AMALARIO di METZ (Amalarius, Amalarius). — Medieval theologian and liturgist, concerning whose life there are few and disputed historical data. He seems to have been born at Metz between 770 and 775. He was probably at Alcuin’s school in Aachen, as G. Morin maintains, or, as others believe, at Tours (cf. De eccl. off., IV, 17; De ord. Antiph., chaps. 58 and 67); he died at Metz on 29 April, between 850 and 853. According to the academic custom of the time, the Frankish name Amalario (Amalhere) was supplemented by the literary nickname Symphosius, of which Fortunatus may be a Latin synonym.
Upon returning to Metz, Leidrado apparently invited him to Lyon to employ him in the restoration of the ordo psallendi according to the rite of the palatine chapel (letter of Leidrado to Charlemagne, in MGH, Epist., IV, p. 542 ff.). Around 809, when the emperor raised the see of Trier to a metropolitan see, A. was appointed metropolitan there; but, in order not to offend local sensitivities, he preferred not to exercise his jurisdiction over the suffragans. In 811, Charlemagne sent him to Hamburg to consecrate the first Saxon Christian church
beyond the Elbe; and in the spring of 813 he was sent with Pietro, abbot of Nonantola, as ambassador to Constantinople for peace negotiations with the Eastern emperor (MGH, Epist., V, p. 555 ff.; cf. Eginhard: PL 104, 478). Returning to Italy in the following spring, he stayed at Nonantola, saddened by the news of Carlo’s death (28 January 814).
From this time A. no longer appears as bishop of Trier, where a powerful personage, Hetti, took his place: perhaps, discouraged by the loss of his august supporter, he resigned, yielding to the opposition of others. As is generally believed, he also seems to have been a commendatory abbot; and perhaps on this occasion, as compensation, an abbey was given to him in commendam, which, according to Morin, may have been that of S. Pietro of Hornbach in the diocese of Metz. In all probability, while residing at Metz, he was a kind of auxiliary bishop (chorepiscopus) to Drogone (823–55), the son of Charlemagne, who during his frequent and prolonged absences from the diocese governed it through «chorepiscopi».
A. played an important role 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 Agobardo, archbishop of Lyon, he was entrusted with the administration of that metropolitan see (835–38); but, by attempting a liturgical reform through introducing his Antiphonarium into it, he incurred the wrath of Agobardo’s supporters, led by the deacon Floro, who launched a violent campaign against him and even succeeded in having him condemned as a heretic at the Council of Kiersy (or Quierzy, Carisiacum, September 838: MGH, Conc., II, p. 768); after this Agobardo was able to return to his see.
After about ten years, A. reappears in the theological disputes over predestination, GODESCALCO D'ORBAIS (v.). He was in Rome at least twice: under Leone III (795–816), probably in 814, on his return from Constantinople (cf. De eccl. off., I, 42; IV, 40), and under Gregorio IV, in 831, sent on a mission by Ludovico il Pio (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 S. Arnolfo, beside his august friend Ludovico il Pio; and he was soon honored as a saint by the people.
Regarding the serious question of the two A., the one of Metz and the one of Trier, debated by Sirmond, G. Morin shed light on the matter after three centuries through various writings, identifying the two as one and the same (cf. Etudes, Textes, Découvertes, Maredsous 1913, pp. 62–63; see now I. M. Hussens, the work cited below).
WRITINGS. — Of A.’s numerous works, the following have come down to us, almost all liturgical in character:
Liber Officialis, also called De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, in 4 books, dedicated to the emperor Ludovicus the Pious; it is his principal work, on which A. worked at various times. He published the first 3 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 subsequently prepared a final edition of the complete work around 832, after his second journey to Rome. These facts must be borne in mind in order to explain the state of the numerous manuscripts (about 80). The text published in 1568 by Hittorp and reproduced in Migne is a combination of the second and third editions. A. Wilmart deserves credit for having identified the variety of A.’s authentic editions (Revue Divin., 37 [1925], pp. 73–99).
De ordine Antiphonarii is A.’s second work in liturgical importance and one of the last composed by him, since the book must postdate the death of Ludovicus the Pious (840), as well as that of Gregorius IV (844), as shown by the chronological indications in chap. 58 (cf. Hanssens, in Ephem. Liturg., 41 [1927], p. 239). The treatise is apologetic in character, since A. wrote it to justify the criteria used in composing his Antiphonarium (v. below).
There are various Expositiones of the Mass. First of all, the De officio Missae, mentioned in the correspondence with Petrus of Nonantola (MGH, Epist., V, p. 245 ff.), which A. composed at sea during the journey to Constantinople. After returning home, A. had to recast this short treatise into another, more complete work. Both, partially preserved in the Zurich manuscript C. 102, were published in 1927 by Fr. Hanssens in Ephemerides Liturgicae (41 [1927], pp. 166–73). The third treatise on the Mass is represented 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 regarded as a later work, derived from A.’s writings (cf. Rev. Bénéd., 25 [1908], pp. 304–20); but Fr. Hanssens, considering the great similarity between the Eclogae and the first two treatises, thinks that they may constitute their authentic definitive edition. He also maintains that the Expositio Missae beginning with the words Missa pro multis causis celebratur, attributed by Wilmart to an anonymous author of the eighth century (cf. DACL, V, col. 1022 ff.), must preserve other fragments of A.’s first expositio, and in Ephem. Liturgicae (44 [1930], pp. 24–46) he provides its critical edition.
The Epistolario (MGH, Epist., V, pp. 240–74) comprises only about ten letters, among them the notable reply to Carolus Magnus concerning the ceremonies of Baptism; the epistle to Abbot Ildunus on the time of sacred ordinations and fasts; that to the disciple Guntardus on frequent Communion; and those concerning the names of the Seraphim and Cherubim, the pronunciation and the monogram of Jesus (IIB).
According to the testimony of Ademarus of Angoulême (Hist., III, 2: PL 141, 29), A. was the author of the famous Regula Comunicorum et Sanctimonialium, issued at the Council of Mainz in 816 (MGH, Conc., II, pp. 307–456); Migne includes it among A.’s writings (PL 105, 815–986); but Alberto Werninghoff prefers to attribute its composition to Ansegisus (MGH, Conc., II, p. 309).
Of A. the poet, there remain the Versus mariini, dedicated to Petrus of Nonantola: 80 hexameters recounting the adventures of his embassy in the East (MGH, Poet. Lat., I, pp. 426–28).
His theological writings are entirely lost (cf. PL 121, 1952), including the reply to Pardulus of Laon’s inquiry concerning predestination, of which the author of De tribus epistolis speaks with strange contempt (chap. 40: PL 121, 1954). Also lost is the summary treatise of his writings, which Florus mentions under the name Embolis (PL 119, 73) and which A. must have composed while staying in Lyon, on the eve of the Council of Kiersy. Lost as well is the Prologus to the Lectionary, mentioned by A. himself together with the Commentarius diuturnalis officii, which he intended to write (De ord. Antiph., chap. 16: PL 105, 1273).
LITURGICAL ACTIVITY AND DOCTRINE. – Unable to obtain from Gregory IV in Rome a copy of the chants of the Office, because the available volumes had been taken away by Wala, abbot of Corbie, A., on his return from the City, went to Corbie to study there the authentic copies of the Roman Antiphonary. But since the Metz copies were older and less developed, he set about preparing a redaction of his own. Thus, before assuming the government of Lyon, he composed a typical Antiphonary, whose value, however, cannot have exceeded that of a private collection. His work was purely eclectic: he produced a redaction that reproduced, marked by 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. controversy and distress, is lost. In a certain sense, however, it is represented by the justificatory book De ordine Antiphonarii, a foremost historical source. For, with its description of the liturgical books and its numerous quotations,
it gives an idea of the collection of antiphons and responsories at the end of the eighth century and in the first half of the ninth.
In the Liber Officialis, a kind of liturgical encyclopaedia, A. dealt with the ecclesiastical year, Holy Orders, vestments, the Mass, the Divine Office, and the funeral liturgy. No other writing had such wide circulation and influence among later liturgists, down to Durandus of Mende: the treatise remains an indispensable source for the history of medieval liturgy.
With these works, which are the maturest fruit of the studies promoted by Charlemagne and Alcuin, A. is regarded as the founder of the science of liturgy in the Middle Ages. He attempts to explain almost all the rites of the Church. Contrary to what is usually asserted, A. was tormented by the labor of historical inquiry into their origin, anxious to know the authentic meaning intended by their instituters, in relation to the spiritual fruits to be attained: Ardor mihi inest iritae viae et abolitae propter antiquitatem, ut sciam quid habeat in medulla res memoreata, id est, quid in corde esset primorum dictatorum officii nostri, et quem fructum pariat (short preface to the De eccl. off.: PL 105, 992).
His mystical explanations became the norm for later treatises, so that – in the words of Bishop and Wilmart – he is regarded as the pontiff of symbolism (cf. DACL, V, col. 1024).
The charge of heresy brought against him by Floro (cf. PL 119, 71-80) was based chiefly on the expression « Triforme est corpus Christi » in the De eccl. off. (III, 35: PL 105, 1154 ff.): but the interpretation of it was evidently unjust. Indeed, this text of A.’s influenced the development of medieval theological thought: having entered Gratian’s Decretum under the name of Pope Sergius (cap. 32, D. II de cons.), it was also accepted by the great Scholastics, such as Alberto M., Bonaventura, and Tommaso d’Aq. (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, even if in the past they contributed greatly to liturgical piety, now also remain an invaluable guide for historical investigation.