VICTORINUS, Victor, Nicephorus, Claudian, Dioscorus,[69] Serapion, and Papias, were citizens of Corinth, and had witnessed a good confession before Tertius, the proconsul, in 249. They then passed into Egypt, for what reason is not stated, and were again called upon to confess Christ, in the reign of Numerian, in Diospolis, capital of the Thebaid, in 284, under Sabinus, the governor. After the governor had tried the constancy of the martyrs with the rack and scourge, he caused Victorinus to be thrown into a great marble mortar. The executioners began by pounding his extremities, saying to him, at every stroke, "Spare thy life, Victorinus, by abjuring thy new God." But, as he continued to maintain his steadfastness, by order of Sabinus they crushed his head and chest. Victor was threatened with the same death. He pointed to the mortar, stained with the blood and brains of his companions, and said, calmly, "My salvation and my true joy await me there!" He was immediately cast into it, and pounded to death. Nicephorus was impatient of delay, and leaped of his own accord into the mortar. He met with the same fate. Sabinus caused Claudian, the fourth, to be chopped to pieces, and his bleeding joints to be thrown at the feet of the survivors. He expired, after his feet, hands, arms, legs, and thighs had been cut off. The governor then, pointing to the mangled limbs and bleeding trunk, said to the three who remained, "It concerns you to escape this punishment; I do not compel you to suffer." The martyrs replied, with one accord, "We desire of thee to bid us suffer by the most excruciating pains thou canst devise, for never will we break our fidelity to God, and deny Jesus Christ, our Saviour, for He is our God, from whom we have our being, and to whom alone we aspire."

The tyrant then condemned Dioscorus to be roasted to death; Serapion was suspended by his heels and decapitated; and Papias was cast into the sea with a stone attached to his neck, and drowned.

This happened on Feb.25th, on which day these martyrs are commemorated in the Western Martyrologies; but the Greek MenÆa and the Menology of the Emperor Basil Porphyrogenitus honour them on January 31st, the day of their confession at Corinth.

SS. ANANIAS, P., AND COMP., MM.
(ABOUT A.D. 298.)

[Greek MenÆa, on Feb. 26th; Martyrology of Ado on Feb.25th. Inserted in many of the later Western Martyrologies, but in none of the earlier ones except that of Ado. Authority:—The notices in the Martyrologies, and an ancient MS. Acts of these saints found in the Monastery of Gladbach, which is, however, of very doubtful value.]

S. Ananias was a priest in Phoenicia, who was put to a terrible death by the governor for his testimony to the truth. After having been scourged till his back was a mass of wounds, salt and vinegar were rubbed into the exposed and bleeding flesh, and he was wrapped in a horse-hair garment so as still further to inflame and irritate the wounds. In prison he converted the gaoler, Peter. He was brought forth again, and slowly scorched on a grate over live coals; then salt was again applied to his sores, and the charred flesh was then cut off with a fish-slice. Peter was also exposed to a slow fire, and was then, with the priest, and seven believing soldiers, cast into the sea and drowned.

S. CÆSARIUS, C.
(ABOUT A.D. 369.)

[Roman Martyrology. Greek MenÆa on March 9th. Authority:—His life, written by his brother, S. Gregory Nazianzen.]

S. CÆsarius was given by his parents an excellent education, and, being a man of great natural parts, he soon distinguished himself for his accomplishments in all the known sciences. He became one of the first physicians of his day, and was urged by the Emperor Constantius to reside in the imperial city, but declined to do so. Julian the Apostate nominated him his first physician, and loaded him with marks of favour, without, however, being able to shake his Christian constancy. Jovian, who succeeded Julian, also honoured him, and finding that, moved by the remonstrances of his father and brother, CÆsarius had thrown up his appointment at the court of the Apostate, he recalled him. Valens created him keeper of the privy purse, and treasurer of Bithynia. A narrow escape in an earthquake at NicÆa, in 368, when almost all the chief men of that city were killed, moved him to renounce the world. He died shortly after, and was buried with great solemnity, his parents assisting at the funeral with lighted tapers in their hands, and his brother, S. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus, preaching his funeral oration.

S. ALDETRUDIS, V. ABSS.
(END OF 7TH CENT.)

[Molanus, Wyon, MirÆus, Menardus, Bollandus, &c., on this day; some other hagiographers on March 15th. Authority:—An ancient life, part of which formed the lections of the Breviary for the Collegiate Church of Mons, founded by S. Waldetrudis.]

The Abbey of Maubeuge, in France, on the Sambre, near the confines of Belgium, was founded by S. Aldegund (Jan.30th), sister of S. Waldetrudis (April 9th), wife of S. Vincent, a count, (July 14th), and aunt of the two holy daughters of this pious couple, S. Aldetrudis and S. Madelbertha (Sept.7th), who succeeded Aldegund as abbesses of Maubeuge. Aldetrudis was brought up by her saintly parents to tread the path of light and life from her earliest infancy. She chose the religious life, and entered the house founded and governed by her aunt, whom she succeeded. One little incident of her life has retained its hold on the popular memory, and is sometimes represented in art. Determined not to waste the precious wax from the altar and other candles, Aldetrudis melted up all the scrapings, drippings, and ends of the tapers in a large pot on the fire, but, when it was melted, the wax caught fire. Aldetrudis, thinking there was danger from the blaze, and not wishing to lose the wax, boldly caught the pot from the fire with both her hands, and placed it on the stone floor. The legend adds that though some of the melted wax ran over her hands she was not burnt.

Another story is to this effect. One evening she stood at the convent gate, looking out at an advancing thunderstorm. Presently there came a flash and a roar, which so frightened her that she cried out, "Lord Jesus, into Thy hands I commend my spirit!" Then there passed her the Lord Himself, shining out of the darkness, fairer than the sons of men, and comforted her with the words, "Be not afraid, I am with thee."

S. WALBURGA, V. ABSS.
(A.D. 779.)

[On this day the Martyrology bearing the name of Bede; also those of the metropolitan Churches of Prague, of Treves, and Utrecht; the Benedictine Kalendar; and as usually commemorated in Germany. But some give April 27th. No mention of S. Walburga in the French Martyrologies. Some give Feb.25th as the day of her Translation, others October 12th, others September 21st; but May 1st is the most solemn day of her Translation. Authority:—Her Life by a priest of Eichstadt in the following century; another life by Adelbold, B. of Maestrecht, d.1027; another by Eynwick, provost of S. Florian; another by an anonymous writer, and others later. Walburga is variously called Waldburga, Wilburga, Vaubone, Valpurgis, Vaubourg.]

The blessed Walburga was a daughter of S. Richard, West Saxon Thane, (Feb.7th), and sister of S. Willibald, (July 7th), and S. Wunnibald, (December 18th). These holy brothers accompanied their uncle, the great S. Boniface, (June 5th), apostle of Germany, on his mission, and are regarded and honoured as his fellow apostles. S. Walburga was educated from early childhood in the monastic calm of Wimbourne, in Dorsetshire, where she took the veil, and spent an untroubled youth till called by S. Boniface to Germany. Boniface had asked his kinswoman, the abbess Tatta, to send him a colony of nuns to found a religious house in the newly acquired provinces of the kingdom of Christ. She sent S. Lioba, with several under her, amongst whom was S. Walburga, and they settled at first at Bischofsheim, in the diocese of Mainz. Two years after she was appointed abbess of Heidenheim, a religious house founded by her brothers, Willibald, bishop of Eichstadt, and Wunnibald, who ruled an abbey of men. So great was her prudence and virtue, that on the death of Wunnibald, in 760, following the Anglo-Saxon precedent, Walburga was appointed to superintend the abbey of monks, as well as her own convent of nuns, and this double charge she executed till her death. S. Willibald translated the body of his brother to Eichstadt, in 776; and S. Walburga was present at the ceremony. She died in 779 or 780, but on what day is not mentioned by her biographer.

In art she is represented with a flask of oil, on account of the miraculous and fragrant oil which distilled from her relics in the church of S. Cross, at Eichstadt; or with three ears of corn, with which she is said to have cured and satisfied a girl afflicted with a ravenous appetite.

Her relics were translated in 870, to Eichstadt, on Sept. 21st. A considerable part still remains there; another portion was carried by Baldwin the Bearded, Count of Flanders, in 1109, to the abbey of Furnes, near Ostend, where they are still preserved, and the festival of the translation is kept on May 1st. From Furnes, small portions have been distributed to churches in Antwerp, Brussels, Thiel, Arnheim, Zutphen, and GrÖningen. Other relics of this saint are said to be preserved at Prague, Cologne, Augsburg, and Hanover, and many were anciently distributed over Lorraine, Alsace, and Burgundy.

There can be no doubt that S. Walburga has inherited the symbols and much of the cultus anciently devoted to Walborg, or Walburg, the Earth Mother.

S. TARASIUS, PATR. OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
(A.D. 806.)

[By Greeks and Latins on the same day. Authority:—His life by Ignatius, deacon and keeper of the sacred vessels at Constantinople, afterwards bishop of NicÆa, a disciple of Tarasius; also the Church historians of the period.]

The Incarnation of God was the descent of the Most High to the level of human necessity. Man had found a difficulty in believing in and loving the Infinite; human language failed to express the nature of God save by a multitude of abstractions and negations. He was not limited, had no localized habitation, was not comprehensible by man; so the philosophers taught, and so they strove to make men believe; men made the effort, believed, and in the effort, their devotion expired. The philosophers had lifted God into the region of an idea, and in so doing, had divested him of personality; and when His personality was lost, all interest in Him died away. God was to them an object of speculation, not an object of worship. God the Father, knowing man's natural incapacity for realizing the Godhead, sent His Son into the world clothed in flesh. Man had now a God-Man, whose nature and personality had been brought vividly before him to believe in and to love. God was "manifest in the flesh," the visible and the invisible, the spiritual and the material, the finite and the infinite, the local and the omnipresent were united in One. Thenceforth the law of God's dealings with man was to be in accordance with his natural capacities, the visible was to become the medium of the invisible, the material the vehicle of the spiritual, the omnipresent adorable through a local presence, the infinite discernible through the finite. In Jesus Christ men saw God and lived; and when He was withdrawn from the eyes of men, He did not leave them orphans, but perpetuated his presence in the Holy Eucharist, even unto the end of the world.

In the old heathen world men had been idolaters or philosophers. The idolater saw in the material image his God; the philosopher declared that God was everywhere present, and he despised the idol. Christianity combined in one the truth taught by the philosopher, and the craving felt by the idolater. Through the sacraments as outward and visible means, grace was conveyed to man, chiefly through the Holy Eucharist; and through sacred images and the holy cross, worship was addressed to God. Through the seen to the unseen, to God; from the unseen through the seen to man, is the law of the Incarnation.

At first, on account of the idolatry which surrounded them, the early Christians did not deem it prudent to introduce images into their churches. Idolatry was so prevalent, that the first lesson they had to insist upon to the heathen, was the omnipresence of God; but when heathenism was conquered, the danger of idolatry ceased, and the peril was in the other direction; men began to insist on the infinity of the essence of the Godhead, and to deny the possibility of His becoming local by incarnation. They were ready to admit that Christ was inspired with a divine afflatus, but not that He was very and eternal God. Then, at once, it became necessary for the Church to use her every effort to impress on men's minds and hearts the truth that God had become very man, of the substance of His mother. Then pictures and images were introduced into churches. We must remember that the Church, to defend the truth, had to assume successively opposite positions, for the truth was double,—if we are to understand how she first opposed images, and then defended them. She did not contradict herself, her attitude was forced upon her, to maintain a two-fold truth.

The use of images was commonly received in the east, when the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, resolved to abolish the practice. The contest began about the year 725. He was opposed by Pope Gregory II., Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, and S. John Damascene. The first wrote vehemently to him on this subject. He maintained that the Word by having rendered Himself visible in taking a human body, subjected Himself to all conditions of a man, and that as it was lawful to represent any man, emperor or prince, so it was lawful to make representations of Christ. But, said he, Christians do not worship the cloth on which the picture is painted, nor the stone out of which the statue is hewn, but they use these visible representations as means of renewing the memory of the saints, and of raising up the mind to God. He denied that images received divine honours, but if "Lord Jesus, save us," be said before an image of Christ, "Holy Mother of God, intercede with Thy Son for us," before one of the Virgin, and "Intercede for us," before one of a Martyr; these prayers are not addressed to the image, but to Christ, or the Holy Virgin, or the Saint whom the figure is designed to portray.

Constantine Copronymus, the son of Leo, followed in his father's steps, and for the better establishing his purpose, he called together a council (a.d. 754) at Constantinople, composed of 338 bishops. It began its sittings in February and ended in August. The Western Church, and the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, were not represented at this council, which was thus composed of prelates under the immediate control of the emperor, gathered together in his imperial city, surrounded by guards, and, unfortunately, the majority of these bishops partook of that time-serving and obsequious disposition which characterised and disgraced the episcopal order in the Eastern Empire for many centuries. This council decreed the destruction of images in churches, and the erasure of paintings on the walls.[70]

By the authority of the emperor, a great part of the Eastern Church received and executed this decree; but Irene, who had married Leo the Fourth, son of Constantine Copronymus, though a cruel, ambitious woman, espoused, perhaps out of caprice, the opposite side, and on the death of her husband, during the minority of her son Constantine, who was but ten years old, assumed the regency, and stopped the savage persecution of the monks, and the ruthless destruction of images which had proceeded without intermission through the three preceding reigns. Paul III., patriarch of Constantinople, had been raised to that dignity by the late emperor. Being a timid man, desirous of remaining in favour with court, he had bowed to the will of the emperor in the matter of images. But he was a good and charitable man, greatly beloved by the poor. Finding that the Iconoclasts were now out of favour, and fearing for himself, he suddenly resigned his patriarchal see, and took refuge in a monastery.

The empress and her son visited him, and endeavoured to dissuade him from his intention, but found him resolved. Tarasius, an officer of the court, noted for his piety, was then appointed patriarch, in spite of his urgent remonstrance. He declared that he would not accept the office till a council had been called, which exhibited those marks of being oecumenical which the former council had lacked, and which might compose the differences which had agitated the Eastern Church. This being agreed to, he was solemnly declared patriarch, and was consecrated soon after, on Christmas Day.

His first act was to write synodal letters to the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, convening a general council. Pope Adrian sent two priests to act as his legates, and the Eastern bishops did the same. The council assembled on the 1st August, 786, in the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople, but a tumult having broken out, and the soldiers having besieged the bishops in the church, and endeavoured to break up the council, it was adjourned till the following year, when it met at NicÆa. The papal legates sat in the first place, then Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, then the deputies of the Eastern bishops, who were themselves unable to attend because not permitted by the Saracen conquerors, afterwards Agapetus, bishop of CÆsarea, in Cappadocia, John, bishop of Ephesus, Constantine, metropolitan of Cyprus, with 250 bishops and archbishops, and above 100 priests and monks, and two commissioners of the emperor and empress to maintain order.

The first session was held on the 24th September, 787, in the Church of S. Sophia; it opened with the reading of the letter of the empress Irene and the emperor, wherein they assured to the bishops that they had assembled the synod with the consent of the patriarchs, and that they left the bishops at full liberty to speak their minds; that Paul, the last patriarch of Constantinople, acknowledging his fault in having received the decrees of the council of the Iconoclasts, had quitted his see, and had caused Tarasius to be elected in his room; that Tarasius had refused the dignity, but having been urged to accept it, had required a council to be held to suppress the schism which divided the Church on the subject of images; and that, therefore, in accordance with his request, this council was convened. In conclusion, the empress and her son exhorted the bishops to judge truthfully and courageously, in accordance with Catholic doctrine and practice; and they said that letters had been received from Pope Adrian, which should be read to the assembly.

After this many of the prelates who had taken part with the Iconoclasts, or had submitted to the decrees, seeing that the direction of the courtly breeze had changed, veered round with obsequious readiness. Such were, Basil, bishop of Ancyra, Theodosius of Myra, Theodosius of Amorn, Hypatius of NicÆa, and others, who now acknowledged that they reverenced sacred images.

In the next session the letters of Pope Adrian were read, declaring the utility of images as means of teaching the ignorant, and of awakening piety and compunction. He demanded also that all archbishops of his patriarchate should receive ordination from the bishop of Rome, and that the primacy of the see of Rome should receive general recognition, as also that the patriarch of Constantinople should be prevented from assuming the title of "Universal Bishop." These latter articles were not transcribed by the Greek fathers. Dupin, the judicious historian, suggests that probably the legates of the Pope did not judge it prudent at that moment to present them. A letter from Adrian to Tarasius was then read, expressing the trouble given to the Pope by the news of the nomination of a layman to the influential see of Constantinople, and exhorting him to procure the condemnation of the synod which had forbidden images in churches. After the reading of this letter, the Papal legates asked Tarasius whether he approved of it. He answered that he did, and that he did reverently honour the images of Christ, the Holy Virgin, and the saints, but that to God alone was due true adoration and worship (latria). Of this the synod approved. Our English word worship has got at the present time a meaning which it had not of old. Worship now means to adore as God, with supreme reverence; and such worship may not be given to creatures, however exalted; but the old signification of the word had not this force, but was synonymous with reverence. Thus, in the Anglican prayer book, in the marriage service, the husband says to the wife, "With my body I thee worship," i.e., honour; and magistrates are called the "worshipful." When Protestants accuse Catholics of worshipping images, in one sense they are right, but in another sense they are wrong. Catholics do worship sacred images so far as to render them respect and honour, but they do not give to them that honour which is implied by the word "worship" in its modern sense. In the old signification of the word, the sailor worships the quarterdeck when he touches his cap on passing it, the soldier worships the royal standard when he presents arms to it, and the peers the throne when they bow to it on taking their places in the House of Lords.

In the third session of the council, a letter from the patriarch of Jerusalem, approved by his bishops, was read, wherein he acknowledged that reverence and honour were to be shown to sacred images. In subsequent sessions the acts of the Iconoclastic Council at Jerusalem were examined and refuted in order, and the council closed with the usual acclamations and prayers for the prosperity of the emperor and empress; after which synodal letters containing the decrees were sent to all churches. Pope Adrian approved of all that had been decreed, and sent copies of the Acts into France, where pictures and images were used historically, but no honour, such as burning candles or offering of incense before them, was allowed. On receiving these copies, Charlemagne wrote, or caused to be written, or put forth under his name, a work containing an examination of the decrees of the second council of NicÆa, by some of the bishops, of whom Alcuin was chief. This contained a repudiation of these Acts, and a rejection of image-worship. It maintained that respect was due to pictures and statues of the Saviour and the Saints, but refused the right of offering them any sort of religious honour, as by lighting candles and incensing them. This work was presented to Pope Adrian by Engilbert, the ambassador of Charlemagne, and it drew forth from the pope an answer which, however, did not alter the practice of the Gallican Church, for in the Council of Frankfort, held in 794, the decrees relative to the worshipping of images passed by the second Council of NicÆa were rejected, as was the case again in a council held at Paris, in 824. Tarasius, in the meantime, obedient to the decrees of the synod, restored holy images throughout the extent of his patriarchate. His life was a model of perfection to both clergy and laity. He lived a quiet, austere life, in the midst of magnificence and luxury. He reduced to the smallest possible amount the expenses of his household, and gave to the poor what he had economised. He often took the dishes of meat from his table to distribute among them with his own hands: and he assigned them a large annual revenue. And that none might be overlooked, he visited every house and hospital in Constantinople. His discourses turned on the mortification of the senses, and he was particularly severe against all theatrical entertainments, which served then to encourage and diffuse licentiousness. Some time after, the emperor became enamoured of Theodota, a maid of honour to his wife, the empress Mary, and, after having spent seven years in marriage, in 795, he resolved to divorce the empress. He used every effort to gain the patriarch. He sent an officer to him to inform him that a plot of the empress to poison him had been discovered. S. Tarasius, however, received the request to divorce the emperor, and marry him to Theodota, with a stern refusal. "Tell him that I will rather suffer death and all manner of torments than consent to his design." The emperor, hoping to prevail with him by flattery, sent for him to the palace, and said, "I can conceal nothing from you, whom I regard as my father. No one can deny but I may divorce one who has attempted my life. The Empress Mary deserves death or perpetual penance." He then produced a vessel, full of the poison, which he pretended she had prepared for him. The patriarch, with good reason, judging this to be an attempt to impose upon him, answered, that he was too well convinced that his passion for Theodota was at the bottom of all his complaints against the empress. He boldly declared to Constantine that even if she were guilty of the crime laid to her charge, a second marriage during her lifetime would be adulterous. The monk John, who had been legate of the Eastern patriarchs in the council at NicÆa, being present, also spoke resolutely to the emperor, who was so irritated that he drove them both out of his presence, and John narrowly escaped with his life. As soon as they were gone, he turned the empress Mary out of the palace and obliged her to assume the veil. Tarasius persisted in his refusal to marry him to Theodota, and the ceremony was performed by Joseph, the treasurer of the church of Constantinople. The patriarch became thenceforth an object of persecution to the emperor, who placed spies about his person, suffered no one to speak with him without their leave, and banished many of his relations and servants. This confinement gave the patriarch more leisure for prayer and contemplation. In the meantime, the ambitious Irene, discontented at being no longer at the head of the administration, formed a conspiracy to dethrone her son. The secret was faithfully kept above eight months, till the emperor, suspicious of his danger, escaped from Constantinople, with the design of appealing to the provinces and armies. By this hasty flight the empress was left on the brink of a precipice. She addressed a private epistle to the friends whom she had placed about his person with a menace that, unless they accomplished, she would reveal, their treason. Their fear rendered them intrepid. They seized the emperor on the Asiatic shore, and transported him to Constantinople, where his mother and the other conspirators decided to render him incapable of the throne by blinding him. Her emissaries assaulted the sleeping prince, and stabbed their daggers into his eyes. He survived for several years, oppressed by the court, and forgotten by the world; whilst his unnatural mother resumed the sovereign power, of which he had divested her by becoming of age. She reigned for five years, during which she recalled all the banished, and favoured the Catholics. But she was in turn conspired against by the high treasurer, Nicephorus, who was secretly invested with the purple, and crowned at S. Sophia by the patriarch. The empress was sent into exile in the isle of Lesbos, where she was obliged to earn a scanty subsistence by the labours of her distaff, till her haughty spirit consuming her, she died of grief. Under Nicephorus, S. Tarasius persevered peaceably in his practices of penance, and in the functions of his pastoral charge. Through his last sickness he continued to offer daily the holy Sacrifice as long as he was able to move. A little before his death he fell into a trance, as the author of his life, who was an eye-witness of the scene, relates, wherein he was heard disputing with a number of accusers, very busy in sifting his whole life, and objecting to his actions. He seemed to be in fear and agitation, and defending himself against everything laid to his charge. This filled all present with fear, seeing the endeavours of the enemy of man to find some condemnation in the life of so holy and so irreprehensible a bishop. But a great serenity succeeded, and the holy man gave up his soul to God in peace, on the 25th of February, in 806, having sat twenty-one years and two months. God honoured his memory with miracles, some of which are related by the author of his life. His festival began to be celebrated under his successor.

B. ROBERT OF ARBRISSEL.
(A.D. 1117.)

[Authority:—His life, by Baldric, B. of DÔle (d.1130); and another attributed to Andrew, monk of Fontevrault, and his disciple.]

Robert of Arbrissel was born of poor parents, in a village of Brittany, then called Arbrissel, and now known as Arbresec, in the diocese of Rennes, near La Guierche, in the year 1045 or 1047. His father, Damalioc, who afterwards embraced a religious life, and his mother, Orvenda, were pious people who brought him up to love God above all things. When of an age to study, with their consent he went to several towns of his native province, to learn in the schools without being a charge to his parents; and, making great progress, he went to Paris, where he so distinguished himself that he became a doctor in the university. At this time Silvester de la Guierche, Chancellor of Conon II., duke of Brittany, was placed upon the episcopal throne of Rennes, but being desirous of relieving himself of his duties on various accounts, he chose Robert, and appointed him his vicar-general, with absolute power in the diocese. Robert employed his authority in restoring ecclesiastical discipline, putting down simony, prohibiting incestuous marriages amongst the laity, and in enforcing clerical celibacy. As long as Silvester de la Guierche was alive, Robert was safe from the enemies his discipline had aroused, but, on the death of his protector, he was obliged to leave Brittany, and take refuge in Angers, where he gave lessons in theology. But, wishing to consecrate himself entirely to God, he quitted Angers, and buried himself in the forest of Craon, in Anjou, where he lived in great austerity, wearing a habit of pig skin, and eating roots and wild fruit. His fame as a second S. John the Baptist, having been bruited about, great numbers came to place themselves under his direction, so that he speedily saw his forest solitude invaded by many hundreds of anchorites. The number became at length so great as to oblige him to disperse them through the neighbouring forests. Not being able to watch over all, he divided them into three colonies, of which he retained one, and gave the others to two of his disciples: the B. Vitalis of Mortain, who founded the order of Savigny; and the B. Raoul de la Futaye, founder of the abbey of S. Sulpice, at Rennes.

Robert was obliged to quit his retired life, and preach the Crusade, by order of Pope Urban II. He, therefore, placed his colony under the care of the bishop of Angers, and undertook the execution of the task imposed upon him. On the confines of Anjou and Poitou, about four miles from the little town of Candes, was an extensive tract of undulating land, covered with bushes, and wholly uncultivated; a little valley, traversed by a slender stream in this district, bore the name of Fontevrault. Here, in 1099, Robert began to build some huts to shelter his followers, and here he settled to found a new colony. Many religiously disposed persons of both sexes, young and old, gathered round him, and Robert found it necessary to establish distinct residences for the men and for the women, each with its own separate oratory. The work of the women was to sing continually the praises of God; that of the men was, between their spiritual exercise, the tillage of the soil. Charity, unity, modesty, and gentleness, prevailed in this singular colony. All lived on what their hands produced, or on the alms sent them; and they bore the name of "The poor of Jesus Christ."

The example of these new solitaries attracted great numbers, many of whom had only an imperfect or a mistaken vocation. Women who had led dissolute lives, feeling a passing compunction, hastened thither, assumed the outward profession, waxed cold, and gave great scandal by fresh lapses. This drew forth severe censure from Marbod, bishop of Rennes, and Godfrey, abbot of VendÔme. The former wrote to Robert a letter full of reproach, in which he told him that he had quitted the Order of the Regular Canons to run after women, and that the colony of Fontevrault was a scandal to the Church, through the confinement of some of the women, and the cries of new born babes; and he rebuked him for having given the religious habit to persons who asked for it, without having previously tested their sincerity. The letter of Godfrey of VendÔme, was couched in a similar strain of remonstrance; but he went further, and, trusting to hearsay, reprimanded Robert for associating too freely with the females of his Order, and seeing them in private without the presence of witnesses. Some have supposed these letters to be spurious, but without sufficient grounds. A man of great singleness of mind and guilelessness of spirit is easily deceived by the professions of others, and is liable to be led into actions which, with more worldly wisdom, he would avoid as indiscreet. Indeed, the formation of this double society was hardly consistent with prudence, and Robert found it necessary to keep it within the bounds of severe and vigilant prescriptions, to prevent the recurrence of those scandals which had called forth the reprimand of Marbod and the abbot of VendÔme. Godfrey was afterwards so thoroughly convinced that he was in error in attributing evil to the saintly Robert, that he became his ardent champion. Robert erected three convents, strictly enclosed, for the women: one for virgins and widows, called the Grand Moutier, was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin; another for penitents, was placed under the patronage of S. Mary Magdalene; and a third, for leprous and infirm women, was dedicated to S. Lazarus. The house of the men was completely distinct, and was placed under the invocation of S. John the Divine. One large church was erected to serve the four houses, and the whole community was placed by Robert under the supreme direction of an abbess; and he set the example of submission, by appointing Petronilla de Craon, widow of the Baron de Chemille, Superior to the Order, and he lived in obedience to her till his death, which took place on February 25th, 1117.

[69] Or Diodorus.

[70] The Iconoclastic party was not actuated by any religious feeling, but was simply that of free-thinkers, as the Protestant and very prejudiced ecclesiastical historian Gieseler is constrained to admit. He says, "the enlightenment party, the opponents of images, was not created by a religious feeling, but merely by the emperor's will, and thus partly fostered a superficial, free-thinking, rather than a beneficial reformatory tendency."