AMALARIUS of Metz (Amalarius, Amalher). — Medieval theologian and liturgist, on whose life few and disputed historical data are available. He seems to have been born in Metz between 770 and 775. He probably attended the school of Alcuin, in Aachen, as G. Morin believes, or, as others think, in Tours (cf. De eccl. off., IV, 17; De ord. Antiph., chaps. 58 and 67); he died in Metz on April 29, between 850 and 853. According to the academic custom of the time, the Frankish name Amalarius (Amalher) was supplemented by the literary sobriquet Symphosius, of which Fortunatus may be a Latin synonym.
Upon returning to Metz, Leidrad invited him, it seems, to Lyon to assist in the restoration of the choir to be sung according to the rite of the palace chapel (letter of Leidrad to Charlemagne, in MGH, Epist., IV, p. 542 sqq.). Around 809, when the emperor elevated the see of Trier to a metropolitan see, A. was appointed as metropolitan; but to avoid offending local sensibilities, he preferred not to exercise his jurisdiction over the suffragans. In 811, he was sent by Charlemagne to Hamburg to consecrate the first Christian church among the Saxons beyond the Elbe; and in the spring of 813 he was dispatched with Peter, abbot of Nonantola, as an ambassador to Constantinople for peace negotiations with the emperor of the East (MGH, Epist., V, p. 555 sqq.; cf. Eginhard: PL 104, 478). Returning to Italy the following spring, he stayed at Nonantola, saddened by the news of the death of Charles (January 28, 814).
From this time onward A. no longer appears as bishop of Trier, for a powerful figure, Hetti, occupies his place: perhaps discouraged by the loss of his august supporter, he resigned, yielding to the opposition of others. As is generally believed, he seems also to have been a commendatory abbot; and perhaps precisely on this occasion, as compensation, he was given in commendam an abbey, which, according to Morin, may have been that of St. Peter of Hornbach in the diocese of Metz. Most probably, while residing in Metz, he served as a kind of auxiliary bishop (chorepiscopus) to Drogo (823-55), Charlemagne’s son, who during his frequent and long absences from the diocese governed it through “corepiscopi.”
A. played an important part in the Synod of Aachen in 816 on the reform of the clergy, and in that of Paris in 825 on the controversy over images. During the exile of Agobard, archbishop of Lyon, he was entrusted with the administration of that see (835-38); but by attempting a liturgical reform with the introduction of his Antiphonary, he incurred the wrath of Agobard’s partisans, led by the deacon Florus, who launched a violent campaign against him and even succeeded in having him condemned as a heretic at the Council of Quierzy (or Kiersy, Carisicum, September 838; MGH, Conc., II, p. 768); after which Agobard was able to return to his see.
A. reappears, after about ten years, in the theological disputes on predestination raised by the teaching of Gottschalk (q.v.). He was in Rome at least twice: under Leo III (795-816), probably in 814, on his return from Constantinople (cf. De eccl. off., I, 42; IV, 40), and under Gregory IV, in 831, invited on a mission by Louis the Pious (cf. De ord. Antiph., prol. and chap. 58); he always took full advantage of these visits for his liturgical studies.
He was buried in the abbey of St. Arnulf, beside his august friend Louis the Pious; and soon after he was honored by the people as a saint.
As to the serious question of the two A.’s, one of Metz and one of Trier, agitated by Sirmond, light was shed, after three centuries, by G. Morin in various writings, who identifies the two (cf. Etudes, Textes, Découvertes, Maredsous 1913, pp. 62-63; see now I. M. Hanssens, work cited below).
WRITINGS. — Of A.’s numerous works, the following have come down to us, almost all of a liturgical nature:
Liber Officialis, also called De Ecclesiasticis Officii, in 4 books, dedicated to Emperor Louis the Pious; the principal work, on which A. labored at various times. He published the first three books around 820 and gradually appended to them a group of letters (PL 105, 1333-40). In a second edition, he added Book IV (cf. Pref. Postquam). He then prepared a final edition of the complete work around 832, after his second trip to Rome. These data must be kept in mind to explain the state of the numerous manuscripts (ca. 80). The text published in 1568 by Hittorp and reproduced in Migne is a combination of the second and third editions. It is to the credit of A. Wilmart to have noted the variety of authentic editions of A. (Revue Bénéd., 37 [1925], pp. 73-99).
De ordine Antiphonarii is the second most important liturgical work of A. and one of the last he composed, since the book must be later than the death of Louis the Pious (840), as well as of Gregory IV (844), as shown by the chronological indications in chap. 58 (cf. Hanssens, in Ephem. Liturg., 41 [1927], p. 239). The pamphlet is apologetic in character, since A. wrote it to justify the criteria used in the composition of his Antiphonary (q.v.).
There are various Expositions of the Mass. First, the De officio Missae, mentioned in the correspondence with Peter of Nonantola (MGH, Epist., V, p. 245 sqq.), which A. composed at sea during the voyage to Constantinople. Upon his return home, A. had to rework this treatise into a more complete one. Both, partially preserved in the Zurich ms. C. 102, were published in 1927 by Fr. Hanssens in Ephemerides Liturgicae (41 [1927], pp. 166-73). The third treatise on the Mass is given by the Eclogae de Ordine Romano et de quattuor orationibus Missae (or Eclogae de officio Missae), a description of the Roman pontifical Mass. It has been considered a later work, derived from A.’s writings (cf. Rev. Bénéd., 25 [1908], pp. 304-20); but Fr. Hanssens, noting the great similarity of the Eclogae to the first two treatises, thinks they may constitute their authentic definitive edition. He also believes that the Expositio Missae beginning with the words Missa pro multis causis celebratur, attributed by Wilmart to an anonymous writer of the 10th century (cf. DACL, V, col. 1022 sqq.), should preserve other fragments of A.’s first exposition, and in Ephem. Liturgicae (44 [1930], pp. 24-46) he gives a critical edition.
The Epistolary (MGH, Epist., V, pp. 240-74) includes only a handful of letters, among which notable are the reply to Charlemagne on the ceremonies of Baptism, the letter to Abbot Ilduin on the time of holy ordinations and fasts, that to the disciple Guntard on frequent communion, those on the names of the Seraphim and Cherubim, on pronunciation, and on the monogram of Jesus (118).
According to the testimony of Adhemar of Angoulême (Hist., III, 2: PL 141, 29), A. would be the author of the famous Regula Canonicorum et Sanctimonialium issued at the Council of Aachen in 816 (MGH, Conc., II, pp. 307-456): Migne includes it among A.’s writings (PL 105, 815-886); but Albertus Vermeersch prefers to attribute its composition to Ansegisus (MGH, Conc., II, p. 309).
Of A. the poet, there remain the Versus marini, dedicated to Peter of Nonantola: hexameters narrating the vicissitudes of his legation in the East (MGH, Poet. Lat., I, pp. 426-28).
Entirely lost are his theological writings (cf. PL 121, 1052), such as the reply to Pardulus of Laon’s inquiry on predestination, of which the author of the De tribus epistolis speaks with strange disdain (chap. 40: PL 121, 1054). Also lost is the pamphlet summarizing his writings, mentioned by Florus under the name of Embolis (PL 110, 73) and which A. must have written while at Lyon, on the eve of the Council of Quierzy. Lost too is the Prologue to the Lectionary, mentioned by A. himself along with the Commentarius de turnali officii, which he intended to write (De ord. Antiph., chap. 16: PL 105, 1273).
BIBL.:
G. Morin, in Rev. Bénéd. 25 (1908) 304-20; 37 (1925) 73-99; Etudes, Textes, Découvertes, Maredsous 1913, pp. 62-63;
I. M. Hanssens, Amalarii episcopi Opera Liturgica omnia, 3 vols., Vatican 1948-50;
A. Wilmart, in Rev. Bénéd. 44 (1930) 24-46;
A. Vermeersch, in Dict. de Théol. cath. I, 1237-40;
A. Chavasse, in Rev. des Ét. aug. 1 (1955) 113-120.
LITURGICAL ACTIVITY AND DOCTRINE. - Having been unable to obtain from Gregory IV in Rome a copy of the chants for the office because the available volumes had been taken away by Wala, abbot of Corbie, A., on his return from the Urbe, went to Corbie to study the authentic copies of the Roman Antiphonary there. But since the copies available were older and less developed, he set to work on his own edition. And so, before assuming the governance of Lyon, he composed a typical Antiphonary, whose value, however, did not exceed that of a private collection. He merely performed an eclectic work, producing an edition that reproduced, marked with sigla, the Roman tradition (R.), the Metz tradition (M.), and his own modifications (I. C. [ingenium cogitavit]: Indulgentia, Caritas).
Unfortunately, this antiphonary, which brought A. polemics and displeasure, is lost. But in a certain way, it is replaced by the justificatory book De ordine Antiphonari, a principal historical source. With its description indeed of the liturgical books and numerous quotations, it provides an idea of the collection of antiphons and responsories at the end of the 8th century and in the first half of the 9th.
With the Liber Officialis, a kind of liturgical encyclopedia, A. dealt with the ecclesiastical year, the Holy Orders, vestments, the Mass, the divine office, and funeral liturgy. No other writing had such wide diffusion and influence on later liturgists until Durandus of Mende: the treatise remains an irreplaceable source for the history of medieval liturgy.
With these works, which are the most mature fruit of the studies promoted by Charlemagne and Alcuin, A. is regarded as the founder of liturgical science in the Middle Ages. He attempted to explain almost all the rites of the Church. Contrary to what is often asserted, A. was tormented by the struggle of historical research into their origin, anxious to know the authentic meaning intended by the institutions, in relation to the spiritual fruits to be attained: Ardor mihi inest tritae viae et abolitae propter antiquitatem, ut sciam quid habeat in medulla res memorata, id est, quid in corde esset primorum dictatorum officii nostri, et quem fructum pariat (short preface to De eccl. off.: PL 105, 992).
His mystical explanations became the norm for later treatise writers, so that—according to the expression of Bishop and Wilmart—he is considered the pontifex of symbolism (cf. DACL, V, col. 1024).
The accusation of heresy leveled at him by Florus (cf. PL 119, 71-80) was based above all on the expression “Triforme est corpus Christi” from the De eccl. off. (III, 35: PL 105, 1154 sq.): the interpretation of it was evidently unjust. Indeed, this text of A. influenced the development of medieval theological thought: it entered the Decretum of Gratian under the name of Pope Sergius (cap. 22, D. II de cons.), and was also accepted by the great Scholastics, such as Albert the Great, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas (cf. H. de Lubac, Corpus mysticum, Paris 1944, pp. 301-49: Le «corpus triforme» d’Amalaire et ses destinées).
A. is certainly one of the most interesting figures of the Middle Ages, and his writings, which in the past contributed greatly to liturgical piety, now remain as an invaluable guide for historical investigation.