Great dispute on right of sanctuary.—Letters of Alcuin on the
subject to his representatives at court and to a bishop.—The
emperor’s severe letter to St. Martin’s.—Alcuin’s reply.—Verses
of the bishop of Orleans on Charlemagne, Luitgard, and Alcuin.
In the year 801, or early in 802, a question of sanctuary arose on which
Alcuin and Charlemagne took opposite views. The Emperor was imperious in
his dealing with the matter.
[Sidenote: Ep. 179.]
Two of Alcuin’s pupils, Candidus and Nathanael, held offices in the
court of the Emperor at Aachen. Nathanael was the pupil to whom Alcuin
wrote a well-known letter about the temptations and occupations of the
court, his warnings against the temptations being conveyed under cover
of figurative language. “Let not the crowned doves come to thy windows,
that flit about in the chambers of the palace; let not wild horses break
in at the door of thy chamber; do not occupy thyself with dancing bears.”
To Candidus and Nathanael he wrote, in evident anxiety, to tell them what
had happened, and to bid them put it before the Emperor in a favourable
light. This is what he says.
[Sidenote: Ep. 180. A.D. 801-2.]
“The venerable father Theudulfus the Bishop [of Orleans] has a dispute
with some of your brethren of St. Martin’s about a certain fugitive
culprit. This culprit, after suffering very many kinds of punishment,
suddenly escaped from confinement, fled to the church of St. Martin a
chief confessor of Christ, confessed his sins, begged for reconciliation,
appealed to Caesar, and demanded to go to his most holy presence. We
gave him up to the messengers of the said bishop. They knew, it is said,
that preparations had been made to waylay them; they dismissed him as
he stood before the doors of the church, and went their way. Thereupon
there came a large number of the men of the said venerated bishop, in a
hostile manner as we have ascertained. Eight principal men entered the
church on the Lord’s day with our own bishop [Joseph, the Archbishop of
Tours]. These were not the ‘eight principal men’ who are read of in the
prophet[215] as wasting the land of Nimrod with swords and lances; they
came to carry off the culprit, to profane the sanctity of the house of
God, to belittle the honour of the holy confessor of Christ, Martin;
indeed they rushed into the sanctuary within the gates of the altar. The
brethren drove them out before the front of the altar. If they deny this,
they say what is absolutely false. No one of them at that time bowed the
head before the altar of God.
“The report spread that a hostile force had come from Orleans [a distance
of seventy miles] to violate the rights of St. Martin, for they were
known to be Orleans men. The pensioners rushed together from every part
of the city to the defence of their own defender. Tumult and fear grew
rapidly all over. Our brethren rescued the men of the aforesaid bishop
from the hands of the crowd, lest they should be evil intreated, and
drove the people out of the church.
“Now I know that the above-named pontiff will bring many accusations
against our brethren; will exaggerate what was done; will say that things
were done which were not done; for we have it in his letters.
“I therefore charge you, my dearest sons, that you cast yourselves at
the feet of my lord David the most just and serene emperor. Beg of him
that when the bishop comes to complain, an opportunity of defence may be
afforded, and of disputing with him whether it is just that an accused
person should be taken by force from a church and subjected to the very
punishments from which he has fled; whether it is right that one who has
appealed to Caesar should not be brought to Caesar; whether it is lawful
to spoil of all his goods, even to a boot-lace, one who is penitent and
has confessed his sins; whether that saying of the Scripture[216] is well
observed, Mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”
Alcuin then criticises the letter of the Bishop of Orleans, which has not
been preserved. In the course of the criticism he says two rather clever
things.
“The venerable father says that an accused sinner ought not to be
received in the church. But if sinners are not to enter the church, how
are you to have a priest to say mass in the church, or who will there be
to respond except some quite newly baptised person? For does not St. John
say, If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth
is not in us. Again, we find that in the venerable bishop’s letter the
accused man is called a devil, not a man. Think what the Apostle says,
Judge not before the time.”
Alcuin then proceeds to quote the canons on fugitives, and to describe
the arrangements made in all parts for men to take sanctuary. He ends
with a powerful appeal to the Emperor to bear in mind the danger of
allowing any supreme dignity to be made light of.
[Sidenote: Ep. 181. A fragment.]
In another letter, written at the same time, and in great part in the
same words, to a bishop not named, Alcuin adds something to what he
has said in the letter to his pupils. The man, he says, had certainly
committed many sins and done very impious wickedness. But he had the
evidence of two priests, Christian of St. Benedict of Tours and Adalbert
of St. Martin, that he had made confession to them before he was seized
and bound and tortured. Probably Alcuin thought that would not appeal
very forcibly to the mind of the Emperor, and that the impiousness of the
man would do more harm to his cause than the fact of confession would
do good. The man was given up by the brethren of St. Martin not that he
might be taken off to Orleans, but that he might be taken before the
Archbishop of Tours by the messengers of the Bishop of Orleans, a matter
very different from what it appeared to be in Alcuin’s letter to his
representatives at Court. The attempt to carry off the fugitive was very
unscrupulous, for the man was within the altar rails and was actually
lying prostrate in supplication and appeal before the sepulchre of St.
Martin.
Alcuin thought it best to send the fugitive far out of the way. We do not
know what he had done, or who he was; but we may gather that his name was
something like Kalb from the words which Alcuin applies to him in sending
him to Salzburg, to the safe keeping of Arno the Archbishop.
[Sidenote: Ep. 183. A.D. 801-2.]
“I have sent to you this animal, the calf of my hand, that you may help
him and keep him out of the hands of his enemies. Help him as much as you
can, for the venerable bishop, that is Theodulfus, is greatly enraged
against us. I have put into the mouth of this youth, the calf being
an animal unnaturally rational, what he must moo in the ears of your
holiness.”
Now let us hear the voice of the emperor, by no means the moo of a calf.
We learn from his letter what on other grounds we should have imagined,
namely, that the culprit was a cleric. Well might the bishop of Orleans
rage against the Abbat of St. Martin.
[Sidenote: Ep. 182.]
“In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Charles
&c.[217] to the Venerable Master Albinus and the whole congregation of
the monastery of St. Martin.
“The day before your letter reached our presence, a letter was
brought to us from Bishop Theodulf [of Orleans], containing complaint
of dishonour done to his men, or rather to the bishop of the city [of
Tours], and in contempt of the order of our empire. Which order we caused
write under the authority of our name for the rendering up of a certain
cleric, escaped from the bishop’s custody, and in hiding in the basilica
of St. Martin, a copy of which you have sent to us. In it we think that
we did not decree anything unjustly, as you have thought we did.
“We have had both letters read to us again, yours [that is, Alcuin’s] and
Theodulf’s. Your letter appears to us to be much harsher than Theodulf’s,
and to have been written in anger, without any seasoning of charity
towards him; in defence of the fugitive, and in accusation against the
bishop. Under cover of a concealed name it maintains that the accused
person could and should be allowed to bring an accusation, whereas both
divine and human law forbids to allow a criminous person to accuse
another. For this he was defended and protected by you, under pretext
of the authority of our name; as though one who had been accused and
judged in sight of the people of his own city of Orleans should have an
opportunity of bringing an accusation by appeal to the emperor, after the
example of the blessed Paul the Apostle. But Paul, when accused by his
own nation before the princes of Judaea, but not as yet judged, appealed
to Caesar, and by the princes he was sent to Caesar to be judged. That
does not at all coincide with the present case. For this cleric of evil
repute was accused, and judged, and sent to prison, and thence escaped,
and contrary to law entered the basilica, which he ought not to have
entered till after he had done penance, and still—it is said—ceases not
to live perversely; this man you say has appealed to Caesar in the same
manner as Paul. But he certainly is not coming to Caesar as Paul did.
“We have given orders to Bishop Theodulf, by whom he was judged and sent
to prison, and from whose custody he escaped, that he be brought back;
and the bishop must bring him to our audience, whether he speaks truth or
falsehood; for it consists not with our dignity that for such a man as
this there should be any change of our original order.
“We greatly wonder that to you alone it should seem fit to go against
our authoritative sanction and decree, when it is quite clear, both from
ancient custom and from the constitution, that the decrees of enactments
ought to be unalterable, and that to no one is it permitted to disregard
their edicts and statutes. And herein we can not sufficiently marvel that
you have preferred to yield to the entreaties of that wretch, rather than
to our authoritative commands.
“Now you yourselves, who are called the congregation of this monastery
and the servants of God, yea the true God, know how your life is now
frequently evil spoken of by many, and not without cause. You declare
yourselves sometimes to be monks, sometimes canons, sometimes neither.
And we, acting for your good and to remove your evil repute, looked out
a suitable master and rector for you and invited him to come from a
distant province. He by his words and admonitions, and—for that he is a
religious man—by his example of good conversation, could have amended the
manner of your life. But—ah, the grief of it—all has turned out the other
way. The devil has found you as his ministers for sowing discord exactly
in the wrong place, namely, between wise men and doctors of the church.
And those who ought to correct and chastise sinners you drive into the
sin of envy and wrath. But they, by God’s mercy, will not lend an ear to
your evil suggestions.
“And you, who stand out as contemners of our command, whether you be
called canons or monks,[218] know that at our pleasure, as our present
messenger will indicate to you, you must appear before us; and although a
letter sent to us here excuses you of actual sedition, you must come and
wipe out your unjust crime by condign amends.”
Alcuin’s reply was more than twice as long.
[Sidenote: Ep. 184.]
“To the lord most excellent, and of all honour most worthy, Charles,
king, emperor, and most victorious most great most good and most serene
Augustus, Albinus his servitor wishes the welfare of present prosperity,
and of future beatitude, eternal in Christ the Lord God.
“On the first face of this letter I see that thanks from my whole heart
must be given by me to our Lord God for your safety and welfare, not to
me only but to all Christians most necessary. Next, with prostrate body,
contrite heart, tearful voice, mercy must be begged of the piety of your
goodness for the brethren of St. Martin, to whose service your goodness
delegated me however little worthy. I call God as the witness of my
conscience that never have I understood the brethren to be such as I hear
that they are called by some who are more ready to accuse than to save.
As far as can be seen and known, they worthily perform the office in the
churches of Christ, and I most truly bear witness that never any where
have I seen other men celebrating more perfectly or more diligently,
in daily course interceding for your safety and the stability of the
Christian empire. Of their life and conversation you can learn from a
perfect man, an incorrupt judge, and a faithful messenger, Wido [Count
of the shore of Britany]. He has looked into all their affairs and knows
what they have done and how they have lived.
“I have not been slow to admonish them concerning the strictness of the
monastic life, as they themselves will testify, if any one will accept
their testimony. And I do not know what faults they have committed
against their accusers, that they should pursue them with such hatred.
“It is a matter of wonder why they[219] wish to push themselves, contrary
to the edict of the law, into another’s harvest. The illustrious doctor
forbids this where he says[220] Who art thou that judgest another man’s
servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea he shall stand,
for God is able to make him stand. For the city of Tours has a pastor
[Joseph, the Archbishop], in his life elect, in preaching devout, who
knows how best to give to the family of Christ their portion of meat. Let
each shepherd watch over his own flock, that no member of it lack the
grace of God; that when the shepherd of all shall come He may find them
worthy of eternal reward.
“With regard to the concourse and tumult which arose in the church of
St. Martin, or without in the atrium, I testify in the sight of Him that
knows the heart of each that it took place without any incitement or
foreknowledge or even wish of mine. And I confess that never was I in
greater trouble for other men’s offences than then. Nor, as far as I have
been able to understand or to hear, was any thing done by design of the
brethren. I have not even been able to learn that they wished it; and
there can be no doubt that no one who fears God and cares for his own
salvation, should—I will not say do such a thing but—even think of it.
“Did not the venerable man Teotbert, sent by your authority, spend
nineteen days among them for the purpose of this enquiry? Whom he would,
he flogged; whom he would, he put in chains; whom he would, he put on
oath; whom he pleased, he summoned to your presence.
“In vain have I so long time served my Lord Jesus Christ if His mercy
and providence have so forsaken me that I should fall into this impious
wickedness in the days of my old age....
“The true cause of this tumult, as far as I have been able to understand,
I am not ashamed to lay before your excellency, sparing no one, so that I
may produce testimony to the truth.
“It appears to me that in the doing of this impious deed no one has
offended more gravely than the guard of this wretch, from whose
negligence so many evils came. If I may say so to those who hear this
letter read, I think it would be more just that he by whose negligence
the accused man escaped from his bonds should suffer the same bonds, than
that the fugitive to the protection of Christ our God and of His saints,
should be sent back from the church into the same bonds. I will not put
this on my own opinion, I am supported by the word of God who bade[221]
the prophet say to the king of Israel who had let go out of his hand the
king of Syria, Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go a man worthy
of death, thy life shall be for his life.
“In the second place, I take it that the men were the cause of the tumult
who came armed in larger number than was necessary from Orleans to Tours;
especially because the report ran through the populace that they had
come to carry off with violence a man who had fled to the protection of
the Church of Christ and St. Martin. For all men everywhere take it ill
that their holy ones are dishonoured. Perhaps, too, the miserable man had
called upon the rustics who came to his dwelling in their cups to defend
the church of St. Martin and not allow him to be snatched from it.
“There was a third cause of the tumult. Our holy father and pontiff
[Archbishop Joseph] inopportunely, the people being present, entered
the church along with the men who were supposed to have come to drag
away the man. He may have done this in the simplicity of his heart, not
imagining that any harm could come.[222] When the ignorant people, always
doing thoughtlessly inconvenient things, saw this, they cried out, they
took to their clubs; some energetic men ran out when they heard the bells
sound. They were rung by unskilled hands; your own judges ascertained
that, and our accusers themselves allowed that it was so, for in their
presence the holy Gospel was brought; there was laid upon it the wood
of the holy Cross; they made such of the brethren as they chose, swear
by that. When the brethren heard the bells, they rushed out of the
refectory to learn why they were being rung. As I am informed, they did
what they could to allay the tumult; only some youths, who were found and
sent to your presence, were the offenders in the concourse. From them
it can be learned what they did; they have sworn that they acted on the
prompting of no man, only on the impulse of their own folly. Not one of
the servants of St. Martin was there, except a man called Amalgarius, who
was with me at the moment. Him I sent at once with the other brethren
to appease the tumult, and to extricate the men of the venerable bishop
from the hands of the people, so that no harm should be done them. As
soon as the tumult was appeased, they were brought into the monastery,
where they were safe. These men were so burning with wrath against me
that they turned a kindness I had ordered to be done to them into evil,
saying that it was in insult that I had sent them some food.[223] This
was absolutely false. They did not know that I was imbued with the Lord’s
command, Do good unto them that hate you.
“Let your holy piety, most pious lord, consider these facts and recognize
the truth. Be favourable to thy servants in the love of God omnipotent
and in the honour of the holy Martin your intercessor, who always has
been honoured in the kingdom and by the kings of the Franks.
“We are wont to say in confessing our sins, If thou, Lord, wilt be
extreme to mark what is done amiss, O Lord, who may abide it? And to
thee we may say, forasmuch as we know thee to be a member of that same
Head, if thou wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss, who, lord, may
abide it? Above all, because the special virtue, goodness, and praise
of emperors has always been their clemency towards their subjects; in
so much that the most noble emperor Titus said that no one should leave
the presence of the emperor sad. Rejoice the minds of thy servants by
the highest gift of thy mercy; let mercy rejoice against judgement. Men
who have been guilty of the greatest crimes of perfidy against your
authority you have been able to pardon with laudable piety; overlook
our infelicity, in accordance with the most pious nobility of your most
holy disposition, which I have always known to abound in a marvellous
degree in the mind of your wisdom. We read how David, the ancestor of
Christ, was praised in the greatness of his mercy and the justness of his
judgements. In like manner we know that your blessedness is, by the gift
of Christ, always worthy of all laudation and praise for these two great
merits.
“May the omnipotent God the Father, by His only Son our Lord Jesus
Christ, illumine, fill, and rejoice the heart of your blessedness with
all blessing and wisdom in the Spirit the Comforter, and deign to grant
to your most noble offspring, for the welfare of a Christian people,
perpetual prosperity, most dearly loved lord, best and most august father
of the fatherland.”
We know no more than this. There appears to be no possibility of carrying
the investigation further. Reading between the lines we seem to see signs
of ecclesiastical tension between the archbishop, seated at his cathedral
church of St. Gatian, and Abbat Alcuin of St. Martin’s. Until the time of
Alcuin’s penultimate predecessor, the abbat of St. Martin’s had been the
archbishop of Tours, and, as we have seen, there are curious references
to a claim of St. Martin’s to have bishops of its own. This may have
caused tension, beyond that which was not very improbable under the
ordinary conditions.
Theodulf of Orleans was an old friend of Alcuin, and an admirer. He gives
to Alcuin a large place in his description of the court of Charlemagne.
Theodulf was a laudatory poet, and his poem was very properly meant to
please those whom he described. Of the king himself he says—
O face, face more shining than gold thrice refined,
Happy he who always is with thee.
The head illustrious, the chin, the neck so beautiful,
The hands of gold, that banish poverty.
The breast, the legs, the feet, all laudable,[224]
All shining forth in beauty and in strength.
The latest wife of the king, Luitgard, has eight pretty lines devoted
to her, after an inauspicious opening address to “the fair virago,
Luitgard”. This dates the poem before 801, in which year Luitgard died at
Tours. The tower of St. Martin’s, now called the tower of Charlemagne,
was raised over her tomb.[225]
Alcuin was evidently a very prominent figure at court, keeping things
alive by his knowledge and wit and subtleties.
And Flaccus too is there, the glory of our poets,
Who pours forth many things in lyric foot.
An able sophist, a poet, too, melodious,
Able in mind and able in practice alike.
He brings forth pious lessons from Holy Writ,
And solves the puzzles of numbers with favouring jest.
He puts an easy question now, and then a hard;
Of this world now, then of the world above.
The king alone, of many that fain would,
Can solve the skilful puzzles Flaccus sets.
There was evidently no standing ill-feeling against the Abbat of St.
Martin’s on the part of the Bishop of Orleans.