Gratus

ON ST. GRATUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,

OR GRADUS, AT AOSTA IN PIEDMONT,

WITH AN APPENDIX CONCERNING BL. GALLUS, BISHOP OF THE SAME CITY.

Toward the end of the fifth century.

PREVIOUS COMMENTARY.

Gratus or Gradus, bishop and confessor at Aosta in Piedmont (S.)

Gallus, bishop of the same city (B.)

BY J. S.

The Saint's lawful cult: relics and miracles: the manuscript Acts and the Life printed in Italian equally fabulous.

Concerning Augusta Prætoria, in Italian Aosta or Osta, which follows St. Gratus or Gradus the bishop with the highest veneration as its patron, At Aosta Gratus the bishop as patron some things have already been said in tome 1 of February, page 97, in St. Ursus, a priest of the same city, whom the people of Aosta believe to have been a disciple of St. Gratus — on how solid a foundation I do not clearly see. This city the Italian writers generally attribute to the region of Piedmont, and include within Italy as its uttermost corner: and with these the Sainte-Marthes agree, although they enumerate a catalogue of the prelates of Aosta, because these are now suffragans of the archbishop of Tarentaise in Savoy. But formerly the bishop of Aosta was under the archbishop of Milan, as Ughelli observes in tome 4 of the reprinted Italia sacra, col. 1097, where more may be seen about that city. One thing I transfer hither, which conduces to showing the ancient cult of St. Gratus. It has, he says, an ancient cathedral, consecrated to the most holy Virgin Mother of God assumed into heaven, and to blessed Gratus its tutelary bishop. About the cathedral church dedicated to St. Gratus other writers agree, so that there is no doubt about the cult.

[2] Nor is the cult of St. Gratus among the people of Aosta an ordinary one, he is venerated with great veneration; as also in the neighboring dioceses: but famous as of the protector of the city. The praised Ughelli in the catalogue of the prelates of Aosta, col. [ ], recites a decree which Peter Sonarius published in the year 1407, conceived in these words: We, Brother Peter bishop of Aosta, among other things ordain, since by the merits of blessed Gratus the confessor, patron of this our cathedral church, whose body is in that church, thunderbolts are canonically, by common opinion, driven away from the territory of our whole diocese of Aosta, we ordain that the feast of that Saint be solemnly celebrated in every church of our diocese on the VII day of September in every year, and that likewise all work cease. In the year MCDVII, on the X day of May. Charles bishop of Novara in his Novaria, page 20, has this to our purpose: But since that Bishop himself of the same city of Aosta, who is there venerated as patron, is very greatly celebrated in this (diocese of Novara) and everywhere with vows and churches, mention must be made of him: I mean Gradus the bishop, without doubt most holy, if you regard the exceeding and ancient piety of these peoples toward him: whom nevertheless others rather call Gratus, whose feast-day is kept on the VII Ides of September.

[3] his body, which was formerly elevated, is preserved in the cathedral church: The same on page 21: St. Gradus is everywhere invoked against the calamity of storms and hail. Therefore there is painted upon his image the appearance of hailstorms mixed with demons: and there is added also a well into which the hail falls. Francis Augustine dall' Ecclesia in the Chronological History of the Cardinals and prelates of the Piedmontese region, page 326, agrees about the body of St. Gratus preserved in the Cathedral church of Aosta, and about the cult of the Saint as patron, whom he says to have been famous for miracles both before and after his death. That the body of St. Gratus was formerly translated, or at least elevated, is plain from its honorable preservation, and from the miracle which is narrated about the tooth drawn out, in the elogium to be given below. Nay, Ferrarius announces a festivity of the translation at the XXVII of March in these words: At Aosta, the translation of St. Gratus the bishop. In his annotations he praises for it the records of the church of Aosta. From all these things it is plain that it cannot stand against the lawful cult of St. Gratus that his memory is not found in the ancient and chief Martyrologies: for this is common to him with certain other heavenly saints of great name.

[4] his memory in the more recent Calendars; Moreover most of the more recent martyrologists have recorded the name of St. Gratus in their Calendars. Among the Auctaria of Usuard in our Sollerius at this VII day of September I find the Saint thus announced in the Chambéry codex of St. Mary: At the city of Aosta, in the country of Savoy, the deposition of the body of St. Gratus, bishop of the same city. Molanus in the same place has it thus: On the same day, the deposition of St. Gratus the confessor, bishop of Aosta, a man of wondrous sanctity and of miracles. Ferrarius in the General Catalogue: At Aosta, of St. Gratus the bishop, patron of the same city. A fuller elogium from Ferrarius's other Catalogue I shall give below. Galesinius announced St. Gratus in this manner: At Aosta, of St. Gratus, bishop and confessor, famous for admirable sanctity and for the glory of deeds wonderfully and divinely wrought. Lastly Castellanus in the Universal Martyrology and the author of the Parisian Martyrology made mention of Gratus: nay, and Saussay in the Supplement of the Gallican Martyrology.

[5] But the two latter seem to have been ignorant of the place but not without error in Saussay: in which St. Gratus was bishop and is venerated. Certainly they do not rightly express the place. The Parisian Martyrology has it thus: In the diocese of Aosta at the jaws of the Alps, of St. Cratus the bishop. The writer of this Martyrology wrongly places St. Gratus in the diocese rather than in the city itself, and calls him Cratus, perhaps by a typographical error. But all these things I find corrected in the index, since there Gratus is rightly written, and he is placed at Aosta in the jaws of the Alps. More clearly does Saussay go astray, announcing St. Gratus thus: On the same day the deposition of St. Gratus, bishop and patron of the same church and city of Saluzzo, who under Charlemagne shone forth famous for divine virtues, and having administered the pastoral office with an apostolic spirit, was called to his reward for the abundance of his merits. St. Gratus was not bishop of Saluzzo, but of Aosta, and is venerated chiefly at Aosta. But whether he flourished under Charlemagne will be examined below. Thus far concerning the Saint's cult.

[6] But now, as regards his miracles and the benefits obtained by his patronage, some more recent benefits. more things about them have been asserted in general than related singly or set forth in detail. Nevertheless, besides one prodigy which has been inserted into the elogium to be given, certain other more recent ones are reported in the Italian Life, from which I transfer them hither in summary. In the year 1542 a most grievous fire arose in the valley of Aosta, and especially about the village of Brissogne (called by the author in Italian Bressognia), which, continuing for a whole eight days, seemed likely to consume everything on the mountains, the peoples running up in vain to extinguish the widely wandering fire. At length the clergy went thither in supplication with the relics of St. Gratus, and presently, to the wonder of all, the fire was extinguished. In another year, which is not expressed, in the province of Tarentaise noxious little creatures so devoured or corrupted everything that they consumed at once the hope of harvest. They believed that recourse must be had to divine help, and some came to the canons of the cathedral of Aosta, and besought of them water consecrated by the relics of St. Gratus. Having obtained it, they sprinkled the fields; and so all things presently began to grow green again, so that the harvest was abundant in that year. In the year 1564, about the end of the month of May, on the feast of the most holy Trinity, which in that year was the XXVIII of May, so great an abundance of snow had fallen in the territory of Aosta that they believed the harvest of that year corrupted and lost, and feared famine. Solemn supplications were therefore instituted, and the relics of St. Gratus carried about for that cause, to whose patronage they attributed it that they had a sufficiently abundant harvest. The author does not narrate more benefits by name, yet asserts that many others were wrought and were continued in his own time, but that he omits them for brevity's sake.

[7] That certain Acts of St. Gratus were written, perhaps in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, The Acts of St. Gratus are fabulous, is certain. But it is no less established that they are so fabulous that it can hardly be understood what in those Acts can be held for true. Baronius in his Annotations on the Roman Martyrology on the XXIX day of August observes that in those Acts there is narrated a certain finding of the head of St. John the Baptist, but that it is supported by no testimony of truth. Philip Ferrarius in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy at the VII day of September gives a summary of those Acts, but observes in his Annotations that certain things were mixed in by the author of that Life which are utterly alien from the truth, and points out some of them. Ughelli also in tome 4 of Italia Sacra, col. [ ], in the elogium of St. Gratus contracted from the Acts, calls the Acts preposterous. Lastly our Papebroch in tome 4 of June, treating of the relics of St. John the Baptist, page 761, says that the Life of St. Gratus is the purest fable, and proves it on page 762, after he had recited its chief part from the manuscript. Wherefore I should be doing what is already done, if I wished laboriously to prove that that Life of St. Gratus is unworthy of credit.

[8] as also the Italian Life: yet a summary of the Acts is to be published. Out of these fabulous Acts there came forth in the seventeenth century another printed Life, which the Italian title says was made Italian from the French tongue by Don John Louis Marcoaldo of Moncalieri, and in which likewise it is said to be drawn from the Legendary of the cathedral church of Aosta, that is, from the manuscript Acts already mentioned. The author of this printed Life liberally adopted, and set forth in his own words a little more at length, the fables found in the manuscript Life, which now and then contradict one another, and do not deserve a serious refutation. For this cause it will be enough for me to give a summary of those Acts from Ferrarius, and in the Annotations to that to observe briefly how fabulous is nearly everything reported in the Acts. Further, on account of this ruined credit of the Acts, the age of St. Gratus becomes doubtful and uncertain; for from fables nothing certain can either be proved or determined about the Saint's age. It seems therefore that we must examine what writers have said about the age of St. Gratus, and what can and ought more probably to be said.

§ II. The age of St. Gratus is investigated.

[ ] Most will have it that St. Gratus flourished in the 8th and 9th centuries: Most writers, for fixing the Saint's epoch, have looked to the eighth and ninth centuries: nor is the reason of this opinion obscure, since in the fabulous Acts St. Gratus is joined with Charlemagne, who is known to have flourished in the eighth and ninth centuries. To Leo III, whom Ferrarius in his summary joins as Pontiff to St. Gratus, some also without doubt attended, as is plain from the epoch of St. Gratus determined by them. The Sainte-Marthes indeed in tome 2 of Gallia Christiana, page 228, in the catalogue of the bishops of Aosta, place St. Gratus toward the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the ninth, since they will have it that St. Jucundus succeeded him about the year 810. The same then reckon another Gratus II about the year 880, and

another Jucundus I toward the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth. I do not deny that it could have come about that among the earlier prelates of the church of Aosta there were two of the name of Gratus, and likewise two Jucundi: yet I so far do not see this proved that I rather judge that each was doubled from a mere error of chronological order. Ughelli, praised before, doubles the Jucundi in the same manner: but sets down a single St. Gratus, who died, as he judges, about the year 810. Castellanus likewise noted in the margin for the year of his death, about 810. In the Parisian Martyrology I find noted, After the year DCCCXIV. Francis Augustine dall' Ecclesia extends the episcopate of St. Gratus from the year 770 to 790, so that he too makes Gratus a contemporary of Charlemagne, then king, [elsewhere, however, he is believed to have lived in the fifth century, and to have been made bishop] but not of Pope Leo III.

[10] But from all these Charles bishop of Novara differs widely, in the Novaria praised before, page 20, where he writes thus of St. Gratus or Gradus: Now I think him to be the priest who subscribed for his bishop to the Synodal letter of Eusebius archbishop of Milan to Pope Leo, among whose letters those things are read. Which subscription is as follows: "I, Gradus the priest, sent by my bishop Eustasius of the church of Aosta, in his stead consented and subscribed to all the above written, saying anathema to those who have thought impiously about the sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation". I am the more persuaded of this because I read that Jucundus was a disciple of this holy bishop (Gratus). And I see a bishop of Aosta of that name subscribed to the third and fourth Roman synods celebrated under Pope Symmachus. Which Pontiff is so far distant from the time of Leo that one who was a disciple under Leo could easily have been a bishop under Symmachus. This opinion brings back the age of St. Gratus to the fifth century, and makes it necessary that the Saint's episcopate be extended between the middle and the end of the said century. And it appears the more probable, the more faulty and fabulous are the Acts of St. Gratus, which alone the patrons of the contrary opinion had before their eyes. But it pleases me to explain the argument of the most illustrious prelate a little more at large.

[11] The letter of Eusebius of Milan, to which Gradus or Gratus the priest subscribed for his bishop, after in the year 451 he had been for his bishop at the council of Milan: was addressed to St. Leo the Pope in a provincial council of Milan, and is rightly bound by Baronius to the year 451, although Labbe in tome 3 of the Councils, col. [ ], noted in the margin the year 452, and that year has been adopted by certain others. For that synod was gathered when the synod of Chalcedon was to be held, that is, after St. Abundius bishop of Como, who had been sent as papal legate to Constantinople, had returned thence with three companions of the legation; and not after the celebration of the council of Chalcedon, as others seem to have believed. Baronius may be seen at the year 451. For it matters little to my purpose whether the synod of Milan was held in 451 or 452. This only I observe, that bishop Eustasius, for whom Gradus was present at the council, was probably infirm or broken with age, so that it becomes likely that Gradus or Gratus, who acted in his bishop's stead at the council, succeeded him not long after in the bishopric; especially since Jucundus, who according to the tradition of the people of Aosta was Gratus's disciple, notably increases the probability of this opinion.

[12] For there is no doubt that Jucundus presided over the church of Aosta at the beginning of the sixth century, [this opinion is favored by the episcopate of Jucundus, who certainly sat in the year 501.] since he is read as subscribed to the third and fourth Roman Synods under Symmachus, as may be seen in Labbe, tome 4, col. [ ] and 1338. And the former of these synods was held in the year 501, the other in the year 502. How long Jucundus had then been sitting cannot be said: but whether he had sat few years or many, between Eustasius, still living in the year 451, and Jucundus, sitting in the year 501, there is found a suitable interval for the episcopate of Gratus, which could easily have been filled by him, and which is known to have been filled by no other. This opinion therefore appears very probable: and if it be equally true, it will not be necessary to reckon two Jucundi or two Grati among the prelates of Aosta. Moreover in this opinion it is somewhat perceived whence the biographer took occasion for writing most of the fables inserted into the Life, namely about the finding of the head of St. John the Baptist, about the council of Chalcedon, about Pope Leo, and about the legations of St. Gratus: for some things happened in those times from which a most audacious fabler could draw his dreams. First, the head of the holy Precursor was in truth found at Emesa in the year 452, as Papebroch proves in tome IV of June, page 723: and therefore the finding agrees with the assigned age of St. Gratus. Secondly, the council of Chalcedon was celebrated in the year 451, in which our Gratus was present for his bishop at the synod of Milan which was preliminary to it: and at the same time St. Leo I was Pontiff. Hence that writer could carve out I know not what synod of Chalcedon, a Leo III, and various legations of Gratus, with great ignorance indeed and equal audacity, but not more ineptly than we shall see certain other things invented in the Annotations.

[13] St. Gratus was not present at the translation of the body of St. Maurice; What is said in the elogium to be given, at number 2, about the relics of SS. Maurice and his fellow martyrs deposited in the monastery of Agaunum by St. Theodulus bishop of Sion and St. Gratus of Aosta, does not seem certain enough for defining the age of St. Gratus from that fact: nor could a certain epoch of St. Gratus's age be gathered thence, even if it were certain that St. Gratus was present at the translation of those relics, since two Theoduli or Theodori, bishops of the church of Sion or rather then of Octodurum, are said to have translated the relics of those Saints; namely St. Theodore I, bishop of Octodurum, who flourished about the end of the fourth century, as has been proved at the XXVI of August, where he was treated of, and St. Theodore II, whom I have shown in his Acts, given at the XXVII of August, to have flourished about the beginning of the sixth century. This one thing I observe, that both those Theodores are not far removed from the age of St. Gratus according to the epoch given: for the first preceded by about half a century; but the second could have lived with Gratus, since he is said to have died about the year 516. Wherefore the writer seems rashly to have attributed to St. Gratus a translation which he had read to have been performed about his times, just as he more ridiculously ascribed to him the elevation of the head of St. John the Baptist. Those who referred the translation of those relics to the ninth century looked to Theodore or Theodulus III, who is said to have flourished in that century: but I have seen it proved by no suitable monument hitherto that the translation of SS. Maurice and his companions happened in the ninth century, much less precisely in the year 880, as the Sainte-Marthes assert, therefore placing a second Gratus in the ninth century, and wrongly attributing to both, along with Theodulus of Sion, the translation of the Theban martyrs.

[14] but with two other bishops he translated the body of St. Innocentius: Now, just as I do not judge that St. Gratus was present at the translation of the holy Maurice and his companions to the church of Agaunum, because I do not find it in a suitable monument; so I shall readily admit that the Saint was present at the translation of one of the martyrs of the Theban legion, for the Acts of those martyrs testify it. For the Acts of SS. Maurice and his companions, published by Peter Stewart, in chapter XI have it thus: Nor is this to be omitted, that after a long tract of time the Rhone revealed the limbs of Bl. Innocentius the martyr… For gently lapping the relics it brought forth, it did not therefore bring them forth from the bosom of the earth to plunge them into the storm of its own eddy: but for glorious devotion, as though within the compass of the basilica it were commanding him to be joined in burial with the other martyrs. Whose translation, celebrated by Domitianus of holy memory of Geneva, and Gratus of the city of Aosta, and Protasius at that time bishop of that (church of Octodurum), we recall and frequent with daily devotion and praises. These Acts are not indeed St. Eucherius of Lyons's, whose little work Chifflet afterwards published in the Paulinus illustrated: yet they are by a sufficiently ancient writer, and probably of the sixth century. But since an examination of the Acts of St. Maurice must be carefully instituted at the XXII of September, it will suffice here to say that there is no reason why we should doubt about the finding and translation of St. Innocentius here given: nor can it prudently be doubted that the St. Gratus of whom we are treating was present at that translation.

[15] If therefore the time of this translation can be assigned, and this translation seems to have happened it can be said by a most probable reason at about what time St. Gratus lived. And the time of the said translation the two Acts of St. Maurice, compared with one another, somewhat hint. For the more ancient, which St. Eucherius wrote before the middle of the fifth century, are silent about the said translation: and thence it is gathered that it happened after the Acts were written, and therefore was not made long before the middle of the fifth century. But if it was not made long before the middle of the fifth century, it must also have happened after the middle of the fifth century, since about the middle of that century Eustasius was bishop of Aosta; but the finding and translation was made when Gratus was presiding over the church of Aosta. But now from the other Acts of St. Maurice I shall show that that translation did not happen after the fifth century. Their author in chapter XI narrates the finding and translation of St. Innocentius already mentioned, at which St. Gratus was present. Then in chapter 12 he so treats of the restoration of the church of Agaunum by abbot Ambrose as sufficiently to imply that this restoration of the church happened later. Again in chapter 13 he reports that the perpetual chanting of psalms and hymns was there instituted by St. Sigismund king of the Burgundians, and there he puts an end to the Acts, implying that this was the last thing done.

[16] But the said restoration of the church of Agaunum by Sigismund and abbot Ambrose was made about the year 516, [between the middle and the end of the fifth century, and so that Gratus sat at that time.] as has been proved in St. Theodore II of Octodurum at the XXVII of August. Wherefore the translation of St. Innocentius seems altogether to have happened before the year 516, and further before the end of the fifth century. For other bishops about the year 516 presided both over the church of Octodurum and over that of Geneva than those who are named in the said translation. Again, in the earlier years of the sixth century Gratus was not presiding over the church of Aosta, but Jucundus, who is generally held to have been his disciple. Wherefore we must necessarily look to the fifth century: for between the middle and the end of the fifth century, that is, between the year 452 and 500, all the bishops who were present at the translation could have sat, since neither the bishopric of Octodurum, nor that of Geneva, nor lastly that of Aosta is said to have been occupied at that time by other bishops. These reasons appear of such a kind as can move a prudent man to assent, and for that cause I judge that the body of St. Innocentius was found between the middle and the end of the fifth century, at least until something

more certain be brought forward: and consequently I think that the episcopate of St. Gratus must be begun after the year 551 in some uncertain year, and carried down almost to the end of the fifth century, yet with so great a latitude that he may have died twenty and more years before the year 500, and Jucundus his disciple have sat.

§ III. The opinion of others about the time of the translation of St. Innocentius and about the age of St. Gratus is refuted.

[ ] [Tillemont believes the body of St. Innocentius was translated about the middle of the 7th century,] Nevertheless I find Tillemont opposing the opinion just set forth about the body of St. Innocentius translated in the fifth century after the middle, in tome 4 of the Monuments of the church, in St. Maurice, and especially in note 1 on Maurice, where he refers the translation of St. Innocentius to about the middle of the seventh century; and thence further gathers that the Acts of St. Maurice, from which I have recited that translation, were written only toward the end of the same century. But truly Tillemont's reason must be weighty to persuade us that the translation of Innocentius, of which the author speaks in chapter XI, is at least a hundred and thirty years later than the things which are reported in chapters 12 and 13 about abbot Ambrose and king Sigismund as not very long past. Let us hear what he says of Ambrose: But now (the church of Agaunum) by the command of Ambrose, illustrious in merits, abbot of that place, being built anew, is recognized to have a double slope. Would a writer whose elegance Tillemont praises speak thus, if the restoration of the church of Agaunum had happened nearly a hundred and eighty years before he wrote? No more do the things which he says in chapter 13 about king Sigismund, and with which he concludes his little work, hint at so great an interval of time. Wherefore I do not doubt that that author wrote more than a whole century earlier: for without doubt he would have narrated the translation of St. Innocentius in the last place, if it had happened in the same century in which he was writing, and a hundred and thirty years after Ambrose and Sigismund.

[18] [because Protasius the bishop was present about that time at the council of Chalon: but neither is it certain] But Tillemont's single reason comes to this. There was present at the aforesaid translation Protasius, bishop of that church, namely of Sion (or rather of Octodurum, whence the bishopric is said to have been translated to Sion). This Protasius, he says, was present about the year 644 at the council of Chalon. The translation therefore must be fixed about the middle of the seventh century, and it must be believed that Gratus of Aosta and Domitianus of Geneva, who were present together at the translation, also flourished then. I answer first that it is very uncertain whether Protasius, who was present at the council of Chalon, was bishop of Sion or rather of Senez: for he was formerly inserted in the catalogue of the prelates of Senez, and was thence cast out only by the Sainte-Marthes on account of the council in question. Nevertheless this council does not so clearly favor the cause of the people of Sion that the matter does not remain doubtful. I gather this from Labbe's Annotations on the council of Chalon, which he places about the year 650, tome 6, col. 393. He there notes that he gives the subscriptions from the Beauvais codex alone, in which stood Protasius of Sion; but that in the published texts it was of Sentia. Who now shall say which is the better reading? For the opinion of those who published the Councils cannot make us secure on that matter, since the bishop of Senez could equally have been present at the council of Chalon as the bishop of Sion, of whom I would not even dare to assert for certain that at that time he was subject to the Franks. But let us suppose that that Protasius was certainly bishop of Sion; and let us see whether thence it necessarily follows that the translation of the body of St. Innocentius must be fixed about the middle of the seventh century, as Tillemont will have it, and with him Ruinart in his annotations to the Appendix of the Works of Gregory of Tours, col. [ ].

[19] Some Protasius presided over the church of Sion about the year 644: [that he was of Sion; nor does it exclude another Protasius to be placed in the 5th century:] let us suppose that this is altogether certain. Are all the consequences therefore to be admitted which the adversaries frame? Could not another Protasius have presided over the same church after the middle of the fifth century? Assuredly the catalogue of the bishops of Octodurum and afterwards of Sion is not so full in the fifth century that no place is left for inserting a Protasius between the middle and the end of the fifth century. The catalogue of the bishops of Geneva likewise shows no prelate between the middle and the end of the fifth century, so that Domitianus of Geneva could easily have sat at that time; unless Domitianus be the same as Donatianus, whom the catalogue exhibits too early, since he is said to have sat in the time of Godisillus king of the Burgundians. Certainly that Godigisillus, king of the Burgundians and brother of king Gundobad, by whom he was killed at Vienne about the year 500, had his royal seat at Geneva as the fifth century was verging to its end, as is established from the Life of St. Epiphanius bishop of Pavia, who met Godigisillus, in others Godigisclus, at Geneva. And since the names Donatianus and Domitianus differ little and are now and then confused, this may be that very Domitianus the bishop who with Protasius and Gratus performed the translation. If this does not please anyone, Domitianus could also have sat before Donatianus: for the place in the catalogue is vacant. The three bishops mentioned at the translation therefore could have sat together after the middle of the fifth century, at which time I have proved before that the translation must be fixed according to the Acts.

[20] But now let us examine whether about the middle of the seventh century, [still less can there be found in the middle of the 7th century other bishops who were at the translation:] at which the translation of St. Innocentius cannot be fixed unless the writer of the Acts spoke most ineptly, a Gratus of Aosta and a Domitianus of Geneva can be found as easily, together with Protasius of Sion, so that the translation must altogether be attributed to that time. At the time of the council of Chalon there sat at Geneva Pappulus II, who is found to have subscribed to that council. After Pappulus II so many bishops follow in the Catalogue of the men of Geneva in the Sainte-Marthes that it is not necessary to add any to fill up the remaining part of the seventh century, and the whole eighth century with those following. Nay, so many are reckoned also from the beginning of the sixth century up to the praised Pappulus that none seems to be wanting. And so the order of the prelates of Geneva is not easily to be changed, since they seem to have been accurately noted in ancient codices, and therefore neither is some Domitianus rashly to be inserted after Pappulus II, as though he had been present at the translation mentioned. No more does it become likely that some Gratus sat in the church of Aosta about the middle of the seventh century. The reason is this. It is established that Aosta was occupied in the sixth century by the Lombards. And from that time in which the Lombards came into Italy, up to the year 788, when they had long since been made Catholics, no bishop is reckoned in the catalogue of the men of Aosta. Hence therefore a probable suspicion arises that the church of Aosta long lacked bishops. Wherefore not without a suitable reason is some prelate Gratus to be attributed to that church about the middle of the seventh century, since it is not even established whether it had any at all at that time. by another argument the opinion of the adversaries is utterly disproved.

[21] It pleases me at last to use another argument, to show that the opinion of Tillemont and Ruinart about the time of the translation of St. Innocentius is improbable, and consequently that St. Gratus of Aosta lived in the fifth century, and not in the seventh. It can scarcely be doubted that the Acts in which that translation is narrated were written long before the end of the sixth century. Some reasons I have already given at number 17: here I add others. First, St. Guntram, king of the Franks in Burgundy, sought relics of St. Maurice through a priest, and obtained them, on the testimony of Gregory of Tours in the book On the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 76, where also from the mouth of that priest he reports a miracle wrought at that translation. Another miracle also Gregory narrates in the same place. These things can be fixed about the year 580, and certainly happened before 590. Moreover in the year 602 there happened the translation of SS. Victor and Ursus, two of the martyrs of the Theban legion, on the testimony of Fredegar in Ruinart, col. 604. Now it is not credible that the writer of the Acts, if he had lived in the seventh century, would have been ignorant of all these things or would have omitted them; especially since he mentioned Victor and Ursus by name in chapter 10, in these words: For of that same legion are said to have been Ursus and Victor, whom fame confirms to have suffered at Solothurn. And yet the praised Acts of St. Maurice have not a word either about the translation of these or about the others just mentioned. And so we cannot prudently doubt that they were written earlier, namely about the middle of the sixth century, as the last chapters of those Acts also imply. The age therefore of St. Gratus, who is mentioned in these Acts, has not rightly been assigned by Ruinart and Tillemont, but must be fixed between the middle and the end of the fifth century. Let the studious reader pardon me if this disputation seems a little too lengthy: for I wished to treat this controversy the more diligently, the more errors would sprout at once from the adversaries' opinion if it were admitted.

APPENDIX

On the age of Bl. Gallus, likewise prelate of Aosta.

Gratus or Gradus, bishop and confessor at Aosta in Piedmont (S.)

Gallus, bishop of the same city (B.)

[ ] Bl. Gallus the bishop did not flourish in the 9th or the XIth century; In the catalogue of the bishops of Aosta I find mentioned Gallus, whom Ughelli calls Blessed, the Sainte-Marthes a Saint. But since I find neither any day assigned to his cult, nor his memory inserted in the Martyrologies, it pleases me to treat of him here in a few words. Ughelli reckons him eighth among the bishops of Aosta about the end of the ninth century, in these words: Gallus, whom they call Blessed, of whom no other monument stands in the church of Aosta except his body, laid up in the same place as that of Gratus. Francis Augustine dall' Ecclesia, page 327, removes Gallus to the eleventh century, and has these few words about him: Bl. Gallus, who likewise had ruled the priory of St. Ursus. The Sainte-Marthes add the following to what Ughelli gave about Gallus: In the monastery of St. Ursus he has an epitaph of this sort: "Here rests in peace Gallus the bishop of holy memory, who lived in the episcopate 17 years, II months, 20 days. D. P. sub D. on the 3rd Nones of October, in the twelfth P. C. of Paulinus Junior, V. C., Indiction 10." The last words, from D. P., I read thus: Defunctus pie sub die III Nonas Octobris, duodecies post consulatum Paulini Junioris, viri clarissimi, Indictione X — Died piously on the III day of the Nones of October, in the twelfth year after the consulate of Paulinus Junior, a most illustrious man, in the X Indiction.

[23] And all the characters imply that this epitaph is most ancient and set up not long after the death of the blessed Prelate. And it expresses the day and year of his death so accurately but in the 6th century, and he died in the year 546: that I wonder that the Sainte-Marthes could go so far astray as to make the Blessed, with Ughelli, more than three hundred years younger. For he is said to have died on the III Nones of October, that is on the V day of October, and in the twelfth year after the consulate of Paulinus Junior, that is, in the year 546. For Paulinus Junior in the year 534 was the last consul of the West, and in the year 535 there was written in the West: After the consulate of Paulinus, and then after the consulate of Paulinus a second, third, fourth time, etc. And the twelfth year after

the end of the year 534 is the year 546, and in that year also, from the month of September, there had begun the 10th Indiction, which is expressed in the epitaph, so that everything is neatly set forth there; and the death of Bl. Gallus must be fixed in the year 546, on the V day of October. And he undertook the episcopate in the year 528, on the XV day of October, which was then a Sunday, as is gathered from the dominical letter A. The year and day assigned of the episcopate undertaken he will easily find who accurately subtracts 17 years, XI months, and twenty days from the said year and day of death.

[24] From these things I gather first that it is not to be wondered at the order of the first prelates of Aosta probably assigned. if there has been great error about the age of St. Gratus, since the age attributed to Bl. Gallus in the Catalogues is no less far from the true chronological order. I observe secondly that the bishops of Aosta of the fifth century are perhaps all known, and can be arranged thus. Protasius is set first in the year 408 — with how much certainty I have not inquired. To him could succeed Eustasius, who lived until the year 451 and perhaps longer. Eustasius seems to have been followed by St. Gratus, as has been proved before. But after Gratus, as the fifth century verged to its end, St. Jucundus began to sit; and he could easily have survived to the year 528, in which Bl. Gallus was made bishop, who died in the year 546. I scarcely doubt that another again succeeded Bl. Gallus, but he is hitherto unknown to me, unless perhaps it be Hugh, who is placed after Gallus in the Catalogues much later, but without any note of time. But I do not examine more of these matters; and I subjoin from Ferrarius a summary of the Acts, because most writers have formed their elogia from them, although otherwise they contain more fabulous than true things.

A SUMMARY OF THE FABULOUS ACTS

From Ferrarius's Catalogue of the Saints of Italy.

Gratus or Gradus, bishop and confessor at Aosta in Piedmont (S.)

Gallus, bishop of the same city (B.)

Various fabulous things about the Saint's birth and earlier deeds: Gratus, a Greek by nation, born at Lacedæmon of illustrious family, trained at Athens in the liberal disciplines and in the best morals, when as a youth he was held by a desire of contemplation and of the knowledge of divine things, setting out for Ephesus ^a, there put on the monastic habit. Where in a short time he came to such perfection of regular observance and of doctrine that he surpassed the rest in humility, obedience, modesty, gravity, continence, knowledge, and the other virtues; and interpreted the divine Scriptures to others. When at Chalcedon ^b a synod gathered against the emperor Constantine was being celebrated, in which CLXXVI bishops had assembled, Gratus also was present among the rest; to whom, on account of the excellence of his learning, the surname of the Great was given. Whom the Fathers of the council appointed as legate to Charlemagne ^c, king of the Franks and emperor of the West, for the reformation of the peace of the Church. The legation being happily accomplished, he came to Rome to Leo III, the Supreme Pontiff: by whom, being kindly received, he could never be induced to become a Cardinal, or to accept other honors. There had died at that time the bishop of Aosta; which when Gratus, praying in the church of St. Mary ad Martyres, had learned by a vision, and had narrated to the Pontiff, being appointed by him in place of the dead bishop, he did not dare to gainsay.

[2] other deeds in his episcopate partly true: When he had come to Aosta, in a short time by assiduous preachings, both public and private, he cleansed the people, sprinkled with various errors, restored ecclesiastical discipline among the clergy, and reformed and increased the divine worship. Having set out for some councils ^d, he was of the greatest authority in them, as the Acts themselves declare. Returning to his church, which bore his absence ill, he brought it back to its former cultivation of the vineyard, instructing the people by sacred discourses in the observance of the heavenly commandments, and exercising himself in fasts, prayers, vigils, and meditations. Bl. Jucundus ^e he so trained in morals and instructed in sacred Letters that, being initiated in sacred orders and ordained priest, he deserved to succeed him in the episcopate. The relics of St. Maurice ^f the martyr and of his companions, lying in a foul place on the bank of the river Rhone, at a divine admonition, together with St. Theodulus bishop of Sion, he laid up in a more seemly place in the monastery of Agaunum: of which some part was carried to Sion by Theodulus, and part to Aosta by Gratus himself.

[3] the fabulous finding of the head of St. John the Baptist: When in these times the head of the most holy Precursor ^g had been divinely discovered in a well near Sebaste, a city of Samaria, and a voice had been heard that Gratus alone, bishop of Aosta, would draw it out thence, presently the supreme Pontiff, being informed by the bishop of Jerusalem, summoned Gratus. Who, setting out for Rome with Jucundus (the bells, as they say, ringing of their own accord at his entry into the cities, which is also related to have happened at Ptolemais), embarking on a ship, came into Palestine, a most savage tempest being marvellously stilled by his prayers: and when he had approached the well, and had beheld the sacred head shining, it (marvellous to say) at once leapt from the depth of the well into the hands of Gratus. Which when he had carried to the supreme Pontiff, he received from him as a gift the chin ^h torn away from the head, which he placed in the church of Aosta with the greatest rejoicing of all the people and clergy.

[4] the Saint's death and miracles. At length the holy Bishop, worn out with years and pious labors, on the VII Ides of September fell asleep in the Lord, famous for miracles both before and after his death. Of which it pleases me to report one. When Bona ⁱ, countess of Savoy, had with difficulty obtained a tooth of St. Gratus about DCC years after his death, while it was being drawn out, this indeed happened, plainly to be wondered at after so great a space of time, that drops of fresh blood were seen to drip from the place of the tooth drawn out; and, what increased the wonder, as the countess departed, so great a crash in the sky, so many thunders and lightnings, so many storms and tempests began, that the citizens, fearing that the city would presently fall in ruin, hastening after the countess, recovered the tooth from her by entreaties: and at once the air and the sky returned to serenity.

ANNOTATIONS.

ON ST. FACIOLUS,

VENERATED IN THE PROVINCE OF LE MANS AND OF POITIERS.

From Castellanus.

Faciolus, venerated in the province of Le Mans and of Poitiers (S.)

J. S.

Castellanus in the Universal Martyrology reckons among the Saints of Gaul in the first place Faciolus, writing thus of him in French, as I render his words into Latin: On the same day, of St. Faciolus (in French Facile), who is venerated as a martyr at Luciacum in the province of Le Mans, and is there patron; as a confessor he is venerated in a certain priory of the province of Poitiers, where he is named (in French) S. Faziou. One might doubt whether they are not different Saints: but I have no monuments by which I could safely add anything to the aforesaid.