CatholicaMonumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum V, ed. B. Krusch & W. Levison (Hannover, 1910) — the anonymous ninth-century Life of St Remaclus (Rimagilus), founder-abbot and bishop of Stavelot-Malmédy in the Ardennes, together with bishop Notker of Liège’s dedicatory letter to abbot Werinfrid. Translated into modern British English.
The Editor’s Introduction #
(Krusch’s critical preface, condensed)
Monks of the Columbanian sect founded monasteries as far afield as the diocese of Cologne, which flourished through the Middle Ages in great honour and have preserved the oldest charters we possess both of the Austrasian kings and of the stock of the mayors of the palace. They followed their leader Remaclus — or rather Rimagilus — who had come from Aquitaine, to whom all cultivation of the fields and the origin of a more humane life in that region is to be referred. He presided as abbot over the monastery of Solignac, built in 632 in the diocese of Limoges by Eligius while still a layman; he received the estate itself with its buildings from him on condition that the monks should observe the rule of Benedict and Columban and follow in the footsteps of Luxeuil, to whose abbot the faculty of chastising them had been granted. The monastery was thus wholly withdrawn from the diocesan bishop’s jurisdiction. Remaclus must have discharged that office for more than ten years. When Eligius was ordained bishop of Noyon in 641, visiting Solignac he instituted a second abbot — for Remaclus had gone to Austrasia and settled in the Ardennes forest as abbot of the monastery which king Sigibert intended to build at the place called Cugnon (Casecongidunus) on the river Semois, in honour of Peter, Paul, John and others. That estate of three leagues’ circuit near the castle, with an immunity for the monks, the king had granted — monks who doubtless enjoyed the same liberties as those of Solignac. Grimoald the mayor of the palace (from 643) holds the first place among the illustrious men by whose counsel the king acted — nor are we ignorant that he and his whole family were the greatest favourers of the Scottish party. The bishops present at the king’s counsel were Chunibert of Cologne, Memorianus (perhaps of Trier), and Godo of Metz. Whether the monastery at Cugnon was finished is uncertain: Notker found nothing there save “a place of prayer of the holy man, cut in the rock by his labour,” and no traces of it have yet been found. Certainly the place must have been abandoned by abbot Remaclus soon after the most celebrated monasteries — of which we must now speak — were founded in that region.
The monasteries of Malmédy and Stavelot in the same Ardennes forest beside the river Amblève the same Grimoald, mayor of the palace, built by his own work in honour of Peter, Paul, John, Martin and other saints, after king Sigibert had granted the places marked out from the royal forest; and the same Remaclus was appointed abbot over the monks. In the vast solitude where herds of beasts roamed they built themselves little huts; and that they might spend their lives in quiet order in contemplation of things, and avoid the perils of souls, and not be disturbed by the society of women, they received by the king’s liberality a circuit of twelve thousand paces about each monastery — no, it was forbidden that anyone should build dwellings or houses in that forest except themselves. The bishops consented: Chunibert of Cologne, Atlela of Laon, Theudofrid of Toul, Gislochard of Verdun, and the laymen, foremost Grimoald. As the monastery of Cugnon had been founded “according to the tradition of the fathers,” so these which then followed kept to it and to the “rule of the coenobia” — doubtless that of Benedict and Columban, whose names are plainly given in the Solignac charter.
While the places they lived in remained uncultivated, Remaclus and his monks were by no means rich in resources; and it could happen that they, chanting the office at the daily hours, lacked stipends, or that the lamps failed both basilicas. King Sigibert therefore bestowed on them toll-revenues on the lower Loire, ordaining that if he had previously granted the same to others already in tender years the grant should be abrogated — having previously decreed that whatever he had granted from the “original fisc” in earlier years should stand once he reached lawful age, that is, from the fourteenth year of his reign. He was made king in the eleventh year of king Dagobert — 634 — born three years before; in the fourteenth year of his reign, 647, he was in his seventeenth year. But this charter was given not in the fourteenth year but some years later. Sigibert had also granted Remaclus certain villas pertaining to the fisc both beyond the Loire and elsewhere, immunity being added — which king Theuderic afterwards confirmed.
On king Sigibert’s death (656), duke Grimoald, “recollecting the mass of his sins,” handed over to the congregation of both monasteries the villa of Germigny which the king had given him as a gift, with two mills and one vineyard. The words subscribed to this charter, Facta exemplaria — as to the Solignac charter — belong to the time at which the charter itself was given, not to some later confirmation, as has hitherto been supposed. For facta for data is read in other charters also, and exemplaria must be taken in Merovingian grammar as singular. The charter is therefore dated on the Kalends of August in the fourth year of “the reign of our lord king Dagobert,” most worthy of memory — from which it may be understood that after Sigibert’s death his son Dagobert was made king. The years of his reign are to be reckoned from 656, so that the charter belongs to 659. Grimoald therefore did not lose the supreme power in the same year in which he gained it (as the Book of the History of the Franks concludes), but the seven years assigned him in the catalogues of the Frankish kings are truly constant — as I first proved years ago. Dagobert, “the little one” or “in his youth,” was tonsured and relegated by Grimoald into Ireland, Grimoald substituting his own son Childebert. Grimoald governed the Austrasian kingdom in king Dagobert’s name for at least four years, and after his expulsion spent the final year with his own son Childebert. His seven years are therefore to be reckoned from Sigibert’s death in 656 to 662, when Childeric began to reign.
After Grimoald, studious of revolution, was removed from the scene, Remaclus with his monks followed the party of Childeric — whom the Austrasians, on the advice of Balthild, had received as king in peaceful order. Childeric in the eighth year of his reign, 669/670, staying at Utrecht at Remaclus’s petition, confirmed the places about each monastery which his uncle Sigibert had once granted the monks — who indeed then remitted half, namely six leagues, “for the stability of the work,” that they might possess the remaining part the more quietly. The portion now remaining to them the king ordered to be circumscribed with fixed bounds by the bishop of Utrecht, Theodardus, and a certain domestic together with the royal foresters, immunity being added. He contended that Sigibert had built the monasteries “by his own work” — whereas, by Sigibert’s own testimony, Grimoald had built them “by his own work”; for the land had changed hands and the name of the once most powerful man was meanwhile held hateful. By an exchange Remaclus received from king Childeric the place called Maesda from the fisc in return for the place named Athetasis, which Clovis III confirmed in 692.
Godoin succeeded Remaclus as abbot, to whom king Dagobert, restored (676–679), by charter given confirmed the villa of Germigny for the support of monks and poor — referring the origin of possession again to Sigibert, not to Grimoald. The saint therefore died between 669/670 and 676/9 — long before the date the later authors assigned. That he was buried in the oratory of blessed Martin, which he is said to have founded himself, Heriger records. That his deposition was celebrated by the Stavelot monks on the third of the Nones of September the Stavelot necrology of the tenth century attests: “3 Non. Sept.: Depositio sancti Remagli episcopi et confessoris.” The same was entered into Ado’s martyrology on that day; the Corbie martyrology wrongly assigns him to the fourth of the Nones. A second feast in the necrology occurs on the sixth of the Ides of May: “Commemoratio sancti Remagli episcopi” — though it is not clear to what this memorial pertains.
Abbot Remaclus, after he betook himself to the Ardennes forest, was ordained bishop — and presided as bishop and abbot not over the monastery of Cugnon but over Malmédy or Stavelot. In the oldest charter of the double monastery the codices differ: only the more recent preserved “episcopus” beside “abba”; but in what follows both titles are attributed to the saint beyond doubt. He who is called “episcopus abba” in the charters — no city being named, but both monasteries over which he presided — was not a diocesan bishop but a monastic bishop, such as the Scottish custom required, or what they call a “regionary” bishop. Rettberg, attributing excessive authority to the life, and Hauck denied this; but Mabillon, Martene, and Velde judged rightly beyond doubt. They believed he was afterwards created diocesan bishop, namely of Tongres/Maastricht, as successor of Amandus — about which nobody hitherto doubted. But in that very interval in which he is said to have presided over that city, the charter of duke Grimoald was given — once reckoned far older — which, addressed “to bishop Rimagilus or the whole congregation of the monasteries of Malmédy and Stavelot,” testifies that the saint himself was then abbot over the monks, and no other. Finally, from the latest charter we have, given at Utrecht in 669/670, it is understood that each place had its own bishop — for besides the saint there occurs also bishop Theodardus, who all agree presided over Utrecht. Of Remaclus’s successors, Godoin has not the episcopal title in the charters, but Papolenus bishop and guardian of the monasteries, and Rahangarius in Charles the Great’s time, do have it. By Godoin the holy man’s body was translated into St Peter’s church and his tomb decorated with gold and silver, as Heriger reports; and later writers added that the chief monastery of SS Peter and Paul — Stavelot, to which the patron’s body was translated on the seventh of the Kalends of July — was both built and consecrated by him. Certainly the abbots sought the episcopal dignity that they might perform consecrations themselves; nor can it be believed the monastery was consecrated by an abbot who lacked it. That writer counts him fourth from Remaclus, in agreement with the thirteenth-century catalogue of abbots; but since only a few years could have passed since the saint’s death, he was beyond doubt not fourth but second to succeed him. Yet the less do I wish to call in doubt both the building of the monastery and the translation of the body, since the Stavelot necrology records both: “5 [recte 7] Non. Iun.: Dedicatio in Stabulao; 7 Kal. Iul.: Translatio sancti Remagli.” Both the dedication and translation were done in the same year — and Martene showed that the year 685 fits this reckoning.
Of the two monasteries, Malmédy is named first in the oldest charter; but from 669/70 onward, the order changed, Stavelot precedes. Certainly the abbot resided at Stavelot, and the archives of both places were kept there. Malmédy enjoyed the patronage of Peter, prince of the apostles, from the beginning; Stavelot was dedicated to John and Martin as well as Peter and Paul. Under abbot Godoin St Mary’s name is enumerated first — perhaps referring to that dedication, though it does not recur later. St Remaclus himself was added to the Stavelot saints from the middle of the eighth century, and at the same time it is most plainly written that the patron rests there. His body is first mentioned under the emperor Louis; and in Louis’s other charter of the same day (1 Oct. 814), which reduced the twelve-league wooded circuit to six, it is written of Remaclus “who now rests in that same monastery.” The saint’s miracles wrought at the tomb were entered into a charter of 842.
Since the estate on which both monasteries were built pertained to the fisc, it was fitting that an immunity was granted the monks; and that Sigibert consulted their quiet as much as possible is understood from the oldest charter. The formula “under complete immunity without the entrance of judges” occurs in a lost diploma of the same king. But the monks did not receive the full immunity extending to all the affairs of both monasteries until Godoin was abbot, under king Theuderic. The Stavelot monastery lay within the bounds of the diocese of Maastricht or Liège, Malmédy within Cologne’s — for the boundary of each diocese ran not far from either. Since the same bishops as abbots once ruled both monasteries, it follows that the episcopal functions were performed by them, and that diocesan bishops were not admitted while they sat. Though the privileges exempting those monasteries from diocesan law have not reached us, it may be concluded from the diploma of Childeric III (743–751) that they once existed. For confirming the monks’ pristine liberties he used the formula of Marculf I, 2 — which itself depends on the lost diploma of Dagobert I — and referred the passage touching ancient privileges to the Ardennes monasteries: “whereas the monasteries of the saints, Stavelot and Malmédy, from of old are seen to subsist under the privilege of liberty according to the institution of the pontiffs by royal sanction” — no, following the formula he wrote expressly that the now-lost privileges were then produced by the abbot for review. The liberties granted the Ardennes monks were nearly the same as those of Corbie: the diocesan bishop, archdeacon, and ordainers of the episcopal see were forbidden to exercise any power in the monasteries, to diminish their resources, or to enter them or their cells. The monks had the faculty of freely electing the abbot, enjoyed every immunity, and paid no tolls at Dinant or Huy; the revenues belonging to the fisc were to be used for procuring lamps or paying stipends to the monks. Abbot Anglinus was then ordered by the king’s promise to rule the monasteries — from which it follows that the abbot, freely elected as at Corbie and in the Ardennes, did not accede to the dignity until confirmed by the king. Yet the Ardennes monks surpassed those of Corbie in that they had the faculty even of instituting the elected abbot, as the same king testifies.
An abbot adorned with a bishop’s dignity offended the canons of the Bonifatian age — from where to posterity Remaclus could not have been a bishop unless a diocesan. Thus the biographer of Eligius, studious of Roman custom, says of Solignac’s first abbot that he “was taken first to a bishopric” — as if, leaving the monastery, he had undertaken to govern an episcopal see; whereas he had rather undertaken other monasteries to govern, going into the Ardennes forest. The see of Tongres, Maastricht or Liège is distinctly attributed to him by Donatus, who between 784 and 791 dedicated his life of St Trudo to archbishop Angilramn of Metz. To explain the double tie whereby the monastery of St Trudo in the Hesbaye was subject in spirituals to the bishop of Liège and in temporals to Metz, he contended that his patron, born within the bounds of Hesbaye, first betook himself to Remaclus, “bishop of the Tungrian city,” to be blessed — and, blessed, proceeded to Chlodulf, bishop of the city of Metz, that he might hand over his whole possession to St Stephen and the rectors of the Metz church. The author’s credibility is the more to be abrogated the more his scheme offends the eyes.
The Life of Remaclus — hard in style, meagre in matter — was composed in the ninth century, doubtless by a Stavelot monk, since he speaks of the Stavelot community in the first person (“the tradition of his possessions made to us testifies”). Yet he did not pursue those emulations further, nor, enumerating the monasteries, did he invert the order of the oldest charters he used. To his patron he attributes the Tungrian bishopric too. For he so thoroughly pillaged Trudo’s biographer, citing his “acts,” that he drew a great part of his work from that book — which I have omitted — and related the saint’s birth, education and first service from the Life of Landibert, bishop of Utrecht, drawing his prologue likewise from the same, save the first verse taken from the Life of Eligius; to which sources the Acts of Sebastian and Sulpicius Severus’s Martin are added, used in chapters 1 and 6. In the earlier part of his work he underwent no very good opinion even among men hardly strangers to it. Meanwhile the excellent Mabillon had already almost divined that the saint’s early history as the author related it could not stand. For Remaclus cannot have been handed over to Eligius, the founder of Solignac, to be imbued with monastic disciplines — since Eligius founded that monastery not as “father” but as a layman, and Remaclus was instituted its first abbot by him. The biographer preferred him to have been the second abbot, when Eligius had committed to him the whole care of the flock committed to himself, about to undertake the palatine office — and that he was soon called to court to dispose the kingdom’s affairs, although in reality the same abbot afterwards governed the Ardennes monasteries. He cannot then have obtained a bishopric through courtly honours, nor received the priestly infulae “with the people acclaiming” — which belongs to a diocesan bishop — though the Tungrian see is soon named outright. The later part of the life (chapters 4–8) has been more valued by the writers I have named, as containing things handed round by report among the Stavelot community — though I do not grasp how much could have been retained in the people’s mouth two centuries after the saint’s death. Certainly the author drew what he had ascertained as credible from charters kept in the Stavelot archive which we still have; but he so altered what he found there that it could be reconciled with the Tungrian bishopric and the custom of his own age. Deliberately suppressing the abbatial condition, he attributes the dedication of both monasteries to Remaclus as Tungrian bishop — whom the king would have summoned, since one fell within his diocese while for the other Chunibert of the Cologne metropolis consented. Of the twelve-league circuit granted to the monks and afterwards diminished, the author — instructed by the Stavelot charters — expressly distinguished his own age from Remaclus’s; and the mention of “imperial seals” betrays him as living after Charlemagne. Since bishop Theodardus is placed beside bishop-abbot Remaclus in Childeric’s charter — a Tungrian, namely — the bishop whom the author had made a diocesan had again to be cashiered. Remaclus the bishop therefore had to be sent into the monastery of Stavelot itself, desirous of the solitary life, leaving the episcopal see to a successor — Theodardus, namely; and the author was not ignorant that his body was committed to burial with great honour and that very many wonders appeared there.
Mabillon censured the writers of Remaclus’s life for being inaccurate in assigning dates, since they wished him to have been created Tungrian bishop before both monasteries were founded; and Friedrich rightly decided that the genuine charters we possess are to be believed rather than an author of a later and dubious age. Rettberg, defending the contrary opinion, accepted the Tungrian bishopric as handed down by dubious authors. Certainly the later authors wholly agree with the biographer, enumerating first Remaclus’s ordination as bishop of Utrecht and only then the building of the monasteries — and the two things can least of all be separated: grant that Remaclus was ordained Tungrian bishop, and the dedication of both monasteries afterwards built must also be attributed to him.
Werinfrid, abbot of Stavelot (953–980), offered this book to Notker, bishop of Liège (972–1008), between 972 and 980 for revision — complaining of its brevity and its hardly urbane style, and exhorting him to take care that it be not merely amplified but recast in more elegant form. Not a little could be supplied from the lives of other saints — Amand, Landibert by Stephanus, Remigius by Hincmar, Trudo — or from the Book of History; but above all “your cartulary,” the Stavelot one, was to be used more accurately than the older author used it. Since it was especially Notker’s concern to distinguish “the diversity of the times,” he dug the fourteenth year of Sigibert out of the royal diploma. Meanwhile he was not forgetful of his own church: relating the tradition of Remaclus’s family possessions he added “your monastery” (Stavelot) and “our church” (Tongres/Liège), contending that many writings on these matters were still kept in the archives of both churches — wishing the church of Liège to be a sharer in Remaclus’s bequests. Since the Tungrian bishopric could not be reconciled with the abbatial condition, that condition had been passed over in silence by the earlier author. To Notker the abbot’s name was likewise odious; yet not everything pertaining to that dignity seemed to him to need suppressing. He mentions the monastery of Cugnon, which the earlier biographer had not mentioned, but wishes Remaclus the Tungrian bishop to have been set over the monks as “provost” rather than abbot — and he calls him “provost and master,” not abbot, of Stavelot and Malmédy too. By this device he thought to remove the discrepancy between the charters and the life. He copied charters of the Stavelot archive partly verbatim, and used one of prince Pippin II, now lost. He favoured the Stavelot community over the Malmédy men, ordering the relation between the two monasteries thus: Remaclus not merely dedicated both monasteries, as the older author contended, but built them so that at Malmédy he founded an oratory only, while at Stavelot he laboured to erect a monastery enclosed within the limit of his own diocese — Malmédy lying in the Cologne diocese. He himself lived among the Stavelot brethren, having laid down the Tungrian bishopric, while he set Papolenus over Malmédy — who succeeded into the abbatial place on his death; for Notker believed Papolenus sat before Godoin, an error the catalogue of abbots corrected by adding a second “Bobolinus” after Godoin — that person now duplicated. Finally, to Remaclus Notker attributes a Roman journey — adding “they say” — from which he wished the relics of the apostle Peter to have been brought into the fatherland by him; which passage is missing in Anselm’s edition. Lest his work should labour under sterility, he collected the times and deeds of the other pontiffs of the see of Liège up to his own age, and sent the life of Remaclus excerpted therefrom to Werinfrid.
Some things excerpted from his “episcopale” — the book of which I have just spoken — Notker inserted into the Translation of Landoald and his companions, which he composed for abbot Womar and the monks of St Bavo’s, Ghent, in 980; and the letter he prefixed is couched in nearly the same kind of expression. Of the origin of this little work we are best informed by the trustworthy author: the bishop, asked by the abbot to inquire what was ascertained about the translated relics and report it in writing, himself present consulted the clerics; but the miracles which he received from them he ordered to be written down collected by Heriger “the teacher and skilled musician,” and offered them, confirmed by his authority and fortified with the impression of his seal, to the Ghent monks. He used their writings besides, as he testifies in the prologue. Bishop Notker therefore, whom the men of Ghent approached, prepared the matter; and Heriger, whom he familiarly employed, committed it to letters. To the same Heriger the Gesta pontificum Leodiensium — that “episcopale” — is attributed both by Anselm, canon of St Lambert’s, Liège (who composed a book of the same kind at the prompting of abbess Ida of Cologne), and by later writers. Anselm afterwards so joined his own book, written at Ida’s request, to Heriger’s writings that he followed these up to Remaclus; but from Theodardus onward he admitted Heriger — dead by then — no more; and this compilation, disposed in two books, he dedicated in 1056 to Anno, archbishop of Cologne. In the prologue of the second book a third author relates the origin of each edition; and it follows that the former, dedicated to Ida, was excerpted up to Remaclus from the same episcopale — which the author inserted unexcerpted into the latter. We therefore possess the earlier part of that episcopale, the latter being lost, as is the first part of Anselm’s edition. Nor is the case of Remaclus to be judged otherwise than that of Landoald: the matter depends on bishop Notker, whom the Stavelot abbot approached, while the manner of speech is to be referred to Heriger; and Werinfrid himself seems to have thought of a partner in the labour, exhorting the bishop to “hand over” the older life not only to be amplified but polished. Matters standing thus, I doubt whether it is right, Notker’s name being wholly suppressed, to sell Heriger as the author, as is still customary. Certainly both works — the Translation of Landoald and the Life of Remaclus — were composed under the person of the bishop of Liège. While Heriger, author of the metrical Life of Ursmar, is called “a certain metrician” in the Gesta, “our diocese” there refers to Liège, and in one place “our church” is opposed to “your monastery.”
The prologue which precedes is in fact Notker’s letter to Werinfrid, but lacks the inscription — from which it is hardly understood whom the author addresses; and it pertains least of all to the whole episcopale but only to the Life of Remaclus, whose genuine form is still to be restored from the codices. The former editor did not use it for emending the text as was fit, nor consulted the codices but the Surius edition; and those codices on which the edition should chiefly have been founded he enumerated almost last. Though the same man doubted whether Notker’s episcopale had been carried down to his own age, the author’s express words cannot easily be confuted — least of all can the word “collegi” be referred to an unfulfilled undertaking. That Anselm did not follow the episcopale except up to Remaclus may have been because the meagre form of the succeeding work compelled him to weave a fuller narrative himself.
Ample enough rights were granted to both monasteries, not easily preserved through the Middle Ages; and even their peace was long disturbed by the mutual rivalry of the two societies. The monastery of Stavelot, with Corbie, was numbered in 817 under Louis the Pious among those “which owe gifts and military service.” On the division of Lothair II’s kingdom it passed to Louis in 870, and both were laid waste by the Northmen in 881 and reduced to ashes. The free faculty of electing the abbot was soon brought to nothing by the encroachment of counts, who occupied the abbot’s name while a provost discharged the office. At last king Otto I, at abbot Odilo’s petition about 953, confirmed “the regular election of the abbot,” so that he who presided over both monasteries should be elected according to Benedict’s institution; and renewing it in 966 under Werinfrid he added royal or imperial defence and immunity. Both monasteries, though not contained within the bounds of the same diocese, were from of old held as one and the same — until the men of Malmédy, the tie being broken, instituted their own abbot. Otto II, at abbot Ravenger’s request, again confirming the regular election in 980, decreed that on his death a common abbot should again be elected, as the synod of Ingelheim had constituted; the Stavelot community should be tried first if one better in merits and more instructed in letters were found among them, but if not, a Malmédy man should be preferred to an outsider. This benefit the men of Stavelot owed to their patron Remaclus — “the builder of both monasteries” and bishop of the Tungrians, who had chosen his burial-place among them — or rather to bishop Notker, who a little before had caused these and other things to be committed to letters; for it depends on Otto II’s own diploma, not on the older biographer. Otto II’s other diploma of 987 pertains to the same rights. Pope Gregory V himself in 996, at abbot Ravenger’s petition, confirmed by privilege the Stavelot community’s prior suffrage in electing the abbot — which he sent them through bishop Notker of Liège; and Sylvester II renewed the same. Nor were the good monks content with these successes, forging bulls for themselves in the names of Vitalian and Leo III.
Meanwhile the Malmédy men by no means desisted from their design, ever dissenting in a kind of sickness rather than sincerely keeping the bond of fraternity; and the discord had to be settled by king Henry III. When the monastery of Stavelot, which abbot Poppo had restored from the foundation, was dedicated in 1040 in honour of Peter, Paul and Remaclus by the bishops of Cologne and Liège among others, the king himself, present, by diploma granted constituted against the Malmédy abbot that both coenobia should be subject to the rule of one abbot, as they had perpetually remained. Remaclus’s tomb, after it had long lain in oblivion, was found on 4 March 1042 — which could confirm the Stavelot men’s authority. Yet a mighty enemy arose against them, and a friend to the rivals who were “unjustly” oppressed — Anno, archbishop of Cologne, to whom Anselm had once dedicated the Gesta pontificum Tungrensium. When he was constituted guardian of affairs by the Malmédy community, he soon received the monastery itself lying within his bounds from Adalbert, archbishop of Bremen, acting for the realm in 1065, as it were a royal gift — occupied it, snatched from the men of Stavelot, and set an abbot over Malmédy; and they then attained what they had always desired. The Stavelot community, to recover Malmédy, brought their patron’s body itself to the royal court to be held at Liège and set it upon the royal table — until the monastery was restored to them in 1071 on the 9th of May. At last Henry IV in 1089, by diploma granted, renewed the pristine constitutions, the Malmédy men’s counsels being neglected.
The archbishops of Cologne from then on were not wanting to the Stavelot community, defending their rights of principality against the Malmédy men eager for revolution. Archbishop Frederick in 1128 sanctioned that one abbot should ever be set over both places, in whose power Malmédy should be; that the monks of both places should both be blessed and make profession in the Stavelot church; and that the archbishops should reduce the Stavelot abbot into their sway. Meanwhile the Tungrian bishopric attributed to the patron had fared by no means well for the Stavelot community: the faculty of instituting the freely elected abbot, which Childeric III had once confirmed, had been brought to nothing. The abbots were then consecrated by the bishop of Liège — by which done they undertook the care of both churches — and the archbishop of Cologne reserved to himself the ordinations and consecrations of the Malmédy place, though he granted the abbot liberty to send ordained brethren to Malmédy or present candidates to him. Archbishop Arnold in 1140 forbade Malmédy ever to be separated from the Stavelot coenobium — which king Conrad III confirmed the same year — and forbade the Cologne clergy to exercise any power at Malmédy. The Stavelot community was therefore subject to its own abbot and to the bishop of Liège in spirituals (from whom the abbot received spiritual jurisdiction), but the Malmédy men to the Stavelot abbot alone.
Charles IV, emperor, called the Stavelot abbot in 1376 “our modern prince and devoted beloved,” confirming the monasteries’ regalia or temporals as depending on himself and the empire. That principality stood until what we call the French Revolution — nor did the intestine wars over the primacy cease. E. Martene defended the Stavelot monastery’s rights with the best arguments, while Ignace Roderique studied the Malmédy cause, which was carried before the supreme imperial court. To this party a recent defender has been added, A. de Noire — himself born at Malmédy like his predecessor. The monasteries were occupied by the French in 1794; Malmédy passed to our fatherland in 1814, Stavelot to Holland, and in 1830 to Belgium — the boundary being constituted which had once divided the dioceses of Cologne and Liège. The privileges kept at Stavelot since the time of archbishop Frederick were, on the suppression of the monasteries, carried by the monks to safer places. Part of the archive, kept at Olpe in Westphalia, was consumed by fire; the other part, deposited at Hanover, our government bought in 1819 and is kept in the royal archive at Düsseldorf since 1833.
Very many codices exhibit the older Life of Remaclus composed by a Stavelot monk, and in most the Miracles follow. But the better ones admit only their earlier part up to chapter 14, in which the text manifestly first ended. This earlier part of the Miracles was composed a little after 851 by author Ardo, abbot of Inda — as may be gathered from the epilogue; and since its prologue, beginning “Post expletum namque gloriosissimi agonis omnibus saeculis laudabilem triumphum,” coheres closely with the preceding life, Mabillon, Velde and finally Kurth concluded that both it and the earlier part of the Miracles were composed by one and the same man about the middle of the ninth century. The contrary opinion was lately defended by the latest editor O. Holder-Egger, since that epilogue pertains only to the miracles to be written. Comparing the language of both books, some things struck me which are used in both — agonis triumphum, inmarcescibilem gloriae coronam, principis Hludowici, census pro re familiari — but not many common things could be collected, and the differences seem to prevail. I am therefore persuaded that the author of the Miracles is to be distinguished from the biographer — an opinion Balau also approved — and it may perhaps be gathered from the Miracles themselves that the “most blessed deeds” of the man were read while abbot Udo was sitting (c. 817–836). I shall attribute the life’s origin to the earlier part of the ninth century, which its mention of “imperial seals” forbids us to overpass.
The editor then describes the manuscripts of the older Vita (St Gall 565; Brussels 3236; Cologne 163; Cambrai 864 and 855; Brussels 3239; Bamberg E III 1 and E III 9; Berlin lat. 790; Trier 93a and 35; Ghent 245; Boulogne 10; Reims A7; Paris 5308; Brussels 3228), the editions of Mabillon, Velde and Ghesquière, and the codices of Notker’s version (Vatican Reg. Christ. 615; St Gall 571 and 565). A fifteenth-century Hague breviary (Weesp 14) preserves a short redaction beginning “Beatus Remaclus genere Aquitanicus sub beato Sulpicio puer educatus est.” — D. Krusch.
Here Begins the Life or Acts of the Gracious Bishop Remaclus #
which is on the third of the Nones of September.
Prologue. Since it is the study of the heathen to commend to their posterity in perpetual memory their fictions and vain rites of errors, luculently with pomp and obscene songs — why should I be silent and not speak forth the manifest works of Christ, which He ceases not to work innumerably through His saints by the divine power, when I can utter true things in praise of the magnificent God and confer the greatest fruit upon the hearers — what honour He bestows on those who serve Him by so wondrous working?
1 Therefore there was born a man from the parts of Aquitaine, in all things venerable both in life and name, Remaclus — noble in parents, but nobler in faith. His father was called Albutius and his mother Matrinia, very powerful in worldly goods according to secular dignity, as the tradition of his possessions made to us testifies. When he had been sublimely nurtured by his parents, as their ample store of secular wealth supplied — already bearing the fruit of good disposition and all sweetness — they hand him over to blessed Eligius, a man to be preferred in all merits, to be instructed in the sacred institutions of monastic discipline in the monastery of Solignac, which that same father had built by pious work on his own property. For he so cleaved to the holy man’s admonitions that he not only became no slack executor of the divine word, but the divine virtue so grew in him that, showing the greatest examples of religious conversation there — sleepless in vigils, continual in prayers, foremost in abstinence — he shone pre-eminent in all probity of manners; so much so that the aforementioned man handed over to him the whole care of the flock committed to himself, and diligently offered himself to the service of the palace, as he was compelled.
2 After some time, fame spreading, there was heard through the whole province of Gaul of the life and acts of the often-mentioned blessed man Remaclus; and it came to the ears of the nobles who then presided over the palace that so great and such a tree had put forth buds. Nor could the light irradiated by His grace be hidden under a bushel, the Lord willing, but that it might shine to all dwelling in the purpose of faith, a candle was set upon the candlestick; and it was revealed in the royal halls that so magnificent a man ought not to be absent from the king’s presence, that the kingdom’s affairs might be disposed by his prudence. From where it happened that, being honourably summoned as was fitting, he was brought to the threshold of the palace — to be a great solace to all, as the event of things afterwards showed. For he was held in such dignity that, having obtained the priestly infulae, the people acclaiming, he was made worthy to bear the office of the pontificate — a teacher such as had received so great grace from God that he succoured all in need.
3 Meanwhile the man of God, full of the Holy Spirit — God’s providence ordaining — is appointed bishop of the Tungrian see, that he might diffuse more widely the seeds of the word which he had long kept hidden in himself. But who could suffice to recount how great was his care for the sustenance of the poor — since he was made the father of orphans, the pious helper of widows, the most benign consoler of the sick, and the most lavish provider of all necessities? And so great shone in him the virtue of humility that he wished to be accounted inferior to all, that according to the apostle he might be a pattern to all — lest he should fall into the reproach of that sentence, lest perchance preaching to others he himself should be found reprobate.
4 Meanwhile, while he persevered girded in this tenor of purpose with faith, fortified with hope, founded in charity, it befell — God favouring — that the pious princes of the realm of the Franks, king Sigibert and duke Grimoald, by God’s will and the counsel of their nobles, ordered monasteries to be built within the forest in the country called the Ardennes, named Malmédy and Stavelot, in which religious monks might dwell together and spiritually serve Christ there, and implore the almighty Lord for the state of the whole kingdom, the king’s salvation, and that of his sons and those exercising the care of the realm. Then they began to build the more attentively; and, as is custom in such work, the divine virtue followed, and with prosperous success they were speedily completed. And when the time came that the churches, adorned with new material, should be dedicated, the aforementioned king sent for the blessed bishop Remaclus — because one of them, Stavelot, pertained to his diocese, while the other, Malmédy, looked to the metropolis — with the consent of Chunibert, who was metropolitan of Cologne, he summoned him that by his ministry he might dedicate them, as was fitting. The most holy man, readily obeying, fulfilled with great diligence the work enjoined on him — which had long been done by his own disposing; for since he was near and beloved to the king and the chief men of the palace on account of his great holiness, nothing of importance was done without his counsel. From where it happened, because he was held so dear to them, that the solemnities of the Masses being accomplished, the aforementioned mayor of the palace Grimoald handed over to him the said places, ordering all things under his sway and that the institutes of the monastic life be kept there.
5 Not long after he obtained of the king at last that, leaving a successor after him in the pontifical see, he might — as he had long desired — go to this place of the desert and there, remote from men, be free for God alone. How great was the mourning at the pastor’s departure, and how sad he made those to whom he had brought the seeds of life, when they saw themselves orphaned by the doctor and father’s departure! They said therefore: “What shall we wretched men do, who lose such a pastor? From where shall we receive consolation, when he was our consoler and bulwark? Who shall heal us any more, when he was the healer of bodies and souls? From where our hope, when we are destitute of so great a shepherd?” While they proclaimed these and like things with wailing, commending them to God the Maker, counting all the world as nothing, desiring to please the Lord alone, he sought the monastery, coveting to lead a solitary life.
6 Hearing this, religious men both from the neighbourhood and from remote parts everywhere began to flock to his doctrine, seeing God’s wisdom to be in him for the fulfilling of whatever things are reckoned just and worthy and acceptable to God. For he was so accustomed in divine works that he let pass no time at all in which he was not intent on psalms or prayers or reading. Abiding therefore with sleepless care, without any reproach, in the monastic teachings, he converted the souls of many noble men to become imitators of that life whose doctrine was perfect — because what he taught by mouth he first took care to fulfil in deed. From where it happened that, religion growing, the revenue of the same church grew also for the uses of the servants of God ministering there. For the aforementioned most pious princes, hearing of this kind of worship, summoned the blessed man and handed over to him twelve leagues of that forest in length and likewise in breadth — in which space no gainsayer should exist against his sway or that of his successors, that they might war for God in quiet; and moreover they confirmed it by testament with imperial seals, that it should endure stable for all time. Which the most holy father received gladly and held reverently; but not long after he studied to shorten that space, that the rectors of the place might without hindrance keep what was to the successors and without any obstacle preserved — which is seen to endure unshaken even to our time. The disciples therefore, devoted, obeying the father’s admonitions, execute the regular institutions not slothfully — as they saw their teacher in every hour wholly intent upon the divine praises and long keeping the vows of his purpose. Long tarrying in these palæstric disciplines, they at last obtained the promised grace — the Lord, as we believe, bestowing it.
7 And the pious priest, set in the triumph of the contest, armed with faith against the wickednesses of unclean spirits — if any strove to withstand the worship of the divine religion and cast down the vow of his soul, as he was stably founded in Christ — laboured greatly to break it by the continual teachings of the scriptures, insisting on prayer, mortifying the flesh with fasts, watching through the nights, lavishing alms, proclaiming by examples rather than words that saying of the apostle: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” [Phil. 1:21]. In this constancy of soul therefore immovably enduring, at last — wishing to render to his examiner the accumulated talent of good work long committed to him, especially when the Lord’s voice was heard calling him and saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant; because you have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things: enter you into the joy of your Lord” [Mt. 25:21] — desiring to be made partaker of this longed-for joy and daily discharging these prayers, at length worn out with age, bidding farewell to all and commending them to the Lord the Maker, he reached the goal of death and rendered his blessed soul to heaven.
8 Whose body, honourably as was fitting, committed to burial with the sweet melodies of hymns, is kept in great honour — especially since there flourish there the insignia of very many virtues to the praise and glory of Christ’s name, who deigns to confer innumerable gifts on those who faithfully serve Him. And his deposition is celebrated on the third of the Nones of September, our Lord Jesus Christ reigning, to whom is glory, praise and jubilation through immortal ages of ages. Amen.
Notker’s Letter to Werinfrid #
Notker — whom, though unworthy, they proclaim a bondservant of St Mary and St Lambert, nevertheless bishop — to Werinfrid, venerable father in Christ and fellow priest, the succour of eternal salvation.
“All antiquity,” as the greatest of orators says, “the nearer it stood to its origin and the divine progeny, the better it perhaps discerned the things that were.” But, as the angel narrates to Daniel, we know that “many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall be multiplied” — in the ancients doubtless the reason of truth and the perspicacity of things to come flourishing; in the moderns rather the faith of credulity prevailing first with manifold knowledge of things past. To them the length of ancient life, covering them with a callus, furnished the cognition of all things; to us on the contrary — may it not fly away on account of life’s brevity and the care of solicitudes — “what hot blood, what ignorance of things vexes” [Horace, Epist. I, 3, 33] to record the discoveries of the men of old.
“Many brave men lived before Agamemnon; but all are pressed on, unwept and unknown, in the long night — because they lack a sacred bard” [Horace, Carm. IV, 9, 25].
Pondering these things, as I believe, most reverend of abbots — and because it is needful that the younger we are the more clear-sighted we should be — you offered me a little book on the life of your special patron and mine, lord Remaclus namely, complaining nevertheless that through the carelessness of your predecessors it was published more briefly than the matter required for the greatness of his deeds. And at the same time you did seem, as I might say, not to beg but rather to exhort me that I should hand it over not only to be copied but to be polished somewhat more elegantly — both because the supply of his deeds drawn from elsewhere sufficed, and because the knowledge of the times (whose diversity now most needs knowing) was not lacking from your cartulary. But as for these things, since it was agreed you yourself with your art master of all arts — and that Pierian saying occurred to mind, “Carry not wood into the forest!” and “Why send fish to the sea, why waters to the river?” — meanwhile the suspended silences began to poise my mind, when see charity came to memory’s aid: since the strength which inexperience denies, charity supplies; and since once the work is begun the rest will see to itself. Setting upon it therefore, and in the words of a certain wise man, “From that heap I shall take as much as the matter demands” [Horace], impelled by your exhortation — which is joined both to the honour of your present purpose and the utility of the age to come — I esteemed nothing more ancient. And lest I should seem to shirk authority, I the more willingly acquiesced in the charge. For authority is given to him who presumes, since it is believed that what is asked can be performed; and to know how to obey is equal glory with commanding. The venerable men of old did this long ago — abbot Hilduin in the Passion of St Dionysius, archbishop Hincmar in the Life of St Remigius, and very many others in compiling the deeds of no few saints; by which best authors we can obtain what in all causes both is custom and ought to avail most. For “never was anyone so subtly reckoned for life but that matter, age, and use ever bring something new” [Terence]. And lest this labour, undertaken at your prompting, should become fruitless, I collected not only the deeds of the saint we have mentioned — St Remaclus namely — but also the times and acts of the other pontiffs of our see, whatever could be gathered from anywhere, up to our own times; and the life, excerpted from there, I have stretched out to your vows, for which you did chiefly hunger in desire — reckoning indeed in my judgement that I differ far from the excellence of the best orators, who can resolve many things in few, draw out few into many, extenuate great things, make the greatest out of the least, contract the broad, broaden the narrow, the vulgar gracefully, the fitting intellectually, the new familiarly, the familiar newly, and cull very many things of that kind; to whom also it is prescribed by the poet: “Either follow fame or feign what is self-consistent” [Horace, Ars poet. 119]. Nor have we feigned anything frivolous like schoolboys with a set theme — with what words the injured party or he who inflicted it could speak — no, nor anything doubtful. For though I should strive to follow a certain most eloquent man who said that “even if each of them did not say these things, yet he had them in his will and showed them in act,” I should dread no one’s judgement. But of this elsewhere. I have sent, I say, to your charity a gift which was undertaken less with the security of efficiency than chiefly with the presumption of friendship. For the contemplation of friendship supplies great strength in the course of the most difficult work, and a great abundance of matter is often furnished to those wishing to please. From where although I fear that, unable to be equal to the commanded duty, the fault of the failing may redound to the injury of the exhorter — yet while I see your goodwill, everything becomes easy and forward and, so to speak, a delight, which is expended on the prescription of your pleasure. And this gift being expended, I wish to render you solicitous: since if ever I shall demand anything of your works, you will have wronged me if you deny it. “Whoever has given great things would have great things returned” [Martial] — but I ask not great things arrogantly, since they are unequal to your merits and my prayers; therefore I fear the bites of yelping envy, since in a difficult matter spite is custom easily to import prejudice. “For not all men admire and love the same things.” Therefore “let no one squint at my fortunes with a sidelong eye, nor envenom them with obscure hate and biting” [Horace]. But you, most blessed father, the asserter of my labour and of your own exhortation — beware lest his office, once discharged, render me ungrateful, since the shame of a friend can more worthily become you if it displease. Farewell.
What neither prayers can suffer nor dreams feign — ever have joy; the soft ears rejoice in the forename; your virtue has made me your friend. — Again, farewell.
Here Begins the Life of St Remaclus (by Notker) #
The almighty Lord, who is rich … [the text of Notker’s expanded life begins]; The kingdom of the Franks from its beginning …
(Krusch’s apparatus notes on Notker’s text: at SS. VII, p. 181 the manuscript reads “Hispania” for “poene”; “fracta” for “fructuosa”. At p. 187: appendentibus — add what stands in the king’s own confirmed precept: “Sancta ac venerabilia monasteria … consolari” [Pertz, Dipl. I, p. 23]. Ib. decimas — adiacentibus: “From the fiscs adjacent to the monasteries he also gave them tithes, which the inhabitants of those coenobia are seen to possess even now.” At p. 188: Pippino satis agebant principi — add: “Who, hearing that the worship of religion was increasing in the aforementioned coenobia, for the love of God and of the same saint handed over two villas from his fiscs for the use of the brethren’s table and of the servants of God — one in Hesbaye, the other in the Ardennes” [Pippin II’s charter is lost].
In their time they say he went to Rome for the suffrages of St Peter and the other saints, and there gave himself to fastings and prayers so long that, aided by divine gift and angelic consolation, he obtained a certain part of that apostle’s relics — which, adorned with gold and gems, are kept among us in the greatest honour. Though this may perchance seem incredible to some, we who venerate that incomparable treasure have seen it divinely confer many benefits by their presence — as anyone who reads his book of miracles will find.)