ON ST. AUGUSTALIS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,
AT ARLES IN GAUL
Perhaps in the third or fourth century.
CRITICAL-HISTORICAL SYLLOGE.
Augustalis, bishop and confessor, at Arles in Gaul (S.)
BY J. S.
Concerning St. Augustalis the bishop I find far more to be disputed than to be narrated: for his deeds are utterly unknown; [St. Augustalis the bishop is attributed to Arles in the most ancient Martyrologies,] but concerning his episcopal city very various things have been written. Nevertheless the Hieronymian Martyrologies attribute St. Augustalis the bishop to the city of Arles with so great consent that it does not seem that we ought to have looked elsewhere for any slight cause. Florentinius, with the Saint's name somewhat distorted, published it thus: In Gaul, the deposition of St. Agustalis the bishop. More correctly, in the Annotations to the same place, the most ancient Epternach codex: In the city of Arles, of Augustalis the bishop. And the Corbie: At the city of Arles, the deposition of St. Augustalis the bishop. There are added among us three codices, namely the Rheinau, the Reichenau, and that of the Queen of Sweden, which expressly announce Augustalis the bishop on this day in the city of Arles. The same Saint is also assigned to Arles by the Gellone codex in d'Achéry, and by the most ancient one published by Martène in tome 3 of the Anecdota from a manuscript of the monastery of St. Germain of Auxerre. This consent of nearly all the most ancient Martyrologies makes it hard for me to believe that St. Augustalis was not bishop of Arles: for Rabanus too agrees in these words: At Arles, a city of Gaul, the birthday of St. Augustalis the bishop. I pass over Greven and Molanus in the Auctaria of Usuard, and the Auctaria of Bede, and other more recent martyrologists.
[2] Yet various writers of later centuries have believed Baronius and others, however, believed him bishop of another city: that he was not bishop of Arles. Leading the column of these, Baronius cautiously passed over the episcopal city, announcing Augustalis in the Roman Martyrology in these words: In Gaul, of St. Augustalis, bishop and confessor. In his Annotations he adds these things: Concerning the same, here Bede (the enlarged, that is, or Rabanus) who although he places him at Arles, yet since the same bishop is found subscribed to the first council of Orange, in the time of St. Leo the Pope, when St. Hilary, who was present at that synod, presided over the same see of Arles, he seems rather to have been bishop of another city. For in the lists of the bishops of Arles which Demochares described, there is no mention at all of Augustalis the bishop. Baronius's reasoning is legitimate, if St. Augustalis be the same as the Augustalis the bishop who was present at the council of Orange; but that must be proved, not supposed. Saussay believed him the same, in his Martyrology at this day, and in the Supplement at the VII day of October, where he records a Commemoration of the Saint at Arles. Of the same opinion was Castellanus in the Universal Martyrology at this day, where he sets him as having died at Arles about the year 460, but notes that he was not bishop of that city. Whether Saussay believed St. Augustalis to be bishop of Arles or of another city he does not clearly declare: but he seems to be of the same opinion as Castellanus, to which several others also have subscribed.
[3] Dionysius of Sainte-Marthe holds him to have been of Arles about the year 455; Saxius in the Pontificium Arelatense places St. Augustalis in the catalogue of the bishops of Arles after Ravennius the successor of St. Hilary, doubtfully
yet, not asserting for certain that he was bishop at Arles. Dionysius of Sainte-Marthe, in tome 1 of Gallia Christiana, col. 535, more confidently reckons St. Augustalis among the prelates of Arles after Ravennius, writing thus: Nothing forbids our placing Augustalis midway between Ravennius and Leontius. Certainly we know nothing of Ravennius after the year CDLV, or even CDL… What therefore hinders our giving a place to Augustalis throughout all that time which is left vacant between CDLV and CDLXI, in which last year Leontius was sitting. This reasoning of Sainte-Marthe is easily overturned. For either the author is speaking of the Augustalis who was present as bishop at the council of Orange in the time of Hilary, and is mentioned as bishop in the time of Ravennius in a letter of St. Leo in Saxius; or of another Augustalis of uncertain date. If of the first, as is likely, then the ecclesiastical discipline of that time forbids our believing that that Augustalis was bishop of Arles, since in that age translations of bishops from one see to another were most severely prohibited.
[4] his opinion about the date of the see is refuted. On that matter Thomassin may be seen, in the Discipline of the Church, part 2, book 2, chapter 60. I transfer hither only the words of St. Leo, recited by him from Epistle 84: If any bishop, despising the mediocrity of his own city, shall have sought after the administration of a more famous place, and shall on any occasion whatsoever have transferred himself to a greater people; he shall not only be driven from the see that is not his own, but shall also lose his own, so that he may preside neither over those whom he coveted through avarice, nor over those whom he despised through pride. Who therefore would say — and that without any suitable authority — that Augustalis was translated in the time of St. Leo from another see to that of Arles? But if Sainte-Marthe be speaking of another Augustalis, there is no reason why he should have chosen that place for him rather than another: for far greater gaps are found in earlier centuries in the catalogue of the prelates of Arles than the one of which he speaks, since for some years no mention is made of Ravennius or of Leontius. Nay, it is not even likely enough that any other presided over the see of Arles between Ravennius and Leontius, since the prelates of Arles of that time are sufficiently known, and yet no mention is anywhere made of anyone intermediate between Ravennius and Leontius, nor is any gap to be admitted between them in the catalogue, as the studious reader will perceive from Sainte-Marthe himself. And so it seems improbable that St. Augustalis, or any other Augustalis, presided over the church of Arles after the middle of the fifth century, as Baronius rightly noted.
[5] Yet not on that account does the opinion of the most learned Cardinal please me, He seems, however, to be numbered among the bishops of Arles, who also, in tome 6 of the Annals at the year 441, number 15, makes St. Augustalis the bishop, announced today in the Calendars, the same as the Augustalis the bishop whom we read as subscribed to the first council of Orange. For the consent of the Hieronymian Martyrologies persuades me that St. Augustalis the bishop must be left to the church of Arles, but that we must look back to earlier centuries. Assuredly a place will not be wanting to St. Augustalis in the catalogue of the prelates of Arles in the second and third centuries, nor even in the fourth. And if we consider attentively in what place and order the memory of St. Augustalis is constantly announced in the praised Calendars, we shall scarcely doubt that that Saint lived in the fourth century or earlier. For in absolutely all the codices which I have praised, and to which for this purpose I add the Augsburg and the Labbean, St. Augustalis is reckoned the first confessor after some martyrs, and everywhere is set before St. Evurtius bishop of Orléans; just as the latter is everywhere placed before Clodoaldus in the Hieronymian Calendars, to which the memory of Clodoaldus was afterwards added. But that place, so constantly given to Augustalis before Evurtius in the Hieronymian Calendars, implies that Augustalis is more ancient than Evurtius, or at least of nearly the same age with him. Now it is agreed that St. Evurtius flourished in the fourth century. Therefore St. Augustalis must be believed to have flourished in the same fourth century, or earlier.
[6] I know indeed that it can here be objected that the order of the time in which the Saints lived is not always kept in the Hieronymian Calendars. but more probably in the third century, or in the fourth before the middle: I would certainly not contend that this order is everywhere kept, since I see the order of the ancient martyrs often neglected. Nevertheless it is clearly evident that the order is not everywhere neglected, especially among the confessors. For this reason that very great consent of the codices in setting Augustalis first supplies at least a probable argument for his age. Further, for his episcopate at Arles I have already given another argument from the consent of the same codices, and one so effective that the episcopate of Arles ought not to be adjudged away from St. Augustalis, unless the weightiest reasons stood against it. And so, since the reasons which are objected against St. Augustalis's see of Arles are of no moment, as I shall presently show, it remains for us to say that he more probably presided over that church in the third century, in which few bishops of Arles are known, or perhaps in the fourth century before the middle. But now let the studious reader learn in a few words how slight are the reasons which are produced against St. Augustalis's see. The first is that an Augustalis was bishop at the council of Orange. But that man is other than St. Augustalis. The second is that he is passed over in the catalogue of the bishops of Arles in Demochares. This is no reason, since the catalogues of Demochares lack very many bishops; and they attribute St. Augustalis to no church at all.
[7] the fiction of the pseudo-Dexter about the Saint's see of Elvira. John Tamayo Salazar in the Spanish Martyrology wished to snatch St. Augustalis away not only from the city of Arles, but even from all Gaul; and inserted him on this day in his Spanish Martyrology as bishop of Elvira in Bætica, but as having died at Arles. But the whole proof is sought from the supposititious Chronicle of the pseudo-Dexter, which the learned everywhere know to be fictitious. I grieve therefore that the most illustrious Francis Maria de Aste was frightened by this bogey in his Annotations on the Roman Martyrology at this day, where, deceived by the pseudo-Dexter's fiction, he doubts whether Augustalis was a bishop in Gaul or in Spain; and urges that in the Roman Martyrology, if it should some time be reprinted, the words in Gaul should be omitted, as Baronius omitted at Arles. But this empty fear arose from an insufficient knowledge of the pseudo-Dexter's fictions. Wherefore not only does Gaul seem to be retained in the announcement of St. Augustalis, but the city of Arles also must be claimed for him.