The Pen of a Saint: Holy Wit, Unholy Snark

When it comes to saints, people often consider them to be examples of kindness and patience, without any serious character flaws. Columbanus (d. 615), an Irish peregrinus who spent the latter part of his life founding monasteries in several continental kingdoms, does not adhere to this description, at least not if we take his letters as a point of reference. Five of his letters survive, and in four of those he rebukes and admonishes, and sometimes even insults, those he disagrees with.[1] The Vita Columbani, written in the early 640s by Jonas of Bobbio, offers further examples of the saint’s epistolary call-outs. This post will explore the saint’s motives and methods.

Image: St Columbanus and St Gall crossing Lake Constance (Bodensee). Date: 1451-1460. Source: St Gallen, Cod. Sang. 602, p. 33 (www.e-codices.ch)

While he addressed concrete issues, Columbanus’ reprimands could be phrased in allusive prose, to the point of being obscure. His earliest surviving letter is a case in point. Epistula 1 was written ca. 600 and addressed to pope Gregory the Great (d. 604).[2] Columbanus was residing in the Burgundian kingdom of Theuderic II (d. 613) at the time, where he was already facing opposition from the local episcopate for his diverging stance on the calculation of the Easter date. His letter to Gregory was an attempt to get papal support, mostly by showing the errors of his Gallic distractors. Rather than attack them outright, he attacked their patristic sources, above all Victorius of Aquitaine, whose 457 Easter cycle was held to be authoritative by the Gallic bishops.

In a convoluted sentence, he characterized Victorius as ‘this sleepy Dagon’s backside’ (haec soporans spina Dagonis), who ‘drunk in this tumour of error’ (hoc imbibit bubum erroris). In the Old Testament, Dagon is the principal idol of the Philistines, the enemies of the Jews. The characterization fits his ‘error’: he maintained that Christians should not follow the Jewish date of Passover when calculating Easter. Columbanus’ Gallic detractors had in fact accused him of being a Jew on account of his diverging calculations. By equating himself with the Jews, the people of God, Columbanus firmly placed himself against Victorius and those who invoked his authority. In 1 Samuel 5:1-5, the idol of Dagon was broken and mutilated, Columbanus expected a similar fate for the Gallic bishops if they continued to follow the erroneous method of their idol: Victorius/Dagon.[3] The word bubum adds a final layer of insult. It is not found elsewhere in Latin literature, but it is listed in several medieval glossaria where it is said to mean ‘illness’ or ‘tumour’. When combined with the Dagon-reference, a more specific meaning presents itself, as suggested by Johannes Smit. Those who idolised Dagon were punished with piles, swellings in the anus. Possibly, Columbanus was envisioning something similar for Victorius and his Gallic followers: an ‘inflamed arse’ brought on by heresy.[4]

Thanks to Jonas’ Vita Columbani we know that the saint’s epistolary output was larger than just the five surviving letters, and that letters with a reprimanding nature were not uncommon for him. One of these ‘lost’ letters is mentioned in chapter 19 of the Vita’s first book and constituted a turning point in Columbanus’ life.[5] In 610, Columbanus was still residing in the kingdom of king Theuderic II. While supportive of Columbanus’ monastic foundations, the king was not following his moral guidance, continuing to prefer concubinage over Christian marriage. After several altercations, Columbanus sent his royal patron a letter ‘full of castigations’ (litteras verberibus plenas direxit), reprimanding Theuderic for his adulterous behaviour and even threatening him with excommunication if he did not mend his ways. Its precise contents are not recorded, nor are we given Theuderic’s response. Jonas focuses on the irate reaction of queen Brunhild (d. 613), Theuderic’s grandmother. Afraid to lose influence over her grandson when he would marry, she set court and kingdom against the saint. Pressured by his grandmother, courtiers and bishops, the king eventually ordered Columbanus to leave the kingdom and had him deported to the coast to await exile.

Waiting in Nantes for a ship to take him back to Ireland, Columbanus wrote another letter, one that does still survive. This letter, Epistula no. 4, was addressed to the monks of his Burgundian monasteries, and specifically to the community’s prior, Attala, who had been one of the saint’s original twelve companions when he had left Ireland for Gaul.[6] The letter contains plenty of allusions about external and internal enemies imperilling the community. But beyond the quotations and insinuations, the letter also shows genuine affection and friendship. Columbanus ends the letter by saying that he wished he had written more orderly, but that love does not keep to order. His parchment is running out, and a messenger has arrived announcing that his ship is ready.

Here, Jonas of Bobbio takes up the story again. God had different plans for Columbanus. When the ship was trying to make the crossing to Ireland, a strong wind came and blew them right back to the shore. Seeing this for a sign from God, the captain refused to sail out again with Columbanus on board and so the saint remained in Gaul. Hearing of his predicament, king Chlothar II (d. 629) of Neustria soon invited Columbanus to his court. When messengers arrived from Chlothar’s warring grand-nephews, Theuderic and Theudebert, asking their great-uncle to pick a side in their conflict, Columbanus counselled his host to do nothing and let them fight it out: upon their death, the whole realm would be his.[7]

The saint’s advice proved sound. Within three years, Chlothar was the sole Merovingian king. But Columbanus did not apparently learn his lesson and continued to write critical letters to royal supporters. Jonas set outs the context in chapter 30 of the Vita.[8] Columbanus had founded a new monastery at Bobbio in Italy by that time, leaving his Burgundian monasteries to his disciples. Mindful of the service rendered to him by the saint, King Chlothar II dispatched an embassy to Italy headed by one of Columbanus’ disciples, Eusthasius, asking the saint to return to Luxeuil. The saint received his friend with kindness, but was adamant in his refusal: he would not return to Gaul and only asked the king to offer protection and support to his brothers in Luxeuil. Furthermore, he sent Chlothar ‘a letter filled with chastisements’ (litteras castigationum effamine plenas).

Once again, the contents of the letter do not survive. Modern scholarship offers two readings. The first one is that Columbanus was criticising the way Chlothar had dealt with Brunhild and the children of Theuderic after he had gained sole power. Chlothar had had them brutally murdered, even though he had earlier judged Theuderic II harshly for similar crimes. A second option is that the contents of this letter were similar to the one Columbanus had earlier sent to Theuderic II and which had almost resulted in his exile from Gaul: he was calling Chlothar out for his licentiousness. Whatever the case, the king took the rebuke in stride. He received the saint’s response as a ‘most welcome gift’ (gratissimum munus) and gave Luxeuil not only his protection but expanded its boundaries and granted it annual revenues.

Columbanus was not afraid to tell the truth to people in power, dispatching letters to popes, bishops and kings. His criticisms could be harsh and ingenious. Yet he did not castigate for the sake of castigating. His underlying aim was the acceptance and survival of his newly founded communities in Gaul and Italy. For Jonas of Bobbio, who wrote several decades after the Columbanus’ death, the saint’s critical persona was an ambivalent but useful inheritance. Various issues of contention had erupted in the Columbanian monasteries after their founder’s death. Jonas sought to revindicate Columbanus’s reputation, as well as to address the recent dissensions within the communities in such a way that all factions would feel included in the communal past that Jonas was presenting to the whole Columbanian familia. To cite one of Jonas’ modern biographers: he had been ‘cast in the role of the reconciler who skillfully dealt with the troubled legacy of Columbanus and his communities in order to “forge an identity for the modified Columbanian monasticism” of his own day’.[9] Showing that Columbanus had written rebuking letters to people in power, could strengthen that shared sense of community. It commemorated Columbanus as a leader who had not been not afraid to stand up for what he believed in, even if that had meant going against powerful people who could do him harm. Columbanus himself had eschewed violence, relying on his words and the might of his pen.

[1] Columbanus Hibernicus, Sancti Columbani Opera, ed. G.S.M. Walker, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, 2 (Dublin, 1957): no. 1, pp. 2-12; no. 2, pp.12-23; no. 3, pp 22-25; no. 5, pp 36-57.

[2] Robert Stanton, “Columbanus, ‘Letter’ 1: Translation and Commentary”, The Journal of Medieval Latin 3 (1993), pp. 149–68: 150.

[3] Johannes Wilhelmus Smit, Studies on the Language and Style of Columba the Younger (Amsterdam, 1971), pp. 90-92.

[4] Smit, Studies, pp. 92-96.

[5]Jonas of Bobbio, Vita Columbani, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SS rer. Germ. 37 (Hanover, 1905), I.19, p. 189; translation Alexander O’Hara and Ian Wood, Life of Columbanus, Life of John of Réomé, and Life of Vedast (Liverpool, 2017), p. 136.

[6] Columbanus, Epistula no. 4, ed. Walker, pp. 26-27.

[7] Jonas of Bobbio, Vita Columbani, cap. 24, pp. 207-208; O’Hara and Wood, Life of Columbanus, p. 152.

[8] Jonas of Bobbio, Vita Columbani, cap. 30, pp. 222-223; O’Hara and Wood, Life of Columbanus, pp. 168-169.

[9] Alexander O’Hara, Jonas of Bobbio and the Legacy of Columbanus (Oxford, 2018):  pp.14-15.