So Durand was the first person to affix the name of Robert II. to the _Veni Sancte_. Trithemius comes next in order; the Abbot of Spanheim; historian and scholar; indefatigable in researches, but erratic and prejudiced; born 1462 and dying 1516. His true name is Johann von Trittenheim and we derive this, and other information about authors and their works, from his _Liber de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis_—a biographical dictionary like those of Jerome, Gennadius, and Isidore, to whose works he really furnishes an Appendix. Egon (sometimes known as Ego) in his account of Reichenau’s distinguished men (_De Viris illustribus Augiae divitis_, quoted by Pez: _Thesaurus Anecdotorum_, I., 3; 68. Cf. Migne, 143) declares that Trithemius was “unjustly hostile to the monks of Reichenau” in asserting that “our Hermannus” was from St. Gall, when even Metzler conceded, on behalf of his own convent, that Hermann had changed his residence from St. Gall to Reichenau. Be this as it may, the positive statement of Trithemius, which gives the _Veni Sancte_ to Robert II. instead of to Hermann, has been generally accepted. Cardinal Bona (1677), Louis Archon (1704-11), and others agree with him. But there is a break in the continuity of faith. Clichtove—an authority much esteemed—expresses no opinion about the author of the _Veni Sancte_ further than to say _quisquis is fuerit_—whoever he was. Rambach, in his _Anthology_, comes now to the rescue. (_Anthologie_, I., 227.) He says it is “_ganz unstreitig von Robert;_” and all the German critics, with the single exception of Daniel, have followed this authority blindly. Whatever the Germans said has usually been enough for the English. Therefore the _Veni Sancte_ is in every collection attributed, without a shadow of doubt, to Robert the King. There should have been less positiveness about this if the accurate Daniel had been noticed more carefully. He praises the language of Clichtove, who says that the author, “whoever he was,” must have been “inwardly filled with light,” and he italicizes the _quisquis is fuerit_. But as Robert, with only three others, appears to have escaped the wreck of the sequences in the sixteenth century, even Daniel allows the _Veni Sancte_ to him; and Archbishop Trench finds that “there exists no good reason why we should question” that Robert wrote it. We may dismiss any conjectures about Innocent III. having been its author, although great efforts have been made to credit this hymn to his pen. Dom Remy Cellier and Migne seem the most strongly partisan, but their remarks and references are weak. (_Scriptores Ecclesiastici_, vol. xiii., p. 109, note. Also _Patrologia_, 141; 901.) A sample of the general looseness of citation can be found in Kehrein (No. 125), who announces that Gerbert “holds Hermannus Contractus to be the author” of the _Veni Sancte_. Gerbert does nothing of the kind. He names Hermann _with others_. It is quite true, though, that he does _not_ name Robert.