Baring-Gould’s sources: Gallican Martyrologies. Authority: — A Life by Nicolas Gall, monk of Soissons, a contemporary, in Surius, Vit. SS. Nov. 8; a portion in Bouquet, Recueil, xiv. pp. 174-181.] Godfrid, in French Godefroi, or Geoffroi, was bom at Moulicourt near Soissons. His father’s name was Frodo, that of his mother was Elizabeth. They were rich and noble, and had two sons following arms as their profession. About the year 1065, Godfrid, abbot of Mont-Saint-Quentin-lesPdronne, uncle of Ida, Countess of Boulogne, mother of Godfrey, king of Jerusalem, paid them a visit, and asked whether they had not a son to give to God. “ Alas 1” said they, “ we have only two, who are engaged in arms, and we are advanced in age and expect no more children.” The abbot advised them to vow to God that should they be given another son, they would dedicate him to the religious life. Nine months after Elizabeth became the mother of a son, whom the abbot Godfrid held at the font, and to whom he gave his own name. At the age of five this child was sent to his monastery and loved by him as his own son. One day the child was teasing a pet crane in the monastery cloister, when the spiteful bird pecked at his eyes.1 The boy recoiled, made the sign of the cross, and providentially escaped being blinded. He went to Soissons one month of October, and was at the abbey when the feast of SS. Crispin and Crispinian was celebrated. Just before mass he went into the refectory, and found the monks enjoying a hearty meat breakfast, washed down with wine. They invited him to table. He indignantly refused to eat before mass, to load the belly with carnal food before satisfying the soul with spiritual nutriment The monks scoffed at him, and forced him to retire.
He was ordained priest at the age of twenty-five, by Ratbod II., bishop of Noyon, the ecclesiastical writer. Soon after, the archbishop of Rheims sent him to the abbey of Notre-Dame-de-Nogent, which had fallen into disrepute, and contained only six monks and two novices, in the hopes that he would restore discipline, and attract novices. At the instigation of the archbishop, and of the bishop of Laon, Enguerrand, Count of Coucy, appointed him to be their abbot. Philip I. approved, and the abbot and monks of Mont-Saint-Quentin were forced to submit. Godfrid went to the monastery, and found it in confusion: the church ruined, the cells thatched with wattles and clay to keep out the rain, the cloister full of nettles and brambles, the lands alienated, and the monks under no discipline. He rebuilt the church, restored the monastic buildings, brought the monks under restraint, and earned such credit as a disciplinarian that many entered the abbey, amongst them two abbots, to have the privilege of living under his austere rule. After a while Manasses II. of Rheims wished to translate him to the more important and wealthy abbey of S. Remi, 1 In many mediaeval biographies we hear of cranes or storks pecking at eyes. Probably a habit of the bird now not noticed since it has become more scarce, or is not kept tamed with clipped wing.
S. Godfrid. but he declined the honour, on the excuse that he would be transgressing canons of Nicaea and Sardica if he left one charge for another. He was a strict ruler, kept his monks on short commons, made them pray with punctuality, and conduct the offices of the church with solemnity. The letter of the Rule was carried out with exactitude. The slightest dereliction from its injunctions was punished, neglect of the virtues it inculcated met with prompt reprimand. The steward of the abbey was one day asked the loan of a saddle. He refused. Godfrid heard of it, was indignant, ordered a bonfire to be lighted in the cloister court, and burned the saddle before the eyes of all the monks assembled to witness the auto-dc-fe and of the man who wanted to borrow it The Blessed Vivette, nun of Notre-Dame de Soissons, fell into the hands of robbers in a wood between C&isy and SaintPaul. She escaped with her honour, and attributed what was due perhaps to her age and want of personal attractions to the merits of Godfrid whom she had invoked. The Soissonais, afflicted by a long drought, appealed to the abbot. He prayed, and in course of time rain fell. These circumstances caused him to be regarded as specially privileged by Heaven. True, the miracles were not very numerous nor very striking, but the sanctity and severity of the life of the abbot were above dispute and notorious. In 1104 he was elected to the see of Amiens [a bishop’s “see” is his diocese, named from his seat (Latin sedes)], when the aged Gervin resigned his see. Godfried showed the usual reluctance to receive the honour and burden of the episcopal office, and only yielded when, according to his own account, the somewhat apocryphal S. Firminus, first bishop of the see of Amiens, and martyr, had appeared to him and positively insisted on having him for successor. Manasses II. oi Rheims consecrated him, assisted by Lambert of Arras and John of Thdrouanne. During the ceremony, according to custom, the book of the Gospels was opened over his head, aud the words at the head of the page were, “Elisabeth autem impletum est tempus pariendi et peperit filium” (Luke i. 57). This was taken to refer to the new bishop, whose mother, Elizabeth, bore him in her old age, and to foretell that he would prove another John the Baptist. These auguries were generally taken at the consecration of bishops; sometimes the texts were happy, often irrelevant, but always gave occasion of discussion and interpretation to the curious and superstitious.1 He made his entry into Amiens with somewhat ostentatious humility, walking barefoot over a very rough road. As bishop he did not forget that he was a monk, nor did he lay aside with the cowl the obligations of the Rule. He was hospitable, generous to the poor, and strict in his discipline of himself. He neither indulged in sumptuous food nor costly furniture. A large salmon was purchased for his dinner. He went into the kitchen, hoisted the fish on his shoulders, and carried it to some lepers who had solicited his alms.
Godfrid was determined to put a stop to the marriage of his clergy, and to their living with their wives after having embraced the ecclesiastical estate. He refused to speak to, or to associate with the married clergy at table or in church. He shut them out of choir as unworthy to pass the screen. The wife or concubine of a priest, whom Godfrid had driven from what had been her home, in bitter rage mixed hellebore with some aromatic wine, and sent it to the bishop as a present. He poured out the wine into his goblet, but before tasting it, he sat with his eyes on the wine, studying what could have induced this woman, whom he had expelled her home, to send him a present. Suspecting mischief, he sopped a crust of bread in the wine, and gave it to a puppy that was running about the room. The little dog ate it, 1 See an article by me on " Sortes Sacrae,” in "Curiosities of Olden Time,** London, and ed.. Grant. 1805.
6*. Godfrid. and soon after ran to the bishop’s bed, coiled itself up on it, and died. When the servant went to make the bed in the evening, he saw the dog on it, and took it by the ears. The little beast did not squeal as he expected, and he found it was dead. Godfrid threw away the bottle of wine, and vowed he would deal more sharply in future with the women who attached themselves to his clergy. Gislbert, his ceremoniarius, had incurred his wrath on account of his morals, and the man deserted him just before he consecrated an oratory to S. Thomas. This was distressing, as Godfrid was not well acquainted with the ritual of a consecration. However, assisted by Heaven, which inspired him with supernatural illumination, he got through the ceremony without the people present discovering the least ritual inaccuracy.
He was, no doubt, most self-denying in his food, and lavish in his charities, but he could not brook trifling interference with his privileges. He insisted tenaciously on his right to consecrate the altar napkins of the abbey of S. Valery. This right the abbot and monks disputed. One would haVe supposed that the saint who was ready to abandon the salmon prepared for his dinner to hungry beggars would have waived his claim to such a trivial prerogative. But not so; the matter of the napkins became one of the most important questions agitating his temper and influencing his career. The case was carried before the archbishop of Rheims and given against him. He appealed to Rome. The monks of S. Valery sent an embassy to the Pope with such liberal bribes that they obtained a confirmation of their immunities,1 and orders that the bishop should refrain from disturbing them. Godfrid immediately started for Rome with a large retinue. He was surrounded 1 “ Monachi Romani Teniunt, munera largiuntur, redeunt ad sua laeti et alacres, omnibus pro voto impetrads a Romano Pontifice.* at once by the greedy crew who lived on these appeals, asking for bribes to support his cause.1 But the bishop was determined, if possible, to gain his point economically, without spending money on the lawyers, or bribing the cardinals and those who had the Pope's ear. He argued his case before his Holiness, but finding it impossible to get a judgment in his favour without paying heavily for it, he cried out in indignation to the sovereign pontiff, that as he who had been set by Christ at the head of his Church to rule it aright afforded him no justice, he would resign his bishopric and retire into private life. So saying he left Rome, and went to Bari to venerate the relics [the bodily remains of a saint, or objects they used, kept with honor] of S. Nicolas. There he was given some of the oil which, it was contrived, should distil from the bones of the saint At this time Paschal II. was Pope. He was in the midst of his quarrel with Henry V. and wanted the support of the bishops against the haughty emperor. Henry was in Italy, marching against Rome. Bishops aggrieved with the Pope might lend weighty aid to the emperor. Paschal hastily sent after Godfrid, determined to throw over the insignificant monks in order to secure the fidelity of the powerful prelate. He gave him a brief reversing that already accorded to the abbot of S. Valery, and dismissed him with every expression of honour. Godfrid set off, triumphant at heart, to return to France, and defiantly to invade the abbey, display his brief, and dedicate the linen of the altar to the God of love and lowliness of heart On his way back, the oil from the tomb of S. Nicolas manifested most strikingly its miraculous virtues; for the phial was dropped on the road without breaking, and the flasket having been allowed to fall into water actually floated. As it was tightly corked, and probably did not contain many drops, but much air, 1 “ Mox ad volant causidici, sperms fc ab illo quoque se accepturot munera larS. Godfrid.
the floating of the bottle was not perhaps altogether beyond nature. In crossing the Alps, the bishop found a poor woman nearly frozen to death, and he put some of his own outer wraps on her; an act of common humanity which the author of his Life exalts into one of supernatural charity. As he approached his diocese, some of those with him advised him to travel incognito, under an assumed name, as he had given occasion to many of his flock to dislike him so cordially that they might combine to prevent his return to Amiens. He accordingly adopted the name of Herv£; but a rude joke having been made and circulated among some of the elect ladies of Amiens about this change of name, Godfrid, on his return, inquired into the matter, and was assured by the woman to whom the jest was traced, that she had not originated it, but had heard it made by the Evil One himself, who appeared to her whilst she was sobbing and praying for the return of the bishop at the foot of her crucifix. S. Godfrid was obliged to accept the excuse. It would have been discourteous to have disbelieved the explanation; but he liked being made fun of by ladies as little as he liked being flouted by monks; and he inflicted on himself a severe penance for having rendered himself liable to ridicule by a change of name.
He was not more inclined to mildness on his return. The Count of Flanders was spending Christmas at SaintOmer, and the bishop of Amiens went thither to meet him, and say mass before him on that great feast. In honour of Christmas Day and their presence at the prince’s court, the gentlemen and nobles were dight in their most splendid dresses, in velvet and silk, with chains of gold, and thus attired they came up to make their oblations at the altar. Godfrid indignantly repelled their gifts, and bade them take off their chains, and dress in sadder garb before they dared VOL. xiii. 14 to approach. Several of them left the church, and changed or veiled their handsome habits.
At Doullens was a nunnery dedicated to S. Michael, in which holy virgins emulated on earth the life of the angels in heaven. One evening at supper the nun who had to hold the candle whilst the mother superior consumed her food, accidentally let the candle drop, and the refectory was buried in darkness. The young sister threw herself on her knees at the feet of the superior, assured her it was an accident, and implored her pardon. But the mother was furious. This sister had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and was therefore held in some repute. The mother was jealous of her, and taking occasion of this accident, vented on her all her spite and rage. In vain did the other sisters intercede. She cursed her, pulled her hair, beat her with clenched fists, kicked her to and fro, and finally drove her into the street, and forbade her ever to enter her doors again. The poor girl went off* to Bishop Godfrid, showed him her bruises and told her tale. Godfrid sent at once to Doullens a sharp note, bidding the reverend mother come to him without delay or equipage of any sort. Scarlet with shame at having to walk, the mother left the doors of her angelic home, and made her way on foot to Amiens. There she cast herself at the feet of the bishop, wept, and uttered protestations of devotion. Godfrid bade her cease her cries, stand up, and answer him where was the girl she had turned out of her nunnery. The mother was struck dumb. Godfrid bade her search for her, and not see him or return to Doullens, till she had found her. After the mother had hunted all day in vain the bishop sent for her, produced the nun, severely rebuked the superior, and bade her take the sister back to Doullens, and control her temper better for the future.
Pope Paschal II. was in the midst of his strife with the Nov. 8.j S. God/rid. Emperor Henry V. If ever it be unpresumptuous to trace the retributive justice of God in the destiny of one man, it may be acknowledged in the humiliation of Pope Paschal II. by the Emperor Henry V. The Pope, by his continual sanction, if not by direct advice, had trained the young emperor in his inordinate ambition and his unscrupulous avidity for power. He had not rebuked his shameless perfidy or his revolting cruelty; he had absolved him from the great irrepealable obligations of nature and the divine law. A rebel against his sovereign and his father, he had met with encouragement in his rebellion, had been stimulated to revolt by the Head of the Church, who should have restrained and rebuked him. If Paschal suffered the result of his own lessons, if he was driven from his capital, exposed to personal sufferings so great as to compel him to retract his own infallible decrees at the dictation of the Emperor, he had not much right to compassion.
The wretched question of investitures was that which brought them into conflict. As long as the Church was unendowed with territory, so long no question of the sort could have arisen. But in Germany especially the bishops and great abbots were princes holding large lands, with power of life and death thereon, levying armies, and intriguing against the Emperor. If they constituted part of the empire, it was requisite that they should recognize that they were subject to the Emperor, and that they were not independent sovereigns. Their spiritual office they derived from God, but their temporal principalities they received from the emperor. This they were disposed to forget. Nearly half Germany was in the hands of princely ecclesiastics, and their disloyalty and rebellion against Henry IV. had brought him to ruin. Henry V., though he had taken advantage of this in his revolt against his father, was not disposed to allow the same forces to operate, or risk the loss of his throne, if he could avoid it. The dispute turned on the externals of crosier and ring, which were symbols of investiture of the temporal authority exercised by the prelates, and which the king claimed a right to grant, but which for a while the Pope refused to concede, and which his predecessors and himself in every council, at Guastalla, at Troyes, still later at Benevento, and in the Lateran [St. John Lateran, the pope’s cathedral in Rome], had declared to be a sacrilegious usurpation. But when Henry V. advanced towards Rome at the head of a powerful force Pope Paschal gave way in all important points, ar.d the king yielded the empty and unmeaning outward form of investiture.
The treaty was concluded, February 12th, mi, in the porch of S. Peter's church, it might seem in the actual presence of the apostles.1 The news caused consternation among the rigorous upholders of ecclesiastical independence. In September, 1 1 1 2, the archbishop of Vienne held a council, which was attended by S. Hugh of Grenoble, S. Godfrid of Amiens, and other Gallic prelates. The council drew up a synodal letter to the Pope, to this effect: “ We have assembled at Vienne in accordance with the commands of your Holiness. There appeared before it deputies of the king with bulled letters, in which you say that you desire peace and union with him; and the king declares that you wrote these to him after the council held in Rome last Lent [the forty days of fasting before Easter]. Although we were surprised, nevertheless we remembered the letters which we had received of you, touching perseverance in a just cause. To avoid the ruin of the Church we have proceeded canonically; and we judge that the investiture of bishoprics, abbeys, and all ecclesiastical goods received from lay hands is a heresy. We condemn, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the writing or privilege extorted by King Henry by violence from your Holiness, we declare it null and void. 1 The oaths made on both sides in Peru. Leg. ii. 68. 6*. Godfrid.
We excommunicate the king, who... has extorted from you the detestable writing. We anathematize him, and separate him from the bosom of the Church, till she has received from him full satisfaction. We represent to your Holiness, with all convenient respect, that if you confirm our decree and abstain henceforth from receiving this detestable tyrant, his envoys, his letters and his presents, and even from speaking to him, we shall remain, as we ought, your sons and faithful servants. But if you take another course, which we cannot believe, it will be you who cast us into disobedience.” Notwithstanding this menace the Pope confirmed the decrees of the Council of Vienne by a letter dated October 20th. After the conclusion of the council, Godfrid, disgusted with the mortifications he met with in his diocese, and the riolence of the nobles, who made light of the excommunications he flung at them, resolved to desert his chaige, and instead of returning to Amiens, retired to the Grande Chartreuse.
A council assembled at Bourges next year, and deputies from Amiens presented themselves before the assembled bishops to state that their own bishop having deserted them, they were anxious to have another consecrated in his place. The bishops rebuked the deputies for their eagerness to get rid of Godfrid, told them that their lawlessness and dislike of his discipline had driven him into banishment, and insisted on their recalling him. The fathers of the council wrote to Godfrid, requiring his return to the post of duty. He received the letter with great regret, but could not disobey. He met the legate [an official representative sent by the pope] Conon in March, 1115, at Rheims, and joined in reiterating the excommunication of the emperor. The legate gave S. Godfrid a severe reprimand for deserting his flock, from selfish desire of repose.
No sooner was he returned to Amiens than he began again to stir up discontent by his ill-advised severity. It was the [Nor. a.
beginning of Lent, and he forbade the eating of meat on the Sundays in that season. Most made light of his command; he heard of it, but dissembled his anger till they came to make their confession before the Easter communion on Maundy Thursday, and then he denounced them for their impiety in daring to transgress his orders, and forbade them communion till Easter Monday. One fellow disguised himself as a woman and came to the altar on Maundy Thursday, and was communicated, but was sick on the floor immediately after, and, we are told, “ this accident filled all minds with such terror that they submitted without further remonstrance.”
Godfrid launched threats, denunciations, and excommunications right and left, on all who offended him or public morals. He forced his cleigy to assume at least an appearance of celibacy. Their concubines were driven with contumely out of the parsonages, and their children dispersed. The general detestation of the bishop by both clergy and laity grew to such a pass that, his biographer says, there was scarcely a parish in the whole diocese in which his life was safe. The people of Amiens especially incurred his wrath by their open expression of dislike, their jaunty defiance of his censures. He threw out mysterious hints that if they did not change and do penance, a sudden and unexpected punishment would fall on them. But his denunciations and threats, which had been listened to at one time by all with curiosity and by some with awe, through incessant repetition had lost their effect, and were treated with universal indifference. But this time the threat was terribly accomplished. In a mysterious manner the city caught fire at several points and burned furiously, only the episcopal palace and cathedral of S. Firmin escaping, along with the quarter of the indigent who lived on the alms of the bishop.
For two years after this the fear of the bishop kept his Nor. troublesome flock quiet, but after that they broke out into murmurs again, and he greatly desired to escape from the burden of an office he was not competent to bear with satisfaction to himself or to those whom he was charged to rule. He went to Rheims to consult the archbishop, but died on the way at Soissons, and was buried there. The Tounuafieois carrying off the body of a. Marti a. See p» 308.