LULLUS

LULLUS

759

completion of the buildings at Fulda was alsourged upon him, and at Fulda the archbishop,who knew that his days were short, wished to beburied ( V. S. Liobae , Mab. Acta SS. saec. iii. pt.2, p. 231; Willibald, V. S .. Bonif. ib. p. 20;Mon. Mogunt. p. 462). Lullus, at the time ofthe death of Boniface, was in attendance on theking, and immediately gave orders that the bodyshould be taken to Fulda, where, after somedelay caused by the wish to bury the greatmissionary at Utrecht or at Mainz, he finallyrested. The account of this event, given bySt. Eigil in the life of Sturmi, represents Lullusas opposing the removal until he was warned ina vision to forbear (Mab. Acta SS. saec. iii. pt.2 p. 252).

According to the majority of authoritiesLullus entered without any difficulty on the suc-cession to Boniface. One author, however, thecontinuator of Bede ( M'. H. B. p. 288), assertsthat a certain Redger was consecrated archbishopin St. Boniface’s place by pope Stephen. AsRedger is otherwise unknown, it has generallybeen argued that the continuator was mistaken.This is of course quite possible, but the authorityof this writer is on every ground so great that itcannot be hastily set aside. It is certain thatLullus did not receive the pall at least before775, and probably not at all, nor was usuallydenominated archbishop; and it was at a laterperiod of his life brought into question whetherhe had been validly consecrated. It seems,therefore, by no means improbable that Lullus’sconsecration as “ chorepiscopus ” by Bonifacemight not at Rome be regarded as a full quali-fication for the succession, although when thepope found him well supported by Pipin he mayhave determined to let the matter rest. It is,however, on the whole most probable that theperson here called Redger was Rutgang orChrodegang, bishop of Metz, to whom popeStephen in 754 sent a pall and gave the title ofarchbishop, having already, according to one ofthe biographers of Boniface, consecrated him inspite of remonstrance and a quarrel which wasonly appeased bv the personal interference ofPipin (Mon. Mog. 478; Jaffd, Beg . Pont. no.1771).

However this may have been, in England,where Lullus was better known and rememberedthan Boniface himself, he was immediatelyrecognised as successor to the saint, and letterspoured in upon him from the ecclesiastics of hisnative land, condoling with him on the loss of hismaster. In particular archbishop Cuthbert ofCanterbury wrote, telling him that the day ofBoniface’s martyrdom should be observed as a holyday in the English church, and exhorting him totry to rival his achievements (Ep. 108; Mon. Mog.pp. 261 sq.). Milred bishop of Worcester alsowrote a letter of consolation (Ep. 109 ; ib. p.267). Kynehard bishop of Winchester wroteto him on his promotion (Ep. 110, p. 268),thanking him for letters received, remindinghim of their relationship, and of their ancientand common friendship with Boniface andthe bishops Daniel and Hunfrith, Kynehard’spredecessors; the bishop further sends pre-sents, asks for an arrangement for mutualintercession, and requests the loan of learnedbooks, both theological and. secular, especially onmedicine. A letter of Lullus addressed to

Gregory abbat of Utrecht, belonging to thisperiod of his life, is preserved; it contains anexhortation to piety and self-denial, and a warn-ing against clerical luxury and finery. Lullushad intended to visit the abbat, but had beenprevented by manifold troubles (Ep. Ill, pp.270-274).

This letter seems to indicate that the writerhad not yet overcome the first difficulty of hisadministration. It shews, however, that he wasintent on the task, which his biographer speciallyremarks, of visiting the churches of his greatdiocese. He made at the beginning of his epi-scopate a thorough visitation of his churches,and, as a result of the proceedings, became dailymore religious and self-denying (V. Lull. ap.Surium, Acta SS. tom. v. fo. 297).

But few particulars of the administration ofLullus have been preserved ; we know, however,that during the life of Pipin he enjoyed theroyal confidence. In 764 Pipin addressed to hima letter directing litanies to be celebrated byway of thanksgiving for the recovery of the landafter famine (Baluze, Capit. i. 133; Mon. Mog .p. 281; Pertz, Leges , i. 32). In 765 he waspresent at a council or synod at Attigny (Pertz,Leges , i. 30; Labbe, Cone. vi. 1702). Fromsome of the Mainz letters we discover that studyformed no small part of his employments, andthat he continued to have much correspondencewith England. Archbishop Bregwin of Canter-bury (Ep. 113 ; Mon. Mog. 277) negotiated withhim through a messenger named Hildebert,grieving that the troubles in both England andGaul had hindered more frequent intercourse,sending presents, and recording the day of thecommemoration of abbess Bugga. Eardulfbishop of Rochester, and Eardulf king of Kent,wrote, proposing mutual prayers (Ep. 120, p.285), and Kynehard, of Winchester, acknow-ledged and made a return for small presents(Ep. 121, p. 287). Two or three only of theextant letters concern domestic events. In oneof these Lullus writes to the pope against theintrusive priests Willefrith and Enraed, whohad been introduced into his diocese without hispermission, and had alienated the serfs and otherproperty of churches (Ep. 114, pp. 279, 280).In another he orders Denehard and others tohold processions and fasts to avert a plague ofrain (Ep. 116, p. 281).

This part, however, of Lullus’s episcopate wassignalised by his quarrel with Sturmi abbatof Fulda, a contest in which personal jealousywas probably mingled with the zeal which thetwo holy men felt fox their own rights andjurisdictions. According to the biography ofSturmi they had already had an altercationabout the burial of St. Boniface, but the truecause of their great quarrel is unknown. Lullusis said to have prompted three false brethren tolay before Pipin heavy charges against the abbat.Sturmi was sent into exile for two years in orabout the year 764. After the period of exilehe returned to Fulda, and was reconciled withLullus, but relieved from obedience to him by apapal grant of immunity (V. Sturmi% t Mab.Acta SS. saec. iii. pt. 2, pp. 254, 255),

In 768 Pipin died; Lullus seems to have re-tained with Charles neither more nor less influ-ence than he had had with his father. He wason friendly terms with him without being one