EIGHTEENTH LECTURE.

Some wrecks of profane literature from the sixth to the eighth century-Of their true character-1st, Prose writers-Gregory of Tours-His lifeHis Ecclesiastical History of the Franks-The influence of the ancient Latin literature unites with that of the Christian doctrines-Mixture of civil and religious history-Fredégaire-His Chronicle-2ndly, PoetsSaint Avitus, bishop of Vienne-His life-His poems on the CreationOriginal sin-The condemnation of man-The Deluge-The passage of the Red Sea-The praise of virginity-Comparison of the three first with the Paradise Lost of Milton-Fortunatus, bishop of Poictiers-His life-His relations with Saint Radegonde-His poems-Their character -First origin of French literature

I MENTIONED in our last lecture that we should now occupy ourselves with the wrecks of profane literature, scattered here and there, from the sixth to the eighth century, amidst sermons, legends, theological dissertations, and escaping from the universal triumph of sacred literature. I shall, perhaps, be a little embarrassed with my promise, and with this word profane, which I have applied to the works of which I mean to speak. It seems to say, in fact, that their authors or their subjects are of a lay character, that they belong not to the religious sphere. Yet, see the names of the writings, and of the authors. There are two prose writers, and two poets. the prose writers are Gregory of Tours, and Frédégaire; the poets-Saint Avitus, and Fortunatus. Of these four men, three were bishops: Gregory at Tours, Saint Avitus at Vienne, and Fortunatus at Poictiers; all three were canonized; the fourth, Frédégaire, was probably a monk. With regard to the persons, there can scarcely be anything less profane; assuredly they belong to sacred literature. As regards the works themselves, that of Gregory of Tours bears the

title of Ecclesiastical History of the Franks; that of Frédégaire is a simple chronicle; the poems of Saint Avitus turn upon the Creation, Original Sin, the Expulsion from Paradise, the Deluge, the Passage of the Red Sea, the Praise of Virginity; and although in those of Fortunatus many treat of the incidents of a worldly life, as the marriage of Sigebert and Brunehault, the departure of queen Galsuinthe, &c., still the greater part relate to religious events or interests, as the dedications of cathedrals, the praise of saints or bishops, the feasts of the church, &c., so that, to judge by appearances, the subjects as well as the authors enter into sacred literature, and it seems that there is nothing to which the name of profane can be suitable.

I might easily allege that some of these writers were not always ecclesiastics; that Fortunatus, for example, for a long time lived a layman; that many of his poems date from this period of his life. It is not certain that Frédégaire was a monk. Gregory of Tours formally expressed his intention of mixing the sacred and the profane in his history. But these would be poor reasons. I had far rather admit that, in some respects, the works I intend to speak of at present belong to sacred literature; and still I maintain what I have said; they belong to profane literature; they bore its character in more than one respect, and they should bear its name. And here is the reason:

I have just passed before you the two principal kinds of the sacred literature of this epoch, on one hand sermons, on the other, legends. Nothing of this kind had existed in antiquity; neither the Greek nor Latin literature furnished a model of similar compositions. They took their rise from Christianity-from the religious doctrines of the age; they were original; they constituted a new and truly religious literature, for it had no impress of ancient literature, of the profane world, neither in form nor groundwork.

The works of which I am about to speak are of another nature: the authors and the subjects are religious, but the character of the compositions, the manner in which they are conceived and executed, belong not to the new religious literature; the influence of pagan antiquity is clearly shown in them; we incessantly find there the imitation of the Greek or Latin writers; it is visible in the turn of the imagination;

in the forms of the language; it is sometimes direct and avowed. This is nothing like that truly new Christian mind, foreign, even hostile, to all ancient recollections, which is visible in the sermons and legends: here, on the contrary, and even in the most religious subjects, one feels the traditions, the intellectual customs of the pagan world, a certain desire to be connected with profane literature, to preserve and reproduce its merits. It is hence that the name is applied correctly to the works of which I speak, and that they form in the literature from the sixth to the eighth century a separate class, which in a measure unites the two epochs, the two societies, and claims especial inquiry.

Let us pass in review the four writers I have just named: we shall recognise this characteristic in their writings.

I begin by the prose writers, and by Gregory of Tours, incontestably the most celebrated.

You will recollect whether historical compositions had fallen in the Roman empire: high history, the poetical, political, philosophical history, that of Livy, that of Polybius, and that of Tacitus, had equally vanished; they could only keep a register, more or less exact, more or less complete, of events and men, without retracing their concatenation or moral character, without uniting them to the life of the state, without seeking therein the emotions of the drama, or of the true epopee. History, in a word, was no more than a chronicle. Latin historians, Lampridius, Vopiscus, Eutropius, Ammianus Marcellinus himself, all are mere chroniclers. The chronicle is the last form under which history presents itself in the profane literature of antiquity.

The last

It is likewise under this form that it re-appears in the rising Christian literature: the first Christian chroniclers, Gregory of Tours among others, did nothing but imitate and perpetuate their pagan predecessors.

George Florentius, who took the name of Gregory from his great grandfather, bishop of Langres, was born on the 3rd of November, 539, in Auvergne, in the bosom of one of those families which called themselves senatorial, and which formed the decaying aristocracy of the country. The one to which he belonged was noble in the civil and the religious order: he had many illustrious bishops for ancestors and relations, and he was descended from a senator of Bourges, Vettius

Epagatus, one of the first and most glorious martyrs of Christianity in Gaul. It appears (and this fact is so commonly met with in the history of celebrated men, that it becomes matter of suspicion), it appears that from his infancy, by his intellectual and pious tendencies, he attracted the attention of all around him, and that he was brought up with particular care as the hope of his family and of the church, among others by his uncle, Saint Nizier, bishop of Lyons, Saint Gal, bishop of Clermont, and Saint Avitus, his successor. He had very ill health, and, already ordained deacon, he made a journey to Tours, in the hope of being cured at the tomb of Saint Martin. He was actually cured, and he returned to his country. We find him, in 573, at the court of Sigebert I., king of Austrasia, to whom Auvergne belonged. He received news that the clergy and people of Tours, doubtless struck with his merits during the sojourn which he had made among them, had just elected him bishop. After some hesitation, he consented, was consecrated the 22nd of August by the bishop of Reims, and immediately repaired to Tours, where he passed the rest of his life.

He, however, often left it; and even on affairs foreign to those of the church. Gontran, king of Burgundy, and Childebert II. king of Austrasia, employed him as a negotiator in their long quarrels; we find him in 585 and in 588, travelling from one court to another to reconcile the two kings. He appeared likewise at the council of Paris, held in 577, to judge Pretextat, archbishop of Rouen, whom Chilperic and Frédégonde wished to expel, and whom in fact they did expel from his diocese.

In his various missions, and especially at the council of Paris, Gregory of Tours conducted himself with more independence, good sense, and equity, than was evinced by many other bishops. Doubtless, he was credulous, superstitious, devoted to the interests of the clergy: still few ecclesiastics of his time had a devotion, I will not say as enlightened, but less blind, and kept to so reasonable a line of conduct in what concerned the church.

In 592, according to his biographer, Odo of Cluny, who wrote his life in the tenth century, he made a journey to Rome to see pope Gregory the Great. The fact is doubtful, and of little interest: still the account of Odo of Cluny contains

a rather piquant anecdote, and one which proves what a high estimation Gregory and his contemporary were held in at the tenth century. He was, as I have said, remarkably weak and puny.

"Arrived in the presence of the pontiff," says his biographers, "he kneeled and prayed. The pontiff, who was of a wise and deep mind, admired within himself the secret dispensations of God, who had placed so many divine graces in so small and puny a body. The bishop, internally advised, by the will on high, of the thought of the pontiff, arose, and regarding him with a tranquil air, said to him: 'It is the Lord who makes us, and not ourselves; it is the same with the great and with the small.' The holy pope, seeing that he thus answered to his thought, conceived a great veneration for him, and took so much to heart the dignifying of the see of Tours, that he presented a chair of gold to it, which is still preserved in that church."

Close upon his return from his journey to Rome, if it is true that he made one, Gregory died at Tours, the 17th of November, 593, very much regretted in his diocese, and celebrated throughout western Christendom, where his works were already spread. That which interests us most in the present day was certainly not at that time the most ardently sought for. He composed, 1st, a treatise of the Glory of the Martyrs, a collection of legends, in one hundred and seven chapters, devoted to the recital of the miracles of martyrs; 2. A treatise on the Glory of the Confessors, in one hundred and twelve chapters; 3. A collection entitled Lives of the Fathers, in twenty chapters, and which contains the history of twentytwo saints, of both sexes, of the Gaulish church; 4. A treatise on the Miracles of Saint Julianus, bishop of Brioude, in fifty chapters; 5. A treatise on the Miracles of Saint Martin of Tours, in four books; 6. A treatise on the Miracles of Saint Andrew. These were the writings which rendered his name so popular. They have no distinguishing merit amid the crowd of legends, and nothing which requires us to stop at them.

The great work of the bishop of Tours, that which has brought his name down to us, is his Ecclesiastical History of

1 Vita S. Gregorii, &c., by Odo, abboɩ of Cluny, § 24.