Alcuin of York

by G. F. Browne

CHAPTER XIV

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.