ON ST. CLODOALDUS, PRIEST,
IN THE TOWN OF SAINT-CLOUD IN THE DISTRICT OF PARIS IN GAUL
In the sixth century after the middle.
PREVIOUS COMMENTARY.
Clodoaldus, priest in the town of Saint-Cloud in the district of Paris in Gaul (S.)
BY J. S.
§ I. The Saint's cult and his memory in the Calendars: the Acts, written too late, are not free from faults: their slight authority for all those things which cannot be confirmed from elsewhere.
[ ] Novigentum, otherwise also Novientum, was the name of a village of the district of Paris on the Seine, on which afterwards was imposed the name of St. Clodoaldus, The place in which the Saint is chiefly venerated: who died and was buried there. That village the Saint gave to the church of Paris, as we shall see below. Concerning it Baudrand in his Geography writes thus: The shrine of St. Clodoaldus, S. Clou, a most cultivated borough of Gaul, formerly called Novigentum, with a stone bridge over the river Seine, and a most superb palace and most pleasant retreat of the duke of Orléans, two leagues below Paris to the West on a hill: … lately it was distinguished with the title of a duchy of the archbishop of Paris. In the collegiate church of this town the body of St. Clodoaldus is preserved, and there he is venerated with especial veneration. André Duchesne in the Antiquities of the cities of France, page 911, says that the Saint's sepulchre of black marble is wont to be honored yearly with votive pilgrimages of the people of Paris. The same Saint is venerated in the whole diocese of Paris, and in certain other dioceses of Gaul; but not everywhere with the same solemnity. That he is patron of a certain domestic chapel of the lords of Villeneuve-Saint-Sauveur * in the diocese of Auxerre I find in the manuscript Collectanea of the same diocese.
[2] his memory in the most ancient Calendars That the cult of St. Clodoaldus is very ancient we learn from the most ancient Calendars: for his memory is inserted in most of the Martyrologies. The chief Hieronymian codices announce it in various ways, because it was added to them after the first author. Florentinius published it thus: And in the territory of the Parisians, the deposition of blessed Chodoaldus the king. His Blume codex: And in the territory of the Parisians, in the village of Novigentum, the deposition of blessed Chodoaldus, king and confessor. The most ancient Epternach codex in the same author's Annotations: At the city of Paris, of Chlonouandus, king and confessor. The Corbie in the same place: In the territory of the Parisians, in the village of Novientum, the deposition of blessed Clodoaldus, king, afterwards priest and confessor. To most codices also whose text is more contracted mention of St. Clodoaldus has been added, but most briefly, and in some with the name somewhat distorted: for in the Reichenau there is read Flodoaldi, the most ancient one in Martène has Hlodoaldi, and the Murbach in the same place Clodoaldæ. But everywhere the same Clodoaldus is designated, the son of king Clodomir, and he is called king either because he was the son of a king, or because with his brothers he was the lawful heir of his father's kingdom. For the rest, out of all those additions to the Hieronymian Martyrology, which are without doubt very ancient, I observe this one thing, that Clodoaldus is in various of them called a priest, but nowhere a monk.
[3] The same may be observed in the martyrologists of the middle age and in most of the middle age, in which he is called a priest: who recorded Clodoaldus. Bede, or Florus, among us before tome 2 of March, has it thus: Of St. Clodoaldus the confessor. This was afterwards enlarged in this manner: On the same day, in the territory of the Parisians, in the village of Novigentum, of St. Clodoaldus, confessor and king. Rabanus, following the earlier words, expressed the Saint's memory thus without the place: The birthday of St. Chlodoaldus the confessor. Wandelbert expressed Evortius and Clodoaldus in verses thus: The prelate Evortius keeps the seventh day, and Clodoaldus the priest, distinguished by royal stock. Usuard recorded the Saint in this manner: Likewise in the territory of Paris, of St. Chlodoaldus the priest, conspicuous as much for nobility of birth as of mind. With a more lengthy elogium the author of the manuscript Florarium of the Saints adorned St. Clodoaldus, announcing him in these words: Likewise in the territory of Paris, in the village of Novientum, of St. Clodoaldus, bishop and confessor, of the stock of the Carolingians. He, since he was sprung of royal lineage, devoted himself to the Lord's worship. Wherefore he was preeminent with a great splendor of virtues. Lastly by his prayers he put demons to flight from possessed bodies: he opened the mouths of the dumb: he restored sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, walking to the lame, and obtained the help of health for all who asked in faith. Who at length, having left an earthly kingdom, obtained a heavenly one, and shines to this day with many miracles. He died in the year of Salvation DL. Thus he, not without errors: for he wrongly calls him a bishop, and unskilfully makes him descend from the stock of the Carolingians; whereas he was only a priest, and sprung from the first stock of the kings of France, that is, from the Merovingians. The year of his death also is not rightly noted, as will be shown below.
[4] Of the moderns, who generally all announce Clodoaldus, certain more recent writers also make him a monk. some assert that he was a monk, others are silent about the monastic life. The Roman Martyrology briefly records him thus: In the territory of Paris, of St. Clodoaldus, priest and confessor. But Wion, Bucelin, and others make him a monk. Among these the recent author of the Parisian Martyrology adorns Clodoaldus with such an elogium: At Novientum in the territory of Paris, of St. Clodoaldus the priest, sprung of the royal stock of the Franks, who, being the grandson of Clovis the great, and withdrawn from the fury of his uncles, wished to be a cleric, and received the habit of a monk from St. Severinus at Paris: at length after some years, being made a priest by Eusebius bishop of Paris, he founded a monastery, which is now a collegiate church called by his name. Both the monastic life and certain other things here asserted will be examined below, as also various matters reported by Saussay. He wove a very long elogium, which it is not necessary to transfer hither; but I shall recite some things from it in the Annotations to the Life.
[5] The Acts were written in the tenth century or later, The Acts of St. Clodoaldus Mabillon published from the manuscript codices of St. Germain-des-Prés in the first Benedictine century, page 234 and following, but without any observations from which the age of the author or the credit of the Acts could become known. Baillet in the critical table at the VII of September observes that these Acts do not seem written before the end of the ninth century, because the village of Novigentum already in the time of the writer of the Life had the name of St. Clodoaldus; and thence gathers that these Acts are of far less authority than those things which St. Gregory of Tours narrated about Clodoaldus. Most true is this observation: but I wonder that the writer, after such an observation, nevertheless inserted most of what is said in the said Acts into the Life of St. Clodoaldus, as if they had been certain enough. The Benedictine writers in the Literary History of France, tome 6, page 516, adopt Baillet's reason, and from it conclude that this Sermon on St. Clodoaldus (for they preferred to call it a Sermon rather than a Life) was not written before the tenth century. That this lucubration was not composed earlier I gladly grant to both, but I would not dare to assert that it was written in that very century, since this can be proved by no argument: for it could also have been written later in the manner in which we have it written. But whether it was composed in the tenth century or later, its age cannot procure authority for a writer so remote from the events.
[6] they cannot have much authority, But now, if we diligently survey the Acts themselves, we shall not find that the praised writer had other ancient monuments about St. Clodoaldus besides the History of the Franks of St. Gregory of Tours, and the writings of Fredegar, Aimoin, and other authors, who have almost nothing about Clodoaldus, or at least very few things which are not drawn from Gregory. Certainly he nowhere shows or hints that any more ancient Life lay before him. Hence the praised writers of the Literary History confess that perhaps this biographer had no other monuments than what is reported by Gregory and others, and the tradition of the monastery. Nevertheless they praise the judgment and style of the author, nor do they imply any doubt about the facts related in the Life. I certainly cannot pass so favorable a judgment on that sermon, since I find various errors in it, and many other things not only unknown to more ancient writers, but also little likely. For the open errors make us deservedly doubt about those things which are less known, especially since it appears strange that many and those illustrious deeds of the Saint should have become known to this writer; while other writers in the four preceding centuries were so unlucky that they knew very little about Clodoaldus; or so negligent that they wrapped in silence for the most part the glorious deeds of a royal Prince.
[7] because they are defiled with open errors, Those which I have called open errors I show in a few words. At number 5 the biographer attributes only three sons to Clovis I, and writes that the monarchy was divided among them by their father. So manifest is this error that it shows that not even the History of St. Gregory of Tours was attentively read by the biographer. For Gregory in book 2, chapter 1, thus enumerates the sons of Clovis in the clearest words: When therefore king Clovis was dead, his four sons, that is Theuderic, Chlodomir, Childebert, and Chlothar, receive his kingdom, and divide it among themselves in an equal balance. Presently the biographer subjoins another error equally clear, when he says of Chlodomir: To whom Burgundy had fallen by lot. For all know, who have been at all versed in Frankish History, that Burgundy at that time was under its own kings, and that Chlodomir was killed in battle against the king of Burgundy. More notable is the third error, since it regards Clodoaldus more nearly, of whom the biographer speaks thus at number 7: He was appointed sole heir of his father by his uncle, his two brothers being killed. These things the author affirms in such a way as if Clodoaldus could have administered the kingdom, and had freely left it. But it is established that the kingdom was divided by his uncles as soon as his brothers had been killed, and that Clodoaldus himself, of his uncles
was snatched from their hands. This is such a slip that the writer's very credit becomes doubtful: for from it it is gathered that the biographer was more zealous to adorn the Saint than to write things true and beyond doubt.
[8] After such errors, who would safely give credit to the biographer in all those things which he narrates, perhaps with the same liberty, about the bodily austerities of St. Clodoaldus, about his readings and prayers, and lastly about the miracles wrought by him while living? and many things are inserted into them which are unknown from any other source. None of these things indeed is incredible or unusual in the Saints: but it is not sufficiently understood whence the biographer could have learned them, the more ancient writers being silent, and therefore a strong suspicion arises that all those things were reported rather by conjecture from the customary manner of life of the Saints than from suitable or certain monuments. No less uncertain may seem the things which are narrated about the habit of sacred religion given to Clodoaldus by Severinus, about the Saint's retirement into Provence and his return to Paris, or at least about the cause and order of the retirement and return, as they are reported in the Life. For who would easily believe that the Saint retired from the territory of Paris into Provence in order to flee the empty praises of men, and afterwards returned from Provence to Paris? It is easier to believe that the Boy was carried away by his preservers into Provence, that he might there lie hidden more safely; but that as a young man he returned to Paris, where, the hope of a kingdom being cast aside, he was reconciled to his uncles. Lastly I candidly acknowledge that those things alone seem to me sufficiently certain in these Acts which the author could draw from Gregory of Tours or from other ancient writers. Yet I shall publish this Life, as it has already been given by Mabillon, whose edition I shall compare with the manuscript of Saint-Germain-des-Prés formerly transmitted to us, but mutilated in certain places; and with another manuscript copy of our Museum, which lacks the whole preface.
Annotata* de Villeneuve St. Salve
§ II. Various matters about the Saint from Gregory of Tours and others: the times and deeds arranged as far as may be.
[ ] The Saint was the youngest son of Chlodomir king of Orléans, Since I have noted that those things are more certain about St. Clodoaldus which the writer of the Life could receive from more ancient authors, it is necessary that I transfer hither what is read of the same Saint in the more ancient writers, of whom the chief is St. Gregory bishop of Tours. He, in book 3 of the History of the Franks, chapter 6, having related the death of Chlodomir, one of the four sons of Clovis I and king of the Franks in the kingdom of Orléans, who in the year 524 was slain in the conflict against Godomar king of the Burgundians, subjoins these things about the sons left by him: His sons also queen Chrotechildis (their grandmother, being the widow of Clovis) the days of mourning being ended, received with herself and kept: of whom one was called Theodovald , the second Gunthar, the third Chlodovald. Upon these words I observe that Clodoaldus is here set down in clear words as the youngest of the three brothers, and therefore that Baillet used a conjecture little probable at the VII of September in Clodoaldus, when he made him older than Gunthar. Clearer is the error of Agathias, who in book 1 of the History of Justinian* wrote that Chlodomir died without begotten children.
[10] [and his father being killed, he was brought up with his brothers by St. Chrothildis,] Then the praised writer of Tours in chapter 18 narrates these things: But while queen Chrotechildis was staying at Paris, Childebert, seeing that his mother loved the sons of Chlodomir, whom we mentioned above, with a singular affection, being led by envy, and fearing lest by the queen's favor they should be admitted to the kingdom, sent secretly to his brother king Chlothar, saying: Our mother keeps with her the sons of our brother, and wishes to give them the kingdom: thou oughtest quickly to be at Paris, and, common counsel being held, we must consider what ought to be done about them: whether, their hair being cut, they be held as the rest of the people, or, they being killed for certain, our brother's kingdom be divided between ourselves with equality preserved. Greatly rejoicing at which words he came to Paris. For Childebert had cast abroad a word among the people, that these kings were joined together for this, as though they were about to raise those little ones to the kingdom. And being joined, they sent to the queen, who was then staying in that same city, saying: Send the little ones to us, that they may be exalted in the kingdom. And she rejoicing, not knowing their guile, having given the boys food and drink, sent them, saying: I shall not think that I have lost my son, if I see you set in his kingdom.
[11] Who going away were immediately seized, and, being separated from their servants and tutors, both were kept under guard, the servants apart and these little ones apart. when he was taken with them by his uncles the kings, Then Childebert and Chlothar sent Arcadius, whom we have mentioned above, to the queen, with shears and a drawn sword. Who coming showed the queen both, saying: Thy sons our lords ask thy will, most glorious queen, what thou judgest is to be done about the boys, whether thou biddest them live with their hair cut, or both to be slain. And she, terrified by the message, and exceedingly moved with gall, especially when she beheld the drawn sword and the shears, being overcome with bitterness, not knowing in that very grief what she said, said simply: It is better for me, if they are not raised to the kingdom, to see them dead than shorn. And he, wondering little at her grief, and not searching what she might more fully consider thereafter, came quickly announcing and saying: With the queen's favor, complete the work begun: for she herself wills your counsel to be fulfilled.
[12] and both his brothers killed by Chlothar: Without delay Chlothar, seizing the elder boy by the arm, dashed him to the ground, and fixing a knife in his armpit, cruelly killed him. As he cried out, his brother throws himself at the feet of Childebert, and seizing his knees, said with tears: Succor me, most pious father, that I too perish not like my brother. Then Childebert, his face wet with tears, said: I beseech thee, sweetest brother, that of thy bounty thou grant me his life: and whatever thou shalt command I will confer for his soul, only let him not be killed. But he, driven on with reproaches, said: Either cast him from thee, or assuredly thou shalt die for him. Thou, said he, art the instigator of this business, and dost thou so quickly leap back from thy faith? Hearing this, he pushed the boy from him and threw him to him. And he, receiving him, pierced him with a knife in the side, as he had done to his brother before, and slew him: then they killed the servants with the tutors. Which being killed, Chlothar, mounting his horses , departed, making little of the killing of his nephews: but Childebert also withdrew into the suburbs. But the queen, the little bodies being laid in a bier, with great chanting of psalms and immense mourning, followed them as far as the basilica of St. Peter, and buried both together; of whom one was ten years old, but the other seven.*
[13] But the third, Chlodovald, they could not seize, [Clodoaldus delivered from that peril and afterwards made a priest. Valesius's opinion about the year of the slaying] because he was delivered by the help of strong men. He, setting aside an earthly kingdom, passed over to the Lord, and cutting his hair with his own hand, was made a cleric: and applying himself to good works, departed from this world a priest. Thus far the writer of Tours, upon whose account some things are to be observed. First, between the death of Chlodomir and the slaying of his sons he narrated certain other things. Hence that slaying seems to some to be later by not a few years than the death of Chlodomir. Valesius in book 7 of the Frankish Affairs, page 388, thus discusses the time of the slaying: This miserable slaying of the sons of king Chlodomir was done at Paris after Burgundy had been subdued, as Gregory, Fredegar, and Aimoin deliver. And Burgundy was subdued by Childebert and Chlothar in the consulship of Justinian Augustus for the IV time and of Paulinus the younger, if we follow Marius, that is, ten years after Chlodomir had perished: or rather in the 2nd year after the consulship of Lampadius and Orestes, the eighth after the death of Chlodomir, so that in the following year, when Justinian Augustus was Consul for the III time, Theodovald and Gunthar seem to have been slain by their uncles in the IX year after the loss of their father. From which it appears that what Gregory says is false, that when they were slain the one, namely Theodovald, was X years old; the other, that is Gunthar, only seven; not to speak of Clodoaldus, who, since he was the youngest of the sons of Chlodomir, would then scarcely have been six years old. Thus Valesius.
[14] But that criticism refuting Gregory out of Gregory displeases me, does not seem to be admitted; and the epoch of the slaying alleged by him appears little probable. I should indeed rather judge that the slaying of the sons of Chlodomir was related by Gregory without order of times, or that the end of the Burgundian war was anticipated by him. For if we consider all the things which Gregory narrated between the death of Chlodomir and the storming of all Burgundy which followed thereafter, we shall find so few that all could have happened in one year, whereas nevertheless eight or ten years intervened. That Burgundian war Gregory briefly touched upon in these words, book 3, chapter XI: But Chlothar and Childebert direct their course into Burgundy, and besieging Autun, Godomar being put to flight, occupied all Burgundy. The expedition in which Autun was taken Le Cointe binds to the year 525: and writes that by another expedition all Burgundy was occupied in the year 534, according to the opinion of Marius. But if Le Cointe's opinion be true, the death of the sons of Chlodomir will have happened after the first expedition of Chlothar and Childebert into Burgundy, that is, about the year 526, in which Le Cointe narrates it. But if anyone prefer to believe that the Burgundian war was accomplished in one expedition and one year, the slaying of the sons of Chlodomir has been torn from its place by Gregory, and related too late: and Fredegar and Aimoin after their manner followed Gregory's order in narrating the events.
[15] From these things the slaying of the sons of Chlodomir must be placed about the year 526; [but that slaying is rather to be fixed about the year 526. He was born between 520 and 524,] nor is St. Gregory of Tours to be corrected when he asserts that the eldest was ten years old and the other seven when they were killed; but rather from their known age the time of the slaying performed must somehow be gathered. For Gregory asserts without hesitation the age of the boys who were killed, and could easily know it, so that it is a censure too harsh to call false what Gregory, nearly contemporary, affirmed about it. But to say that the order of events was not observed by the praised prelate is not so harsh; nor is that unusual or infrequent in Gregory. Moreover the matter itself implies that the sons of Chlodomir did not long survive their father, since Chlodomir's kingdom is not read to have been administered either by them or by another in their name, nor was it occupied or divided by their uncles before the death of two of them and the flight of Clodoaldus. Hence Agathias was utterly ignorant that sons had been left by Chlodomir, namely because two of them were taken off soon after their father, and the third long lay hidden and unknown. Wherefore I so far from judging that the sons of Chlodomir lived until the year 533, that I should rather believe that in the same year 524 in which their father was killed they too were slain,
were it not established that St. Chrothildis had the care of them for some time; and thence their death would seem to be deferred to the year 526 or 527. For the rest, Clodoaldus was then a boy, perhaps only three or four years old, and at most six, so that we may fix his birth between the year 520 and 524.
[16] [and having probably been long brought up in hope of the kingdom, that hope being cast aside, he is reconciled to his uncles,] About the manner in which Clodoaldus was snatched from the slaying of his brothers Gregory teaches nothing, save that he was delivered by the help of strong men. He was probably carried off by one of those present when Chlothar was killing the first, and was borne away to a hiding-place or to another city. Where the boy Clodoaldus lay hidden Gregory does not deliver; nor have others who followed him set it forth. But if it were sufficiently established to be true, as the biographer has it, that he was at some time in Provence, and dwelt there for a time, I should strongly suspect that he was carried thither by his preservers, and there in the dominion of the Goths was brought up in the hope of one day obtaining the kingdom, until he should be of such an age as to be able to choose a state of life. At that age at last, as appears to me more likely, he himself cut off his hair, and chose the ecclesiastical life, the hope of a kingdom being cast aside. And this laying aside of the hair, and choice of the ecclesiastical life, whether it was made outside the dominion of the Franks, as appears more likely, or in the place of the kingdom where he had lain hidden, opened a way for Clodoaldus to return into the favor of his uncles Childebert and Chlothar, from whom he obtained some possessions for maintaining his life honorably.
[17] and being enriched with goods, and returned to Paris, is ordained priest: And so, being reconciled to his uncles, and enriched with sufficient goods, he came as it were from exile to Paris of the Parisians, whether from Provence, if he lived there; or from any other place, if he lay hidden elsewhere in the kingdom. At Paris he was ordained priest, which the author of the Life says was done by bishop Eusebius. He was therefore consecrated not long after the middle of the sixth century, certainly not after the year 555, in which St. Germanus was substituted for Eusebius bishop of Paris. Before the middle of the sixth century he does not seem to have been consecrated, since he is said to have been consecrated by Eusebius: for that Eusebius presided over the see of Paris only a few years is plain from the catalogue of the prelates of Paris in tome 7 of the latest edition of Gallia Christiana, cols. 17 and 18. Further, the things which are reported in the Life at number 9 about St. Clodoaldus's dwelling together with St. Severinus, if there be anything true in them, will more fitly be referred to the time when he took up the priesthood than to the Saint's youth or adolescence: for I could scarcely believe that a Boy or an Adolescent was allowed to live in the territory of Paris or to choose a state of life.
[18] Moreover the Saint's donations must be referred to the time between his taking up the priesthood and his death. the holy Priest gave various things to churches: Of these Hincmar in the Life of St. Remigius speaks thus: The son of Chlodomir, son of king Clovis , by name Chlodoaldus, his brothers being killed, whom together with him after their father's death queen Chrotildis was rearing, shore himself into a cleric: and in course of time by the merit of his life and religion obtained a part of the inheritance from his uncles the kings. Of which he handed over the villa of Douzy in the district of Mouzon with its appurtenances to St. Remigius and the church of Reims; and assigned the villa of Rueil in the district of Bourges to St. Denis. But the villa of Novientum in the district of Paris, with all things pertaining to it , he gave to the mother church of the city of Paris, where he was ordained priest. In which villa, passing full of virtues to the Lord, he was buried in body in peace in the church which he himself had built.
[19] What is said about the villa of Douzy given to St. Remigius these donations must be fixed after the Saint took up the priesthood. is to be understood in the same sense in which Rueil was given to St. Denis, namely that the donations were made to the honor of St. Remigius and St. Denis, to the churches in which they were venerated. For Remigius was without doubt dead before Clodoaldus's donation, as is clear about Denis, who was some centuries more ancient. Nor can the writing stand in the way which is inserted into Flodoard's History of Reims, book 1, as the testament of St. Remigius. For that testament of St. Remigius, who is introduced speaking about Clodoaldus's donation, is manifestly supposititious, as various men have already observed: and this can be proved from the very words which are read in it about Clodoaldus's donation. I subjoin the words: But let Douzy, as it was confirmed by Clodoaldus, a boy of most noble disposition, serve thee my heir (so he calls the church of Reims) perpetually. Clodoaldus was indeed a boy, as he is here called, when St. Remigius died. But boys of ten years are not wont to make such great donations: and Clodoaldus, who at Remigius's death could have been nearly ten years old, seems to have had nothing at that age which he could give. Wherefore according to Hincmar's mind it must be said that both this donation, of which the same Hincmar makes mention in Flodoard, book 3, chapter 20, page 421, and again on page 422, and the two others were made by Clodoaldus when already a priest, or at least not long before.
Annotataotherwise Theotbaldus*
* i.e. on horses
* i.e. of Clovis
* i.e. it
§ III. It is inquired whether the Saint embraced the monastic discipline, and built a monastery for monks.
[ ] Some believe that Clodoaldus was a monk, From Hincmar's words there arises a doubt about the church which he writes was built by St. Clodoaldus at Novigentum, and in which the Saint's body was buried. For the biographer at number 12 asserts that a monastery was there built by the Saint and endowed with sufficient wealth. And he affirms that the place in his own time was called the Monastery of St. Clodoaldus. Mabillon in tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 76, not only believes that that church of St. Clodoaldus was a monastery of monks, but also numbers Clodoaldus himself among the monks; as many others also have done, of whom some were praised before. But that opinion seems to me less certain. For this cause it pleases me to hear Mabillon, who zealously gathered everything which in any way implies a monastic life of Clodoaldus. Chlodoaldus, he says, being withdrawn by strong men from their (namely his uncles') fury, cut his hair himself, AND WAS MADE A CLERIC, that is a monk, and afterwards a priest, as we learn from Gregory. In his published Acts he is said to have received THE HABIT OF SACRED RELIGION from Severinus the monk, who was then living as a recluse near Paris: afterwards to have retired into Provence, where namely he might live unknown to his uncles; and thence, their minds being appeased, returning, to have settled at Novientum or Novigentum, a village of the district of Paris: where he both built a monastery, and took care that his body should be buried after his death.
[21] and dwelt with monks in the monastery built at Novigentum; Childebert and Chlothar … on account of the sanctity of Chlodoaldus's life at length enriched with great possessions the monastery of Novientum, which from his name and body has hitherto retained the appellation of St. Chlodoaldus … There monks were there down to the eighth century; since indeed to the synod of Attigny in the year seven hundred and sixty-five John abbot of St. Flodoaldus subscribes: which without doubt must be interpreted of this Novientum. And in a letter of Eginhard to abbot Gozbert mention is made of the monastery of St. Chlodowaldus, which now has long been a college of secular canons. He was the first among the Frankish princes to be tonsured and made a monk, that he might avoid destruction. Thus far Mabillon, whose words must be diligently weighed. But first I observe that there are two questions, the one namely whether the Saint himself was a monk; the other whether the church built by him at Novientum was a monastery of monks. Secondly I note that Mabillon wrongly wrests to Childebert and Chlothar the donations by which Clodoaldus himself enriched his own church.
[22] as the Acts imply, that he was first a solitary and at last a cenobite: But now Mabillon's first proof seems to be sought from the hair cut off, and chiefly because he is said by St. Gregory of Tours to have been made a cleric: for by cleric he understands a monk. But the cutting of the hair proves nothing, since it was probably done to renounce the kingdom, and since it is customary also for clerics. And the word cleric is so far from favoring Mabillon's opinion that it rather harms it. I know indeed that monks are now and then named clerics, especially when they are distinguished by some ecclesiastical grade, and so are at once monks and clerics. But it had to be proved that St. Gregory of Tours by the word cleric generally designates a monk, so that it could safely be said, A cleric, that is, a monk. For this cause I would not judge that Mabillon used Gregory's words to prove Clodoaldus's monkhood, but I suspect that he so expounded them because he believed that from the Acts themselves the monastic life of Clodoaldus was sufficiently established. For the Acts have it that the habit of sacred religion was laid upon Clodoaldus by Severinus the recluse, that a monastery was founded by him at Novigentum, and that he dwelt there with the servants of God, and died and was buried in the same cell. Nay, mention is made in the same Acts of a cowl given to a poor man. Lastly the Life hints that Clodoaldus applied himself first to the eremitical discipline, and afterwards at Novigentum passed over to the cenobitic: nor should I doubt that the Saint was first a hermit near Paris, and afterwards in Provence, nor should I believe his monastic life doubtful, if I held all the things which are narrated in the Acts for certain.
[23] But I so far from believing certain all the things which are delivered in the Acts about St. Clodoaldus [but the things said in the Acts about the Saint's eremitical life are not probable enough,] that most of those which imply his eremitical life I judge not probable enough. Such are the things which are said about the habit of sacred religion laid upon him by St. Severinus, about his solitary exercise near Paris, about the goods then distributed by him among monasteries and churches, about the journey into Provence which followed, by which he might flee the applause of men, and lastly what is subjoined about the cowl given there to a poor man. All these things, I say, do not appear to me probable enough. For first, I do not sufficiently perceive whence that writer, four centuries later than the Saint, learned all these things; since very many writers long before discoursed about Clodoaldus, who could more easily have known those things, if they had been done. Why did Gregory of Tours, Aimoin, the authors of the Deeds of the kings of the Franks and of the Chronicle of St. Denis, the author of the Life of St. Clotilda, and several others, who narrated various things about Clodoaldus, wrap in silence everything pertaining to the Saint's eremitical life? If anyone will have it that these things were unknown to all of them, let him teach in what manner at length they became known to the biographer. Moreover the Corbie Martyrology, Wandelbert, and Usuard announce Clodoaldus as a priest, none as a monk: and this is to be noted in Usuard, a monk of Paris, since he makes mention of Severinus, whom the Life makes the master of Clodoaldus, as a monk and solitary at the XXIII of November.
[24] Secondly, it does not seem to be doubted that Clodoaldus, as is shown by various reasons: after he had been snatched from the peril of death, was carried off to a place sufficiently safe and far distant, that he might there be brought up in the hope of a kingdom. For, since he himself cut off his hair, on Gregory's testimony, that does not seem to have been done as soon as the Boy had been delivered from his uncles' hands, but when at a riper age he believed that the ecclesiastical life was to be preferred to an uncertain and perilous hope. Wherefore it is not likely that a solitary life was begun by him near Paris, or that he became known there to the people before he had determined to receive sacred orders, and had so been reconciled to his uncles: but it is far more likely that he either lay hidden or remained outside the dominion of the Franks until he had already received sacred orders, and then at last, with his uncles' good leave, returned to Paris, that he might there at once be consecrated priest, and so remove from his uncles all fear of his ever seeking the kingdom. To these conjectures the very age of the Saint gives room, which could not much exceed thirty years when he was consecrated at Paris. But the biographer, both by the open errors into which he slipped, and by the improbable account in which he makes a royal Boy or Adolescent living most austerely near Paris, then a young man shining with miracles in Provence; and the same departing from Paris that he might avoid the applause of men, and returning thither for the same cause, himself takes away from himself all credit in these matters; especially since the more ancient writers have nothing of all these things.
[25] [and the things in the Acts which imply his monastic life can more rightly be expounded in another way:] It remains to be examined whether the church founded at Novigentum was a monastery of monks, and whether Clodoaldus himself lived there as a monk, as Mabillon will have it. This could not be sufficiently proved from the Life, even if we held all that the biographer delivered for certain. For everything could be understood of priests and clerics dwelling together in that monastery: for the word monastery does not necessarily imply monks, since canons and clerics also inhabited monasteries, and that same word was not rarely used for churches in the middle age. The word cell, which the author also uses, would have a little more difficulty, since it rather implies a monastic dwelling: but not even that was altogether unusual for canons; so that everything can be understood which the author writes at the end of the life, even if we do not admit that he lived with monks at Novigentum. But even if he had clearly declared that Clodoaldus was there a monk with monks, the silence of all the more ancient writers about the monkhood of Clodoaldus ought to prevail over the affirmation of a writer of such doubtful credit and so much later. And so not only uncertain, but also little probable does the monastic profession of St. Clodoaldus appear: nor would it become certain, even if it were certainly established that a monastery was founded by him for the use of monks; since he could have founded it for others, and himself have lived there quietly without monastic profession, as in the thirteenth century Bl. Isabella of France did in the abbey of virgins founded in the same place. But not even the building of a monastery for the use of monks seems to be proved by certain reasons.
[26] [nor does Mabillon show that in the eighth century there were monks in the monastery of St. Clodoaldus;] Mabillon believed indeed that in the eighth century there were monks in the church or monastery of St. Clodoaldus, because to the assembly of Attigny in the year 765 there subscribed John abbot of St. Flodoaldus: for he observes that this man was abbot of St. Clodoaldus. Of the same opinion is Le Cointe in tome 5 at the year 765, number 26, where, enumerating and examining the subscriptions of the praised assembly, to this subscription, which is set in the third place among the subscriptions of the abbots, John abbot of St. Flodoaldus, he subjoins: We suspect it must be read of St. Clodoaldus, and that this John was abbot of a certain monastery which had been founded in the diocese of Paris under the invocation of St. Clodoaldus. Others have believed the same, with whom I gladly agree thus far, that I judge it more probable that that abbot John who was present at the assembly of Attigny presided over the monastery of St. Clodoaldus. But I do not see that from an abbot monks must necessarily be inferred, since he could also have been an abbot of canons: for some monasteries were of canons, others of monks; and likewise some abbots were of canons, others of monks. By what consequence therefore does Mabillon prove that in the eighth century there were monks in the monastery of St. Clodoaldus, because John was abbot there?
[27] or that they were there in the ninth century: No firmer is his other argument, in which he observes that in the letter of Eginhard to abbot Gozbert, which is published in Duchesne's Collection, tome 2, page 695, mention is made of the monastery of St. Chlodowaldus. Mabillon himself doubts, in tome 2 of the Annals, page 424, whether that passage can rightly enough be understood of the monastery of St. Clodoaldus near Paris, because he judges that Eginhard's letter was addressed to Gozbert abbot of St. Gall, to whom the care of that monastery of St. Clodoaldus in no way pertained. But I should gladly believe that Eginhard's letter was written rather to another Gozbert than that another monastery of St. Clodoaldus is designated. But whatever be truer of these matters, there is no doubt that the church of St. Clodoaldus existed in the ninth century, that is, in the reign of Louis the Pious, when that letter was written, in the territory of Paris; but I strongly doubt whether it was then possessed by monks; which can legitimately be inferred neither from the word monastery, nor from an abbot set over it. For which cause I judge it far more probable that St. Clodoaldus neither led a monastic life there, nor gathered monks there, nor that they were afterwards introduced into the church built by him.
[28] The writer of the Life himself sufficiently hints that they were not monks [on the contrary so many things persuade us that there was no monastery of monks there,] who inhabited the monastery of St. Clodoaldus with him and after him. For he names them Servants of God, nowhere monks or brethren. He speaks of prayers, fasts, alms, vigils, divine readings, nowhere of regular or monastic discipline. Moreover the Saint by testament assigned his church to the mother church, or cathedral of Paris, on the biographer's testimony. And Hincmar affirms that the whole villa of Novientum was given by him to the church of Paris. But if, being himself a Monk, he had gathered monks at Novientum, his first care would without doubt have been for his own monastery, nor would he have left it so slender as it seems to have been at first after the Saint's death, since it is called a cell by the biographer himself. Lastly, the silence of all the ancient writers about the monks whom the moderns will have to have been in the monastery of St. Clodoaldus altogether persuades me that monks never dwelt in the church erected by Clodoaldus.
[29] For I do not sufficiently perceive by what fate it would have come about so that we may believe it was rather an oratory, which gradually grew. that a monastery which a Prince sprung of royal stock and a king's son had founded and enriched in the sixth century in the territory of Paris, and which the same Saint after his death had adorned with his sacred body and with miracles, should have remained so obscure that no abbot or monk came forth from it who became famous for sanctity of life, or for learning, or for deeds; that no diploma is produced which was given by the kings of France in favor of the monks inhabiting it; that there is no writer down to the tenth century who ever named the monks of St. Clodoaldus, although very many made mention of Clodoaldus himself as a holy priest. Wherefore it appears to me far more likely that that church which he founded at Novientum was an oratory in which the Saint, loving solitude, celebrated the divine mysteries for himself and his household, and perhaps also for the people dwelling in the neighborhood: but that that oratory, given with the villa itself to the church of Paris, gradually, through the concourse to the Saint's body, grew into a parish and collegiate church, just as the villa Novientum grew into a village and at last into a town.
§ IV. The year of his death unknown: miracles wrought at his sepulchre: the body perhaps at some time carried to Paris, and brought back to Novigentum, where it is preserved.
[ ] The year of his death unknown: How long the holy Priest lived at Novientum, and in what year he passed to the blessed life, is unknown. St. Gregory of Tours says that he was dead when he was writing, as the sixth century verged to its end; but neither he, nor Fredegar, nor other writers who followed in the middle age assign any time of his death. Mabillon and others who followed him fixed his death about the year 560: but Castellanus and the author of the Parisian Martyrology noted in the margin about the year 568. This last epoch may be less far astray than the former: for no suitable reason can be given why the Saint could not have survived until the year 580. But neither can it be proved that he lived many years after the priesthood taken up between 550 and 555. He may therefore have died before the year 560 or even after 580. Wherefore I have judged that his death must be fixed in the broadest manner about 560, 570, or 580: and if he died about 560, he was nearly forty years of age; but if he reached the year 580, he would not have been far from the sixtieth year of his life.
[31] miracles at the Saint's sepulchre Although St. Gregory writes that Clodoaldus departed from this world applying himself to good works, yet he is utterly silent about his miracles, and by that silence he not only renders suspect the miracles which the biographer narrates as wrought by Clodoaldus while living in a manner little likely; but also affords an occasion of suspecting that the miracles wrought after his death did not become known to Gregory before he wrote the third book of his History, in which he mentions Clodoaldus. This could have happened because Clodoaldus had not then been long dead, or because the miracles were not begun immediately after his death. Whatever the cause was, other sufficiently ancient writers leave no doubt about the miracles wrought at the sepulchre of St. Clodoaldus. Fredegar in the epitomized History of the Franks, chapter 39, has it thus: Chlodoaldus is tonsured to the clerical state, and leading a worthy life passed away. At whose sepulchre the Lord deigns to show works of power.
[32] wrought and long continued. Aimoin of Fleury in book 2, chapter 12, writes thus of Clodoaldus: Who afterwards being made a cleric and ordained priest, lived worthily, and obtained the end of his life: being buried at the villa of Novientum in the territory of the city of Paris, he declares by many signs of miracles that he lives in heaven. In the Chronicle of St. Denis, in Martin Bouquet, tome 3 of the Writers of Gallic Affairs, page 188, there are read about Clodoaldus things related in the old idiom of the Franks, which I transfer hither in Latin: Clodoaldus, the third of the children, who had seen the slaying of his two brothers, was much more attentive to preserving his own life than to seeking his kingdom. He escaped from that peril by the help of certain honest men, whom compassion for him had seized. Then he was consecrated a priest, and a man of holy life and conversation. He died and was buried in the territory of Paris in the villa whose name is Novigentum. The miracles which the Lord afterwards wrought by his grace show that he was translated to perpetual life. About the Miracles the Chronicle of Verdun agrees, in the same place, page 356: but I do not find them related singly.
[33] [The body in the ninth century was perhaps carried to Paris for fear of the Normans:] Abbo, monk of St. Germain, in his metrical work on the siege of Paris by the Normans, book 2, makes frequent mention of the patronage afforded to the Parisians by St. Germanus, whose body had been carried to the city; and in one place joins St. Marcellus and St. Clodoaldus to St. Germanus appearing, so that St. Clodoaldus was held by that writer and eyewitness of the siege among the defenders of the city of Paris. Hence the canon Lebeuf in his Dissertations on the ecclesiastical and civil History of Paris, page 132, suspects that the bodies of SS. Marcellus and Clodoaldus were likewise at that time carried to the city, as was the body of St. Germanus. This suspicion, very likely on account of the ravagings of the Normans, the praised writer confirms from a certain manuscript Pastoral of Paris, in which he testifies that there is had a compilation of the charters of Inchad and Erchanrad II, prelates of Paris: and that in the little preface prefixed to the said charters by the compilers, who lived in the time of Charles the Fat, that is, of the said siege, it is affirmed that at that time there were preserved in the cathedral church of Paris the bodies of the Saints Marcellus and Clodoaldus, with others not pertaining to our purpose.
[34] Concerning St. Marcellus bishop of Paris this can be further examined at the 1st day of November, but it is now preserved in the church of St. Clodoaldus. on which he is venerated. But as regards St. Clodoaldus, that translation appears to me very probable. It is certain, however, that his sacred body did not remain in the cathedral of Paris, but was quickly brought back to the church of St. Clodoaldus itself, if it was carried away thence. For all the writers of the middle age as well as the moderns, with few exceptions, testify that the Saint's body is preserved in the collegiate church of the town of Saint-Cloud, in which he was first buried. Du Breul in the Antiquities of Paris, book 4, page 1169, testifies that over his tomb of black marble an epitaph was carved, which he published faultily. It has been sent to us written thus:
Chlodoaldus consecrates this tomb with his kindly limbs, Brought forth from a conspicuous lineage of kings. Who, being forbidden to hold the sceptre of a perishable kingdom, Was zealous to build this basilica for God: And gave it to be held by right of the mother church Of the city, to whoever should be pontiff of Paris.
Saussay and others write that miracles were wrought there by the Saint's patronage down to their own times, but they set forth none. For the rest, it is not necessary to refute the error of Benedict Gonon and others, who believed that the body is now preserved at Paris: nor does it please me to touch the insipid little fable which Paradin reports and refutes in the Annals of Burgundy, book 1, page 45. But I subjoin the Acts corrected with due annotations.
LIFE
From the edition of Mabillon collated with manuscripts.
Clodoaldus, priest in the town of Saint-Cloud in the district of Paris in Gaul (S.)
BHL Number: 1732
A MORAL PREFACE.
The Saints are to be praised after death The day of gladness and joy is at hand, to be celebrated with the highest devotion especially by your city, on which the venerable confessor of Christ Clodoaldus, stripped of the bonds of bodily frailty, deserved to enter into the joy of eternal beatitude, being associated with the angelic spirits, that of those whose purity he was zealous to have on earth in the time of his mortality, he might enjoy the fellowship without end in heaven. To whom, by the bestowing grace of the Saviour, today there has been made a birthday out of death; to whom the end of life gave the beginning of living; to whom, as Paul says a, to live was Christ; to whom without Christ there was no life. Deservedly therefore is his desire satisfied in good things: because while he lived in this flesh, his heart was cleansed from all iniquity and malice. Worthily now does his marvellous life dwell in the memory of men, who by the merit of his sanctity passed to the joy of the angels. Deservedly also does Scripture divinely inspired bid us hold the praise of holy men, saying: Let us praise glorious men, who conquered the kingdoms of the world; who conquered, not who were conquered. For Scripture is not contrary to itself, which says in another place: Praise not a man in his life. And what it forbids before death, on account of the uncertain chances of a perishable life, it bids us do after death, to praise. Now securely let us extol with praises his excellence of sanctity, when neither does flattery mark the praiser * nor pride tempt the praised. Let us praise, the danger being now measured out, one who is now secure: let us praise the victor, but after he has come to his triumph. Let us securely magnify the merits of his works, now set in safety: who with the helmet of hope and the shield of faith and the sword of the word of God went armed so long untiringly against the ancient enemy, until, when he had overcome him and laid him prostrate at his feet, he deserved to receive the palm of eternal recompense.
[2] and to be imitated: they pity us for the vain pursuits of men, Therefore, so far as we are able, let us press with all insistence upon his footsteps, by which, hastening through the narrow way to the breadth of heaven, he showed by what way we might follow him. Today he deserved to hear the longed-for voice, gained by praiseworthy works, uttered by the mouth of the Saviour: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things; enter into the joy of thy Lord. For he brought back the talent he had received, doubled. Now by faith he is saved by grace, and beholds the glory of the Lord, transformed into the same image. For now the winter of afflictions has passed, and the shower of tribulations has withdrawn; now, inseparably clinging to the eternal Fountain, he is inebriated from the plenty of the house of God, and the Lord gives him to drink of the torrent of his pleasure, and he drinks perennial joy according to his capacity. Nor is he forgetful of our miseries, since he ever beholds with clear light Him who sees all things, and who disposes and governs with equal right. Looking from the highest to the lowest estate of creatures, and from the lofty citadel upon the lowest parts of the earth, he beholds dread kings, whom countless peoples fear, as banished tyrants. And pitying human errors, he cries with the affection of one compassionating and pitying: O unhappy and wretched citizens, whither go you? This is not the way which leads to the fatherland, but which leads to the impious depths. Return, transgressors, to the heart, leave the ways of error, and you shall live. Why do you seek outside, dulled by the blindness of mind, the perpetuity of beatitude which is placed within you? If you wish to seek well, seek within yourselves, there you will find, where he found who said: These things I remembered, and poured out my soul in me, for I shall go over into the place of the wonderful tabernacle, even to the house of God, with the voice of exultation and confession: where is the true light of light, which the darkness of error cannot dim. Whoever shall have deserved to see this will deny the bright rays of the [ ]. There you will find and hear Christ saying: I am the light, I am the way. But if you apply the ear of the heart, you will hear the Prophet long before b the times of the new grace proclaiming, and admonishing from behind: This is the way, walk ye in it, turning aside neither to the right nor to the left. This is the way, from which thou hast strayed far, and hast become to thyself a region of want, when thou didst squander the patrimony which the sweet Father had given: thou hast fed swine, and going down from Jerusalem thou hast fallen among robbers, who also despoiled thee, and having laid on stripes went away leaving thee half alive. But the mercy of that Samaritan did not leave thy misery, who was made for us wisdom from God, and justification and redemption, who bore our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, being dead to sins, might live to justice. Who says to us: Run, and I will bring you through. Living in which justice, we are set on the way, returning to the fatherland, and going back to the heavenly Jerusalem, which is built as a city, whose participation is in itself. Which the Apostle declares free and the mother of us all, of which city the founder and maker is God. Which, as is read in the Apocalypse, needs not the light of the sun, but the Lord God enlightens it, and the Lamb is its lamp. For which we sigh, unwilling to be unclothed, but to be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.
[3] But on this way of justice on which we go, very many snares and nooses are heaped upon us by the deserters of that same sacred warfare, the angels of Satan, and many perils from the snares of demons, whom God spared not when they sinned, as Peter says, but dragged them down with the ropes of hell into the abyss, reserving them to be tormented in the judgment of the great God. Wherefore like a roaring lion they go about seeking whom they may devour, that they may draw them away from the way of truth. Against whom an inexorable war must be waged by us: for our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spiritual things of wickedness in the heavenly places. Lest therefore we fail in the conflict with them and be caught in their snares, a table is prepared for us on the way of our pilgrimage , filled with the delights of various riches, having every delectation and the sweetness of every savor. But a law is fixed beforehand and prescribed for all who recline. Thou hast sat down, it says, at a great table: consider what things are set before thee, knowing that thou must prepare the like. But behold, from the side on this hand and that openly, on this hand and that secretly, very many vanities and deadly sweetnesses and delights rise up. But what says the Psalm? The wicked have told me fables, but not as thy law, O God, which says: Love not the world, nor the things that are in the world, because all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life.* Restrain yourselves therefore from the monstrous savagery of pride, and from the sluggish pleasure of luxury, and from the curiosity of knowledge falsely so named. See that you be not deceived nor beguiled. For it is best that the heart be established by grace, not by meats, which have not profited those who walked in them. Do not vainly promise yourselves length of life. For what is your glory? It is a vapor appearing for a little while, and thereafter it shall be destroyed.
[4] Walking in this way, hold fast justice; which the author admonishes must be avoided by God's grace. which when the Saviour had set before us to be kept, he pursued only three things in the carrying out of it, namely prayer, almsgiving, and fasting; in prayer showing all the rules of holy desire — for the whole life of a true Christian is holy desire: in almsgiving showing all kindness and beneficence in bestowing benefits and in forgiving the offenses committed against oneself by others, which everyone ought first to receive from himself. For it is written: Have mercy on thy own soul, pleasing God: but in fasting implying all chastisement of the body, which is done chiefly in repressing all the passions of the soul. Attend as to your Patron set in your presence, admonishing you and exhorting you to receive perpetual rewards: Be as I am; do not plead about strength. Whence I was able, you too, if you will, are able. For neither could I do anything of myself: but my power was from him who said: Without me you can do nothing. If therefore there be any of you who strive toward perfection, seek from the Father of lights by daily
prayers perseverance in good works, and in doing this be confident that you are not strangers to the election of the elect whom he chose before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and immaculate in his sight. But far be it from you to despair of yourselves for this reason, that you are bidden to have your hope in him and not in yourselves. For cursed is every one who trusts in man, and whose heart departs from the Lord. But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, and the Lord shall be his confidence: for it is good to trust in the Lord. But why do you still linger in the delight of damnable sins? Lay hold of most salutary salvation and discipline, and serve the Lord in fear, and rejoice unto him with trembling. And do not presume upon yourselves, nor wish to glory as of your own works: but he that glorieth, let him not glory in himself, but in the Lord, who has given you both to will and to be able. To whom we say with the Prophet: Thou hast wrought all our works in us. And therefore in nothing must we glory, since nothing is ours: because our heart and that of our congregation is not in our own power, but by the Lord are our steps directed, that we may will his way. This they believed, this they did, whosoever from the beginning have pleased God c.
ANNOTATIONS.
in the Ms. laudem*
Ms., more rightly, hujus*
THE ONE CHAPTER
The Saint's royal stock: the slaying of his brothers, from which he is happily delivered: his pious pursuits and works: the building of the church in which he is buried when dead.
[The Saint's royal stock: his father being killed, he is brought up with his brothers,] This our holy Father too believed with undoubting mind, and taught in words, and kept by his works unto the end: for otherwise he could not be a saint a: whose lineage of family, although it be well known to all, I have judged should be inserted for you in this page, and his signal piety and uprightness of morals from his very boyhood be narrated. And he drew his descent from the high blood of kings. Whose grandfather Clovis, nobly ruling the kingdom of the Franks, beautifully disposing and ordering it, when at Paris, the course of his life being fulfilled, he made an end of living, left in the kingdom a wife by name Chlotild with three sons b, namely Chlothar, Childebert, and Chlodomir c, among whom, portions being appointed, he divided the monarchy of his princedom. But Chlodomir, the father of this holy confessor Clodoaldus, to whom Burgundy had fallen by lot d, dying not long after, himself also left three sons. Of whom one was called Theodald, another Gontarius, and the third that same Chlodoaldus. Whom their aforesaid grandmother the queen nourished and instructed in royal manner and dress, desiring to raise them in her son's place to the summit of the kingdom. But she was frustrated of her hope by the fraud of her sons plotting the slaughter of the innocents. In short, when Childebert was residing at Paris, urged by the persuasion of the ancient serpent to invade the kingdom of his dead brother and unjustly to possess it, together with his brother, the sharer of his faction and crime, sending secretly he summoned his brother Chlothar, who at that time was staying in the city of Soissons; entreating that he would not defer to come quickly to Paris, that being placed together they might attend to the conveniences and advantages agreeable to themselves, and might divide between them the kingdom of their brother who had then departed from life: but that his sons, as an unwarlike band of infant age, should either be slain with the sword, or at least remain obscured and overshadowed under a plebeian covering. Hearing these things, breaking the measures of the hours *, he flew with the greatest speed.
[6] But the aforesaid Childebert e had craftily scattered false rumors in the ears of the people, when with them he is taken by guile by his uncles, that the two brothers had wished to hold a mutual colloquy solely for this, that they might make their brother's sons, their own nephews, reign in their father's stead. Whence also they send a swift messenger to their mother, who was at Paris at that time, asking her to send the boys without delay, that they might be sent by them, or exalted, into their father's kingdom. But the queen, filled with cheerfulness, ignorant of the guile and dissimulation, at once sent the boys supported by many attendants and surrounded by a company of servants waiting on them, breaking forth into these words: I do not account that I have lost my son, if I see these little ones set in his kingdom. But as soon as they came to their uncles, they were separated from those attending on them and from their tutors; and of set purpose a most truculent messenger named Arcadius f is procured, who, going to their mother, should carry a drawn sword and shears g. And as soon as he came, according to his lords' command he showed the queen the signs of terror, and smote her with the terror of a grievous message, saying: O glorious queen, thy sons our lords greatly wish to know what thou judgest is to be done about the boys, and wish it to be announced to them quickly, whether with head shorn h thou wouldst have them live, or end their present life by the sword. Hearing these things, she, wounded with intolerable grief of mind, as if caught up in ecstasy, not knowing through excessive sorrow what she said, said: "I account it better, and it seems better to me, that they end this life by death than that with hair cut they should live and be seen degenerate and inglorious" i. But that man of perverse mind, who had brought so execrable and hard a command, did not endure to stay so long until the queen with settled mind should give a fitting answer to him who asked; but returned quickly, announcing that the mother decreed what they themselves had determined to do about the boys k.
[7] Presently therefore Chlothar, seizing one boy, dashed him to the ground, these being killed, he escapes by the help of others. and having fixed a knife in his side, cruelly killed him. As he cried out, his brother throws himself at Childebert's feet, and seizing his knees, said with tears: Succor me, most pious father, that I perish not as my brother has perished. But Childebert, bent to mercy, and his face wet with tears, said: I beg, dearest brother, that thou grant me his life of thy kindness, that I may not delay to give what thou shalt command for his life. But he, assailing him with reproaches, said, moved by the gall of bitterness: Unless thou quickly drivest him from thee, thou shalt die for him. Who at once cast the boy, wet with tears, from him, not enduring his brother's animosity. But he, more savage than the most savage, having no repentance for the crime already perpetrated by him, deprived this one also of life like the former, unmindful of the judgment to come and of eternal fire. But the third, Chlodoaldus, was sought for a like destruction, but could not be found, being protected by the nod of almighty God, and delivered from the hands of the cruel men by the help of strong men l. Aided also by their help, he was appointed sole heir of his father by his uncle m, his two brothers being killed. Who was zealous rather to shun the empty felicity of an ill-flattering world as a monstrous shipwreck, and to attain to the mercy of the eternal King by applying himself to works of mercy, than under a royal name of earthly prosperity to stray from the fatherland of the eternal father. And so suddenly he despises royal pomp, the flashing metals of gold and silver are worthless to him, the beauty of gems is contemned, garments woven with gold and of pure silk are rejected. Meanwhile his heart was instructed and formed by divine institutions, so that all things whatsoever that are seen to be temporal became worthless to him, and whatever some men account a huge gain had already become worthless to the holy Man, and are accounted the greatest loss n.
[8] The Saint's virtues, He often enjoyed the reading of the sacred books, whose mystical meanings, beholding them with keenness and eagerness of mind and discerning them with understanding, he was fed with the food of the sacred word and licked sweet honey. How sweet, he says, are thy words to my jaws, above honey and the honeycomb. He wished rather to be present in the divine praise of choirs chanting psalms than to receive the enticing words of men unlawfully heard . For his patrimony , which had come to him by hereditary right from a most wealthy father, he took care to distribute to the needy with praiseworthy liberality, being no deaf hearer nor slothful executor of the Lord's precepts. When a certain rich man had sought counsel from the Lord about receiving eternal life, and he had proposed the commandments of the old law to be kept, and the other had answered that he had kept all those, he said: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me. But this man did not, like that one, go away sad. But now it is there written that God loves a cheerful giver. Therefore the little body which had been nourished in royal fashion in fine linen and purple he tamed with the roughness of a cheap garment; and he who lately, from too great tenderness, knew not how to sleep upon down, took sweet sleep upon the bare ground covered with haircloth, chastising himself according to the Apostle, and bringing himself into subjection in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness. And cutting away all delights of earthly things from body and mind, the grace of God going before and following him, he busied himself, according to the same Apostle, to become rich in good works, and to treasure up for himself a good foundation for the time to come, and to live in this world justly and piously, that he might lay hold of the true faith. Forgetting indeed the things that are behind, but stretching forward to those that are before, he ran toward the palm of the heavenly recompense, desiring to lay hold of Christ, by whom he had already been laid hold of through his mercy. But contemning also the delights of various foods, in this theatrical contest he was sustained rather than refreshed by the eating of cheaper and coarser food o.
[9] who is said to have been made the disciple of St. Severinus the recluse; And like a skilled and learned merchant zealous to enlarge his merchandise, he made little of giving a cheap and abject thing and buying a precious one. Who, finding a good pearl and a treasure hidden in the field of the divine Scriptures, gave all that he could have, reserving nothing for himself, and bought it. For love of its sweetness and brightness those things suddenly became worthless which before had seemed sweet and pleasant, and were esteemed as dung. The world, full of deceit and beguilement, is contemned, the things possessed are given up *, the things gathered are scattered among the necessities of the needy, that his justice might remain unto the age, and his horn be exalted in glory. Then, striving wholly to strip off the old man with his acts and to put on the new [man], him who is renewed inwardly according to the image of him who created him, he went to blessed Severinus [p], who, shut up in a cell, was noised abroad by very many as burning [q] according to his strength with divine contemplation, asking of him that the habit of sacred religion should be laid upon him, and that in countenance also he might be changed by his hand through the cutting of his hair [r]. Whose devout petition the aforesaid man took care eagerly to fulfil, beholding that he burned greatly with divine love. And so, taking up the girdle of sanctity and the sacred garment of warfare, like a strong champion within the camp of the eternal King he does not fear, the Divine power aiding him, to enter into single combat with the crafty enemy. Whose strong
forces he therefore bravely broke, because he wholly renounced his works and pomps, choosing to be afflicted for a moment of time with squalor and hunger for the obtaining of the joys of heavenly felicity, rather than for momentary and enticing delights to be burned with perpetual fires of torments.
[10] Therefore, after he had laid up an abundance of treasures in an invisible manner, and thence setting out into Provence, he there by miracles following the Saviour's precept, in the heavenly treasury; after he had confirmed by testament the possessions of fields and vineyards with their cultivators, to profit perpetually the monasteries and churches of Christ, accounting himself earth and ashes, and setting himself as cheap in his own eyes, that he might be precious in God's eyes, he determined with himself to avoid and shun the applause of men favoring him and extolling with vain and human praises an illustrious work wrought only for divine love, and to go to a far distant region which is called Provence [s], that there, as one unknown, he might be able to serve God in the purpose he had begun. But since a lamp cannot lie hid, nor can darkness obscure it, since it knows how to drive them away and put them to flight by its own flashing light, being set in that region he shone forth with a great splendor of virtues. Then by his prayers he put demons to flight from possessed bodies, opened the mouths of the dumb, restored sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, walking to the lame, and for all who asked in faith obtained the help of health from God's clemency.
[11] But neither do I judge that should be covered with silence which shone by his gift. became famous: When in a part of the aforesaid region he was building a house of prayer, a certain poor man came and asked that alms should be given him by him. But the man of God, since he had not at hand what he might give the needy man, gave the cowl with which he was clad. Which the poor man receiving departed, and came to the house of a certain faithful man for the sake of lodging . Who, when after food and drink he had given himself to sleep, a great part of the night being already passed, the master of the house rose in the night, and saw his house shine with a bright light: who at once took care to relate it to his wife, roused from sleep. And she , beholding the unwonted thing, says *: This stranger who has been received by us has brought with him some gift of God. Who, being questioned by them in the morning, related how he had received the cowl in place of a gift from the holy Man [t]. Which deed in that place was noised abroad on every side by the mouth of the common people in praise of almighty God, and spread abroad in famous discourse.
[12] Honored with such gifts of graces by the Holy Spirit, he returns to Paris. Having returned to Paris, and been ordained priest, To which city there is at once joy of those giving thanks to God for his return, whose * hearts had formerly been exceedingly sad at his departure. He is therefore received with the wondrous exultation of the peoples, and is acclaimed worthy of the priesthood by the voice of all. he founds a church, in which he is buried. Whom Eusebius [u], bishop of that city, ordained a Priest, yielding to the voice of the clergy and to the prayers of those dwelling at Paris, judging him worthy that he who had already offered himself a living victim, pleasing to God through contrition and devotion of mind, should be appointed a minister of the saving and life-giving Sacrament: that those whom he strove by word and works to draw away from the jaws of Satan, being snatched from that same truculent enemy, he might refresh with divine banquets. He founded moreover a monastery [x] in the place whose name was formerly Novigentum, now on account of the signal merit of his sanctity it is called the monastery of St. Clodoaldus, whose name and merit it enjoys; which he both enriched with sufficient earthly wealth, and for which he built fitting dwellings for himself and for the servants of God dwelling with him, but also for those who in the remaining age, by the succession of generations, should war for God for the salvation of their souls; and he assigned it by testament to the mother church of that same city, namely of holy Mary, to be held perpetually. Where also he himself, determining to await the end of his life with very many [y] whom the fear of hell had terrified and the love of the heavenly fatherland had quickened, disposing ascents in his heart in the vale of tears, desired to ascend from virtue to virtue, applying himself to prayers, fasts, alms, vigils, divine readings, that he might deserve to see the God of gods in Sion. Endowed therefore by divine grace with these exercises, he deserved to know by a divine revelation the passing of his life: whose last hour he awaited gladly, desiring to be dissolved and to be with Christ. He departed therefore from the body on the seventh Ides of September, receiving the crown of his merits, which the Lord, a just judge, also rendered to him for his labors. Whose body was buried with the highest honor in that same cell, where, by the suffrage of his merits, the vow of him who asks in faith is fulfilled, our Lord Jesus Christ bestowing it, to whom be power, honor, and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.
ANNOTATIONS.
p The memory of St. Severinus, monk and solitary, is in Usuard at the 23rd of November, in the Roman at the 27th of the same month. If St. Clodoaldus was his disciple, as most moderns affirm from these Acts, I do not sufficiently perceive why Usuard should call Severinus a monk, but not Clodoaldus. Vincent and Peter, just praised, in the elogium of Clodoaldus make no mention of Severinus, about whom also all the more ancient writers who treated of Clodoaldus were silent. Wherefore I cannot dissemble that I much doubt whether St. Clodoaldus ever saw St. Severinus, as I observed in the Commentary, numbers 23 and 24.
q The passage seems faulty, even in both manuscripts. For one agrees with the printed texts. The other has: Pro viribus fruere plurimum vociferabatur. Perhaps it was written: Contemplatione divina pro viribus fervere plurimorum ore vociferabatur.
r That the Saint cut off his hair with his own hand, the writer of Tours and other ancients have.
s Provence was then under the Goths. The holy Boy could have been carried thither to lie hidden. But I would not believe this biographer that, after he had renounced his possessions and been instructed in the discipline of St. Severinus, he set out into Provence. I certainly wonder that Baillet, though he is frequently too rigid a censor, could attribute so much to these Acts as to make Clodoaldus first a solitary, then a disciple of St. Severinus, thirdly a solitary in Provence after he had distributed his goods to the poor and to the churches; and fourthly returning to Paris, where he writes that he was consecrated priest in the year 551. And yet by his own reckoning the Saint was then only twenty-eight years old. Who would believe that a royal Youth at that age had already three times changed the place of his solitude, and had wandered hither and thither at his own discretion, as if
no one had had care of him? Who, I say, would believe this of a writer four centuries later, while the ancient writers are silent or rather contradict it? Far more likely things I have given in the Commentary, numbers 16 and 17.
t This fact, with the miracles related a little before, Baillet omitted. I confess that none of these things seems to me sufficiently certain either, on account of the silence of the more ancient writers. Nevertheless those miracles in the holy Solitary, if it were sufficiently established that he lived as a solitary in Provence, would appear less improbable than those which I have noted as presently adopted by the same writer.
u Of bishop Eusebius and of the time of the consecration I treated in the Commentary, number 17.
x Of the building of this monastery I disputed in the Commentary, §3, where I also examined whether the Saint seems to have been a monk.
y Andrew Saussay at the 7th of September describes the Saint as a solitary for nearly all his life, and is silent about the church built by him at Novigentum, thus setting forth the remaining part of his life after the priesthood was taken up: Judging himself unworthy of which dignity, he again withdrew himself, and having surveyed the region round about, betook himself to a hill near a wood and overhanging the channel of the Seine. Hiding in the cave of which, he clung wholly intent upon God; until, being consummated in every virtue, the Man of angelic piety, the mass of the flesh being laid aside, sent forth his blessed spirit to glory. Simon Martin in the Flowers of Solitude on the 7th day of September makes Clodoaldus so much a solitary at Novigentum that he asserts that he there conversed with God alone and the angels. But it is far more probable, and more conformable to the ancient writers, if we believe that Clodoaldus was neither a monk nor properly a hermit, nor led a very extraordinary life; but was a priest loving a quiet and solitary life, and eminent in piety and liberality, who ascended to the summit of sanctity by virtues worthy of a Christian and ecclesiastical Man.
Ms. moris*
otherwise hominum*
Ms. illicito auditu*
otherwise, in the Ms., itaque*
perhaps deseruntur*
otherwise cruciari*
otherwise intravit*
otherwise vero*
otherwise dixit*
otherwise quantum*