ON ST. LAUDUS, OR LAUTO, BISHOP OF COUTANCES,
IN LOWER NORMANDY
About the year 568.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Laudus or Lauto, bishop of Coutances, in Lower Normandy (S.)
BHL Number: 4732
BY C. S.
§ I. The variation of the Saint's name, his memory in the
[ ] Martyrologies on various days, and his cult; a Life not approved, some deeds
and the time of his see.
Constantia Castra, or Constantiæ,
to the natives Coutances, an ancient
city of the Gauls in the second
Lyonnese province, The Saint's name variously written,
now in Lower Normandy,
and situated in that tract which from it
is called the district of Coutances, in French le Cotentin,
reckons among the bishops of its see, suffragan to that of Rouen,
St. Laudus, or Lauto,
who in the sixth century flourished in great holiness. His name
is read variously written by various authors; for by some
he is called Laudo, Lautonius, Lautonus, Lautorius,
Launus, Launulphus, and Lannulphus, though commonly
Laudus or Lauto, in French Saint Lô.
This Saint is inscribed in many Martyrologies,
and is honored in various places. Yet he is not announced
on the same day in all; for in some
he is marked on the XXI day of September, in others on the XXII, and elsewhere even
on the XXIII of the same month. I begin from the Additions
to Usuard reported in our Solier;
for Ado and Usuard passed him over.
[2] At the XXI day the Hagenau codex celebrates him briefly and without a place,
in these words: in many Martyrologies at the 21st day Likewise of blessed
Laudus, bishop and confessor; the Altemps codex: Likewise
of saint Laudus, bishop. The codex of the Queen of Sweden
marked number 428 adds the place of his cult, saying, At Rouen,
of saint Laudus, bishop. But the see
itself the Lübeck-Cologne edition, Grevenus, and Molanus
assign. The first of these has it thus: On the same
day (XXI September) in the territory of the city of Coutances,
of saint Laudo, bishop and confessor;
but Grevenus thus: In Lower Normandy, in the city
of Coutances, of blessed Laudus, bishop and confessor.
He, by heavenly disposition, when he was twelve years
old, was taken up as bishop, and, adorning the aforesaid church by word,
life, and miracles,
rested in a blessed end. Moreover, what is here said about the bishopric
taken up in the twelfth year of his age rests upon his
Acts, of little credit, as we shall see in its place.
More manifestly did Molanus err, who believed him
the first bishop of Coutances, saying:
At Coutances in Lower Normandy, of blessed
Laudus, first bishop of the aforesaid city, whose life
flourished with miracles, and whose death likewise was precious
in the sight of the Lord.
[3] of the month of September With the day and place agrees the author of our manuscript Florarium
Sanctorum, who announces him thus, with his name somewhat changed:
At Coutances, of saint
Landus, otherwise Lando, bishop and confessor.
At this same day he is likewise mentioned in Castellanus
and Saussay, of whom the latter composed his eulogy
from his Life after the usual manner. The Paris
Martyrology also agrees, where these things are to be read:
On the same day, of saint Laudus, or Lauto, bishop of Coutances
in Neustria, who took part in the second, third, and fifth councils
of Orléans. To these
is added Philip Ferrari, who likewise inserted St. Laudus
in his general Catalogue of Saints at this day,
observing in his Annotations that this man seems to be the same
as the Lauto who in the Roman Martyrology
is mentioned on the following day, and who nevertheless is reckoned by Demochares
as another than he. But that Demochares erred
we shall see in its place. From what has been said, gather that it is not
true, what Stephen Baluze in book 1 of his Historia
Tutelensis, chapter 9, says of all the old Martyrologies,
saying: But Laudus died … on the X Kalends
of October, as all the old Martyrologies
have it.
[4] So far concerning the sacred Calendars in which St. Laudus or Lauto
is mentioned on the XXI day of September. and is read at the 22nd and 23rd of the same month; At
the XXII day various enlarged codices of Usuard likewise announce him,
in the aforesaid Solier.
Among these the Antwerp codex and the greatest Lübeck edition
have it thus: In the territory of the city
of Coutances, of saint Laudo, bishop. In agreement is
the Greatest Antwerp codex, and many others,
as also Bellinus and Molanus in the printed editions. In the old
Martyrology also of the church of Le Puy in Velay, at this same day,
according to the aforesaid Baluze, chapter 7,
is read: At Angers, of saint Laudus, bishop of the city
of Coutances, in the place which is called Clomna. Add,
finally, also those Martyrologies which the same Baluze
cited in the preceding number without naming them.
Following these martyrologists, Cardinal Baronius
reckoned him in the Roman Martyrology at the present
XXII day of September in these words: In the territory
of Coutances, of saint Lauto, bishop.
Besides, another day of his cult, namely the XXIII
of September, is assigned by Baluze, who after the words recited
in the preceding number subjoins: But in the ancient Calendar
of the monastery of Tulle, and in the old Missal
of the churches of our province, his birthday is put off
to the IX Kalends of October; on which day even now
his feast day is celebrated among us.
[5] Occasion for varying the day may have been given to the aforesaid martyrologists
both by the discrepancy of the manuscript Lives as to the day of his death,
the occasion of which variation is proposed by conjecture and by the variation, such as it is, of his name,
and perhaps also by the transferring of his cult
to another day on account of the festival of St. Matthew
the Apostle. For as to the first,
in one of the manuscript copies of the Life which I have
at hand, the Saint is said to have died on the tenth Kalends
of October, with which Peter de Natalibus in his Catalogue
of Saints, book XI, the last chapter, and the Breviary
of Rouen printed in the year 1736 agree,
even though his Office is there first
celebrated on the following day. But in another manuscript copy of the same Life,
as also in the Breviaries of Coutances
and Bayeux, his death is referred to the XI Kalends of the aforesaid
month. And the Saint's name at
the XXI day of September in the Additions to Usuard cited above
is always written Laudus, if you except only the Lübeck-Cologne
edition, where he is called Laudo.
But on the contrary at the XXII day the codices of Antwerp,
Brussels, of lord du Cheval, of Florence,
the greatest Lübeck edition, and Bellinus constantly call him
Laudo; the Cuadiacum codex, Lauto. Nay, even the Hagenau codex and
Molanus's edition, in which on the previous day he is written Laudus,
announce him again today, as though he were another,
under the name of Laudo. Yet the Altemps
codex commemorates Laudus on both days, under which name
he is inscribed also in the Ughellian Martyrology on this XXII day.
[6] This variation of the name, then, such as it is,
and the diversity of the day of his death in the Lives, may have given
occasion It is proposed. His cult in the church of Coutances for his being referred by some to different days,
and by others even doubled. Nevertheless
it is agreed that Laudus, Landus, Laudo, Lauto,
Lando, and Lanto are one and the same
holy bishop of Coutances of whom we are now
treating. And he is honored in one place on the XXI day, in another on the XXII,
in another on the XXIII; but since in the Roman Martyrology,
which we follow before others, he is announced
at the XXII day, we have determined to treat of him today,
as was observed in the Prætermissi at yesterday's day.
To the Martyrologies I subjoin some places in which
St. Laudus is wont to be honored yearly with ecclesiastical Offices
and religious cult. First of all, in his own diocese
of Coutances he is solemnly honored on the XXI day of September,
the Office of St. Matthew the apostle being on that account transferred to the following
day; as I have learned from the Breviary of the same diocese,
printed at Coutances in the year 1609. And the Office
is celebrated with an Octave, and has antiphons
all its own, an invitatory and responsories proper,
composed for the most part from his own deeds.
[7] diocese; at Rouen in his own church, at Tulle, But the lessons of the second Nocturn likewise set forth
his deeds and the translation of his sacred body;
the rest is taken from the Common of a confessor pontiff,
except the Prayer, which is as follows: O God, who
for the adorning of Thy Church didst appoint the most blessed Laudus
a bishop: grant us to attain divine
gladness, that of him whose glorious passing we solemnly
celebrate we may by his intercession obtain the rewards of eternal
life. Through our Lord, etc. In
the Commemorations also he is there invoked as patron.
His cult is famous also at Rouen
among the Canons Regular of St. Augustine,
in a church first of the Holy Savior, or of the Most Holy Trinity,
but for some centuries now called by the name of St. Laudus;
in which his sacred body is held in great veneration,
which they say is that of the same Saint, and was translated thither in the ninth
or tenth century, as we shall set out more fully in the following §.
And how solemnly his feast day was wont
to be celebrated there of old may be conjectured even from what
the anonymous author of the History of the city of Rouen,
published at Rouen in the year 1731, volume 2,
part 4, writes: namely that it was customary that, if the feast of St. Laudus
fell on the Ember days, these should on account of the gladness of the day
be anticipated by the Canons Regular of that same church.
It enjoys a like cult at Tulle in the province
of Limoges, where his feast is celebrated on the
XXIII day of September, and was formerly celebrated in the cathedral churches
of that province, as Stephen Baluze asserts from an old
Missal, book 1 of the Historia
Tutelensis, chapter 9. According to the same witness, chapters 7 and the two
following, the men of Tulle believe that the body of St. Laudus
is with them, carried in the time of the Norman incursions
first to Angers, and thence
to Tulle.
[8] where his day is kept festively, at Angers and elsewhere. He adds that he is there invoked against fires, not without present
help; and hence it came about that,
when in the year 1658 a fire that had broken out in the episcopal buildings
was wonderfully extinguished through his relics,
Louis Guron, at that time bishop,
partly of his own accord, as grateful for the benefit
received, partly moved by the requests of the citizens,
ordained that thenceforth the feast day of St. Laudus,
which had almost fallen into disuse, should be solemnly celebrated.
Besides, he is honored at Angers by the canons
of St. Laudus, who likewise claim his body or relics
for themselves; but of these and of the men of Tulle
we shall treat more fully in §3. To this add that in the Breviary of the
archdiocese of Rouen of the year 1627, as also
in the Bayeux Proper at the XXI day of September, there is read
a ninth lesson with the usual commemoration; but
in the more recent Rouen one, namely that of the year 1736,
a simple Office of him is made with a third proper lesson.
Finally Baillet writes thus of his cult:
His cult is famous in the town of the same name,
on the river Vire between Coutances
and Bayeux. It is likewise in the provinces of Anjou,
of Lesser Brittany, and of Poitou, and particularly
at Dorat, which is a city in the diocese of Poitiers
situated on the river Thouet \.* To this city he asserts that
the body of St. Laudus of Coutances was formerly translated and was even
preserved in his own time; but from what is to be said
in §3 the sacred body of Launus which is honored there
seems altogether to be that of another than the Bishop
of Coutances.
[9] Of our Saint's deeds James Longueval of our Society truly pronounced,
in volume 2 of the History of the Gallican Church,
page 508, His Life of little credit, and not to be published, that they are as little known
as his name is famous. For the things which
are read both in the manuscript copies of his Life and in the
proper lessons published, are few,
nor even so are they all sufficiently credible, nor handed down by a writer
sufficiently ancient. Wherefore, although four
copies of this kind are at my hand, I have judged
that none should be published in print. Of these one
is doubtfully noted as received from a manuscript of the monastery of St. Laudus
at Rouen; a second our Papebroch transcribed from the
Legendary of the same monastery; a third
was sent to us from Rouen in the year 1633; and a fourth,
lastly, someone else compiled from the Breviaries of Coutances and
Rouen, and in the year 1610
sent to our Heribert Rosweyde. Since
therefore I shall publish none of these, I shall here set out an abridgment
of them, and shall inquire what in them seems certain,
what doubtful, what fabulous; and I shall recount what
I have found elsewhere about the same Saint, for the illustration of
his deeds.
[10] That St. Laudus or Lauto flourished in great holiness under Childebert,
king of the Franks, is compendiously set forth. namely the first of that name,
all the copies agree, both
manuscript and those published in the Breviaries.
That he was consecrated bishop of Coutances in present-day Lower Normandy
by St. Gildard, bishop of Rouen,
in the place of Possessor deceased,
all likewise affirm. But the manuscript
Lives and the Breviaries of Coutances and Bayeux
add that he was only twelve years old when
he was initiated into the bishopric. For they say that, while the men of Coutances
were treating of choosing a successor to Possessor,
some of them were divinely admonished to choose
Laudus, a youth of twelve years;
and that that election was ratified by king Childebert, who
had likewise been admonished about the same matter in a dream;
and that when St. Gildard refused to ordain him
on account of so tender an age, he too, being bidden by an angel,
at length consented. After he had taken up the bishopric they relate
that, while he was performing the divine Office, a fire appeared
over his head in the likeness of a dove,
and that by prayers and the imposition of hands he gave sight
to a certain blind woman. They add that he,
when he went to the king on the church's business, warned his servants on the way
that in a tree under which they had prepared their meal
a demon was lurking, and that when they suddenly withdrew from thence,
that tree presently fell, all being unhurt. Finally they affirm
that St. Laudus, in the fifty-eighth year of his life,
and the forty-sixth of his episcopate,
passed by a happy death to heaven on the eleventh,
or, as others will have it, the tenth Kalends of October.
[11] Now let us inquire what of these things can and ought to be admitted.
[He took part in the second, third, and fifth councils of Orléans; to the fourth he sent a priest:] That our St. Laudus presided as bishop over the church of Coutances
under Childebert I, king of the Franks,
is undoubted from the councils of Orléans celebrated
while the same Childebert reigned. For
in Labbe, volume 4 of the Collection of Councils,
column [ ], in the second council of Orléans, which some
refer to the year 533, others to 536,
is read: I, Lauto, bishop of Coutances, subscribed.
Likewise he is read to have subscribed to the third of Orléans
in the year 538, ibid. volume 5, column 304; and again to the fifth
of Orléans, in the year 549, ibid. column 398, where it
runs thus: I, Lauto, in the name of Christ bishop of the church
of Coutances or of Briovera, subscribed. To
the fourth of Orléans, lastly, in the year 541, he sent
his legate Escupilio, who in the aforesaid collection,
in the cited volume, column 389, subscribed thus: Escupilio,
priest, sent by Lauto bishop of the city
of Coutances, consented and subscribed. From these things
observe how greatly the author of the more recent Breviary of Rouen erred,
published in the year 1736,
who confounded the councils of Orange with those of Orléans,
and asserts that St. Laudus took part both in the former and in the latter,
in these words: He took part in the second,
third, and fifth council of Orange; to the fourth
he sent as legate Scubitto, priest of Coutances.
He was present at three councils which were
held at Orléans. The error is more manifest on several
heads than that it should need refuting. But whereas
St. Lauto above called himself bishop of the church of Coutances
or of Briovera, Sirmond, volume
1 of the Councils of Gaul, page 602, in his Observations
on the first council of Orléans, thinks this was because
the city of Coutances had been called Briovera
before Constantia Castra was established there.
[12] why he was called bishop of Briovera. On the contrary Valois, in the Notitia Galliæ under the word Briovera,
maintains that this was the ancient name
of that castle which was afterwards called from St. Laudus himself.
For he believes that Briovera was so called as though
Bria or Briva Veræ, that is, the Bridge of the river Vire,
on which that castle stands. He confirms
his assertion by adducing other examples, and thinks
that St. Laudus called himself bishop of the church of Coutances or
of Briovera because he mostly resided in the said castle of his
diocese on account of the pleasantness of the place. It is uncertain,
however, whether St. Laudus was the first to use that title,
since, according to the same Valois, in the codices of Reims and
Beauvais there is read to have subscribed to the first council of Orléans,
from the city of Briovera, Leontius
the bishop, who in other codices is noted as Leontianus, bishop
of the church of Coutances, or of Constantia.
Nor does anything stand in the way of St. Laudus having succeeded
Possessor in the see of Coutances
and having been ordained bishop by St. Gildard.
[13] He succeeded Possessor, consecrated bishop by St. Gildard; Possessor is mentioned with great praise of holiness
in the Lives of St. Marculf the abbot, in our volume
1 of May at the 1st day, where at page 71 he is called holy and a man
of the highest religiousness, and is said to have received St. Marculf
most kindly, to have initiated him in sacred Orders,
and to have appointed him to preach the Gospel.
Like things may be read in the other Life of the same St. Marculf,
ibid. page 75 and the following. And that this
ordination of St. Marculf could have taken place about the year 520,
our Henschen there, page 71, number 4,
judged, to which year Le Cointe likewise assigns it;
but how long Possessor afterwards survived
is uncertain. Of St. Gildard we treated
likewise at the VIII day of June, where his death
was fixed very broadly after the year 508. St. Gildard's
successor was St. Flavius, the beginning of whose episcopate,
in volume IV of August, page 641, was for the time being referred with Le Cointe
to the year 529, until more certain things should come forth about the chronology
of the prelates of Rouen. Moreover the same St. Gildard is read as having subscribed
to the first council of Orléans, celebrated by the more common
opinion in the year 511; and so he could
have consecrated St. Laudus bishop in Possessor's place
between the aforesaid years; but the year of his ordination is uncertain.
[14] But that St. Laudus was only twelve years old
not, however, twelve years old, as is said in the Life. when he was initiated into the episcopate by the aforesaid St. Gildard
is a thing so unusual, and so contrary to ecclesiastical
sanctions, that we cannot believe it from
such uncertain documents; and rightly no mention has been made of it
in the Breviaries of Rouen, both the older one published in the year 1627
and the more recent one of the year 1736. In a certain
Narrative concerning the relics of the Saints which are preserved
in the church of Tulle, which Stephen Baluze
noted was written in the year 1153, and published
among the documents of the Historia Tutelensis, blessed
Laudus is said to have been given by divine nod to the city of Coutances
as (not a twelve-year-old, but) the twelfth bishop; but
neither is this in conformity with the catalogue of the bishops of Coutances
published by the Sainte-Marthes in the Gallia Christiana,
in which he is reckoned only as the fifth. That miracles
were wrought by St. Laudus while he lived
is altogether probable, and therefore those which we have recited
from the Lives and the Breviaries at number 10 we cannot
indeed deny, but neither can we affirm them with certainty, on account of the uncertain
credit of the documents. Concerning the number of years which
he may have spent in his episcopate, and the time
at which he died, we shall speak more correctly below, after we have
recounted some of his deeds of which mention is made
in the Acts of other Saints.
[15] In volume 1 of January at the VI day there was given in our
Work the Life of St. Melanius, With others he comes together at Angers to St. Albinus; bishop of Rennes,
which du Chesne, volume 1 of the Rerum Francicarum, judged to have been written
by a contemporary. In this, chapter 4, St.
Launus and several other holy prelates are said, for what cause is uncertain,
to have come together at Angers to St. Albinus,
bishop of that city. Take the words:
At about the same time there came together the man of God
Melanius, and God's chosen Albinus, and saint Victor
and Launus, and St. Marsus, in the city
of Angers, within the basilica of the holy Mother of God
Mary; and there blessed Melanius, by the common consent
of the others, celebrated Mass on the first day of the Lenten
fast. After the celebration of which, before
they departed from one another, the blessed bishop
(Albinus) gave them tokens of blessing in charity, with God's grace
and his own benediction. Now this Launus is believed to have been
no other than St. Laudus or Lauto
of Coutances, as was noted at the cited place under letter c,
and other modern writers also agree. Likewise there was rejected
in the same place, under letter a, the opinion of Paschal Robin,
according to which that meeting would have taken place when
the aforesaid bishops were returning from the council of Orléans;
whose falsity appears from this, that St. Melanius
died before the second council of Orléans, and took part only
in the first, held some years before
St. Albinus was bishop. Le Cointe bound that same meeting
to the year 530; but I do not see on what
argument he relied. Moreover, since St. Melanius died
in the year 530 or not much later, this meeting could not
have happened later; yet it could have happened earlier,
since the biographer of that same St. Melanius relates many other things
between it and his death, which may also
belong to various years.
[16] The same Saints came together for the funeral rites of the aforesaid Melanius,
he buries St. Melanius, bishop of Rennes. as his biographer writes, chapter
6, where after relating his death he continues in these
words: And by an angelic vision there came together
to perform the last office for his body the most holy
bishops named above, namely St.
Albinus and St. Victor, St. Launus, and also St. Marsus,
who had been delivered by his power from the coil of a serpent,
as was related above. These
most holy bishops and very many other faithful men,
coming together to his funeral by God's providence,
first commended his soul to God after the ecclesiastical
manner; then, the following night
being spent in prayers and vigils, early in the morning
they likewise heard Mass. Thereupon by common counsel,
God so ordering, as afterwards appeared, they placed
the holy man's body in a ship which happened
to be at hand in the channel of the river Vilaine. Which river,
receiving his holy body with the bishops
and clerics and monks singing litanies, …
reversing its current, which was wont, like the rest, to flow and be borne
downward, carried it upward as far as
the city of Rennes … And the blessed bishops
named above, taking the holy man's body with their own hands,
carried it to the place
provided for them by God, in which it was reverently placed
by them, even as they had been divinely sent for this very thing.
Thus far the biographer of St. Melanius.
[17] He visits St. Marculf in his sickness, The same last office of Christian charity our St. Laudus
showed also to St. Marculf the abbot in
his own diocese of Coutances, according to the anonymous author
in the Life of that same holy abbot, which you have published by us
in volume 1 of May at the 1st day. That holy Marculf
had been kindly received by Possessor, St. Laudus's immediate predecessor,
and initiated in sacred Orders,
as was said above at number 13, and had founded
a monastery in that diocese in a place whose name was Nanteuil.
And so when he was laboring under his last sickness,
St. Laudus visited him, and buried him when dead.
For his biographer, chapter 3, number 23,
having related his happy death, thus continues: And so
the most blessed bishop Lauto, who in those days
had come thither, having summoned the priests of his diocese
and all the clerics of the remaining order, with all
reverence laid the most holy man's body beside
Cariulf his colleague. And although the biographer
relates his coming after St. Marculf's death,
yet he indicates not obscurely that St. Laudus
stood by him as he was dying, when he says that he had come thither
in those days.
[18] and likewise buries him when dead; The same thing the other biographer asserts more clearly in
the second Life given in the same place, in which, chapter 4, number
20, is thus read: At length, as his sickness grew stronger,
foreshowing the near term of his departure, the brethren
from every side, and a great crowd of people from the neighboring places,
among whom also the venerable prelate of the city of Coutances,
Lauto, hastened to him in their zeal to visit him.
Mabillon in the Acta Sanctorum of his own Order,
Century 1, published the same second Life, but
for Lauto reads Magno, about whom he noted the following
in the same place: In the series of the bishops of Coutances
Magno is wanting, in whose place here in
Surius is put Lauto. But that Lauto is rightly read
in Surius is clear both from the manuscripts cited by Henschen,
and from the first Life published by the same from a manuscript of the most serene queen
of Sweden and another codex of ours,
and lastly from an old codex of the Colbert library
cited by Stephen Baluze, book 1 of the Historia Tutelensis,
chapter 9. With all these the reckoning of time
agrees excellently; for it was proved above that St. Laudus took part in three councils
of Orléans, the last of which was celebrated
in the year 549. The same holy Bishop stood by St. Paternus,
bishop of Avranches, as he was dying, as we shall presently see,
and that about the year 565, as Henschen has it, or
in that very year precisely, as Mabillon judged. But the death
of St. Marculf the same Mabillon, with Henschen,
referred to about the year 558, while Le Cointe referred it to the year
556. It is manifest, therefore, that no
other than St. Lauto sat in the chair of Coutances
when St. Marculf died;
and therefore that not Magno, otherwise unknown,
but Lauto stood by him as he died and performed the last
offices after his death. By the same means
there is confuted the Breviary of Coutances of the year
1610, in which in the Office of that same St. Marculf
on the 2nd day of May it is said that not Laudus but Possessor
stood by him as he died.
[19] Lastly, that St. Laudus performed the same offices
for St. Paternus, bishop of Avranches, just mentioned, is read
in the Life of him and of St. Scubilio, he shows the same offices to St. Paternus of Avranches. his companion,
by Fortunatus the bishop, which Henschen
published and illustrated at the XVI day of April.
The same, often differing in words, Mabillon published
in the Supplement to the first Benedictine Century, added
after the end of the second Century; from which I bring here a few things
concerning our Saint. When he had said
that St. Paternus in the monastery of Scissy and St. Scubilio
in that of Mandane passed to heaven on one and the same
night, he presently subjoins: Bishop Lauto,
who had come thither eight days before to visit him,
while he was conducting blessed Paternus to the basilica
at Scissy, performing the funeral rites; and likewise
bishop Lascivius was conducting St. Scubilio to that same
basilica, with both choirs of psalm-singers chanting together —
the bishops came together into one place without knowing it,
and on the same day alike took possession of the place of prayer
which the most holy men had built.
The same things, but sometimes in other words, may be read in the Life published
by Henschen, volume 2 of April, page 429, number
14, to which I refer the reader.
[20] From what has been said hitherto, St. Laudus obtained
the bishopric of Coutances after about the year 520 and before 529,
From what has been said hitherto the time of his episcopate and was sitting in it also in the year 565;
but how long he survived is unknown. As his successor
St. Rumpharius is assigned, whom holy
Laudus is said in the Breviary of Coutances to have initiated into the priesthood;
but of the beginnings of his episcopate also, and of things done in any certain
year, I have hitherto found nothing. In the aforesaid Breviary he is said to have died on the XIV
Kalends of December, but he is honored there on the XIII Kalends of the same
month; and therefore on one or the other of these
days we shall be able to treat of him. To St.
Laudus forty-six years of episcopate are attributed
both by the manuscript copies of the Life and by the Breviaries
of Coutances, of Rouen, and of Bayeux
which we have in our Museum. Wherefore, if Possessor
died not long after the year 520, about which
Henschen and Le Cointe, cited at number 13, judged that he lived,
Laudus must be said to have reached about the year 567
or 568, which fits rightly with what has been said
above. Nor may we prolong his episcopate much further,
if the catalogue of the bishops of Coutances published by the Sainte-Marthes
in the Gallia Christiana is correct.
[21] For since in this four bishops — namely holy
Ursicinus or Ursinus, is assigned as best it may be; St. Ulphobertus, and Lupicius —
are set between St. Laudus and Romacharius,
whom St. Gregory of Tours in book 8
of the History of the Franks writes to have buried the body of St. Prætextatus,
bishop of Rouen, killed in the year 586,
we ought not to shorten that brief span of years in which
they sat. Yet we need not be detained by
Le Cointe, who at the year of Christ 568, number
22, asserts that this same Romacharius of Coutances
took part in that very year in the dedication of the church of SS. Peter and Paul,
celebrated by St. Felix, bishop of Nantes,
contending — I know not from what copies —
that he must be substituted for Marachar, prelate of Angoulême,
as is read in other copies both manuscript and printed. In the manuscript
Narrative of Tulle concerning the relics of the Saints, cited at number 14 and
to be reprinted below, only forty years
are attributed to St. Laudus's episcopate, and thus according
to that he could have begun to sit some years later. I said
above: If the catalogue of the bishops of Coutances
published by the Sainte-Marthes is correct; for this
I do not here inquire into.
[22] and the error of Demochares is corrected. But certainly that one cannot be admitted which Demochares
wove together in his Work on the Sacrifice of the Mass,
in which, when he had placed St. Laudus in the fifth place, as the Sainte-Marthes do,
he added that he was ordained bishop by St. Gildard,
bishop of Rouen, in the year 473. After St. Laudus he subjoined St.
Rumpharius, St. Leo, and holy Leontius
or Leontianus, whom he noted in the same place to have subscribed
to the first council of Orléans. In the ninth place he subjoined
St. Ursicinus, and to the same list, before the tenth,
he added: Lauto, bishop of Coutances, is read to have subscribed
to the second and third council of Orléans.
Of these, to pass over the rest, it is false that St.
Laudus was ordained bishop in that year in which more probably he had not yet been born.
that he was ordained bishop by St. Gildard.
It is false, secondly, that Leontianus, who, as we said
above, subscribed to the first council of Orléans, at which time
St. Laudus was not yet bishop, was his
successor after two intervening. Thirdly and finally,
Laudus and Lauto are the same bishop of Coutances,
who subscribed to the second, third, and
fifth councils of Orléans, and to the fourth delegated Escupilio
his priest.
Annotata\ la Toue*
§ II. The translation of the Saint's body to Rouen, his cult and church, claimed by the men of Rouen and by others.
[ ] Various parties dispute over the Saint's body: What has very often happened in the case of various illustrious
Saints — namely that their sacred bodies
are ascribed to more than one place — this has befallen also in the case of holy
Laudus, bishop of Coutances; for the men of Rouen, of Tulle, and of Angers,
and, if we believe Baillet, also those of Thouars,
judge that his body is with them. The cause of the men of Tulle
against those of Angers was undertaken
by a man known for his writings and erudition, Stephen
Baluze, in the Historia Tutelensis, book 1,
chapters 7 and 8, where he tried to claim that venerable
pledge for his own country. But whether the men of Angers,
or of Rouen, or of Thouars
(about which last two Baluze was silent) have answered
his arguments, or defended their own possession,
has hitherto not been ascertained by me;
nor has anything of the sort come to my hands. Moreover,
although I see that I cannot decide this controversy from sufficiently certain
documents, it will nevertheless be useful to have weighed here
the force of the reasons on which I have understood the opposing parties
to rest, so that the studious reader may meanwhile determine
what of these seems more probable, until more certain things
are brought forward.
[24] the men of Rouen claim it for themselves, I begin from the Canons Regular of St. Augustine at Rouen,
who do not doubt that the body of St. Laudus, bishop
of Coutances, rests in their church, already from the ninth
or from some years into the tenth century,
and religiously venerate it. Of the manner in which
it was brought thither, the Breviary of Rouen
of the year 1627 at the XXI day of September, in the ninth lesson,
has it thus: His body, long after (having been buried at Coutances),
was buried at the doors of the church of Bayeux
for fear of the Danes, and thence, by the care of Theodoric,
bishop of Coutances, was brought to Rouen
under prince Rollo, and laid up in that basilica
which, formerly dedicated under the title of the Savior, thereafter
from him began to be called the church of S. Laudus. Of the
refuge at Bayeux the more recent Breviary of Rouen,
published in the year 1736, makes no mention, agreeing in the rest
in these words: His body, brought to Rouen
by the care of Theodoric, bishop of Coutances,
under prince Rollo, was deposited in the basilica
then dedicated to the Savior, which afterwards was marked with the name
of St. Laudus.
[25] With the men of Rouen agree those of Coutances
themselves, the men of Coutances supporting them, in whose Breviary of the year 1609 the same matter
is related a little more fully in this way: The body of the most blessed
Laudus, when he was dead, was laid in an honorable
sepulcher, at whose funeral rites blessed Rumpharius took part
with many chief men of the church and noble
men. But many years after his deposition,
the ferocity of the barbarians pressing, who broke in \ within*
the borders of the Franks, and, running about with hostile onset,
were laying waste the country everywhere, the relics
of the most holy Laudus, together with the bodies of the most blessed
Rumpharius and Possessor, were translated into the city
of Bayeux. But when in the time
of Rollo, duke of Normandy, in those parts
the savagery and ferocity of the barbarians grew daily,
Theodoric, who then presided over the church of Coutances,
found the relics of blessed Laudus, diligently sought out.
And when he feared lest they should come into the power
of the infidels, he honorably placed them in the church of holy Savior
at the city of Rouen,
where now they are held in the highest honor and esteem.
[26] With these, as to substance, our manuscript copies
of the Life agree, and they say that it was brought to them in the time of duke Rollo, except that they make no mention
of Possessor's body, and that they assert that the bodies of SS.
Laudus and Rumpharius were translated by the aforesaid Theodoric
from Bayeux to Rouen not in the time of the Norman
devastations, as is read in the Breviary of Coutances,
but after Normandy had been granted by Charles the Simple,
king of the Franks, to Rollo, duke of the Normans;
as the Breviaries of Rouen also sufficiently intimate; and this
appears to me much more probable. For Rouen, many years before
Rollo's coming into the Gauls, had been laid waste and burned
by other Normans under the leader Oscher, in such a way that when
Rollo arrived, Franco, bishop of that city,
seeing that it could not resist the enemy, of his own accord handed it over to him,
peace having been asked for, as may be seen at the years 841
and 876 in Pagi's Critica. But in the said
devastation made under Oscher, the body of St. Dado
or Ouen was timely withdrawn
and carried to various places, until at length, Rollo having been baptized
with his own, it was brought back to Rouen:
concerning which matter the Commentary on the same holy bishop
may be consulted, volume IV of August, page 802. It is therefore
not probable that the bodies of SS. Laudus and Rumpharius
were translated to Rouen for the sake of refuge under
Rollo, so long as he had not yet received the faith and baptism.
[27] Moreover the conversion of Rollo to the faith of Christ
William, a monk of Jumièges, when already baptized, at the time when Theodoric, bishop of Coutances, and other modern writers also
fix in the year 912, in which he was washed in the sacred font by Franco,
archbishop of Rouen,
and, peace having been made with Charles the Simple, king of the Franks,
obtained that part of Neustria which was afterwards called Normandy,
together with Gisela, that same
king's daughter, in marriage. As therefore that same
bishop Franco brought back the body of St. Ouen to Rouen when Rollo had been baptized
and was peaceful possessor of Normandy,
as is related more fully in his Translation in the cited volume,
page 820 and following,
so, I say, it is probable that Theodoric,
bishop of Coutances, took care at that time also that
the bodies of his own holy predecessors should be restored to him.
Yet why he is said to have carried them back to Rouen and not to Coutances
must now be set forth.
The Sainte-Marthes, volume 2 of the Gallia Christiana, in the series of the bishops
of Coutances, from the old registers, as they say,
of the church of Coutances, write that the aforesaid
Theodoric received from Rollo, now a Christian,
the church of holy Savior situated at Rouen,
to be possessed by perpetual right, and that in it both he himself
and four of his successors — Herbert,
Algerund, Guilbert, and Hugh — held their see.
[28] received a church there, in which he and some of his successors sat, The anonymous author of the History of the city
of Rouen, published at Rouen in the year 1631, volume 2, part 4, agrees,
where however he adds that others judge
that donation was made by Franco the archbishop,
so that Theodoric and his successors might have there a perpetual refuge,
and might exercise the episcopal office and
jurisdiction. Another anonymous author
of a Geographical and Historical Description of Upper Normandy,
published in Paris in the year 1740,
part 2, number 41, affirms that the former opinion
is that of the men of Coutances, the latter that of those of Rouen,
according to which Franco granted that church to Theodoric
and his successors only
until they should be able to bring back their see to the diocese
of Coutances. However that be (for this controversy
does not belong to our purpose), it is agreed that Theodoric
and his aforesaid successors sat in that same church,
and in it, as in their own, discharged all
episcopal duties. The cause of this donation
was doubtless no other than the mournful state
of the city and diocese of Coutances, laid waste by such long
and foul devastations of the Normans, so that
its bishop had no church
in which he might set his see according to his dignity.
[29] into which the Canons Regular were afterwards introduced, The chair having afterwards been translated first to the shrine of St.
Laudus in the diocese of Coutances, and then to the city
of Coutances itself, those same bishops continued to use their right
in the aforesaid church at Rouen;
whence afterwards suits were stirred up between them and the prelates of Rouen,
about which more may be read in the aforesaid
historian of Rouen. According to the same witness, part 6,
into that same church in the year 1144
Canons Regular of St. Augustine were introduced
by Algarus, bishop of Coutances, with the consent
of Hugh, archbishop of Rouen; and they
remain there to this day. You have the reason
why Theodoric is said to have deposited the bodies of SS. Laudus and Rumpharius
in the church of the holy Savior at Rouen,
and why his successors, even after the see was brought back to Coutances,
are said to have left them there. The same anonymous
historian, citing the ancient documents of Coutances,
adds to the aforesaid two the body of St. Fromundus,
and says that these three sacred pledges were properly enclosed in one and the same
wooden reliquary. That holy
Fromundus is honored there as a martyr on the
XXIV day of October, according to Castellanus in his Universal Martyrology,
at which day this may be examined.
[30] and which took the name of St. Laudus. But although not the body of St. Laudus alone is said
to have been translated thither, yet that his cult
was more famous there may be gathered even from this,
that that same church, the old name of holy Savior
having grown obsolete, began to be called, and is today called,
the church and priory of St. Laudus, commonly de
Saint-Lô. It is probable that occasion for changing the name
was given by miracles, of which, however, I find only one
related, which the Breviary of Coutances relates to have happened
at the translation of both Saints, but which the manuscript
Lives refer to another time. In the aforesaid
Breviary it is thus read of it: This translation of the holy
relics (of Laudus and Rumpharius) God approved by a clear
and evident miracle. For a certain man named Davinus,
with his knees and loins
paralyzed, lying on the ground, when he could not be healed by the work
of physicians, as soon as he implored the help of the Saints whose
bodies were being translated,
obtained health, and gave thanks to the all-powerful God,
who gave such power to men. The often-praised anonymous writer, volume 2, part 6,
page 6, from a certain document of that same priory
concerning the body of St. Laudus, customarily carried about in processions,
recounts the following in Latin: As the procession therefore
moves, the banners follow, the Cross and tapers,
the clerics of the choir going before in order; then
the casket of St. Laudus and St. Rumpharius with the relics
of the Saints. Again at page XI he writes that those same sacred
bodies were in the year 1470, by William le Moine,
Prior of that place, placed in magnificent reliquaries.
I subjoin his words, turned from French into Latin.
[31] In the year 1470, he says, on the XXVII day of May,
the bodies of SS. Laudus and Rumpharius, bishops, The same body enclosed there in a precious reliquary,
and of holy Fromundus the martyr, which were enclosed in leathern
bags, were placed in magnificent reliquaries
by the care and piety of this Prior, who on the III day of June
in the year 1483 departed this life. From the same writer
I have learned what I subjoin. In the year 1700 the chief altar
of the choir of the Canons Regular of that church
(for the other part passed to the parish) was adorned with a precious and elegant
work. In the middle of the altar the sacred
image of the Lord Crucified, and on either side two statues each —
namely of the most holy Mother of God, and of holy
John the Evangelist, and of SS. Augustine and Laudus —
were placed, and between these two precious reliquaries
with the relics of SS. Laudus, Rumpharius, and Fromundus,
exposed to public and perpetual veneration.
That the whole body of St. Laudus does not rest at Rouen,
however, the same anonymous author teaches.
For he writes that William le Bourg, Prior of the place,
when in the year 1441 he had obtained from Giles de Duremort,
bishop of Coutances, the faculty of collecting alms
for the restoring of his church and monastery throughout
that diocese, handed over the arm of St. Laudus to those
collectors, and that it was left by them at Coutances.
[32] The aforesaid collectors of alms, that is, carried about
the arm of St. Laudus after the manner of the ancients, one of his arms having been translated to Coutances before.
who in necessities of this kind were wont to carry about
the relics of the Saints, that they might stir up the minds of the faithful
to bestow a more ample offering out of reverence
and religion toward them, as is very well known from the Acts
of the Saints. Then they probably gave that same arm
to the men of Coutances, that they might show themselves
grateful for the faculty and the alms received.
But whether that sacred pledge survives today in the church of Coutances
I have not ascertained from elsewhere;
nor have I found anything about it in the Breviary of Coutances.
Moreover, what we have hitherto reported about the relics of St. Laudus
honored at Rouen rests upon the traditions and Breviaries of the men of Rouen,
and on the copies of that Saint's Life, and perhaps on other
documents which the often-named anonymous writer
cites, but of what age or quality they are
he does not say. Yet it must be confessed that whatever we have brought
from them is highly probable, and that these things are confirmed
both by the consent of the men of Coutances and especially
by the famous cult of that same Saint in his church at Rouen,
which also, as was said above, having laid aside
the name of the holy Trinity, or of the holy Savior,
was already anciently called by his name, which it
retains even today.
[33] It is highly probable, I say, that the body of some St.
Laudus, Our judgment about these relics of St. Laudus or at least the greater part of it,
has already for some centuries rested in the often-named church;
but whose is it more probable that we should believe it,
than that of the Bishop of Coutances, one of whose successors,
Theodoric, had translated his see thither,
and where he himself and some of his successors sat?
Add that the men of Bayeux agree that the body of St. Laudus
was deposited with them by the men of Coutances, and was
restored to them. Certainly so writes Hermant,
a parish priest of the diocese of Bayeux, in the History of that
diocese, part 1, chapter 7, where, citing in the margin
the Bayeux Breviary at the XXI day of September,
he speaks thus in French: For the same cause (for
fear of the Danes or Normans) the men of Coutances
translated the body of St. Laudus their bishop to Bayeux,
which they buried before the vestibule of the cathedral
church, while that furious inroad
was raging; and which was honorably restored to them at their request.
But lest that place in which such
sacred relics had been kept should lie open to profanation,
a beautiful Cross was erected in it, adorned with various
figures. So he; who nevertheless must have had
Museum; for in this the ninth lesson, which
is the only one about St. Laudus, makes no mention of his sacred body
deposited at Bayeux.
[34] honored at Rouen. For the rest, the men of Coutances, to whom Hermant asserts the body of their
holy Bishop was restored,
judge from what has been said above that it was deposited by their
forefathers nowhere else than in the said church of Rouen.
And besides the writers cited above, the body of that same Saint
is likewise ascribed to the men of Rouen by the Sainte-Marthes and Claude
Robert, each in his own Gallia Christiana; by Francis
Pommeraye in the History of the archbishops of Rouen, under Franco;
by Arthur du Monstier in the Neustria
Pia; by Simon de Peyronet in his Catalogue of Saints;
and by the anonymous author of the Geographical and Historical
Description of Upper Normandy, published at Paris in the year
1740, part 2, number 41. But
to all these the men of Tulle and of Angers will not subscribe,
who, as was said above, judge that the body of that same
Saint is preserved with them; whose arguments,
therefore, from Baluze, are now likewise to be weighed.
Annotata\ irruerunt*
§ III. The reasons are set forth by which the men of Tulle and of Angers claim the body of the same Saint for themselves.
[ ] That the body of the same St. Laudus was translated to Angers, then to Tulle, Tulle, called by the natives Tulle, is a city of Gaul,
the chief city of the lower province of Limoges,
situated at the confluence of the Corrèze and the Solane, which Pope John
XXII, severing it from the diocese of Limoges,
made illustrious with a bishopric under the archbishop of Bourges.
In that place there existed a famous abbey under the invocation of St. Martin,
founded already from the VII century, as
Baluze and Mabillon judge, whose church
was made the cathedral of the bishopric erected by the same Pontiff.
That in it the body of St. Laudus, bishop of Coutances,
has been preserved already for some centuries, Stephen
Baluze in his Historia Tutelensis, book 1, chapters 7
and 8, asserts; which, as he says in the same place, chapter 5,
the ancient documents of the church — namely of Tulle —
make it certain and undoubted was brought from the city of Angers to the monastery of Tulle
in the time of Ademar of Échelles. In chapter 7, inquiring more deeply into the time
and the cause why it came thither,
he writes thus: That the relics of Laudus were brought thither (to Angers)
later (than the year 878)
is made credible by the ancient documents of the churches
of Rouen and of Angers, in which it is
noted that they were translated to Rouen at that time
at which Rollo, duke of the Normans, after
receiving the faith of Christ, made peace with the king
of the Franks; and that, when they had been kept there for some time,
they were sent to Angers, and entrusted to that Ingelgerius,
count of Anjou, who had brought back the sacred relics of St.
Martin the bishop to Tours from the city of Auxerre.
[36] Then he rejects this opinion, because Rollo
first embraced the faith of Christ in the year 912, and is preserved there, whereas
the aforesaid count Ingelgerius is said in the Deeds of the ancient
counts of Anjou to have died
in the time of Louis III, king of the Franks, who died long
before the end of the IX century. Hence he himself, entering upon another
way, thus determines: Wherefore truer to me seems
the history which we have drawn out of an old parchment
of Tulle, in which it is written that the relics of St. Laudus
were carried by the inhabitants of the city of Coutances to
that of Angers. And thus it will be able to be true that they came
to this last in the time of count Ingelgerius.
Although I am forced to suspect that they were not straightway carried
to Angers from the city of Coutances,
but to the monastery of Glonna, which today is called
the Old monastery of St. Florentius; and thence
afterwards were translated into the castle of Angers. To make
me believe thus, there is the old Martyrology of the church
of Le Puy, in which it is thus written at the X Kalends
of October: “At Angers, of saint Laudus, bishop of the city
of Coutances, in the place which is called Clomna.”
This Martyrology stands in the Colbert library.
[37] When the relics of St. Laudus had remained for some years
in the castle of Angers, Baluze affirms it is established from various documents and the Normans
again stirred up wars against the churches, the men of Angers
translated them to the monastery of Tulle,
in the reign of king Charles (surnamed the Simple),
since no mention of them is made by the ancient
charters of our monastery which survive,
before the nine hundredth year. For the rest, that Laudus
and Clarus did not come to Tulle on one and the same day
is clear from this, that in the most ancient Calendar
of our monastery the reception of saint Laudus
the bishop is noted on the XI Kalends of November, and the translation
of saint Clarus, bishop and Martyr,
on the V Kalends of June. Thus far Baluze: let us see, therefore,
what those ancient documents of undoubted credit
are, drawn from the cartulary of Tulle,
as he himself calls them in chapter 8, and by which he judges we must altogether
stand. He recounts them in the Appendix of ancient Acts
after the aforesaid History; and first indeed,
to begin from the older ones, at column
321 and the following he recites from the cartulary of Tulle
a fragment of an instrument by which a certain Gerald
gave something to the most sacred basilica of holy
Martin of the monastery of Tulle, where the nourishing confessors
of Christ Clarus and Laudus rest buried.
It is noted as done under abbot Odo in
the month of May, in the III year of the reign of Charles; and therefore
it is there attached to the year of Christ 900.
[38] There follows at column 333 and the following the testament
of Ademar, viscount of Échelles, he affirms it is established, which he says was written about
the year 930, and likewise drawn
from the cartulary. In this Ademar, for the immunity
of that same monastery, calls all to witness by the awful
name of the holy Trinity, and by the merit
of blessed Martin and of saint Laudus, who was carried
thither. At column 353 and the following he adds two other instruments
without saying whence they were taken. By
one of these, drawn up in the month of May, in the
ninth year that king Rodulf began to reign, that is,
according to him in the year 931, Benedict a priest
ceded a certain vineyard of his to the most sacred monastery
of Tulle, which is founded in honor of the nourishing
prelate Martin, where rest the bodies of the saints
Clarus the martyr and Laudus the prelate.
The other charter is dated in the month of August, in the
XII year of the reign of (the same) king Rodulf; by which
Gauzbert with his wife Ildiardis give certain things
to the most sacred basilica of the monastery of Tulle, …
where are the bodies of the saints Clarus, Laudus, Baumadus,
and Ulfardus. A fifth charter, made likewise
in the reign of Rodulf and under abbot Adacius, he refers to about the year
930, and exhibits at column 361 and
the following, in which Hugh, with his wife Raingard and his son
Hugh, likewise gives certain things to the most sacred
basilica of the monastery of Tulle, … where the bodies
of the blessed confessors Laudus and saint Clarus honorably
rest.
[39] and especially from an ancient Notice At length, at column 481 and the following, from an old
parchment of Tulle he recites the Narrative cited above
concerning the relics preserved in that same church,
on which he chiefly relies for establishing the history of the translation,
and which I therefore subjoin here entire.
We know that letters were devised for this,
that by them the deeds of former times might be given to the memory
of those who come after. Therefore we compose this page,
that it may be clear to all who read this writing
whose relics are laid up in the present caskets,
whence they were brought, why they were first joined together,
and afterwards separated. Here therefore are contained
the relics of the most blessed men Laudus
and Baumadus; of whom blessed Laudus, given by the divine nod
to the city of Coutances as its twelfth bishop,
governed that same church wonderfully for forty years,
shining forth with countless
virtues and signs, and then, having obtained a glorious
end there, was honorably buried. But after
much time, for fear of the Normans,
who had laid waste almost the whole region of Gaul,
he was carried by the inhabitants of that same city to Angers,
and kept there for some time,
and at length, for fear of the aforesaid pagans, was brought hither from that
same city.
[40] of the church of Tulle, But blessed Baumadus, sprung of most noble
birth, led in the district of Le Mans a solitary life
full of holiness and virtues, and there
rested in a precious death. And as the aforesaid persecution
of the heathen grew strong, his body was carried by the rulers of that church,
by divine disposition, to this place.
Each of them was laid in his own crypt. But after
the courses of many years Ebalanus, surnamed the
Noble, obtained the viscounty of Comborn, who
was a kinsman of the countess of Anjou. And that
countess by prayers and promises, through many messengers, demanded
of him that the body of the most blessed Laudus,
which was said to have been carried away from Angers,
he would cause to be given back either by force or willingly. And when
the monks of Tulle learned this, being afraid
of the loss of so precious a treasure, they took counsel
that they should join together the relics of the blessed men Laudus
and Baumadus, leaving some bones in
the same casket in which his body had before been contained,
for the sake of satisfying the demand. But the divine compassion kindly took thought
for their love and grief,
the aforesaid countess departing from this present life not long
after.
[41] written in the XII century, But in modern times, when those caskets
themselves, in which, as has been said, their relics
were contained, had been consumed by excessive age
and were almost broken to pieces, Peter of Saint-Yrieix,
then holding office as sacristan, bought new caskets
for the laying up of the relics of the said Saints, and
placed their bones, so far as it was possible to distinguish them, each set in its own.
And through the merits of those
Saints the Lord wrought countless wonders at that
time. Then also the body of the most holy Ulfardus,
which, brought from those same parts,
rests here, was laid up in a new case. This
was done to the praise of the Lord Jesus Christ in the year
one thousand one hundred and fifty-three, in the reign of king
Louis, Gerald being bishop of Limoges,
Gerald abbot of Tulle, in the first year
of his abbacy. Thus far the aforesaid Narrative in
Baluze, who supposed that the countess of whom mention
is made in it was Hildegard, wife of Fulk Nerra,
because he had learned from Glaber, book 2 of the History of the Franks,
chapter 4, and from the author of the Chronicle of St. Albinus, as he says,
that she was a most pious and most religious
woman, and died in the year 1046.
[42] Moreover, that the relics of St. Laudus afterwards always
remained at Tulle and from other sources: he is there invoked the cited Baluze, chapter 8, confirms also
from the testimonies of Geoffrey of Vigeois the Prior, and of Bernard
Gui, bishop of Lodève, of whom
the first wrote in the waning XII century, the other in the XIII.
And Geoffrey indeed in his Chronicles, in
Labbe, volume 2 of the Bibliotheca Mss., page 286, writing
of the Saints more famous among the Limousins,
has these words: Ulfardus and Laudus guard Tulle
with Clarus; but Bernard Gui, ibid. volume 1,
page 632, among the Saints who adorn the diocese of Limoges,
says thus: SS. Ulfardus, Laudus,
Clarus, and Baumadus guard and help Tulle.
Finally I add what Baluze, book 1, chapter 9, relates of that same Saint's cult
among the men of Tulle. In the ancient
Calendar of the monastery of Tulle, he says,
and in the old Missal of the cathedral churches of our
province, his birthday is put off to the IX Kalends
of October, on which day even now among us
his feast day is celebrated. The relics of St. Laudus are also wont
to profit those who implore his aid against
fires; and of this prodigy very many examples
are related, old and recent, and there survive
very many witnesses who have seen them.
[43] And I remember, when I was quite a youth,
that the hospital of Tulle, against fires with miraculous outcomes. which had been greatly aflame,
was delivered from fire and flame
when the sacred relics of St. Laudus had been carried thither
by the canons of our church. Finally, in the year 1658,
when in the month of April a chance fire had
broken out in the bishop's palace, and the ceilings were already burning
with great force, and Louis Guron the bishop
had ordered them to be carried to the place where the fire
was fiercer, the fire straightway ceased by a manifest
miracle, if ever there was one. Whence it came about
that the same bishop, partly of his own accord, as
grateful for the benefit received, partly moved by the requests
of the citizens, ordained that thenceforth
the feast day of St. Laudus, which had almost fallen
into disuse, should be solemnly celebrated. Finally the same Baluze,
at the end of his Dissertation on SS. Clarus, Laudus,
Ulfardus, and Baumadus, published an instrument written in the old
Limousin tongue, in which the relics of the aforesaid
Saints, on account of a grave inclemency of the air, were carried about by
a suppliant procession with a most happy outcome,
as may be seen in our volume 1 of August, page 336, under St. Baumadus.
[44] What we have brought forward thus far from Baluze makes
for the body of St. Laudus, The men of Angers contend on the contrary or at least his relics,
being ascribed to the church of Tulle; but against these
(says he himself, chapter 8) the canons of the royal basilica
of S. Laudus in the city of Angers protest; who, since they know
for certain that the body of that same Saint was translated
anciently into that city, and being conscious besides that they have
ancient documents which seem to prove
that it is still kept there, constantly affirm
that they have it in their own church. But since the men of Tulle
contend that that sacred pledge was brought to them from Angers, as we have said,
it is necessary that we set forth their arguments
also. It is agreed that at Angers
there was an ancient church of St. Laudus with a college of canons,
which, while St. Louis reigned in France,
with the consent of the bishop of Angers
and of Walter, abbot of St. Albinus, was translated into the ancient
church of St. Germanus, so that the castle
in which it was situated might be girt with walls and fortifications and
be more safely kept. Moreover the tradition of the men of Angers,
according to Baluze just cited, has it that that former church
was formerly called St. Genevieve's, and received the name of S.
Laudus from the time when his relics and those of SS. Rumpharius
and Coronarius were brought thither from the city of Coutances
and placed in it.
[45] that the body of the same Saint is with them, From this church, then, formerly called St. Genevieve's,
afterwards St. Laudus's, the men of Tulle suppose they received their relics
of this Saint; but the men of Angers deny it,
asserting that they always remained in their own city.
And first indeed (says Baluze)
they bring forward an ancient notice, issued in the time of Fulk
Nerra, count of Anjou, and of bishop Hubert,
in which it is written that two cases of Saints,
which were then held in that city, were unsealed
by Primold, abbot of St. Albinus, and that in them were found
the relics of the Saints Lauto, Rumpharius,
and Coronarius, from the district of Coutances.
Then they adduce letters of count Geoffrey,
given about the year 1130 for the chapel of St. Genevieve,
which was the first seat of the canons of S. Laudus, in
which it is expressly stated that in it the sacred body
of St. Laudus the confessor and very many other relics of Saints
are placed. Lastly they use a certain old
Narrative, in which it is read that William, bishop of Angers,
translated the relics of St. Laudus and of others
in the year 1234 from the church of St. Genevieve
to the church of blessed Germanus, which is now called
S. Laudus's. So Baluze, who nevertheless judged that all these things
were abundantly refuted by the documents of Tulle and by the testimonies of Geoffrey of Vigeois
and Bernard Gui, reported above,
so that he did not hesitate to pronounce there: From which we can
certainly gather that the relics of St. Laudus always remained in the church
of Tulle from the time in which they were brought
thither; but that the men of Angers, imbued with a false persuasion,
have none the less thought that they are with them. But
now at last they will understand whither they ought to have recourse
when they wish to honor and venerate the relics of St. Laudus,
and there shall be between us and them a commerce of religion and
of piety.
[46] setting their own documents against him, I do not know whether the men of Angers have made any reply to Baluze's arguments,
or have acquiesced in his answer.
Nevertheless the first two of their documents are not so much
to be despised, if they are truly ancient and of good quality. For the first of them,
if it was really drawn up under count
Fulk Nerra, that is, before the middle of the XI century,
is far to be preferred to the Narrative of Tulle, made
not before the year 1153, and it overturns Baluze's opinion,
who supposed that the countess
whom the author of that Narrative writes to have demanded the body of St. Laudus back
from the men of Tulle was Hildegard,
the wife of that Fulk Nerra. The other instrument,
cited by the men of Angers, the Sainte-Marthes exhibit,
volume 2 of the Gallia Christiana, page 133,
from the original autograph of their manuscript codex,
in which Geoffrey, count of Anjou, founding
some canons in the said church of St. Genevieve, says expressly of
it: Where the sacred body of S. Laudus the confessor
and very many other relics of Saints are placed.
I do not find the year ascribed to this charter,
but the Sainte-Marthes conjecture that it was made under bishop
Ulger, whose death they fix in the year 1149.
This charter also, therefore, was drawn up before the Narrative of Tulle,
and is likewise contrary to it. Finally, both
instruments are favored by a third, in which, namely, bishop
William is said to have translated the relics of St. Laudus and of others
in the year 1234 to the church of St. Germanus there.
[47] You see, studious reader, documents
set against documents; which neither Baluze sufficiently refuted, and since it is not permitted me to inspect them in person,
and therefore not to judge of their antiquity and credit,
neither can I determine anything certain about those relics.
And I cannot indeed doubt that some sacred
body which was that of some St. Laudus,
or at least was so believed, was at some time translated first to Angers
and then to Tulle, whether whole or only in part;
but whether it be that of St.
Laudus, bishop of Coutances, I greatly hesitate.
For first indeed the tradition of the men of Angers,
from which they, according to Baluze, judge that that sacred
body was brought from Rouen, where under prince Rollo,
now a Christian, it had rested for some time, to Angers,
and entrusted to that count Ingelgerius,
Baluze proves to be fabulous. But
I wonder that he himself also cites the ancient documents of Rouen
for that same translation, since from what has been said above
these must be said to be directly opposed to the tradition of the men of Angers.
Secondly, among the documents
cited by Baluze with a certain date, there is none older
than the year 1153 in which the relics of Tulle are said to be
those of St. Laudus, bishop of Coutances, and to have been translated
from Coutances to Angers, and thence to Tulle.
In one of the rest, an older one, namely
of the year, as he will have it, 931, to the word Laudus there is only
added the prelate, no mention being made of the place
in which he sat, or whence he was translated to Tulle.
[48] But the document named in the first place is openly contradicted
by the Notice nor are they sufficiently known to me, which the men of Angers assert was made
under Fulk Nerra, as we saw above.
As for the Martyrology of Le Puy,
it cannot be denied that in it there is question of St. Laudus,
bishop of Coutances; but Baluze neither indicates the age
of this Martyrology, nor does it follow from it that the body
of that same Saint was ever brought to the monastery of Glonna.
For the men of Glonna could have honored
St. Laudus for another cause, though unknown to us;
nor do the words of the Martyrology, nor the XXII day of September
noted in it, which, according to Baluze, is inscribed in many Martyrologies
for his birthday feast, intimate that a translation
was celebrated by them.
Perhaps this controversy might be composed by attributing to each church
some part of the body of St. Laudus, whoever
he was after all; for I do not know whether
both, or even one or the other, claims the whole for itself.
I said, whoever he was after all, because, since
the age and credit of that document which they say was written under count Fulk
Nerra is not established for me, and since
the men of Rouen and of Coutances and others, concerning the translation
of the body of St. Laudus, bishop of Coutances, to Angers,
have made no mention of it, but rather affirm
the contrary, a doubt always clings to me whether the relics of Angers
and of Tulle are truly those of that Laudus
who governed the church of Coutances as bishop.
[49] Two things, however, must be confessed. First, that I do not know
so that I can determine something certain from them. to what other Saint, whether of the same or of another name,
they are to be ascribed. Secondly, that although for the men of Rouen
there stands a greater probability drawn from reason alone,
yet more ancient documents are alleged by the men of Tulle
and of Angers for their possession
than I have found made public by the men of Rouen for theirs.
Nor am I unaware that to the relics of St.
Laudus of Coutances the same might have happened as has happened to many others;
namely that in other dioceses and provinces to which they had been carried
for fear of the barbarians, they remained after peace was established.
Certainly William of Malmesbury, a writer of the
XII century, book 2 of the Deeds of the kings of the English, chapter
4, writing of this very expedition of the Normans into the Gauls,
says, to our purpose: Then the bodies
of many Saints, dug out from the seats of their ancient repose
and carried to safer places, have down to this time ennobled
foreign churches with their ashes.
[50] I can determine. For a like reason, therefore, the body of St. Laudus of Coutances
could have been carried to Angers or to Tulle,
and have remained there, either because the men of Coutances
neglected to demand it back, or because it was denied to them when they demanded it.
Thus it is agreed that the body of St. Martin
was denied to the men of Tours by those of Auxerre,
with whom it had likewise been deposited; and that it was not
extorted and restored to the men of Tours until fear had been struck into them by count
Ingelgerius with a numerous band of soldiers.
Perhaps the archives of Rouen, which I could not consult, have more certain things
about all this. It seemed good,
however, to report here what I had thus far learned,
lest the reader should miss it, until more certain things are brought
to light. Meanwhile I greatly wonder that Baluze
in the History mentioned above was so silent about the men of Rouen,
as though they had never believed that the relics of St. Laudus,
bishop of Coutances, were with them.
§ IV. Whether his body is at Thouars in the province of Poitou,
as Baillet will have it. The doubtful cult of Possessor, bishop of Coutances.
[ ] Baillet ascribed the body of the same Saint Baillet in the Life of St. Laudus, saying nothing
of the aforesaid places, assigns another place in which he judges his
body is preserved: namely Duracium, or
Toarcium, to the natives Thouars, which is a city of Gaul
situated in the province of Poitou, and made illustrious
with the title of a duchy. After he had said that the cult of St. Laudus,
bishop of Coutances, is chiefly famous at Thouars,
he then proceeded thus: The Saint's body was translated thither
to be withdrawn from the injuries of the Normans.
It is preserved there to this day in the abbey of that place
of Canons Regular of St. Augustine,
which from his name is called Saint-Léon de Thouars,
from the Latin word Launus, which in
the province of Poitou is pronounced Saint Léon,
but Saint Lan in Lesser Brittany, where there is Plélan,
which word is derived from the Latin Plebs-Launi.
So he, citing no witness and no document
from which he learned that St. Launus,
whose body he says rests there, is the same as St.
Laudus, bishop of Coutances, and that the body of that same St. Launus
was brought to Thouars for fear of the Normans.
[52] to the men of Thouars without any argument. Concerning this abbey of St. Launus, the enlarged Gallia
Christiana, volume 2, column [ ], may be consulted, where its
beginnings and abbots are recounted. In the same place, among
the documents, at column 373, is exhibited a charter of Peter, bishop
of Poitiers, in which he, reducing the secular canons
of that place, willing and asking it, to the cloistered life,
thus makes mention of the body of that St. Launus:
And so the founders of the aforesaid church, Achard
and Roscia his wife, who translated the body of blessed Launus from
their allod which is next to Curzay, and is still
called at St. Launus's of Thouars,
and Cadolo their son and heir, by the gift of Isembert
the first bishop, granted the aforesaid church
to the canons to be held in perpetuity, etc. This charter is noted
as given in the year 1107, in which Peter, the second of that name,
sat in the see of Poitiers. Isembert I, of whom
mention is there made, is said in the aforesaid Gallia Christiana,
columns [ ] and 1164, to have already held the bishopric of Poitiers
in the year 1021, and probably to have reached the year
1047; about which time that
translation of St. Launus must be said to have been made. Moreover who
that holy Launus was, I do not know; but that he is the same
as St. Laudus, bishop of Coutances, Baillet neither
proves, nor does it appear to me probable on any ground.
Perhaps he believed so for no other cause
than that he thought the name of each was the same, and did not know
what we have reported above about the men of Rouen and the rest.
More about this holy Bishop we do not have.
[53] Before, however, I make an end of this Commentary,
Of the cult of Possessor, who is honored by some a brief word must be added about Possessor,
who is believed to have been St. Laudo's predecessor in the bishopric of Coutances.
Saussay in his Catalogue of Saints and
Blessed who have no proper histories or birthdays
announced him as a Saint in these words:
S. Possessor, bishop of Coutances, successor of Leontius
or Leonatus, and predecessor of S. Laudus:
on his birthday, XXI September. Hence with us, together
with St. Laudo, he was reported among the Prætermissi on the said day,
and it was promised that his cult
should be examined today on the occasion of St. Laudo. We have already said
above at number 13 that mention is made of Possessor as a Saint with great
praise in both Lives of St.
Marculf the abbot, published by us at the Kalends of May.
In the earlier Life, page 71, number 3, it is thus read:
For at that time holy Possessor, a man of the highest religiousness,
presided over the church of the city of Coutances;
whom St. Marculf approaching, was received by him with all
the cheerfulness of charity, and by whom
also, for the publishing of the faith of the Lord's Incarnation,
he was raised to the grades of ecclesiastical dignity.
[54] with the title of Saint, and whose body is said to have been translated, The other Life, in the same place, page 75, number 3,
has it thus: Since he (St. Marculf) had long since heard the fame of the holiness
of blessed Possessor, bishop of the city of Coutances,
he sought him out by a straight road,
desiring to be instructed by his teachings and examples, etc.
From these it is clear that a great esteem for Possessor's holiness
flourished anciently; for our Henschen, in the same place, page 70, number
1, judges that the earlier Life was written
before the year 640, the second before the Normans'
incursions in the IX century. For his
cult also make the things which at number 25 I recited from the Breviary
of Coutances concerning the translation of his body
made for fear of the Normans, of which I repeat a little:
The ferocity of the barbarians pressing, … the relics
of the most holy Laudus, together with the bodies of the most blessed
Rumpharius and Possessor, were translated into the city
of Bayeux.
[55] is not sufficiently established for us. What became of Possessor's body, however,
I have nowhere found: for that the bodies of SS. Laudus and Rumpharius
were afterwards translated to Rouen we have shown in this
Commentary; but of Possessor's relics I have read
nothing further. Hence I doubt whether the body of that same Possessor
was ever carried to Bayeux; especially
since others are silent about that translation. No
Office also and no commemoration is made of him in
the Breviary of Coutances which I have, published at Coutances
in the year 1610; none either in that of Bayeux, in which
we have said St. Laudus is celebrated. And so, although the title of Saint
and of Blessed is ascribed to him in the aforesaid Lives of St. Marculf,
and afterwards by some modern writers,
we cannot nevertheless assert with certainty an ancient cult of his,
which today he appears to have none at all;
but if anyone shall deign to inform us of it,
that same bishop may be treated of by us in the Supplement
of the Work.