So the Lord's mercy crowned Fredaldus, renowned for frequent miracles g and relying on desires of eternal salvation, overcoming the desires of this life. So the divine justice condemned his nephew, unjustly gaping after the goods of the world and not sparing the blood of his innocent Uncle. ℞. A robe of gladness.
In the third Nocturn.
The Homily of St. Gregory the Pope on the Gospel: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, etc. From the Common of one martyr.