TRADITIO STUDIES IN ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL

HISTORY, THOUGHT, AND RELIGION

Editors

EDWIN A. QUAIN CHARLES H. LOHR

R ICHAHD E. DOYLE H. E. KASKE EL IZABETI-I A. R. BROWN

Edi tors Emeri li

STEPHAN KUTTNEll ANSELM STRITTMATTER BERNAH.D M. PEEBLES

VOLUME XXXI

FOHDHAM UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW YORK

1975

-Published annually by Fordham University Press, Bronx, New York 10458. All correspondence concerning business matters should be addressed to the Press.

All volumes are available; details upon application.

Individual book-reviews do not appear in TRADITIO, and unsolicited books sent for review will not be returned. Announcements of new books, however, will be gladly received by the Managing Editor. /J 1/

c t\ ){ J

T '·: i 31/.

Manuscripts intended for publication should be submitted around the beginning of March in each year, and may be sent to any one of the Editors. Correspond­ence concerning manuscripts may be sent at any time.

EDWIN A. QUAIN, S.J., Ph.D., L.I-I.D. Fordham University

Bronx, New York 10458

CHARLES I-I. Lo1-m, s.J., Dr. phil. R. E. KASKE, Ph.D. Raimundus-Lullus-lnsliiul der

Universiiii.l D 78 Freiburg im Breisgau

Werll1mannplalz

RICHARD E. DOYLE, S.J., Ph.D.

Fordham University Bronx, New York 10458

Avalon Foundation Professor in the Humanities Cornell University

llhaca, New York 14853

ELIZABETH A. R. BnowN, Ph.D. Brooklyn College of the

City University of New York Brooklyn, New York 11210

Managing Editor I-I. G. FLETCHER III, M.A .

Fordham University Press

U11 . .: .

!J,:J !Jt I:;

,1;-:. },. 1 '·' ; J .J I .J

ff' ,. h 1 - --"T"'innary of Congress Catalog Card Number: 44-9165 rev.

All rights reserved.

Printed al CUL TURA PRESS Wettercn, Belgium

CONTENTS

AHTI CLES

Pelix of Nantes: A Merovingian Bishop . WILLIAM C. McDrnMOTT

'Exodus ' and the '1-Ierba Humilis' . J oI·IN F . VICKHEY 25

The Mission to Constantinople in 968 and Liudprand of Cremona

J oN N . SUTI-IERLAND 55 'Judith': The Homily and the Poem IAN PmNGLE 83 Hippocrates Latinus: Repertorium of Hippocratic writings in the Latin

Middle Ages . PEAHL KrnnE 99 The 'Entheticus' of John of Salisbury: A Critical Tex t

RONALD E. P EPIN 127

Cardinal Simon of Beaulieu and Relations between Philip the Fair

and Boniface VIII J o IIN MAm~oNE and CHARLES ZucKEHMAN 195

Archbishop FitzH.alph a nd the Friars at the Papal Court in Avignon,

1357 - 60 KATllERINE WALSH 223 The Deposition of Edward V C1·1AHLES T. ·wooD 247

The Diffusion of Aristotle's Moral Philosophy in Spain, ca. 1400 -

ca. 1600 A. H.. D . PAGDEN 287

MISCELLANY

A Dagger in Relief on Stonehenge? 'Logos' bei Priscillianus

H. F. KASKE 315 t J OSEF MARTIN 317

'Bagaudae' or 'Bacaudae'? CLIFFORD E. MINOR 318 ' The Hand of God': A Numismatic Study . J ou N D. MACISAAC 322

Bede's Use of Miracles in 'The Ecclesiastical History'

.JOEL T . ROSENTHAL 328 Seigneurial Obligations and ' Lex Baiuvariorum' I, 13

TI-IEODOHE JmIN RivEns 336

Lorenzo Valla and Isidore of Seville . H. J. STEVENS, Jn. 343

BIBLIOGHAPHICAL STUDIES

The Works of Giovanni di Conversino da Ravenna: A Catalogue of

Manuscripts and Editions . BENJAMIN G. K OH L 349

Medieval Liturgical Books a t Arouca, Braga, Evora, Lisbon, and Porto:

Some Provisional Inventories ANDHEW H uGI-ms 369

ABBREVIATIONS

The followin g sigla are used without fur ther explanation:

AH AS CAH CCL CIL CMH csco CSEL DACL DDC DHGE DS DThC Du Cange EETS GCS HBS IG ILS

JL) JK

JE LThK Mansi MGH PG PL PO Potthast RE

RIS 2

SIG Th LL TU

Analecta hymnica medii aeui Ac ta sanctorum Cambridge Ancient His tory Corpus Chrislianorum: Series latina Corpus inscriplionum lalinarum Cambridge i\!ledieua l History Corpus scriplormn chrislianorum orienla/ium Corpus scriptorum ecc/esiasticorwn lalinor11m Diclionnaire d'archeologie c!m!lienne el de liturgic Dictionnaire de droit canoniquc Diclionnaire d'his toire el de geoyraphie ecc/csiasliq11es Daremberg-Saglio, Diclionnaire des anliq11ilcs yrecques el romaines

Diclionnaire <le lheo /oyie ca tholique Du Cange, Favre, H enschel, Glossarium mediae el in/imae lalinilalis

Early E nglish Text Society Die yriechischen chrisllichen Schrifls teller der ers len drei Jahrlwnderle

H enry Bradshaw Societu lnscriptiones graecae Dessau, Inscripliones latin ae se leclae Jaffe, R eges la ponlific11m romanorum ... ed . sccundam curaverunt

S. Loewcnfc ld (JL: ::m. 882-11!18), F . Kaltcnbrnnner (JK: an. ?-590),

P. Ewald (JE: an . 590-882) Lexikon fiir Theo logie und /( ire/le Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova el amplissima co l/eclio

J'vlonumenla Germaniae his lorica Mignc, l'alrologia graeca Mignc, J>atrologia latina Palrologia orientalis Potthast, Reges/a pontificmn romanorum Pauly, vVissowa, Kroll, R ea l-Encyclopiidie der klassischen A lierlums­

wissenschafl Muratori, Rerum ila/icarum scrip/ores: nacco/la degli slorici ilaliani,

nuova ed .... con la dirczione di G. Carducci, V. Fiorini, P. Fedele

Dittenberger, S ylloye inscriplionum graccar111n Thesaurus ling11ae lalinae Texte um/ Untersuc!urngen zur Geschich/e der allchristlichen Literalur.

For serial publications of the grea t academics:

Abh. Akad . .. . [followed by nam e of city, e.g. Berlin , Munich, et c. ] = Abhandlungen der . .. [prellss ischen, bayerischen , etc. ] A kademie der Wissenschaflen, philoso-phisch-hislorische J( lasse.

Similarly for l\Umoires, .Memorie, l'roceedinys, I?endiconli, S itzungsbcrichle, etc., the abridged form is always und erstoo d as referrin g to the series coverin g philosophy and the humanities wh ere several classes or sections exist in a single academy. E.g.:

l\1em. Acad. Inscr. Proc. Brit. ;lead. Rendic. Accad. Lincei

Rcndic. In stil. L ombardo

S b. Akad. Vienna

FELIX OF NANTES: A MEHOVINGIAN BISHOP1

Bv W ILLIAM C. McDEHMOTT

The relations between Gregory, metropolitan of Tours ,2 and Felix, suffra­gan of Na ntes,3 were not always fel iciLous . 0. l\ll. Dalton in the monumental introduction to his Lransla lion of the H isloriae commented (1.12):

1 Th is discu ss ion is a developed s lucly based on a paper delivered al a sess ion of the Nor th Amer ica n l'ulrisl ic Socie ty on December 28, 1973, rn Hle r Lh e Lill e 'Conunen ls on Gregory of T ours,' of whi ch a brief di gcsl ap pea red in l 'a lris lics 3.1 (1!)7,1) 7.

2 CL my Gregory of Tours: Sc lec lions from the Min or Works (Philad elphia 1\J4\J) 1-10 (i nlroduclion), 100-l OG (b ib liograph y), r eprin led in Jl /onks, 1Jis /wf's, and Pagans, ed. E. PcLcrs (J> hil adc lphi a 1!)75). Ad d Lo Lh c bibliogra ph y Lhcrc H. Lal.o uchc, 'Qnclques reflexions w r la psychologic de Gregoire de Tours,' Le Muyen Age G\J (1%3) 7-15 and J .M. Wall acc­!Jad rill , 'J'hc Long-hairctl l \ ings (London HJG2) '1\J-\Jtl, 1S5-20G. All quo lalions and ci la lions ( includ ing Lhe paragraphin g) or Lhc Jlis toriae arc from lhc l'<li lion of W. Arnell, r evised lly B. 1-:rusch and 'N. Levison, MG 11 , S I! M, I. fasc. 1-3 (I lmrnovcr 1037, 1\J42, 1051). I now fo llow l<ru sch in his prncfa tio in fascic le 3 in taking J-lislor iae as Gregory's tillc in stead of Lhc Lra<lilional Jlisloria Frnncomm. Th e text of th e Miracuta is cilecl or q uoted from J<rusch 's ed ition MG ! t, Sn Jll , 1.2 (l lannovcr 1885). All r efer ences Lo I<rusch arc to lhc 1101.cs or t his e<li li on, cxcepl l hose t.o hi s fJraefalio. A new trunslalion of th e his Lory is bein g p repared by Lew is Th orpe for l'<'n gnin Classics, and I am preparin g a transla tion (wit h inlrocl uc li on and ann o l.a li on) of th e De uita pa /rum (book 7 of the Mirac11/a ). Cf. also L. Du chesne, Fas /cs rpiSCOfl <lliX tic l'a ni:icnnc Cou lc (1. 2ncl ed., Hl07; 2, moo; 3, 1015) 2.307. Since so many bi shops arc mcnl.i onccl below, l have fr cq ut·nl ly cul in r eferences lo Duchesne in rn y I.ex t and notes, using th e nbbr cv ia lion D. for thi s wor k.

3 The most usefu l accounl of l'c li x is st il l thal of I. 13 . S:Jllcr tius (.Jca n-Dapliste Du Sol­lers , S.J., lGG\J-17·'10), AS 7 lut. 2.'170-tl77. I-Jc has references lo Baroniu s, Bowcru s, Coinlius in fer alias, cilc<l l'orlunalus nn<l Gn'gory in fu ll , and quo lc<l al lcng lh from I.he 1Jre1Jiarium Nanne lcnsc fo r .Jul y 7 (my citations of thi s brcvinry below arc from Sollcrlius) . Hi s acco unl is ciled l>y hi s name and Lhc pa ges and subsec ti ons. Three good brief accounts wilh nolalions of ear lier bilJli ograph y arc I-1. Lecl crcq in IJAC L, s .v . 'Nant es,' 12.l (Par is 1\l35) G tor., P. Vill cll c in JW,/io lhccu Sanclor11m , s.v . ' F elice,' 5 (1\JG5) 5 .. t8; J . H ourli er in Jll-IGE, s .v., '52, Felix,' G (1\lfi7) DO:>f. Each is c ited by !he name of I.li e auth or . Even in th ese three ii.ems Lhcrc arc in slanccs where th e dis lin ctions bc lwct•n lh c ascer lni nab le facls an d Lhc legendary accretions arc slmrC'd. Cf. also Duchesne, 2.3GG f. for F elix ' predecessor Eumcr iu s (no. 15}, for I''t: li x (no. I G) and for hi s cousin and successor No nni chius (no. J 7). According Lo a report. from the Li brary of Congress a numbt\r of earlier ilcms, published loca ll y al Nani.cs, arc not available in the Unit ed Sla tes. IL is very probable lhal lhcy add n othing l.o lhc basic som cc mater ial, bn l arc concerned mai nl y w ith late legendar y accre­Lions nntl wilh Lhc cclcbralion in tal er limes of lhc cull o r Feli x, the patron Saint of Nani.cs. Th is v iew is confirm ed by a r ev iew by A. P(oncc lcl) in J\na lec ta JJo lland iana, 27 (1\JOS) tl(i\J o l' a more rccenl book by Abbe A. Dctanouc, Sa int- F elix tic Na nlcs (Nan lcs 1\J07) which I h ave not seen. Th e r eviewer nolc tl Lhal Abbe Dclanoue was I.h e pri cs l of Lhc par ish of Saint-Pelix, Lhat he dcvolccl pages \J-18 l.o a panegyr ic accoun l o[ F eli x, and lha l Lhc re-

2 THADITI O

In his own province, too, even before Chilperic's lragic end, a source of di scord had been removed by the dea lh of one of his suffragans wilh whom his relations had never been harmonious.4

Aga in he said (2.551 on I-I. 6.49) that Felix 'was no friend to Gregory.' Sir Samuel Dill in his fascinating but a t times over-imaginative volume on

Merovingian Gaul has this to say of the two men (336): 5

A bitter and envenomed quarrel arose belween Lhe Lwo bishops which, as reported by Gregory, does little credit to them eith er as Christian priests or as gentlemen. Many letters seem to have passed between them in a style which one might describe as Bil lin gsgate, if it had not been made more crushing and impressive by curses drawn from the Scriptures.

Dill and Dalton, gentlemen and scholars, writing in the serenity of the ivory towers of the British Isles in the early years of the twentieth century, did not always fully appreciate the conflicting forces with which Merovingian bishops had to contend. Each based his judgment on the same evidence, though Dalton is more partial t o Gregory.

Father Sollertius took a more charitable view of these quarrels and wrote (476F):

Acris enimvero et ferox reprehensio, quam utcumqu e veneris, aut S. Feli­cem nimii fastus et aviclitatis, aut S. Gregorium aliqualis calumniae accuses necesse est. Dicamus ingenue, ambos humanitus aliquicl passos, et quan­tumvis Sanctos, suis naevis non caruisse, cujusmodi non vitantur in hac vita a claris etiam fastigio viris, et magna ceteroquin morum perfectione ornatis, .. .

He noted in a comment on Gregory (H. 5.5.) ul observal Browerus for his statement (476E). Then when speaking of t he quarrel over a villa ecclesiae he said that both bishops were concerned, not with their own luxury, but with resources to aid the poor and to build holy edifices (477A). Finally the learned J esuit suggested that Felix and Gregory were not always hostile ( 477E), but he did not amplify this suggestion.

The relationship between these two saints is complicated and deserves further analysis. There is no contemporary vila of Felix, and information about him is fragmentary and often ambiguous and contradictory. Since he was honored for centuries as the patron saint of Nantes and was invoked against plague and war, there are certain ly legendary elements interpolated.

mainder of the volume was devoted to the cult in Nan Les . One exampl e of the carlicr liler­

aturc is cited below (note 8) . 4 The History of the Franks by Cre11ory of Tours, 2 vols. (Oxford 1927): r epr. 1967. Hcf­

erenccs to the introduction (vol. 1) and Lo the notes on Lhe translation (vol. 2) will be in

places cut in the text below. 5 Roman Society in Caul of the Merovingian .Age (London 1926; repr . New York 1!l66).

FELIX OF NANTES : A JllEHOV ING IAN BISHOP

The first part of my discussion will be an attempt to place him properly in the background of his times. A detailed discussion of the passages in Greg­ory's Hisloriae which seem to bear out the conclusion that the hostility of the two men was bitter and lasting will revise this traditional view. Addi­tional evidence especially from other references in Gregory's works, from the writings of Venantius Honoriu s Clementianus Fortunatus,6 their mutual fri end, and from conciliar evidence, will confirm this revision.

Pour men are most closely involved in these events. Two were of the older generation : E ufroniu s, 503-573, first cousin of Gregory's mother, bishop of Tours 557-573 (D. 2.307); Felix, 512-582, bishop of Nan tes 549-582. Eufro­nius was older, but obtained episcopal rank la ter. Both were from aristocratic families. Two were of the younger genera tion : Gregory, 538-59,1, bishop of Tours, 573-594, who was a member of a notable aristocratic family;7 and Riculf, pries t and archdeacon of Bishop Eufronius. Nothing is known of the latter except from the a ntagonistic comments of Gregory which will be discussed below. His dates are quite uncertain, but he was probably older tha n Gregory. His name is not Gallo-Roman (F rankish or Breton?), and Gregory specifically said that he was originally poor and hence of low birth (fl. 5.49: sub Eufronio episcopo de pauperibus provocalus).

Felix was from a noble family of the Aquitanian area, and I would hazard the conj ecture that his family was to Nantes what Gregory's ·was to Clermont­F errand in Auvergne. The B reuiarium Nannelense from which Sollertius quoted at length under July 7, and which he dated to 1623 (470F-4-71D) has this comment (471A): Felix Biil!ricensis, nobili genere orlus, omniwnq11e Aqui­laniae majori ex parle nobiliwn consanguineus . .. . There is no ques tion about his nobile genus which is fully confirmed by Fortunatus, but the connec tion with Bourges is an early fi ction based on confusion with his contemporary, Bishop Felix of Bourges (D. 2.28). H ourlier , for example, was misled by this tradition . Sollertiu s made the conj ec ture that the family had a n Italian origin, and thought that he may have been n epos (grandson or nephew) of the F elix who was Roman consul in 511, and t hat he was sent as prelate to distant Nantes (471F-472A). The similarity in nam es is no warrant for this guess.

6 Carmina, 3.4-10 (a lon g prefalory prose teller to Felix in 4); 5.7. For a pleasing nolc on l'orlunalus inclu din g an epilaph in verse cf. Paul the Deacon, I/is l . Langobard. 2.13. F ull r eferences in 111. Schus ter in HE s.v. 'Ven anti us 18' (lfl55) 677-695. For a charmin g and somewhaL over-generous accoun t of the poet and his poetry cf. I'. J . E. llaby, A J-Jis­/ory of Secu lar Lalin Poetry in l/1e !W iddle Ages, 1 (2nd ed., Oxford 1957) 127-H2. All cila­Lions of Lhe carmina are from the cdilion of I'. Leo, MGH, AA, 4.1(Berlin1 88 1). The prose works were ediled in Lhe second parL of Lha t volume by Bruno Krusch (Berlin 1885).

7 Gregory was born in Clcrrnonl-Ferrand in Auvergne, bul Lhe sen ator ial family Lhcre h ad far-flun g conneclions in Gau l, especially at Tours an d Lyon. I plan Lo discuss Lhc ne:ws Lo which this family belonged in another conlexL.

11 Tn /\D ITI O

The ev idence of Fortunal.us 0 11 hi s high ra nk is clear , for example in these lines (:l.8.11-12, 25-26):

max im a proge ni es, t ituli s ornala vctuslis, cuius ct a proa v is glori a cclsa tonal,

scd qui terrcn a d e nob il itnlc nilebas, ccclesia m ntrnc spc nobi liorc regis.

Th e dates of his hirLh in fi l 2 and his episcopal ord ina t ion in 5119 are fixe d by Gregory's noLc on his dea th on .January 6, 582 (H. G.15) : ... anno cpis­copalus sui XXX ! I! , nclalc seplunqennria uilm11 finiPil. His ed uca tion was excellent, probably more comnrehensive tlrnn that of Gregory . H e was an effective preacher, eve n though we may noL accede to th e praise of Fortu­na tu s who had received (at PoiLicrs ?) a JeLLcr in vit in g him to a visi t at Nantes, and replied in a long prose ep is tle prefaced to a six-line poem. The poet- said OA.2) t hat th e bishop's eloq uence was ligh tn ing to blin d his eyes and thund er to dea fen his ea rs and th en con tinued Lanln sc rcnidcn lis cloq11cn l iae lux vi­bravil , ul conuerso ordin c mihi uiderc/ur uerbis radianlibus ab ocr.idcn lali parlc le loqucnle sol nasci.

Knowledge of Greek on the part of Felix is a fancy ba sed on misinterpre­taLion of the involutccl cornnlimen Ls of Fortuna tus, as Hour lier nea tl y sta tccl: ' · · mais ce serait mal interpreter le pode quc d'aLtribuer la co11na issancc du grec a ce descendant de Ga llo-romaines. ' How far Fortuna tus can mislead is illustrated hy a passage from Ceillier:s

Tl possecl a it si bicn la la ngage grccqu c, q11 ' 011 cCit dit qu 'c ll c lui e tait na ­tu rcll c. ll et a il poeLc c t oralcur, ct ava il, cc scmble, fa il en vc rs le panc­gy riqu e cl c sa inle Had cgon<le: nous nc l' avo ns pas.

For th e latter fan cy Ceillier ci tcd Lhe same Jetter. Hut th e poet said (:3 .1.1 2) · · · dclec labililcr adiccislis m e domnac Rarlegundae nwro rnrilalis inclusmn ... , and described F eli x' phrasing Jiy the adverb poelice, Lhercby deceiving the careless reader.

Hourlier, among others, suggested th at he was married before his onlina­Lion as a bishop on the ba sis of an a necdote in Gregory's ln gloria confessorwn

(77). T his is probably tru e hut the evidence in Gregory 's his tory (6. 15£. ) is more cogent. Th ese passages are d iscussed in dcLail below. ForLunatus would na turally ignore an ea r lier, rnunda nc marriage in his eloqu ent lines on Lh e happy resulLs of Lh e rnarri::we of Feli x l.o Lhe Clwrch (~ .8 . 2\l-38) -I quoLe the firs t four: ,,

nupsis ti eccles iac, fcli cia vo ta iu gas li, hanc qui rn atronam dote polcnle rcplcs;

cuiu s in amplex u duci s sin e cri minc v ita m , altera nee mu licr co rcle rcccp la Juit.

8 n . Ccillier , I-lisloirc gcnfralc drs a11te11r.~ .meres et ccc /fsialiqucs ( r ev. erl. by Abbe Bauzon)

l 1 (Paris 18G2) :313 r.

FELIX OF NANTES: A MEHOVING IAN illSll<)l' 5

No source indica tes t he elate when Felix enLered the religiou s life. This may h ave occurred some years before his ordination as bishop, but there is no basis for Villette's statement t hat he was ordained as a priest in 540.

In 549 Felix succeeded Bishop E umerius who already held the See of Nan Les in 5::13 (D. 2.366). Fortunatus in his epitaph written for Eumerius (C. 4.1), presumably at the request of Felix, noted that Eurnerius started building the cathedral which Felix comple ted and cleclicatecl. The last Lwo lines of this epitaph are especially interesting (31-32):

fe\ix illc abi it, Felicem in secle r cliquit, hcred is merili s v ivil in orbe pater.

P erchance it would be rash to interpret the last word to mean Lhat Felix was the so n of E urn eriu s who was of aris tocratic ancestry (4.1.7-8), sin ce paler and filiu s are so freqnenLly used in the religious sense. At leas t the fin al couplet does suggest that the new bishop had been a priest and was the choice of his predecessor.

Na ntes was in a hazardous political area, abou t a hundred miles from Tours, close to Lhe mouth of the Loire. lt was near the Breton area vvhich was at times under the Fra nks and at times under local chieftains who were called counts raLher t han kings. With these conflicting forces the bishop needed

strength of charac ter. Gregory tells us that Felix saved a Breton noole Mac­lia vus from murder by his brother, Count Chanao (I-I. 4.1.), presumably by giving him refuge in the city of Na ntes. As so often is tru e in Gregory's nar­rative it is difficult to ascertai n a n exac t elate, but Felix is called bishop and the rescue probably occurred about 550. Macliavus was Lh ereafter tonsured a nd was for a short Lime bishop of Vannes (D. 2.377) on the coast about 60 miles northwest of Na ntes. AILhough Lh e bishops of Vannes were suffragani of t he bishops of Tours, I suspect thal Lh ey were more dependent upon Nantes because of geographi ca l proximity. Gregory acids that Macl iavus soon let hi s ha ir grow and abandoned his episcopal See.

VilleLte has a curious sLa Lemen l: , probably based on an erroneous local

tradition, that Chramn, the rebrllious son of Lothar, Look refuge in Nantes

and tha t Felix interceded with Lothar for him. However Gregory surely is

correct when he says t hat in 5GO Chramn with his wi fe and daughters fled for

protection Lo Count Chanao (H. 1.20). Lothar with his army pursued his

son, defeated and killed Cha nao, captured Chramn and his family. The prince

was stra ngled and Lhe women burned to death in a hut in which they had

taken refuge. Lothar, who had been sole king si nce 55!), died Lhe following

year on Lhe first anniversary of Chramn's murder (If. 4.21). The tale of the

involvemen t of Felix with Chram n has an equally in credible parallel in a s tate­

m ent in the Breuiariwn Nannelense quoted by Sollertiu s (171D): ob e1us pie­talem el religionem praedicl11s Clolarius ciuilalis [i .e. Nan les] gubcrnaculum illi

TTlADITIO

[i.e. Felix] commisil. Sollertius expressed doubt that this happened (473F). However both items reflect a genuine tradition of a vigorous and able admin­istrator. Fortunatus has two couplets which mark the success of Felix in dealing with his Breton neighbors (3.5.7-8; 3.8.'ll-42). In the poem Britannica and B rilannos refer to Bretagne. This is also Gregory's usage. Years later in 579 Felix gai ned concessions when Breton forces attacked Nantes and Rcnnes (JI. 5.31).

In these days there were enclaves of pagans in the See of Nantes and in neighboring areas, and we might expect Felix, especially in the early years of his tenure as bishop, to encourage evangelical endeavor. Possibly Macliavus may have been converted to Christianity by him. The story of Martin, later abbot of Vertou, has legendary accretions, but may point to such activity. 9

The vita anliquissima of Martin, wri tten before the tenth century invasion of the Normans, has these items in the first three chapters: 1) Bishop Felix ordained Martin as deacon; 2) Felix sent Martin south of the Loire to convert the city of Herbadilla (Herbauges ?); 3) the mission failed, only a man and his wife were converted, and Martin called clown the wrath of Heaven upon the city which had flouted him. As the city was inundated in the lake of Grand-lieu Martin fled with his two converts who were ordered not to look back. The wife did and was turned to stone. Whoever first invented this tale clearly had the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the fate of Lot's wife in mind (Gn. 10.24-26), and may even have known the story of Baucis and Philemon in Ovid (Mel. 8.6 16-697). Martin's adventure at I-lerbadilla is included in the Breviarium Nannelense with the further embellishment that Martin was archdeacon (Sollertius, ,171E). The very existence of Herbadilla can be questioned. Moreover the area south of the Loire was in the See of Poitiers. Hourlier's comment that Saint Friardus was sent north of the Loire to preach salvation is of the same legendary tradition, since Gregory's vita Friardi (VP 10) gives no hint of this. Sollertiu s wrote Lhat Saxons were con­verted and baptized in the cathedral of Nantes on the Easter following its dedication (475A). But the poem of Fortun atus which he cited docs not say this (3.6).

The evidence of Portunatus has been used for the ancestry a nd early life of Felix but they did not meet until 565 or 566. The poet was born about 540 at Dulpeabilis near Treviso in north Italy probably of an undistinguished family. However he early showed promise as a poet, and his education, in the main at Havenna, was superior to t hat available in Gaul. While still a student at H.avenna he was so afflicted by trouble with his eyes that he feared blindness. In the last part of his long poem on the life of Saint Martin of Tours

9 For Martin cf. V. De Buck, S.J. in AS Oct. 24 (10.794-818); J. Evenou in Bibi. Sanc­

lorum 8 (1967) 1291-03. The vi ta anliquissima is quoted in fu ll by De B uck (802-804).

FELIX OF NANTES : A MEI\OVINGIAN BISHOP 7

he narrates his cure before the altar of the Saint in the basilica of Saints John and Paul (4.680-701; cf. Gregory, l'vlarl. 1.15 and Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. 2.1:3). He had made a vow to go on a pilgrimage to the shrine of the Gallic Saint. About 565 he left Italy, never to retmn. His southern courtesy and charm and his facile poetry in which he flattered his hosts gained him the friendship and patronage of kings, bishops, and lay officials. By 566-567 he had visited Tours and Nantes, and in the latter year arrived at Poi­tiers where he settled under the protection of Saint Radegund who, after her brief marriage to King Lothar, was living a life of holy asceticism. There he outlived her, Gregory and Felix, and in the last year or years of his life briefly succeeded Plato as bishop of Poitiers (D. 2.83, nos. 8-9).

About 566 he was the guest of Eufronius (3.1-3, 1-2 in prose) and fulfilled his vow at the shrine of Saint Martin. Thence he went downstream to visit Felix who was on good terms with his metropolitan: 3.2.6 (prose): domno meo Felici episcopo, si per vos venil, me benigno animo commendari deposco.

During or after this visit the poet addressed his eight poems to Felix. Un­derneath the flattery some items suggest a strong and able bishop. Verses such as these carry a ring of truth (3.6.9-10; 8.45-'16):

prospera quae populis Felix modo festa ministrans exsuperat rebus gesta priora novis .

divitias proprias in pauperis ore recondis, largas mendici ventre reponis opes.

It was probably during this first visit that he celebrated the most practical of the achievements of Felix, the shifting of the course of the Loire near its mouth (3.10). Such an engineering feat added considerably to the prosperity of Nantes.

The most remarkable accomplishment of Felix was the completion of the cathedral which had been started by his predecessor Eumerius. It was mag­nificent in its structure and its ornamentation. It was dedicated to Saints Peter and Paul at some time after Fortunatus first visited Nantes and before the death of Eufronius in 573. The poet celebrated its dedication (3.6) and described it (3.7). For this ceremony Felix gathered together dignitaries of the Church. Fortunatus compared the festal crowd to those who gathered to honor the completion of the Temple by Solomon. Chief among the guests was his Metropolitan, Bishop Eufronius of Tours (3.6.19-20):

inter quos meclios Martini secle sacerclos Eufronius fulget metropolita sacer.

In addition to Eufronius and Felix four other bishops participated in the dedication (3.6.25-28). Three were suffragani of Tours: Domitianus of Angers (D. 2.358), Victorius of Rennes (D. 2.345) and Domnolus of Le Mans (D. 2.337f.). Romacherius of Coutances, suffraganus of Rouen (D. 2.207), was the

THAOITIO

fourth. The caLhedral was also described in Lhe fragm cn Lary introductory paragraph of the Chronicon N annelcnsc where Lh c a nonymous author probably had the poems of Portunatus in hand since he added Portunatus as bishop of Poiticrs.10 The poeL was there, but hi s elevation lo episcopal rank was a generation la ter. Gregory may have accompan ied his cousin Eufronius, but lhc poet would not include the name of a you lhful deaco n among an array of bishops. Gregory who la lcr engaged in much ecclesiaslical building in Touraine (H. 10.31) must have admired the accomplishmcnl of Felix.

Por the period from 55G to 573 there is full evidence for three councils in whi ch F eli x parLicipal ed, and some items in the conciliar minutes arc valuab le for filling in the background of lhe iJishop of Nantes. The earliest of the three is the Third Council of Paris whose traditional date (Sirrnond) is in 557, the forty-sixth year of King Childibcrt. A more cautious dale is that of de Clcrcq who placed it within the years 556-573 from the episcopal dates of the bish­ops who signed the procecdings.11 Fifteen bishops, including four metro­politans, were signatories. Eufronius of Tours was among them accompanied by two of his suffragan bishops, Felix of Nantes and Domitianus of Angers, a ll of whom had been at the dedication of the ca thedral about this same time. The sugges tion of de Clcrcq (210 on line 159, based on D. 2.385f.) that Samson was bishop of Doi and conseq uenlly suffrayanus of Tours is probably incor­rec t since Pelix and Domitianus signed immediately after Eufronius, and Samson signed seven lines below. Hence Samson was probably an otherwise unknown bishop of an unirnown See. The first three canons which concern the property of the Church are especially interesting in the light of the later quarrel over such property between Gregory a nd Felix .

The Second Council of Tours in 567, the six th year of King Charibert, was held in the basilica of Saint Martin and the proceedings were dated Novem­ber 17.12 This was a long session . Canons 13(12)-17(16) concern the chastity of bishops, clerics, a nd monks, and thus are noteworthy in connection with

JO H. Meriel, La chruniquc de Nan/es (Paris J 8\JG) 1-3. The caLhcdra l was looted in Lhc Lc nLh ccn Lury by a Norman in vasion (!Wcrlcl, 115) .

11 Jacqu es Sirmoll(l, Conci/ia anliqua Ca lliae, 1, coverin g A . D. 3 14-751 (Paris 1li29;

r ep1·. DarmsLadt 1!)70) 3 13-317; C. de Clcrcq, Co ncilia Ca lliac A. 511-A. GD5 (CCL 148A. 20'1-210). De Cl erc<[ erroneously ciled 576 for the dealh of E ufronius (210 on line 150) . All quotaLions arc from Lite Lcx L of d e Clercq.

12 Sinnond, 32!)-:H!); ti e ClcrcrJ, 175-1!)9. de Clercq incorrcclly Look sub die XV. kalendas

D ecembris (19,1, lin e 553) as November 18 (175 in Lh c headin g). Sirmond has 27 canons,

hut d e Clercq divided no. 11 inlo Lwo pa rls . H erc and be low I follow his numbering. The

subscriplio of Eufronius on November 17 was s upplied by Sirmon d (cf. de Clcrcq, 194, note

on lines 553/554). For the ci ti es of t he m ctropoliLans and their s uffragans cf. de Clercq, 412-420 and the m a p opp. 422. The suffragan Secs of Tours arc west, norLhwcst and norLh; lhosc of Houcn (with one exception) arc west a nd southwest. Thus Avranches and Cou­Lance (under noucn) a rc close Lo Doi (under Tours).

FE LI X O F NAN T ES : A MEHOVI NG I AN ll!S l-I O P

a passage from Gregory's Jn yloria cunfessornm (77) which is di scussed below. Nine bishops, in cluding Lwo meLropoli ta ns, sign ed the proceedings. E ufronius of T ours obviously presided and four of the signaLures are those of his suf­fragans, Feli x of Na nLcs, DomiLianus of Angers, Victoriu s of Hennes, a nd Domn olu s of Le Ma ns. This coun cil \.vas dominated by Tour s and areas sub­ordina Lc Lo Tours. Two suffraga n bishops of ConstiLuLn s, bishop of Sens (0. 2.11G) , attended : German us of Pari s (D. 2A70f.) and ChaleLricus of CharLres (D. 2.'l2G) . The other mcLropoliLa n was Bishop Practex Latu s of Houcn (D. 2. 207), a nd one of his suffraga ns was signa lory, Leudobaudis of Seez (D. 2.234-). Anoth l'r of Lhe suffraga ns of PraeLex Latu s was prcsenL al the dedica tion of the caLh cdral at Nan Les a bout Lh is Lime, Homachcrius of Cou tances. Perhaps because of geographical posiLion Lh cre were close Lies between Tours and Houen a t Lhis time. \ \Then the unhappy Praetex La tus was Lricd before a Coun­cil in Pari s called by King Chilperic in 577, Gregory was the only bishop pres­ent who in forthrighL ma nner defended his broLher bishop, albeit unsuccess­fully (11. 5.18). When Prae tcx tatus had been restored to his See he was mur­dered in 585 in his own church , clearly by the order of Queen Fredegund , and in telling of the event Gregory expressed his l10rror at the crime (H. 8.31 ).

Appended to the proceedings of this Coun cil is a letLer of the bishops of the province of Tours addressed Lo Lh c people a nd signed by Fufronius, Domi­tianus, Felix, an d Domnolu s. Also added is the leLtcr of t he bishops t o Saint Hadegund (drawn from Gregory, 1-l. 9. 39). The signa tures are omitted, but the nam es are preserved in the heading : Eufronius, Praetextatu s, Germanus, Felix, Domitianus, VicLorius, a nd Domnolus.13 SLylis ti c comments on the language of this era are hazardous, but t he records of this coun cil seem to me to show a s tyle heller t ha n the norm. Percha nce Felix served as parlia­mentary secretary a nd composed Lhe ca non s and Lwo of the three letters.

The Pourth Council of Pa ri s in 573, in the twelfth year of King Chilperic, was called to judge a quarrel which had arisen between King GunLram and King Sigiber t , sons of Lothar.14 Bishop Pappolus of CharLres (D. 2.427), which was in Guntram's realm , had written complaining tha t Promotus had been ordained bishop of CM teaudun (D. 2.427: 3.83) again st Lhe canons, for this town in Sigibert' s realm was under the episcopal control of Chartres. Although Pa ppolus omiLs this fact, Promotus had been ordained by Egi­dius, metropolita n of Hheirns (D. :1.s:J), on the permission of Sigibert. There were present t hirty- two bishops, including seven metropoliLans, a nd one bishop was reprcsenLed by a priest as dclegaLe. A diges t of the lc LLcr of Pappolns is followed by two letLer s, da ted SepLember 11, addressed to Egidius a nd

13 In Lhe epislu la ad plcbcm Sinnond reversed the second and Lhird names. H e al so ex­ccrplcd Lhe cp islllla ad cp iscopos of Uad cgund a from Gregory (IJ. 1 .'1 2).

14 Sirmond, 350-357; de Clcrcq, 21 2-217.

JO TllADTTIO

Sigibert. The letter to the bishop is a forthright order to remove Promotus and is signed by the thirty-three ecclesiastics with their rank and subscripsi or relegi et subscripsi. The letter to the king has a different tone since it was advice rather than an order, and there are only the names with varying humble forms of salutation. Pappolus, Egidius, and Promotus are not named, although King Sigibert was at no loss to supply the names. Dishop Germanus of Paris (D. 2.470 f.) was more elaborate than the rest (de Clercq, 216.'13-45): Ger­manus peccaior, proprius vcslcr, clsi praesumpliosus, audeo salulare el supplico, u l non dispicias suggcssionem saccrdolum. There are only thirty-two signatures, since only bishops signed. Sigibert ignored the advice and Promotus was not removed until after the death of the king in 575 (Gregory, H. 7.17).

In his introductory note on this council de Clercq said that no bishop from the kingdom of Sigibert was present, but the boundaries of the kingdoms of the sons of Lothar were frequently adjusted, and Nantes was surely at this time under Sigibert and thus Felix would have been an exception. Thus there is room for speculation upon the reason for his presence. Surely he was there as an observer to relay to Sigibert and his advisers the subtleties which would not appear in the formal episcopal letter.

A further problem arises, since with only one bishop from Sigibert's king­dom we might expect an invitation to the metropolitan of Tours rather than the suffragan of Nantes. The letters written by the bishops in council are dated September 11, but the council must have been in session for some time, and it would have been called considerably earlier to allow time for the bishops to assemble. If we assume that Eufronius was summoned, it is necesssary to consider the date of his terminal illness and death. In speaking of Gregory's ordination Duchesne said (2.307, note 3): 'Le jour n'est pas determinable, car on ne sait quel jour est mort son predecesseur.' But in this he ignored the note of Krusch (on Aforl. 2.1) in which he perceptively argued for the death of Eufronius on the first day of August in 573, and for Gregory's ordi­nation by Bishop Egidius of Hheims on August 20. In his posthumous mem­oir of Gregory (pracf. Xl, XIII), published in 1951, eleven years after his death in 1940, he reiterated his original idea of 1884 with the statement that Gregory's ordination was not much before August 28 when we know that Gregory went to Tours by way of Brioude and was on August 28 at the shrine of Saint Julian (fol. 34).

It is now possible to reconstruct the activities of Felix in July-September of 573. Eufronius in July on receipt of the summons to Paris assigned his friend Felix to this duty. Felix was back in Nantes for the death of Friardus on August 1 (see below). After the burial of his friend he proceeded to Tours, perhaps in time for the funeral of Eufronius, but without leisure to work for Hiculf's bid for episcopal power, since he had no time to spare in his further journey to Paris. By the time the council was adjourned Gregory had been

l'J·:LIX OF NANTES : A MEHOVINGIAN DISHOI' 11

ordained as bishop and had entered Tours. Felix may have gone after the council for a conference with King Sigibcrt, but at all events could not have been in Tours until Gregory was firmly in charge. When he passed through Tours on his journey back to his own Sec he probably paused briefly to pay his respects to his new metropolitan.

The Quarrels of Felix and Gregory

Three passages have been cited as proof of enduring hostility between the two bishops, but in each there are elements which in my opinion have been interpreted too harshly (H. 5.5, 49; ti.15). Each deserves comment. Also the events of the life of Felix already discussed, the traceable connections between Gregory and his predecessor Eufronius, and the circumstances of Gregory's elevation to the See of Tours will throw light on episcopal quarrels and rec­onciliation.

The first two long passages have a curious sound and inference may link them closely. The bald narrative of Gregory has a suspicious clarity and we must not forget that \.Ye haYc only one side of the story. About two years after Gregory assumed episcopal power the legal question arose about the title to a villa ecclesiac in dispute between the See of Tours and the See of Nantes. No indication is given by the historian about the value of this prop­erty but the phrase may indicalc an extensive and productive area of agri­cultural land. Moreover it is a reasonable inference that previously Lhe income and products had accrued to the Sec of Nantes, even though Gregory created the impression that it had been under Tours. The essential sentences in Greg­ory are these:

Eo tcmpore Felix Nanrneticac urbis episcopus litteras mihi scripsit plc­nas opprobriis, scribcns cliam fratrem meum ob hoc interfectum, eo quod ipse cupidus cpiscopati episcopum interfecisset. Scd ut haec scriberet, villam ecclesiae concupivit. Quam cum dare nollcm, evomit in me, ut dixi, plcnus furore opprobria mille. Cui aliquando ego respondi: ' .Me­mento dicti prophelici:15 Vac his qui iungunl domum ad domum et agrum ad agrum copulant! Numquid soli inhabilabunl lerram? O si te habuisset Massilia sacerdotem l Numquam naves oleurn aut reliquas species dc­tulissent, nisi carlam lanturn, quo maiorem oportunitatem scribendi ad bonos infamandos haberes. Sed paupertas cartae finem inponit vcrbosi­tati.' Inmensac enim erat cupiditatis atque iactantiae.

This chapter is dated in 576 when Felix was probably still financially em­barrassed by the expenditures for the cathedral at Nantes, and deeply per­turbed by any decrease in the income of the See of Nantes. It is probable too that both bishops, engrossed in administrative duties, had not met to

15 Is 5.8. The quolalion varies somewhat from Urn uersio Vu/gala, as so often in Greg­ory who was probably quoting from memory.

12 THADITIU

discuss the problems involved and Gregory, asser ting his authority as metro­politan, seemed unjust to Felix who surely cit ed the canons of t he Third Co uncil of Paris in which he participated before the younger man was a bishop. Gregory certainly had a file of the letters exchanged and the quotation is thus an exact transcript. It has the appearance of a portion of the last letter in the interchange. What has been overlooked by those who have read this text is that this is probably an attempt Lo reconcile Felix by a little heavy­handed humor. The res t of the letter was probably conciliatory.

The one element in the quarrel which roused Gregory to anger was the charge by Felix t hat Deacon Peter had been justly slain because he had mur­dered his bishop in hope of succeeding to the See of Langres. If Dalton (1.12; 2.516 on H. 4A) could make the error of assuming that the bishop was Saint Tetricus (D. 2.186 f.) , the paternal uncle of Armentaria, the mother of Peter and Gregory, perhaps Felix, far removed from Langres, made the same error. In the chapter cited Gregory continued with the explanation that Peter, deacon of Tetricus, had favored a mutual relative Silvest er as successor of Tetricus who was mortally ill. In 572 Silvester took control of the See, but died of disease before he could be ordained. His son, also named Silvester, claimed that Peter had caused his death by magic (maleficiis). At a trial in Lyon before a court of laymen and ecclesiastics, including Bishop Nicetius of Lyon (D. 2.166-8), Armenta tia' s maternal uncle, Peter cleared himself by a sacred oath (sacramenlo) but was assassina ted by Silves ter filius in 574. Doubtless Felix had heard accounts of t hese tragic deeds, but in garbled form. I suspect that the explanation in the Hisloriae was also included in the letter t o Felix. However Gregory, despite his usual diplomacy, when he was writing much la terrn could not forbear making the charge of cupidilas and iaclanlia against the deceased Felix.

The second passage (5.49) narrates a grave crisis in Gregory's episcopal t enure. Riculf who had been appointed archdeacon by Eufrasius had soon been replaced by Gregory in this office which was second only to the bishop­ric. However, R iculf re tained his priestly office, and in 580 was involved in the accusation that Gregory had charged Queen Frcdegund with adultery with Bertram, bishop of Bordeaux (D. 2.61 f.). There were others in the plot to unseat Gregory and eleva te Hiculf as bishop of Tours, and there is a strong hint of royal intrigue, but these items are not germane here.17 A full-scale

16 Cf. my volume, 9 for a discussion of lhc dates of composi tion of the various works; also Krusch, prae/. XXIf.

17 The prime mover seems to have been Leudastcs who h ad been dismissed as count of Tours (Ji. 5.47). A lso involved was the sub-deacon niculf (a relative of the priest?) who under brutal torture lcs lificd thal t he plot was conn ected with the disloyal son of King Chilperic, Chlodovechus who was to become king while the priest Riculf would uc bishop,

FELIX OF NANTES : A ll!EROVINGIAN BISHOP 13

inquiry was held in Berny in August before a council of bishops with Bishop Bertram presiding and with King Chilperic present.18 Gregory cleared himself by a sacred oath and the performance of three Masses.

On Gregory's re turn Lo Tours he found Hiculf holding forth as if he were already bishop. Gregory and his suffragan bishops met and condemned Ri­culf to imprisonment in a monas tery, but Felix through emissaries freed him and gave him refu ge.ID Gregory added eumque ille ambienler co llegit, quem execrare debueral. Thus far we follow Gregory, bu t t he aims and actions of Felix may be clarified by firs t examining the circumstances of Gregory's ele­vation as bishop.

Gregory was at the court of King Sigibert and Queen Brunhild when news of the death of Eufronius was reported. It would be no derogation to suggest that Gregory may have been there because he was aware that the death of Eufronius was imminent. I-le enjoyed the favor of the royal couple, although Dalton (1.52-61) is quite correc t in his suggestion that Gregory was never on the cordial terms with Sigibert that he later enjoyed with King Guntram. ·with royal assent he was forthwith named to the See of Tours and invested by Egidius, bishop of Rheims. Thus the office was vacant for only nineteen days (H. 10.31).

The author of the later life of Gregory, formerly attributed to the Abbot Odo, included an eloquent chapter on Gregory's elevation (11).20 When Eufro­nius died all Tours, he said ( cuncl is in consona voce coeunlibus ), preferred Gregory since he was well known there and his actions had been worthy. Clerics, nobles, the rustic and urban populace clamored for him (pari senlen­lia). H e was noble, wise, generous, principibus nolum, ac pro sua probitate

reverendum, omnibusque officiis habilem. An embassy was sent to the king. At first Gregory humbly begged to be excused, but Sigibert and Brunhild overcame his scruples. In this mix ture of truth and fantasy the anonymous author was misled by Gregory's later popularity and by a poem of Fortunatus (5.3) from which he quoted.

Fortunatus addressed twenty-two couplets on this occasion ad cives Turonicos de Gregorio episcopo. Three are worth quoting (1-2, 11-12, 15-16):

the lesser fUculf archdeacon anti Leutlastes duke. Gregory repor ls this as the truth, but evid ence under torture is suspect. Chlotlovechus was murdered by the machinations of Queen Fredegund ther eafter (H. 5.39). The chronology is here r eversed as often in Gregory. For earlier intrigue by the archdeacon Rieu)[ cf. J-l. 5.14.

18 CL de Clcrcq, 220.

19 Sollerlius' sugges tion that Hiculf may have fl ed to some other Bishop Felix (4778)

has no m erit. Nothing further is known of Riculf, but he probably spent the rest of his life as a priest in the See of Nantes untlcr the control of Felix and his successor Nonnichius.

20 I cite here from the text of this 11ita printed in H. L. Bordier' s translation of Gregory's hagiographic works: '1 (Paris 1864) 212-233.

14 THADITIO

Plauditc, felices populi, nova vota ten en tes, praesulis adventu reddita vota dco.

Mar tino proprium mittil luli anus alumnum cl fralri praebe t quod sibi dulce fuit.

huic Sigibercthu s ovans favct ct Bru nichilclis honori: iuclicio regis nobilc culm en adcst.

Here the poet mixed truth and fiction with intent Lo flatter his friend and mislead the reader. Inference and a consideration both of Gregory's words a nd of his omissions t ell a different story.

Two s trange facts emerge from Gregory's works. In the first place, although Gregory was always devoted to Saint Marlin and visited Tours before 573 where he doubtless was the gues t of Bishop Eufronius, his references to his mother's cousin are curious. There is never the real warmth and admiration that we constantly find in his references to other relatives and friends.

· Eufronius is mentioned seven times in the Hisloriae, as was natural since Gregory always had Tours in his mind. Five passages refer briefly to the episcopal duties of his predecessor (H. 4-.26; 5.49; 9.30, 39, 40). He was included in the list of the bishops of Tours (H. 10.31) where he received this modicum of praise : ... e.x gen ere illo, quod superius senalores nunwpavinws, vir egre­giae san clilalis , ab ineunle aelale cleriws.

The seventh passage is revealing for in it the circumsLanccs of the elevation of Eufronius to the See of Tours are given in full by Gregory. When Bishop Guilthar (D. 2.306 f.) died in 556 the See was without a bishop for a year (H. · t0.31). The clergy of Tours and Lothar, now sole king, favored Cato, a distl.nguishcd pries t of Clermont (H. 4.11). This pries t earlier in 551 at the death of Gallus, Gregory's paternal uncle, had assumed the episcopate in Clermont, but Cautinus through intrigue and the favor of King Theudebald had been ordained (H. 1.5-7; cf. D. 2.36). Cautinus had suggested Tours for Cato, with whom he quarreled bitterly, but Cato refused the post, still hoping to unsea t Cautinus (H. 1.11). Almost a year later when Lothar had just re­turned from his disastrous Saxon war a delegation came to him requesting Eufronius as the successor of Gunthar (II. 4.15). Cato now appeared and asked to replace Cautinus. On the refusal of this petition he asked for the See of Tours. Lothar again refused and Cato withdrew. 21 This follows in the text of Gregory:

21 It . • IS clear from Gregory's narralivc lhal Cato was a good man and a good pries t, far

:upenor t o Caulinus (cf. H. 4. 7). Gregor y accuses Cato of vainglory (H. 4.6: . .. columo

anae conflatus gloriae), I.Jut when plague devas tated Clermont in 571, Cautinus fled and Cato stayed and ministered to his people. Both died (I-I. 4.31). Gregory's last comment ~n Cato: liic autcm prcsb iler mu/lac Jwman ilalis el satis di/ecl11r pauperum fuil; el credo, iaec causa . . . . . .

c1, sr qwd superbiae ha/nul, med1 camenlwn fill/ .

FELIX Or N ANTES : A MEROVINGIAN BISHOP 15

De sancto vero Eufronio interrogans, dixerunt, eum nepotem esse beati Gregorii. ... Respond it rex: ' Prima haec est et magna gencratio I'

Obviously Eufronius was unknown to Lothar, but the senatorial family of Cler­mont was not. If the reader were unaware that Gregory, bishop of Langres 506/7 to 539/40 (D. 2.186), was the historian's great-grandfather, there would be no indication of a connection between Eufronins and his successor since Gregory does not mention it elsewhere. 22

Jn the l'vliracula Eufronius is mentioned eight times. Six items are minor, mainly for dating the reference (Mart . 1.23, 29, 32; 2.1; VP 15.1; GC 9). Two anecdotes are recorded by Gregory Jn gloria confcssorum (18-19). In both Eufronius heavy with age is pictured as most loath to set out upon journeys even though urged strongly by his attendants. Despite the miraculous touches in the narratives Gregory seems to be impatient with the lethargy of his cousin. The second is specifically dated by the death of King Charibert to 567. Krusch dated the first at the end of Eufronius' life since the phrase dcf cssus scnio occurs, but I would place it before 567 since at the end of the chapter there is the statement that Eufronius was 'often accustomed to tell < of the inci­dent> ' (Nam rcfcrebal plcrwnquc). I assume Gregory means to refer to Enfro­nius' conversations with himself.

In addition to his separate listing of the bishops of Tours and their accom­plishments (JJ. 10.31) Gregory in his J-listoriac marked the accession and the death of every bishop at the appropriate chronological point with one amaz­ing exception, namely when Eufronius died in 573 and the historian succeed­ed him. So unusual was this procedure that Bruno Krusch in his latest account of the life of Gregory said (pracf. X II I): A llamen apwl Grcgoriwn de sua propria eleclione allum est silenlium .. . This is even more remarkable when it is noted that Gregory commented on tlw accession of the eighteen bishops of Clermont.

Touraine in 573 was, as so frequently, a prize in the quarrels of the descend­ants of Clovis. Gregory vividly portrays the devastation (JI. 4.'17-,18). How­ever, the favor of Sigibert and Brunhild and the ordination by Egidius would normally have made his entry to Tours a scene of triumph and rejoicing.

22 The normal usage in classical Lalin is nepos ('grandson') and ncplis ('granddaughter') , but occasionally in post-Augustan Latin ' nephew' and 'niece' . In medieval La Lin the latter meaning is normal: Vv. Levison in the Index of the r evised edition of the Historiae (1942) defined 'nepos, ncpus = fil ius fralris a11l sororis (Germ. "neffe") ' and cited H. 5.30 for 'ncpus = fi/ius fralmelis' (p. 617). He also defined 'neptis = /ilia fralris a11t sororis.' Cf. also A. Souter, A Glossaru of 1.aler Lalin (Oxford 1949) 264, s. vu. However Gregory was aware of the double m eaning of these two words in classical Lalin. In many cases we cannot be sure of his meaning, but here nepos means grandson, since he said that his btolher Peter was buried (H. 5.5) sews sancl11m Gregorium proa111.1m nostrum (proav11s must mean great-granclf a thcr).

16 TflADITIO

There must have been circumstances locally of such magnitude that his entry was hazardous and there was real doubt whether he could establish and main­tain his episcopal rank. Bishops driven out of Lheir Sees by local difficulties were all too common in these dangerous days. A. less vigorous and determined man might have fl ed to the calmer city of Clermont. 23 Even Gregory must have had misgivings since he returned from ordination by way of Brioude and t here gained strength on August 28 by praying at the shrine of the patron saint of his youth, Saint Julian (Jul. 34). Frli x had not returned after the Fourth Council of Paris in time to greet his new metropolitan as he entered Tours ea rly in September. The strain of Lhese first days in Tours took its toll of the youthful bishop, as a reference in his de uirl11libus beali 1Wartini episcopi indicates. In the second month of his ordination as bishop he was stricken with a severe attack of illness (disinteria cum febre valida), and relates his cure by drinking a potion with dust from the tomb of Saint Martin suspend­ed in it (2.1). The event is dated most elaborately: A nno cenlesimo seplua­

gesimo secundo post transilwn beali Martini an tes titis, S igiberlo gloriosissimo rege duodecimo anno regente, post excesswn sancli E11froni episcopi . ...

If we could assume as Krusch did (praef. X IV f.) that the eYents of 580 were more closely connected with the events of 573 than we can gather from the Hisloriae, the situation would be clarified. I believe t hat the assumption is valid and will speculate on such a basis. Briefly, I conclude that Eufronius favored Riculf as his successor a nd that Felix, probably the senior suffragan, may also have favored him.

As was noted above, E ufronius and Felix were on good terms, and Felix doubtless did not resent a metropolitan ·who \Vas his senior by about ten years. Riculf who appears to have been a dynamic man probably relieved the aging Eufronius of many cares a nd wi th some reason may have expected to succeed him. As archdeacon he would have had many contacts with the suffragan bishops and Felix may have supported him when Eufronius' health began to fail, as he did later in 580. H e may have admired the archdeacon's ability and have reasoned that his support for Hicu lf would gain him special favor with his new metropolitan. Possibly he had assurance from Hiculf that the

disputed villa eccles iae would be confirmed as the property of the See of Nantes. There is a still further possibility that Gregory had in some way offended Eufronius, Felix, or Hiculf, or all of them earl ier on one of his visits. Thus

23 In 580 Bcrulf, who was duke in cha rge of Tours, Poiliers, Angers and Nantes (cf. JI. 6.31), and Eunomius who had replaced Leudastes as count of Tours (JI. 5.49) sent messen­gers (l/. 5.49) qui mihi consilium minis /rarenl, ul ad occullum, ads1.1111plis m eliorib11s rebus ecc/esiae, Arverno /uga seccdcrcm; sed non acquiev i. This was shorlly before lhc Council of Berny.

FELI X OF NANTES : A MEROVING I AN DISHOP 17

on t he basis of the specula tions we ca n see t hat many in Tours, clerics and lay, opposed Gregory in 573.

Gregory obviously could not retain Riculf as archdeacon, and the appoint­mcn t of Pla to to that post was mos t successful. It is uncertain a t ·wha t date t he new a ppoin tment was made, but I would guess t hat it was already in 573 or shortly thereafter. The only reference to him in t he Hisloriae is when he suffe red with his bishop in t he int rigues of 580 (5.39). Later Gregory dated a miracle of Saint Mart in as occurring when Plato became bishop of Poi tiers (Nlarl. 4.32). H e was ordained probably in 591 , but not lat er than 593 for Gregory was presen t to honor his pupil. The aging poet was also there and celebra ted the occasion with a poem (10.14) which contained these final lines (9-12):

gau cl ia laet a p aret praesentia sancta Gregori e t geminas nrbes adiuvet una fides .

qui moclo cliscipulo P lat one antiste summo sollemnem ecclesiae hie cleclit esse diem.

None of t he t hree could anticipate that by the tu rn of the century Fortunatus would succeed Pla to in the See of Poitiers (D. 2.83).

Even though Felix may have supported Riculf as the successor of Eufro­nius, he probably returned from the Coun cil of Paris ready to co-opera te with his new metropolita n. The dispute over t he villa eccles iae did not arise until 576. Perhaps Pla to had discovered the ambiguity in the t itle of the property. Felix was angered by the decision but, having resorted to the written word, finally acquiesced.

When the a ttack on Gregory in 580 was leveled by Leudas tcs and the priest R iculf who had not become reconciled with his bishop, Gregory warded off the danger by a vigorous defense a t t he Council of Berny-Riviere. When Gregory and some or all of his s11ffragani punished Riculf by confining him to a monast ery for his seizure of episcopal power, we arc not informed whether F elix was present or not. Dalton (2.551 on H. 5.49) t hought he might have been a nd made this comment : ' If a t the council of provincial bishops sum­moned by Gregory, he may even then have arranged to t hwart his intentions with regard to Riculf.' However Felix was close to seventy, in his thirtieth year as bishop in a troubled area, a nd possibly already ill. I assume t hat all he did in 580 was t o protec t his former friend, since he could sec two sides to the bi t ter enmity which had arisen between Gregory and Riculf. Nothing in t he sources warrant s the stronger sta tement of Hellmann tha t Gregory believed tha t Felix had a ha nd in the charges of Leudastcs and Riculf.2'1 Two chapters

24 S. Hellmann, Hislorische Ze ilschri/l 107 (19 11) 32. In this arlicle (1-43) he discussed Gregory's bias again sl hi s opponents, but carr ied his Lhcsis t o ex lremes, I.hough Gregory surely docs exaggerate, e.g. in his Lreatmcnt of Leudastes (H. 5.48). H e used th e comments

18 THADITIO

in Gregory's history seem Lo disprove this interpretation (G.15-16), although the first has been cited for the standard view.

By 581 Pelix was so ill that he anticipated death. He and his friends, pre­sumably both lay and ecclesiastic, sent Durgundio his grandson or nephew (nepos) to Gregory with the request that he be ordained to succeed to the See of Nan Les. Gregory refused since it was against the canons and the young man was only twenty-five. He advised him to return to Nantes, take up the religious life, and in due time he wou ld gain the bishopric. Dul when Felix improved in health, Burgundio did not follow this advice. When Pelix died a year or so later he was succeeded by his cousin (consobrinus) Nonnichius (D. 2.367).

The chapter which immediately follows cannot be specifically dated, but probably concerns the same years, 581-582 (JI. 6.16). An unnamed grand­daughter or niece (so Dalton translated neplcm)25 of Pelix had been betrothed to an otherwise unknown Pappolenus ante hoc autem lempus (i.e. 582). When Felix disapproved of the marriage Pappolenus with a large band (wm magna colzortem) abducted her from a chapel (ab oratorio, presumably in Nantes) and took refuge in the basilica of Saint Albinus in Angers. Felix was angry (ira cornmotus) and abstracted the woman by a trick (dolis) and placed her in a nunnery in Bazas. After the death of Felix the woman sent a secret message to Pappolenus who took her from the nunnery and married her. He had royal permission and disregarded the threats of her relatives (limere parentwn dislulil moenas). Pappolenus must have been wealthy and influential, since earlier he was accompanied by many retainers and later he enjoyed royal favor. He would seem a proper suitor for a woman of an aristocratic family, but the opposition of Felix and her other relatives must have had some real basis. Probably he was of violent character as his profaning of a chapel would indicate. Felix would naturally and properly be angry at such actions on church prop­erty. Probably his 'trick' was no more than having a fellow suffragan bishop intercede. The choice of a monastery in I3azas (apud Vasalensem urbem) was probably not based on familial connections, but on the distance from Nantes and Angers, since Bazas was far to the south in Gascony, beL\\·een the Ga­ronne and the Pyrenees.

Interesting and probable speculation can he based 011 these two chapters. Burgundio and the unnamed woman " ·ere most probably the grandchildren of Felix, possibly Lhey were brother and sister. If the suggestion made above that Felix was married early is valid , this sequence ·would follow. Felix had had at least one child from his secular marriage, and later he was either a wid-

on Felix us an example (32-31) and started from lh c s tandard v iew wit h the comment: 'Auch er isl ein Gegner Grcgors.'

25 Cf. note 22 above.

FELIX Of.' NANTES : ,\ :l!El\OYTN G JA N lJlSJJOP

ower or separat·ed from hi s wife, ei ther Lo enter religious life in the lower ranks or just before his ordin ation as bishop. The ages fit since in 581 Felix was six ty-nin e and Burgundio was twenty-five, and the granddaughter ·would have been about twenty. Felix as bishop was married to the church, as For­tunatus wrote, a nd as faithful to Lhis holy calling as \Vas ordered in Lhe canon s which he signed at Lhe second Council of Tours in 567. H owever as bishop he would naturally be the chief arbiter among his lay relatives. Also the impression given by the narrative of Gregory is that these relatives, of whom we know only B urgundio and No nnichius by name, \Yere residents of Lhc city of Nantes.

Three sugges tions concern Gregory's action s in the lasL months of the life of Felix. So specific arc t he delails that I suspect that at some time Gregory visited his mos t important suffraga n bishop, although he could have heard all of the details from Burgundio or olher witnesses. If so, they could have discussed the succession t o the Sec of Na ntes . Gregory's refusal of Lhe request of Felix in 581 was c1ui te proper a nd left open to Burgundio the possibility of later episcopal rank. Moreover Gregory seems to have approved of the succession of Nonnichius, a better choice since he was sm ely a more mature man. Indeed Gregory whose own family contained so many episcopal relations would approve a bishop of Nantes who would have aristocratic familial con­nections to buttress his authori ty. Finally the story of Pappolenus may have come directly from the acidulou s narrative of Felix to his metropolitan.

Reconci l ial ion

I have made a number of conjcclural interpre tations of the narrative of Gregory whi ch sugges t Lhat his ev idence has been too casually judged. Now I would go farther and suggest that the relations between Felix and Gregory were at Limes quite fri endly. Por such an opinion we need corroboration. Two i tems from the Aliracula arc subslantial confirmation. Perhaps their mutual fri end PortunaLus at times soothed ruffled feelings on both sides. I Tis final poem on Felix (5.7) appears among a group of poems addressed to or concerning Bishop Gregory (5.3-5, 8-17). These verses may represent closely-spaced v isits to Tours and Na ntes in 57:3 or shortly thereafter (!'i . :~ is on Gregory's reception at Tours in September, 573).

In a passage ·which cannot be firmly dated we haYc a record of a conver­sation between the two bishops on epsicopal celibacy (GC 77). Felix told the tale of a priest in Nan tes who was married (anleslitem in civilale sua cum

coniuge). '\Then he rose to episcopal rank (ad lwnorem sacerdolii), he followed the canons and much to the annoyance of his wife lived apart. Angered she broke into the episcopal residence, assuming that he had another woman, but he was sleeping with a white lamb on his hreas t (agrwm immensae cla-

20 TRADITIO

rilalis). Awestruck by this sign of holy favor his wife was reconciled to the separation.

It is possible to delve back of Gregory's brief paragraph, and assume that Felix had come to Tours on business pertaining to the Church and had been a guest at dinner. ·while at dinner he had held forth on a canon formulated in 567 at the Second Council in Tours at which he had been a signatory of the conciliar decisions. He probably quoted Canon 13(12) which began Episcopus coniugem 11i sororem habeal ... This much would be appropriate for the com­pany present. Afterwards the two bishops probably withdrew to Gregory's private quarters for more leisurely conversation - Lhe introductory sentence has these words quae Felicem Namnelicwn refereniem, dwn de his confabu­laremur, audivi. Here there is the sound of an amiable exchange of gossip (pace Felicis Gregoriique) rather than the more dignified interchange of edi­fying remarks at an episcopal dinner. Perhaps Gregory countered with the scandalous story of Urbicus, second bishop of Clermont (D. 2.33) and his im­portunate wife, a story he had included in his history (1.44 ). 26

The story of Felix would have been improved had Gregory not concealed the name of the bishop. But there is a possibility which would account for the omission of the name. Another of Gregory's suffragani was Victorius of Hennes (0. 2.345) who had been married before ordination as a bishop, since Gregory told the circumstances of the murder of his daughter Domnola in 585 and the vengeance taken on her murderers in 587 (H. 8.32, '15). Singu­larly enough the son of Nonnichius, successor to Felix in the See of Nantes, was involved in this crime. Domnola was twice married to prominent men and wealthy enough to attract violence. If the guess that her father Vic­torius is the hero of Felix' tale is right, she and her father may have been connected in some way with Pelix since the phrase in civilale .ma must mean Nantes. It would not be surprising to find a man from a prominent family in Nantes named to the See of neighboring Henn es. A final inference is that Gregory is indirectly praising Felix for his chastity, whether or not Pelix had been married before he became bishop of Nantes.21

The seventh book of Gregory's JWiracula has more historical data than the other books. In twenty sections Gregory narrates the lives and miracles of twenty-three heroes of the Church. 28 Of these, six were bishops, ten were

26 Krusch in his note on CC 77 cited this item in JI . 1.44, but applied it incorrectly to

Slremonius, lhe first bishop of Clermont (D. 2.33). 21 Hourlier cited this passage when he suggested that Felix was married before ordina­

tion, but seemed to take the anecdote as referring to Felix himself. 28 There will be a fuller discussion in the inlroduelion and notes of my lnmslation of

the De vita pa/rum. For Friardus cf. J. Evenou in Bib/. Sanclorum 5 (197G) cols. 1272f.

Sollertius (AS 1 Aug. 1. 56-59) has on ly inconclusive arguments on dales and geography and a

full quotation of Gregory, VP 10.

FELIX OF N AN T ES : A ME R OVING I AN BISHO P 21

abbots, seven were reclausi. One of t he recluses, Saint Friardus of the island of Besnc near Nantes has especial in terest here ( VP 10). For t he reclaus i

t here is often li ttl e of historical consequence, but for Friardu s there are some fascinating detail s of his solitary existence. He has been a pious and chas te worker in t he fields in some unspecified area. When he found that invocation of the Lord was effi cacious, he withdrew as a hermit to Besnc. There he resisted the Devil ,21

' reproached a fellow-recluse who would have returned to the world, healed the sick, and engaged in agriculture to supply his simple needs. Finally he died, most probably in 573, in the odor of sanctity.

Since it seems clear that Gregory was not personally acquainted with the hermit saint, and he specifically noted that no written account was available t o him (10.1 ), he must have obtained the circumstantial details which he in­cluded from a n oral source. When Friardus was ill wit h a fever and felt death approaching, he sent a message to Felix that he (Frater iuus F riardus) was to be relaesed from life on t he Lord' s Day. When the bishop was detained by some business (perhaps a trip to Tours), t he hermit postponed dying t o await his friend. Gregory continues (10.4):

Post multum vero tempus, adven iente ep iscopo, a fcbre corripit ur, ingres­soque ad se salutat et osculatur, cl icens : 'Grandes mihi moras de itenere debito facis, o sanctae sacerdos I ' Quibus vigilantibus, nocte, quae erat dominica, mane fac to, trad idit spirilum . Quo emisso, mox omnis cellula a b odore suavitati s repleta tola contremuit; uncle inclubitatum est , ange­Jicam ibidem adfuisse virtutem, quae sancli mcritum signans, cellulam divinis faceret aromatibu s effl agrare. Cuius gloriosum corpu s sacerd os a blu t um recon<li t in tumulo ...

After wri ting t his vita Gregory inserted this brief summary under the year 57:3 in his history (4.37):

Sanctus vero Friarclus hoc nihilominus t empore quo sanctus Nicetius obii t plenus clierum, sanctita te egregius, ac tione sublimis, v ita nobilis ; de cuius mi raculis quaedam in Iibro, quern de vita eius scripsimus, memora­vimus. In cuiu s transitu, ad venienle F elice episcopo, cellula tota contre­muit. Uncle non ambigo, aliquid ibidem fu isse angelicum, quocl sic locus ille ipso transeunle tremuerit. Quem episcopu s abluens atque dignis v esti­m entis involvens, sepulturae mandavit.

If Friardus died on the Lord's Day the da te would be 566 or 577 since he died on August 1, but Krusch is certainly correct in preferring 57:3. Felix em­bellished the s tory, or Gregory in writing confused Friardus' first announce-

29 Gregory h as 28 r eferences lo the devil in lhe De 11ila patrum (under 12 different names) : cf. G. J . M. Bartclink, 'Les denomina tions du <liable chez Gregoi re de Tours,' REL 48 (1 970) 411 -432 (esp . 412 f.)

22 THADITIO

ment with the final event.:;o It is probable that Friardus and Eufronius both died on the same day.

Whatever the year of Friardus' death the vita throws light on the relations of the two bishops. At some time after Gregory became bishop I assume that Felix was in Tours, perhaps for a meeting of the suffragani with their metropolitan. While being entertained there he regaled Gregory with the story of Friarclus. Two vigorous and dynamic bishops might at times envy the simple life of a hermit, but it is more likely that two men, scions of aris­tocratic families, might he basically amused by such tales for there is something a bit ridiculous in the tale of Friardus. Nonetheless it redounded to the credit of a bishop to have such a holy man resident in his Sec. A parallel to this could have been material that Gregory gleaned from conversations with Felix about historical events in the Breton area, especially where Pelix himself was involved as in his intervention during an attack on Nantes and Rennes in 579 (Tl. 5.31).

Of the twenty-three men treated in the de vi ta palrmn ten were connected with Auvergne, six with Tourainc. It is not surprising that so many were from Gregory's native area and from his episcopal See, for he was quite under­standably parochial in his interests as is clear in all of his works. Even the other seven mark a man who never travelled beyond Gaul. In each of these there is some connecting link with Gregory, for they were relatives or friends were the source of his informalion - on J7riardus the source was Felix.

One area of Gregory's works needs consideration. .J. M. vVallace-Hadrill has noted this concisely:~1

Gregory did distinguish, vaguely, between the functions of an historian and a hagiographer. I re knew from experience that the hagiographer, espe­cially when reporting recent events, needed to produce convincing evidence in situations where Ll1e historian would be excused the trouble. Even the 'relationem bonorum virorum et certae fidei' (GC praef.) was insumeient.: their very names were required by readers prepared to scoff. ... The hagio­grapher's task was to lhat extent more burdensome than the historian's. He was surrounded by experts in the same genre of letters; be wrote for a curious and critical public.

I agree wiLh this statement, although the word 'vaguely' in the first sentence might he omitted.

In the life of Nicetius of Treves (D. 3.37 f.) Gregory strongly defends his inclusion of miraculous material by speaking of Lhe authenticity of the evi­dence of Abbot Ariclius (Saint-Yrieux) of Limoges (VP 17. praef.):

:JO Except for the problem of the date of the death of Priardus I find the account in the history a clear summary of the diffuse narrative in VP 10. In this I disagree with Hellmann (above note 24) who said in a comment on these two passagPs (3:3): 'Davon finden sich bci Gregor zwei ganz abweichcnde Varian ten.'

31 The Long-haired J\.ings, 5-1 f.

FELIX OF NANTES : A MEHOVINGIAN Il!SHOP 23

Qua de causa relalorcm huius opcris in mcdio poncrc est necesse, ut hi qui veritati derogant confunclantur. Noverint igitur, a bcato Aridio abbatc urbis Lemovicinae, qui ab ipso Nicelio antcstitc cnutritus et clcricatus ordinem sortitus est, haec quac subiecta sunt me audisse . . . Nee creden­dum est, eum menclacii nube obumbrari posse . .. Aicbat ergo memoratus sacerdos de antedicto antcstite: ' Multa quiclcm, dulcissime frater, de sancto Nicetio bonorum virorum testimonio divulgatum cognovi, sed plu­rima oculis propriis inspexi vel etiam ab eo vix elicita cognovi.'

At the death of his intimate friend in 591 Gregory wrote a long account of his life and miracles (H. 10.29), and he is frequently mentioned in the Mi­racula .

Also the evidence is clear that Gregory treated the twenty sections of the de vita palrum as separaLe Zibelli . Thus we can conjecture that a copy of this tenth section was made as a friendly present to Bishop Felix. There is a double compliment implied in the work, Felix as Gregory's informant was a man of ficles bona, and Felix was of such a character that he could be present at a manifestation of virlus angelica. The story of Friardus and Felix is a strong indication of reconciliation and a refutation of enduring enmity be­tween Felix and Gregory.

R.ecapilulalion and Conclusion

My speculations above should be subject Lo some reservaLions, but Lhe total picture which results both of the character of Felix and of his relationship with Gregory is surely correct and gives a revision of the political and eccle­siastical history of the See of Nantes.

In my account Felix emerges as a real power in Nantes both through his familial distinction and through his episcopal tenure. Protection from Breton raids, building and public works, concern not only for the poverty stricken but also for the economy of the city and its environs, strong assertion of the power of the church in lay decisions, distinction through conciliar attendance made him the leading citizen as well as the bishop of Nantes. Anger and pride were sins in the eyes of the Church but they can be virtues in a strong executive. Jn all periods, but especially in sixth-century Gaul, dynamic action is a prime requisite for lay and ecclesiastic success. Gregory Lo a large extent shared these qualities with Felix.

If Gregory first met Felix at the dedication of the cathedral in Nantes he must have been awestruck by the older man's accomplishments. After his ordination as bishop he was surely much relieved to have a strong suffragan bishop in Nantes who could also exert influence in Vannes and Rennes. These were dangerous areas and weak leadership in those Sees would have forced upon him onerous supervision to the detriment of his own Sec.

24 THADITlO

. . . . ubside<l The quarrel over the villa eccleswe m 576 was bitter, but surely s d ot

quickly, since both participants, engaged in multifarious activities, coul ny's afford to be long distracted by a single issue. In the crisis of 580 Gregor a"

· · 1· nd he Ill J anger seems to have been directed at Riculf rather than at Fe ix, a ted have been relieved to have the priest out of Touraine even thou~h he res~elil' the defiance of his own power as metropolitan. In the short time that th'f survived his protection of Riculf he probably aroused Gregory's sympaand because of his age, infirmities and his difficulties with recalcitrant nepos neptis. Jed

Even friendship, though of what degree we cannot be sure, is not ru t . frequen ·

out for the years 573-575, 577-579, 581, and surely co-operation was tial Moreover the two passages from the Miracula suggest more than the essen ger episcopal co-operation. We must not stress too strongly the charges ~~ a~hat and pride which Gregory made against Felix, especially when we reahze'fe of G~eg~ry spoke of t~1ese qualities w~th admiration whe~ h~ related the ~P 8). Nicetms of Lyon, lus great-uncle, with whom he was on mt1mate ter~s ( both

In fine each man must have found much to admire in the other, since 1

y were vigorous leaders who were truly devoted to their own Sees in which t

1e

fostered the poor, the downtrodden and the devout.

University of Pennsy lvania