Urban Viii. (Barberini.)
In August, 1623, Cardinal Barberini was elected pope. His promotion was hailed by scientific men with enthusiasm. He had proved himself the friend of Galileo, and on his accession addressed a letter to the Grand-Duke of Tuscany, felicitating him on the glory redounding to Etruria by reason of the genius and discoveries of Galileo.
Meantime, in 1618, Galileo had published hisTheory of the Tides, chiefly noted for its hostile tone of sarcasm, and its scientific incorrectness. He had also been deeply occupied with his method of finding the longitude at sea, and imagined he had succeeded. He was, however, mistaken. His method was a failure.
Galileo's Third Visit To Rome
was made in the spring of 1624. He was again enthusiastically received, and admitted to six long and gratifying audiences with Urban, whose kindness was most marked. Galileo returned home laden with presents, besides a pension from Urban of one hundred crowns yearly, and another of sixty pounds for his son Vincenzo.
"Thus," says theEdinburgh Review, "did the Roman pontiff propitiate the excited spirit of the philosopher, and declare before the Christian world that he was neither the enemy of Galileo nor of science."
And now, honored with all these marks of esteem, confidence, and favor; with the fullest license to prosecute his researches and publish his discoveries, provided only that he abstained from any theological complication by dragging the Scriptures into the discussion, how did Galileo act?
But before answering the question, let us pause a moment to see what was the condition and reputation, at Rome itself, of astronomical research in the direction of the new doctrines, and the estimate in which they were held.
Astronomy In Rome.
The papal court was filled with the personal friends and adherents of Galileo and his system. The Pope; Ciampoli, his private secretary; Castelli, his mathematician; Caesarini, the Grand Chamberlain, and the most distinguished among the cardinals, were known to entertain the Copernican doctrine. The distinguished Jesuit Torquato de Cuppis was delivering lectures in the Roman College in support of Copernicanism. At the Sapienza another Jesuit gave similar lectures. Yet another, the distinguished Scheiner, advanced the system with observations and discoveries, and, says Bailli, was the first astronomer who observed and explained (Sol ellipticus) the elliptic form which the sun takes in approaching the horizon. The celebrated work of the Carmelite friar Foscarini, at Naples, was published for Roman circulation, and boldly argued not only the Copernican hypothesis in all its fulness, but its consistency with Scripture. But more than and beyond all this, the chair of astronomy in the pope's own university of Bologna, vacant by the death of Magini in 1616, was tendered to Kepler; thus offering the teaching of heretical astronomy to a Protestant heretic, who was if not the most active yet the most efficient advocate of Copernicanism!
Indeed, it may be remarked, since Kepler's name is mentioned, that astronomers were far better off in Catholic Italy than in Protestant Germany; for while Galileo was teaching in peace and honor from his professor's chair at Padua, Kepler and Tycho Brahe met for the first time at Prague. Protestant exiles from Protestant lands, they found in the munificent protection of Rudolph safe asylum and an appreciation of their scientific merits denied them at home.
Tycho Brahe.
Hostility was excited against Brahe at the court of Denmark, and, on the ground of an exhausted treasury and theinutilityof his studies, he was degraded from his office, deprived of his canonry, his pension, and his Norwegian estate, and both his wife and family obliged to seek shelter in a foreign land. His injuries and sufferings preyed upon his mind, and he survived only two years the shameful treatment he had received at the hands of his Lutheran countrymen. Lalande, in referring to the persecution of Tycho Brahe, holds up the Minister Walchendorf to execration and infamy.
Kepler
was forced to leave home, to accept a professorship at the Catholic University of Gratz. Why? Wolfgang Menzel informs us, (Geschichte der Deutschen, vol. ii. p. 645:) "The theologians of Tübingen condemned his discovery, because the Bible teaches that the sun revolves about the earth, and not the earth about the sun. He was about to suppress his book, when an asylum was opened at Gratz. The Jesuits, who better knew how to prize his scientific talent, retained him, although he openly avowed his Lutheranism. It was only at home that he suffered persecution, and it was with difficulty that he succeeded in saving his own mother from being burnt alive as a witch." [Footnote 129]
[Footnote 129: For other remarkable features of this persecution, seeJohann Kepler's Leben und Werken, von G. L. C. Freiherrn von Breitschwert.]
If we maybe permitted such homely phrase, English literature "draws it very mild" when obliged to refer to the shameful treatment of Kepler and Tycho Brahe. Their persecutors were the Protestant theologians of Tübingen, and the Lutheran ministers of the Danish court. Consequently, these barbarous transactions are always delicately alluded to when not suppressed, and are but little known. If these preachers had been Roman priests and cardinals—ah! then indeed! As astronomer, Kepler's first task was to draw up the Styrian Calendar for 1594. This only served to add fuel to the flames of the wrath of the Würtemberg divines, inasmuch as Kepler used the Gregorian calendar. Having no antipathy to popes as such, he was willing to take the good and the useful without asking whence it came, and gladly used the better measure of time.
The Academic Senate straightway addressed Duke Louis in protest against the introduction of the detested papal calendar; and their memorial is so eminently characteristic and comical that we cannot deny our readers the enjoyment of its perusal. Here it is:
"A Christian, sensible, and good-hearted governor knows that in reformations of this kind he should take counsel of the ministers of the church. As long as the kings of Judah followed the counsel of the prophets and other highly enlightened ministers of the church, they ruled laudably and well—pleasing unto God. It is only when the temporal power is in a member of the true church of God that it has authority, with the counsel of the ministers of the church, to change the outward ceremonies of the church.
"As the emperor holds the pope to be the vicar of Christ on earth, it is not to be wondered at that he has introduced his calendar into his hereditary dominions, and sent it to the estates of the Roman empire. Julius Caesar had not members of his empire who were lords and rulers themselves like the estates of the present Roman empire. The imperial majesty understands itself, and, in its letter to the estates, merely gives them to understand that this accommodating themselves to his word will give the highest satisfaction.
"But the new calendar has manifestly been devised for the furtherance of the idolatrous popish system, and we justly hold the pope to be a cruel, devouring, bear-wolf. If we adopt his calendar, we must go into the church when he rings for us. Shall we have fellowship with Antichrist? And what concord is there between Christ and Belial?
"Should he succeed through the imperial authority in fastening his calendar about our neck, he would bring the cord in such a way about our horns that we could no longer defend ourselves against his tyranny in the church of God.
"The pope hereby grasps at the electoral hats of the princes of the empire. If the new calendar be not generally adopted, the world will not go to ruin on that account. Summer will not come sooner or later if the vernal equinox should be set a few days further back or forward in the calendar; no peasant will be so simple as, on account of the calendar, to send out his reapers at Whitsuntide, or the gatherers into his vineyard at St. James' day. These are merely the pretexts of the people who stroke the foxtail of the pope and would not be thought to do so. Satan is driven out of the Christian church. We will not let him slip in again through his representative the pope."
And since we speak of Kepler, it may here be remarked that the appreciation in which Galileo and Kepler are held in general historical literature is far from according with the estimate of scientific men. It is assumed that Galileo was persecuted, and that the church was his persecutor. Elevated on the pedestal of his trial at Rome, the man of science is lost in the martyr, and the Tuscan philosopher appears in bold relief on the page of history, while Kepler, the greater astronomer, remains invisible. It is thought, and not without reason, that, but for the Inquisition, the relative reputation of these two great men would be reversed, and the transcendent genius of Galileo's Lutheran contemporary, the legislator of the planets, have been long since recognized. In their anxiety to make the strongest possible case against Rome, anti-Catholic writers have, some perhaps unconsciously, and some with set purpose, greatly exaggerated all the abilities and good qualities of Galileo, and invested him with a superiority far from merited. To believe them, one must look upon Galileo as immeasurably excelling all his predecessors and contemporaries—centring within himself almost superhuman qualities of research and scientific attainment. Merit, talent, genius, Galileo certainly possessed; but tried by a scientific standard, it was inferior to that of the more modest and less clamorous Kepler.
Galileo's true and enduring merit as founder of the modern science of dynamics, and as the author of the grandly suggestive principle of the virtual velocities, is entirely overlooked to claim for him a position in modern astronomy which cannot justly be accorded to him except as secondary to Copernicus, to Kepler, and probably to Newton. The preeminence claimed for the Tuscan astronomer will not stand the test of examination. With English readers, it mainly rests on Hume's celebrated parallel between Bacon and Galileo. "The discoveries of Kepler," remarks Professor Playfair, "were secrets extracted from nature by the most profound and laborious research. The astronomical discoveries of Galileo, more brilliant and imposing, were made at a far less expense of intellectual labor." [Footnote 130]
[Footnote 130: M. Thomas Henri Martin, author of the very latest work on Galileo, is not at all of the Scotch professor's opinion, but follows and even surpasses Hume in laudation of Galileo.]
Martyrs Of Science.
But to return. If, besides Kepler and Tycho Brahe, another martyr of science is needed, he may be seen in the person of Descartes, hunted clown by the Protestant churchmen of Holland.
Nay, if suffering science herself is looked for, she may be found in the Gregorian calendar, for more than a century refused admission or recognition by an English parliament that would rather quarrel with all the stars in heaven than count time with Rome! "Truth," as Hallam remarks, "being no longer truth when promulgated by the pope!" Among the very few men in all England who treated the Gregorian calendar with any degree of politeness was Lord Chesterfield, then a member of parliament. He writes, (March 18th, 1751, old style,) "The Julian calendar was erroneous, and had overcharged the solar year with eleven days. Pope Gregory XIII. corrected this error. His reformed calendar was immediately received by all the Catholic powers of Europe, and afterward adopted by all the Protestant ones except Russia, Sweden, and England. It was not, in my opinion, very honorable for England to remain in a gross and avowed error, especially in such company. The inconvenience of it was likewise felt by all those who had foreign correspondences, whether political or mercantile."
Lord Chesterfield was mainly instrumental in getting up the bill for its introduction. On mentioning the project to the prime minister, the Duke of Newcastle, then in the zenith of his power, the noble duke seemed most conservatively alarmed at such an undertaking, and conjured the earl (Chesterfield) not to stir matters that had long been quiet; adding that he did not love new-fangled things. Lord Mahon, in his history, gives several curious instances of the resentment of the English people against those who aided in bringing about the change in the calendar; thus, when in 1754 Lord Macclesfield's son stood a great contested election in Oxfordshire, one of the most vehement cries raised against him was, "Give us back the eleven days we have been robbed of!" and even several years later, when Bradley, the astronomer, worn down by his labors in the cause of science, was sinking under mortal disease, many of the common people ascribed his sufferings to a judgment of Heaven for having taken part in that infamous undertaking.
Suffering science may again be found in England in the person of Alban Francis, insultingly refused the degree of A.M. by the University of Cambridge in 1687, but afterward mockingly offered it on condition that he—a Benedictine monk—should take the state oath pronouncing the Catholic religion damnable and idolatrous, when it was well known that the degree had been given to men of every variety of nationality and religious profession, even in one case to the Mohammedan secretary of the ambassador of Morocco!
Suffering science again in the English statutes, 7th Will. III., ch. 4, s. 1 and 9, by virtue of which:
1. If a Catholic in Ireland kept school, or taught any person any species of literature or science, such teacher was punishable by law with banishment; and if he returned, he was subjectto be hanged as a felon.
2. If a Catholic child received literary instruction from a Catholic, either privately or at school, such child, even though in its infancy, incurred a forfeiture of all its property present or future.
3. And thus deprived of the means of knowledge, if the Catholic child went into a foreign country for education, the child incurred the same penalty, as also the person making any remittance of goods or money for its maintenance!
Suffering science again, within but a few years, in the persons of such geological writers as Dr. Buckland, denounced by leading English periodicals and respectable quarterlies—recognized organs of Protestant opinion—(each one a special, self-constituted, oecumenical councilad hoc,) for assigning dates to rocks and fossil remains, which were supposed by alarmed Protestant theologians to vary from the Mosaic accounts.
We present these facts not by way of the justification that, ignorance and persecution being alleged to exist on the Catholic side, there are also such things as Protestant persecution and ignorance; for the one will not excuse the other, any more than two wrongs will make a right.
Pass your own conscientious verdict, reader, on all these transactions, and bear in mind that Galileo's real enemies were of the same class of men who persecuted Kepler in Würtemberg, Tycho Brahe in Denmark, and Descartes in Holland. The first were Catholic, all the last were Protestants; but all were adherents of the old Ptolemaic system and the Aristotelian philosophy. And that was the field on which the battle was fought in Italy, until Galileo insisted on dragging in the Scriptures. The pope and the cardinals esteemed and honored Galileo personally, and, as we see, were far from being in the Peripatetic ranks.
But how did Galileo act after leaving Rome in 1616, and why was he, of all the well-known Copernicans, singled out for prosecution?
Whence The Change?
How came it about? Were there elements in the controversy other than scientific? Was it, or not, the fault of Galileo that the question was shifted from the safe repose of the scientific basis on which it had remained more than fourscore years?
Now we could readily answer these questions thoroughly in very few words, feeling certain, in advance, that the reply would be satisfactory to our Catholic readers. But, writing for the general public, we prefer to present the results ascertained in this much vexed matter by historians, astronomers, and men of science removed by nationality and by religion from any possible bias.
"It was not the doctrine itself," says Mr. Drinkwater, "so much as the free, unyielding manner in which it was supported, which was originally obnoxious."
"The church party," admits Sir David Brewster, "were not disposed to interfere with the prosecution of science, however much they may have dreaded its influence."
In the opinion of Dr. Whewell, "Under the sagacious and powerful sway of Copernicus, astronomy had effected a glorious triumph; but under the bold and uncompromising sceptre of Galileo, all her conquests were irrevocably lost." And he adds, referring to the misfortunes that assailed the reformers of philosophy, "But the most unfortunate were, for the most part, the least temperate and judicious." (Philosophy of Discovery, pp. 101-2.)
Even Fra Paolo (Sarpi) thought that if Galileo had been less impetuous and more prudent, he need not have had the slightest difficulty.
Tiraboschi expresses himself to the same effect. And Alberi, the learned editor of the only complete edition of Galileo's works, says: "Crediamo col Tiraboschi, che il fervore e l'impetuosità sua contribuissero ad irritare gli avversari del sistema Copernico."
"It is doubtless an extraordinary fact," says theEdinburgh Review, (October, 1837,) "in the history of the human mind, that the very same doctrines which had been published with impunity by Copernicus, and in a work, too, dedicated to the Roman Pontiff, Paul III., for the avowed purpose of sheltering them under his sacred aegis, should, nearly a hundred years afterward, when civilization had made some progress, have subjected Galileo to all the terrors of the Inquisition. If we study, however, the conduct of Galileo himself, and consider his temper and tone of mind, and his connection with a political party unfriendly to religion, as well as to papal government, we shall be at no loss to account for the different feelings with which the writings of Copernicus and Galileo were received. Had the Tuscan philosopher been a recluse student of nature who, like Copernicus, announced his opinions as accessions to knowledge, and not as subversive of old and deeply cherished errors; had he stood alone as the fearless arbiter and champion of truth, the Roman pontiffs would, probably, like Paul III., have tolerated the new doctrine; and like him, too, they might probably have embraced it. But Galileo contrived to surround the truth with every variety of obstruction. The tide of knowledge which had hitherto advanced in peace, he crested with angry breakers; and he involved in its surf both his friends and his enemies. When the more violent partisans of the church, in opposition to the wishes of some of its higher functionaries, and spurred on by the school-men and the personal enemies of Galileo, had fixed the public attention upon the obnoxious doctrine, it would not have been easy for the most tolerant pontiff to dismiss charges of heresy and irreligion without some formal decision on the subject."
The astronomer Délambre: "On aurait passé à Galileo, de parler en mathématicien de l'excellence de la nouvelle hypothèse; mais on soutenait qu'il devait abandonner aux théologiens l'interpretation de l'Ecriture." (It was free to Galileo to speak as a mathematician of the merit of the new doctrine; but it was claimed that he should leave interpretation of Scripture to the theologians.)
The historian Hallam: "For eighty years the theory of the earth's motion had been maintained without censure, and it could only be the greater boldness of Galileo which drew upon him the notice of the church."
Philarète Chasles, (Professor in the College of France:) "Galileo, a man of vast and fertile intellect, was not in advance of his age and country; he was incapable either of defending the truth or eluding the efforts of those who endeavored to destroy it. In his contests with the latter, he showed neither grandeur of mind nor frankness of character. Unstable, timorous, equivocating, and supple," etc., etc.
Alfred von Reumont, many years Prussian minister at the Court of Tuscany, (see hisBeiträge zur Italienischen Geschichte, Berlin, 1853:) "Galileo's great mistake was, that he insisted on bringing into conformity with the Scriptures the doctrine of the earth's motion—a hypothetical and then incomplete doctrine, and one denied by many of the most learned, such as Bacon and Tycho Brahe.So that, in the interpretation of certain passages in the Bible, an arbitrary discretion was assumed which the Church, according to her invariable principles, could not concede to an astronomical doctrine as yet unproved."
Such citations as these might be multiplied indefinitely. But they are sufficient, and more than sufficient.
Copernicus, as we have seen, dedicated his great work to Pope Paul III., with these remarkable words: "Astronomers being permitted to imagine circles, to explain the motions of the stars, I thought myself equally entitled to examine if the supposition of the motion of the earth would make the theory of these appearances more exact and simple."
Eighty years had gone by, and the system had undergone no "persecution," in Italy at least. Galileo was now sixty years of age; nearly forty of these years had been passed, not only in the safe but triumphant and even aggressive and defiant vindication of his astronomical and physical doctrines, without let or hindrance save the warning not to trench on the theological view. But this he could not bring himself to consent to, and in 1618, in publishing hisTheory of the Tides, he indulged in a stream of sarcasm and insult against the decree of 1616. "The same hostile tone, more or less," says Drinkwater, "pervaded all his writings; and while he labored to sharpen the edge of his satire, he endeavored to guard himself against its effects by an affectation of the humblest deference to the decisions of theology." Nor was Galileo's letter to Christina forgotten. It was a letter, widely diffused at Rome and in Tuscany, in which he undertook to prove theologically, and from reasons drawn from the fathers, that the terms of Scripture might be reconciled with his new doctrines, etc. Délambre, Hallam, and Biot all take the same view of it.
The Celebrated Dialogues.
Galileo had now resolved to publish a work demonstrating the Copernican theory, or rather, his own views of the earth's motion. But he lacked the courage or the sincerity to do it in an open, straightforward manner, and adopted the plan of discussing it in a supposed dialogue held by three disputants. The two first, Sagredo and Salviati, are represented as accomplished and learned gentlemen, whose arguments are marked by talent and ability. The third, Simplicio, is an old Peripatetic, querulous and dogmatic, measuring everything by Aristotle, and accepting or rejecting accordingly.
This work, entitledThe System of the World of Galileo-Galilei, was completed in 1630; but, owing to the delays attending the procuring a certificate, it was not published until 1633. "It is prolix and diffuse," says Délambre, "with high estimate of his own discoveries, but depreciation of others." "Indeed, I would advise scholars," says Arago, "not to lose their time reading it."
More than one historian has remarked that, in obtaining the license to print, Galileo exhibited a dexterous management, tinged with bad faith. Biot mentions, "par quels detours il s'en procura une approbation a Rome;" Délambre speaks of his "manque absolu de sincérité;" and Sir David Brewster says, "His memory has not escaped the imputation of having acted unfairly, and of having involved his personal friends in the consequences of his imprudence."
In as few words as possible, the history of the license affair is as follows. The censor of new publications at Rome was Riccardi, a friend and pupil of Galileo, and devoted to his master. Anxious to oblige him, Riccardi examined the manuscript of the dialogues, suggested the change of some imprudent language, and required absolutely that the Copernican doctrine, dogmatically presented, should be—either in the exordium or peroration of the argument—produced simply as a mathematical hypothesis. Under these stipulations Riccardi returned the manuscript with his written approbation, only to be used when the suggested alterations should be made.
This was in 1630. In 1633, Galileo applied for leave to have his book printed in Florence. Riccardi, with full confidence in Galileo's fulfilment of his promises, merely inspected the beginning and end of the book, which was all that Galileo then submitted to his examination, and gave the desired leave to print.
The introduction, addressed, with an air of sarcasm, "to the discreet reader" was, to the last degree, imprudent. He speaks of the decree of 1616 in language at once ironical and insulting, and does not even spare his benefactors. In Simplicio, every one instantly recognized Urban VIII., who was naturally wounded beyond expression to find language put in Simplicio's mouth that he, Urban, had used to Galileo in a private conversation at his own table. And, as if to leave no doubt possible, Galileo says, in introducing these passages, that he had them from a most learned and eminent personage, ("già appreso da doctissima e eminentissima persona.")
Thus held up to ridicule and contempt, and made the butt of the severest irony and sarcasm, Urban was placed in the false position of the enemy of science, and forced into the attitude of an antagonist of his former friend—unless, indeed, he would consent to be dragged, a disgraced prisoner, at the chariot-wheels of Galileo's philosophy.
We do not refer, in speaking of Galileo's philosophy, to a mere astronomical theory, but to the philosophical and theological opinion which the actual condition of science, the ability of Galileo's adversaries, and the treacherous counsels of his false friends had forced him to couple with it.
Alberi, who is high authority, denies that it was Galileo's intention to attack Urban VIII. through Simplicio. But Olivieri, quite as good authority, is of the contrary opinion.
We know certainly that Urban always maintained, in his conversations with Galileo, the worthlessness of the tidal theory, and told him plainly that he injured his position by resting upon it. Now, the tidal theory was precisely Galileo's cherished argument, and he devotes the whole of the fourth dialogue to its development.
Concluded In Our Next.
Translated From Der Katholik.
We must say something about St. Columbanus, and his labors in Luxeuil, Braganza, and Bobbio; and of St. Gall, the apostle of Alemania; for it was through these two that the ancient Irish Church did so much in Switzerland and south-western Germany.
Columbanus was born in the province of Leinster, about the year 534, when Christianity began to bear its first fruits in Ireland. While the child was yet in the womb, his mother saw, in a vision, as it were, a sun proceeding from her body and enlightening all parts of the world. The son whom she bore became in fact, through the light of his wisdom and the splendor of his virtues, a star in the church; not only in Ireland, but also in Burgundy, Alemania, and Italy. Instructed, from early youth, in grammar, rhetoric, geometry, and in the study of the holy Scriptures, he left his mother's house in manhood, in order to enter the monastery of Cluain-Inis, and consecrate himself entirely to God. In the year 565 he asked to be received among the monks of the monastery at Bangor, which the Abbot Comgall, equally distinguished by his personal sanctity as well as by the rigor of the discipline which he used in governing, ruled with applause. Columbanus became so remarkable here that Abbot Comgall entrusted him with the directorship of the schools. The fame of the new teacher spread far beyond the limits of Bangor, and the nobles of the land deemed themselves happy to be able to leave their sons to be educated by a man as well skilled in profane science as in Christian perfection. Gall, born in Ireland in 545, became one of his pupils. Columbanus and Gall taught and learned in a blessed abode. Three thousand monks were united in the monastery of Bangor, under Abbot Comgall, in common prayer, the practice of virtue, and a virtuous life. The monastery was built in the year 558, by Comgall, and was, in its first form, a collection of many cells and huts, somewhat straggling in their arrangement. Bangor was fruitful in holy men and apostolic missionaries. Many convents were founded from it. Comgall himself founded the monastery of Heth, in Scotland, A.D. 565, and the monastery of Cambar, and several other smaller communities, in Leinster. Comgall died on the 10th of May, 602, in the 85th year of his age, and the forty-fourth after the foundation of Bangor. Bangor was laid waste by the Danes in the year 823, afterward entirely destroyed by pirates, and on one day the Picts murdered 900 monks. Archbishop Malachy, of Armagh, re-erected Bangor. There now remains on the coast of the bay of Belfast, where the renowned cloister once stood, no vestige of its former greatness.
Columbanus had lived and taught a number of years in the cloister of Bangor, when the desire of travelling and announcing the gospel of Christ filled his soul. He was obliged, however, to make repeated requests before Abbot Comgall gave him permission to depart, and allowed him to choose a certain number of monks as his companions.Columbanus chose twelve, recommended himself to the prayers of the rest, and set out, after receiving the blessings of his abbot, with his chosen band about the year 589-590. We know the travels of Columbanus, and must mention them here. The chosen followers of the great apostle were: Gall, founder of Saint Gall, and apostle of Alemania; Cominnius, Emroch, and Equanach, Lua, and Patentianus, afterwards made bishop of Constance, in Armorica, where he erected a monastery; Antiernus, who, becoming homesick at Luxeuil, wished to return to Ireland, but was retained by Columbanus; Columbanus the younger, a near relative of our apostle, died in the early part of his life, at Luxeuil; Deicola, the founder of the monastery of Lutra, in the diocese of Besançon; Sigibert, the founder of Dissentis, in Croatia; Aldan, later Bishop of Calboaldus. (Greith, p. 272.) In British Cambria the holy company joined several British clerics to its ranks.
Whither did these apostolic men wish to go?
It was not advisable to remain in Britain at that time. In the south of this land the Anglo-Saxon conquerors laid waste the country, destroyed the churches; both heathenism and barbarism raised their heads triumphantly in the most populous parts and cities of the island. The two last bishops of Britain, he of London and he of York, fled to the mountains of Wales, with all the holy relics and church vessels which they could save. On account of these circumstances Columbanus determined to leave Britain, to sail for Gaul, and there improve the moral condition of the people, so that if success attended his labors, the good seed might be scattered there with fruit; but if the people were stiff-necked, he would turn to other nations.
The company went to Gaul. This land was divided into three kingdoms: Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy. King Guntram ruled in Burgundy; King Childebert in Austrasia; but after Guntram's death, (A.D. 593,) Burgundy also fell to the share of Childebert.
Columbanus was warmly received at Metz by King Childebert, was invited to remain in the land, and received from Count Agnoald the ancient ruined castle of Luxovium in the Vosges, where the apostle and his monks dwelt, and exercised an extraordinary influence on the people of the neighboring countries.
But how did the noble wanderers find life in the Vosges?
They first rested at Anegrai. "In the wide circle around, the region was a wild desert of thick woods, and steep, rock-ribbed hills; bears and wolves dwelt in them, and only the shrill cry of the birds of the forests broke the frightful stillness. The friars built their huts with twigs and branches. They lived on the bark of trees, wild vegetables, and apples, until, on the third day after their arrival, a countryman brought them better food on a wagon. But, as want returned after a short time, they were well supplied with bread and herbs by the abbot of the monastery of Sancy, three miles distant from them."
But the first monastery was erected, and the mission opened in France. Soon the place in Anegrai was not large enough for the increasing number of the brethren.
Columbanus looked around for a second place in the wilderness of the Vosges. His eyes rested on Luxovium, which had already been offered to him. It was eight miles from Anegrai. There were in it the ruins of cities, of old baths; and in the thickest part of the wood, stone idols, which had been worshipped in ancient times.
In this spot Columbanus began the building of a larger monastery. Soon so many came and consecrated themselves, under the guidance of Columbanus, to piety and science, that the saint was compelled to erect on a height, supplied by a fountain of fair water, a third monastery, to which he gave the name of Fontaine, (Fontanas.) Whilst he appointed approved men as rulers over these monasteries, he maintained a general supervision over them all, and gave them a common rule, which he copied in part from the rule of the Abbot Comgall, of Bangor.
The Right Rev. Dr. Greith gives us a very interesting account of the life and works of the monk Columbanus in the three monasteries; but we can only give a small portion of it here.
In the year 600 the number of the monks at Luxeuil had increased to 220; and crowds of scholars were instructed in the monasteries.
"All must fast daily, but also daily take nourishment; and as all must eat daily, so must they daily partake of spiritual food, pray, work, and read in books every day." The special usages of monastic discipline were observed most strictly in the three cloisters; violators of rules were punished with rods, imprisonment, or a portion of their food was kept from them. "Before eating there was an examination of conscience, then grace was said, and there was reading during the meals. Before a monk used his spoon, he should make the sign of the cross; the same should be done in taking his lamp, in undertaking any work, or in going out of the cloister. He was commanded to pray before and after labor, and on his return to the monastery he should go before the abbot or superior and ask a blessing. Whoever cut the table with his knife, spilled beer or anything else on the table, did not gather the bread-crumbs, neglected to bow his head at the end of the psalms, or disturbed the chaunt with coughing or loud laughter, was punished," etc. Divine service at Luxeuil consisted in the daily reciting of the psalms, and, especially on Sundays and other festivals, in the celebration of Mass. The custom of uninterrupted psalmody by day and night never prevailed at Luxeuil, as was the case among the monks of Agane in Wallis, and of Haben in Burgundy, and among the nuns of the convent of St. Salaberga.
Columbanus, well educated in both profane and sacred literature, taught his own monks, made them acquainted with the discipline of theQuadrivium, and gave them a knowledge of holy Scripture.
Columbanus often retired at the approach of the principal feasts into the solitude of the forests to devote himself to piety and meditation. He sometimes remained fifty days or longer in those places. As in the ages of persecution the blood of the martyrs tamed the tigers and leopards, so that they learned to pity the saints in the circus and amphitheatre; as in the deserts of Africa and Asia Minor holy monks formed a league with nature and its animals, so Columbanus and Gall, whose life was like that of the early fathers of the desert, stood in the most friendly relations with the wild beasts of the Vosges. "As Columbanus was walking one day in the wide forests of the Vosges with a book under his arm, he saw a pack of wolves approaching. The saint stood unmoved.The wolves surrounded him on both hands, smelled the hem of his garments while he prayed to God for protection; they did him no harm, left him and went farther into the wood." Once Columbanus found in a cave a tame bear, which left its abode at command of the saint, who made it his place of shelter. Often, as he reposed under the shadow of old oaks, he called the beasts of the forest to him, and they followed him. He caressed them tenderly; and the birds often flew to him, and sat quietly on his shoulders. A little squirrel had become so accustomed to him as to leap from the branches of the trees and hide in his bosom, run up his sleeves, and then go back to the nearest boughs. A raven was so obedient to him as to return the glove which he had stolen from the saint. (Page 294.)
Columbanus could not remain long in his cloister. He became engaged in a controversy with some French priests, and was persecuted by the corrupt Merovingians, who finally compelled him to quit Luxeuil.
The fact that the Irish clergy clung to the ancient custom of the Irish Church regarding the celebration of Easter, and to the Irish traditions regarding the liturgy of the Mass, gave the French bishops and priests occasion to complain and make opposition. Columbanus wrote three letters on the Easter Controversy to Pope Gregory I. Two of them miscarried; the third reached its destination, but was unsuccessful, because Gregory I. maintained the discipline of the Roman Church on this disputed point. A synod in France, A.D. 600-601, to which Columbanus sent a memorial, did not favor him any more than the Pope. The controversy gradually died out.
The controversy with the Merovingians was far more serious. The crimes of Queen Brunhilda are well known; for instance, how she systematically ruined her grandson, King Theodoric of Burgundy. Columbanus on one occasion having refused to give his blessing to the illegitimate sons of Theodoric, presented to the saint by Brunhilda, she swore vengeance against him. A royal decree was published that no monk of the order of Columbanus should leave his monastery; that no Burgundian convert should for the future hold communion with him, and that no one should establish another foundation according to his discipline. Columbanus expostulated in vain; he wrote a severe protest to the king and threatened him with excommunication. This was the moment of revenge for Brunhilda. She prevailed on the king to cause the abduction of the saint to Besançon by Count Bandulf. Columbanus remained there for some time, highly honored by the people, and doing much good. But he soon returned to Luxeuil. The king, however, sent a whole cohort to seize him and take him out of the kingdom. The soldiers unwillingly executed their orders. The saint left the monastery amid the sighs and tears of his monks, who followed him in funereal procession with weeping and wailing. Only those whom he had brought from Ireland and Britain were allowed to accompany him. Columbanus lived twenty years in the wilderness of the Vosges, and left it in the seventy-fourth year of his life. (A.D. 609-610.)
Let us be brief. Columbanus was brought to Nantes to sail for Ireland; but God prevented him. King Clothaire of Neustria allowed him to return to Austrasia. He went to Metz, then to Mayence, up the Rhine, until he came to Zurich, where he decided to make a longer stay.But the inhabitants of the place were fierce idolaters. Many were converted, while others took arms in hatred of the saint, determined to kill himself and his companions. They consequently left this region and went to Arbon, where they dwelt seven days; thence travelling to Braganza, where they built cells near the ancient Aurelia Church. St. Gall took the three idols from the walls of the church, in the presence of a vast multitude, broke them to pieces, and threw them into the sea. A portion of the people became Christians, and the Aurelia Church was reconsecrated. Columbanus remained a few years in Braganza, when persecutions of various kinds compelled him to quit this region also. (612-613.) He crossed the Rhetian Alps, accompanied only by Attala, and arrived at Milan, where he was well received by Agilulf, king of the Lombards, who offered him a new field for the exercise of his apostolate. King Agilulf and Queen Theodolinda used the holy man for the evangelizing of the Lombards. But his days were numbered. After building a monastery and a chapel at Bobbio, he lived only an entire year, and died on the 21st December, in the year 615, in the seventy-ninth year of his age, one year before the death of Agilulf, king of Lombardy.
"Whilst Ireland glories in being the fatherland of Columbanus, France remembers him in her old abbeys in the Vosges, and his vocation to Italy still lives, not only in the dear relics of Bobbio, in his coffin, chalice, and holly staff, but also in the still living monument of his glory the town of St. Columbano, in the district of Lodi. The writings of this distinguished man, which have come down to us, display a comprehensive and varied knowledge not only of ecclesiastical but also of classic literature. His eventful life has been written by the monk Jonas of Bobbio."
We shall conclude with a few details of the mission of St. Gall, the apostle of Alemania. We already know in what an illustrious school he studied. When Columbanus was preparing himself for the journey to Italy, Gall was sick with a fever, and excused himself from travelling with his superior. In order to keep him and compel him to go, Columbanus harshly said to him, "If thou wilt not partake in my labors, I forbid thee to say Mass as long as I live." He suspected that Gall feigned sickness out of love for the place, so as not to depart from it. Thus Gall, who had been so long under obedience, was at length left to his own will.
He went to Arbon to visit a priest, Willimar, and was nursed during his illness by the clerics Maginald and Theodore, and, having recovered his health, became again an efficient apostle through the assistance of Christ. In 612-613, he began, with his companion Hittibold, the building of a monastery on the bank of the little river Steinach. This valley on the banks of the Steinach, together with Thurgau, belonged at that time to the kingdom of Austrasia, from which it had been severed under Childebert II. (594) for a short time, and separated from Burgundy, to which it was again annexed by King Dagobert. (A.D. 630-38.) Two hundred years later, in the days of Charlemagne, this region was called High Alemania. When Gall came to it, it was almost without dwellings or inhabitants. It was a primeval forest, never inhabited for a thousand years, and never touched by human hands. It was like the woods of the Vosges, a wilderness for savage beasts to roam in without danger.The wood which Gall and Hittibold found was full of underwood in which serpents nestled; the Steinach was full of fish; on the heights hawks built their nests; bears, wolves, and wild boars were numerous around. In this spot St. Gall built his monastery. Wonderful things happened at the building of this convent, all of which is charmingly told in Greith's book. "As, in every spot where, after the migration of the Germanic races, (p. 355.) holy men founded religious institutions, a new life was infused and a new impetus given to civilization, and the wild and savage districts around the monasteries became changed into fertile and well-tilled plains; so did it happen in the neighborhood of St. Gall's monastery from the very beginning of the foundation. The blessed place drew inhabitants near it; Christian worship became the focus around which they gathered; religious instruction ennobled their morals, led them to an orderly family life, made their new home dear to them, and made them love labor and industry. Under the mild protection and guidance of the monastic fraternity, strangers and colonists came from far and near; they became fiefs of the monastery, and aided in spreading its influence and its possessions. From this centre civilization spread far over the surrounding country, so that it became by cultivation transformed from a wilderness into a blooming garden. For twelve hundred years the numerous subjects of the monastery of St. Gall led a happy and peaceful life without soldiers or police. The only bayonet that governed them was the breviary of the monk; and the only sword was the crosier of the abbot. We must also remember that Gall and his followers, axe in hand, hewed down the forest, or with the spade freed the earth from thorns, thistles, and roots. He must therefore be considered as the founder and originator of the agricultural and social glories of Switzerland; for by the law of nature and of intelligence the glories of the effect must redound to the honor of the cause."
The building of the monastery of St. Gall was far advanced when Gall expelled an evil spirit from Fridiburga, the daughter of the German Duke Cunzo, of Ueberlingen. Duke Cunzo gave him many presents on this account, as did also King Sigibert, to whom Fridiburga was affianced. Sigibert sent him a donation letter, the first on record in the life of St. Gall. Gall had at this time only twelve disciples with him, deeming it improper to overstep, in the smallest particular, the limits of the rule. The Irish monks had a peculiar preference for the apostolic number twelve in all their foundations. When Columbanus died, on December 21st, 615, the hour of his death was revealed to St. Gall, and from that time he began again to celebrate Mass.
Gall declined the bishopric of Constance, and had the mitre given to his disciple John; the monks of Luxeuil wished him to be their abbot, but this honor he likewise declined. After the man of God had thrown aside the burden of worldly affairs, he retired to his cloister, to devote himself more completely to a spiritual life. His nightly vigils were renewed, and the fastings of his early days repeated, and the discipline frequently used.
Finally, at an advanced age, he left his cell to visit Arbon, and after preaching to the people, he was attacked by a fever as he was about to return. The malady became so violent that he could no longer take any food. The eternal reward of his great works and services approached.His strength almost gone, almost reduced to skin and bone by disease, he nevertheless persevered in prayer, held pious conversations, and remained faithful to the service of Christ to the end of his life. He rendered his soul to God, after fourteen days' illness, on the 16th of October, A.D. 640. His body was brought by Bishop John to the monastery which the saint had inhabited, and buried between the altar and the wall, with mournful chanting. Many infirm persons were healed, partially or entirely, at his sepulchre.
Even during his life Gall was compared to the early fathers; after his death, the Church honored him as a saint; holy Mass was offered at his tomb; his intercession was invoked with success; and his life presented as a model for Christians to imitate. Eleven years after the death of the saint, his tomb was broken open by robbers; but shortly after replaced by Bishop Boso, of Constance. (A.D. 642-676.) When the great monastery church was consecrated, on October 17th, 839, by Abbot Gotzbert, the bones of the saint were placed on the high altar. They are partially preserved there to this very day.
A glance now at the disciples of Gall. The disciples of this great apostle went forth in all directions from his sepulchre to evangelize the nations, and establish among them new foundations and centres of learning and piety. Theodore built the abbey of Kempten, in ancient Norica; Magnus travelled on foot to the entrance of the Julian Alps; Sigibert, Gall's former fellow-student, went to Dissentis, in Croatia, where they founded monasteries which, after a lapse of more than a thousand years, still exist as firm supports of the Christian religion, learning, and civilization. These monasteries must be considered as daughters of the great metropolis which the holy Irish missionary built on the side of the lofty Alps. The monastery of Reichenau, in Untersee, and that of Braganza, were closely united with St. Gall's foundation. The former was founded, under Charles Martel, by the Irishman Pirminus; the latter, 130 years earlier, by Columbanus and Gall, in the beginning of their missionary labors. The countless churches and chapels built even at an early period in honor of St. Gall, as well as the numerous acts of donation to the monastery bearing his name, prove the powerful influence of the disciples and successors of the saint in spreading Christianity, education, and civilization to the farthest regions. The bishoprics in Switzerland, Germany, and in the Austrian provinces, in the Tyrol and Bohemia, hold a special festival in honor of St. Gall, and give him a special office, honoring him now as well as formerly as the Apostle of Alemania. "The temporal inheritance which St. Gall left to his people was long enjoyed: the higher inheritance which he has left us with the eternal possessions of Christianity in our Church is still with us; and our constant prayer to God and strenuous effort must be to guard it intact, and render it fruitful in the future." (Greith, p. 401.)