Laudus

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.

\ 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 a Breviary different from that which stands in our 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.

\ 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.