Saint Severinus of Noricum and Arthurian Republicanism

Today is the Feast of St Severinus of Noricum who lived in this part of the world in the evil times of the Völkerwanderung. Since he defended the liberty of the Romans against Germanic oppression, he could be a patron saint for what Aelianus likes to call “Arthurian Republicanism.” He had a lot of trouble with Giso, queen of the Rugians, “a dangerous and wicked woman” as Eugippius calls her. Eugippius relates the following story of her cruelty:

She oppressed the Romans with a heavy hand, and even ordered some to be removed beyond the Danube. For one day she came to a village near Favianis, and commanded that certain ones should be brought to her across the Danube to be condemned to the most degrading offices of slavery. The man of God sent to her and asked that she let them go. But she, her woman’s anger kindled to a white heat, replied with a message of the greatest rudeness. “Pray for thyself,” she said, “servant of God, lurking in thy cell! Leave me to issue concerning my servants such orders as I please.”
When the man of God received this answer, he said, “I put my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. She shall be compelled by necessity to do that which her perverse inclination has despised.”
Even so the swift stroke followed which cast down her haughty spirit. For there were certain goldsmiths, barbarians, shut up and straitly guarded that they might fashion ornaments for the king and queen. On the same day on which the queen had spurned the servant of God, the little son of King Feletheus, Fredericus by name, moved by childish curiosity, went in among them. Then the goldsmiths put a sword at the child’s breast, saying that if any one should attempt to approach them without the safeguard of an oath, they would first run through the little prince, and afterwards slay themselves; since, worn out by toil and confinement, they were utterly desperate. When this came to the ears of the cruel and ungodly queen, she rent her garments for grief, and cried aloud, “O Severinus, servant of the Lord, thus are the insults I have offered avenged by thy God! With profuse prayers thou hast called down vengeance upon my scorn, that thou might be avenged in my offspring!” So, running to and fro, with manifold contrition and pitiable lamentation, she acknowledged that she was smitten by this blow in recompense for the crime of scorn which she had committed against the servant of God. And she instantly dispatched horsemen to seek his pardon; and sent back the Romans whom that very day she had removed, and interceding for whom Severinus had been visited with her scorn. The goldsmiths received the surety of an oath, released the child, and were at the same time themselves released.
When he heard these things, the most reverent servant of Christ returned unbounded thanks to the Creator: who doth sometimes postpone answering prayer, in order that with the increase of faith, hope, and love he may grant greater blessings than are asked. For the omnipotence of the Saviour brought it to pass that when the cruel woman subjected the free to slavery, she was compelled to restore the slaves to liberty.

Love of liberty is  a beautiful thing when rightly ordered, and that is what makes it so dangerous when it is disordered.

9 thoughts on “Saint Severinus of Noricum and Arthurian Republicanism

  1. “the goldsmiths put a sword at the child’s breast, saying that if any one should attempt to approach them without the safeguard of an oath, they would first run through the little prince”

    I’m not sure I understand your post. You’re giving the above as an example of disordered love of liberty because its sacrificing the life of the innocent as a means of obtaining liberty, correct?


    • I wasn’t actually thinking about the goldsmiths at all. I was thinking about St Severinus’s ordered love of liberty. You are right about the goldsmith’s love being disordered of course.


  2. Seriously? How is St. Severinus’ response ordered? Given that his response of thanks giving hinges on the Goldsmith’s willingness to sacrifice the innocent? The only part of the entire episode that comes across as ordered is the Queen’s fear for her innocent child and subsequent repentance.


  3. You’re drawing a line that cuts both ways. For instance, the fire bombing of Tokyo, a holocaust regularly defended by the neo-con Catholics, can also be attributed to prayers to God. The only difference between them is matter of degree, not a difference in kind.


    • I don’t understand. Isn’t every evil permitted by God in order to bring about a greater good? Bringing grateful to Him for bringing about good is not in any way to defend the sinful deeds that He permits.


      • I suppose the issue is that you see more of a separation than I do. Did St. Severinus see the separation of God from man that you propose, or did he see God directing the actions of men as was more commonly held than it is today.

        While I don’t know if St. Severinus would have held that God directed the Goldsmith to hold the knife as he would have probably held him direct the Goldsmith in his art as Goldsmith, nevertheless for his to immediately praise God for their liberty appears to me to assume a directiveness that would in turn assume that it was not disordered to threaten the child.


  4. Pingback: Integralism | Sancrucensis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.