CONSTANTINE.

708-715

 

Emperors. Justinian II, 705-711. Phlippicus (Bardanes), 711-713. Anastasius II, 713-715

Kings. Aripert II, 700-712. Ausprand, 712. Liutprand, 712-744.

Exarchs. Theophylact, 702-709. John Rizocopus, 710-713. Scholasticus, 713-726.

 

Of Constantine we know nothing before he became Pope, except that, like his immediate predecessor (could he have been his brother?), he was a Syrian and the son Pope, of John. “The mildest of men”, he was consecrated March 25, 708.

The first act that is recorded of Constantine is his consecrating Felix, the successor of Damian (consecrated by Sergius I), as archbishop of Ravenna.

The subsequent conduct of Felix will be more readily understood if it be premised that it appears from the Liber Diurnus (formulas 73-4-5) that the bishops immediately dependent on the See of Rome (the suburbicarian bishops) had, after their consecration, to sign three formulas and give them into the hands of the Pope. The first, called promissio fidei, was a detailed profession of faith, and had to be signed by the new bishop and his priests. The second, the cautio, was an undertaking to observe certain rules of ecclesiastical government. It had to be dictated by the bishop to a notary, in presence of the primicerius and secundicerius of the notaries of the Roman Church, and then signed by the bishop and several witnesses. The third document, known as the indiculum, was a promise not to be connected with any undertaking against the unity of the Church or the security of the Roman empire. The indiculum had to be written out by the bishop himself, and placed by him in the confession of St. Peter.

Felix had no sooner received the desired consecration, than, thinking he had humbled himself quite enough by coming to Rome to be ordained, he refused to sign the accustomed acts of submission to the Holy See, i.e. probably, he refused to sign the second document just mentioned, the cautio strictly so called. Backed by the secular power, “by the power of the judges”, as the papal biographer expresses it, Felix refused to comply with the Pope’s demands. The parchment, however, on which the indiculum had been duly written, was placed by the Pope himself in the confession of St Peter. And we have it on the authority of the same historian that, a few days after, it was found all black, and, as it were, scorched. In the sacking and partial burning of the city of Ravenna (in the following year, 709) by the troops of Justinian, the papal biographer sees the hand of God punishing its people and archbishop for their pride in wishing to be more independent of the Pope. Why Justinian treated Ravenna in this manner cannot be precisely ascertained. According to Agnellus it was because some of the Ravennese had taken part in the rebellion against him in 695. At any rate, it is certain that he put to death all the chief men of the city, deprived Archbishop Felix of his sight, and sent him into exile somewhere in Pontus, very likely to Cherson. However, when Justinian finished his violent career by a violent death (711), the poor sightless archbishop was allowed to return to his See. Humbled by his terrible sufferings, Felix submitted to the Pope, sent, of his own free will, the required “oath of obedience” (cautio) and died (723) in communion with the See of Rome.

The example of Caedwalla, king of the West Saxons, and Offa who, as we have seen, resigned his kingdom and went to Rome to die, was followed, twenty years after, by two other Anglo-Saxon kings, Coenred, “who had for some time (704-709) very nobly governed the kingdom of the Mercians”, says Bede, “did a much more noble act by quitting the throne of his kingdom and going to Rome (after May 709), where, having received the tonsure, when Constantine was Pope, and been made a monk at the shrine of the apostles, he continued to his last hours in prayer, fastings, and alms-deeds ... With him went the son of Sighere, king of the East Saxons, whose name was Offa, a youth of most lovely age and beauty, and most earnestly desired by all his nation to be their king. He, with like devotion, quitted his (betrothed) wife, lands, kindred and country, for Christ and for the gospel, that he might receive a hundredfold in this life and in the next life everlasting (St. Matt, xix, 29). He also .... receiving the tonsure and adopting a monastic life, attained the long-wished-for sight of the blessed apostles in heaven”.

With them, and at their request, there went to Rome, for the second time, Ecgwin, the famous bishop of Worcester.

To get at the truth with regard to the history of Ecgwin is well-nigh impossible. The biographies of him which we possess do not go back beyond the tenth or eleventh centuries; and the royal charters and papal letters which concern him are, for the most part, regarded as forgeries. However, of the chief facts of his life there is no reason to doubt. Most of them are vouched for by his charter of foundation of the abbey of Evesham (714), which has been preserved for us by one of his biographers, Prior Dominic. And of this charter Mr Macray, the editor of Dominic’s Life for the Rolls series, writes: “The version (of Ecgwin’s charter) in our text claims so decidedly to be a transcript, paene verbum ex verbo, sicut ipsemet vir sanctus in cartis suis ex maxima parte scribendo est prosequutus, that its genuineness, as a whole, can only be disputed either by accusing the prior of a deliberate forgery, or by imputing to him an almost incredible ignorance of the age and character of the document which he used”.

Ecgwin’s first visit to Rome was the more romantic. His people, finding that he never ceased denouncing their evil ways, contrived to bring upon him the displeasure both of Rome and the king. To Rome, then, was he summoned. To show how he was bound by accusations, we are told that he fastened fetters on himself and threw the key of them into the Avon. Though thus impeded, Rome was reached at last. A fish caught in the Tiber was found to contain the key of Ecgwin’s fetters! Taking this marvel as a sign from heaven, Ecgwin freed himself from his chains. Then by the Pope also was he declared innocent of the charges brought against him, and by his authority was he restored to his see.

The second time he went to Rome was, as we have seen, in the company of kings.

His eleventh century biographer relates that, while at Rome on this occasion, Ecgwin consulted the Pope about a vision that he had seen, in which he was directed to build a church in the midst of a wild country, the site of the present town of Evesham, where there was a “bit of a chapel (ecclesiolam), probably the work”, says Malmesbury, “of the Britons”. The Pope, in full belief of the genuineness of the vision, wrote (709) to the archbishop of Canterbury (Brithwald), and ordered a council to be held on the spot where Ecgwin had seen the vision of Our Lady, and a Benedictine monastery to be built there. In the Lateran church of Our Saviour, whence the letter of the Pope and the supposed charters of the kings are dated, the two kings, whom the saint had conducted to Rome, gave large grants, it is said, towards the expenses of the new church and monastery, in presence of the Pope and a great number of Anglo-Saxon bishops and nobles. The saint returned with great joy to England. The monastery of Evesham was begun at once; and in 713 a bull of Pope Constantine placed it under the special protection of Archbishop Brithwald, and declared it “free from all tyrannical exaction”.

From this history of Ecgwin, if we conclude only that he made two journeys to Rome in the days of Pope Constantine, and obtained a “privilege of exemption or protection” from that Pontiff for his monastery of Evesham, we shall certainly not err on the side of credulity.

Towards the close of the year 709, Constantine left the harbour of Portus for Constantinople, in obedience to an order from Justinian, who thought to settle the ‘Quinisext question’ more quickly by word of mouth than by diplomatic correspondence.

As this journey of the Pope is interesting from various points of view, it seems worthwhile to give it at the same length as it has been given to us by the papal biographer. There accompanied the Pope two bishops, three priests, Gregory the deacon, afterwards the great Pope Gregory II, the secundicerius, the first of the defensors, or agents, the (private) treasurer, the nomenclator, the keeper of the archives (scrinarius), two subdeacons, and a few inferior clerics. At Naples the Pope was met by the exarch John, who, on leaving the Pope, went to Rome, and, for some reason quite unknown to us, proceeded to decapitate four officials of the papal court—the majordomo, the treasurer, the ordinator and an abbot. Passing on to Ravenna, he met with a most shameful death, a just reward, as the Pope’s biographer thinks, of his great crimes. Meanwhile the Pope sailed on to Otranto, touching at Sicily, Reggio, Cotrone and Gallipoli, in Calabria. At Otranto, where he passed the winter, he was visited by the Regionarius Theophanius, who brought with him an imperial mandate, to the effect that, wherever the Pope touched in the course of his journey, he was to be received by the judges as though he were the emperor. When the winter was over the Pope sailed to Constantinople by way of the island of Ceos. To the seventh milestone from the city went forth the populace in their holiday attire to meet the Pope. At their head were the emperor’s young son Tiberius and the nobility, with the patriarch Cyrus and his clergy. Mounted on beautifully caparisoned horses from the imperial stables, the Pope wearing his mitre, the papal party were escorted in triumph to the palace of Placidia. This palace, the usual residence of the papal apocrisiarii when at Constantinople, stood where once stood old Byzantium, and where now stands the old Seraglio, and so was beautifully situated at the eastern end of the promontory which separates the Sea of Marmora from the Golden Horn, commanding a view of the Asiatic coast. Justinian, who was then at Nicaea in Bithynia, at once wrote to the Pope to express his joy and thankfulness for his coming, and begged him to come as far as Nicomedia. Thither the emperor made his way; and there, with the imperial crown upon his head, he prostrated himself before the Pope on his arrival and kissed his feet. Then, whilst all admired the emperor’s humility, the Pope and emperor embraced. On Sunday the emperor received Holy Communion at the hands of the Pope; and whilst praying the Pope to intercede for his sins, he renewed all the privileges of the Church. As to what passed between Justinian and the Pope in the course of their conversation, the biographer of the latter gives us no further information in his Life of Constantine. But it is the general opinion of historians, supported by what will be immediately cited from the life of Gregory II, that the two discussed the Quinisext Council. By the aid of his deacon Gregory, the Pope succeeded in satisfying the emperor without compromising his See. “When questioned by the emperor on certain chapters”, says Gregory’s (II) biographer, “he (Gregory) solved every difficulty by his admirable answers”. As Hefélé remarks, Constantine took the middle course which we know that John VIII afterwards took, i.e., he approved those canons of the Trullan synod which were not opposed to the faith, good morals, or the decrees of the Roman Church.

Despite a great deal of sickness on his return journey, the Pope reached Rome (October 24, 711) in safety, to the great joy of the people.

Soon after the Pope’s arrival in Rome, the bloodthirsty Justinian, whom the papal biographer, on the principle, it would seem, that one ought to speak of men as one finds them, calls “orthodox and most Christian”, was slain, and Philippicus (Bardanes), a heretic, reigned in his stead! The first thing that this “luxurious and extravagant” prince did was to attempt to revive the Monothelite heresy. By so doing, remarks Finlay, “he increased the confusion into which the empire had fallen (by the frequent revolutions that had occurred from the date of the first accession of Justinian II), and exposed the total want of character and conscience among the Greek clergy, by re-establishing the Monothelite doctrines in a general council of the Eastern bishops” (712 AD). The letter which he sent to the Pope was replete with heresy.

Examined in a synod at Rome, the imperial document was condemned by the Pope. The Roman people also took up the question; and by their conduct retorted in a very direct manner on the action of Bardanes. For one of the first acts of the emperor had been to order the removal of a representation of the Sixth General Council, which had been hanging for some years in the vestibule of the palace, and, on the other hand, he had decreed the reinsertion into the diptychs of the names of those who had been condemned by the Sixth General Council and the re-erection of their images. The acts of the Sixth Council he had caused to be burnt and its supporters exiled. Accordingly Pope and people proceeded to erect in the portico of St. Peter’s a series of pictures illustrative of the six general councils. They then went a step further, a step equivalent to declaring themselves independent, at least of an heretical emperor. They decreed that the name of Philippicus should not appear in their charters, nor be stamped on their money. His image was not placed in the church, nor was he prayed for in the Canon of the Mass. After this, what need for surprise when, after further provocation, we find the Roman people making themselves wholly independent of the emperor and placing themselves under the rule of the Pope; and if we find under Zachary, if not under one of the Gregorys (II or III), the Pope’s name on the coins of the Roman people instead of the emperor’s!

Of course the emperor could not tamely submit to see all this defiance of his authority, and he sent (713) a certain Peter to replace the Duke Christopher, who had connived at all these doings. The people, however, took Christopher’s part, and a fight took place in the Via Sacra, in front of the official residence of the governor of Rome, between what was known as the Christian party and Agatho, who had come to Rome to represent Peter. Several had been killed on both sides, when the Pope, to prevent further bloodshed, sent down to the combatants a body of priests bearing the Book of the Gospels and the Crucifix. They prevailed on the Christian party, which was far the stronger, to yield. The triumph of the heretical party was, however, short-lived; for news reached Rome, a few days after the combat, that the heretic Philippicus had been deposed, and that the orthodox Anastasius reigned in his stead. “Then”, says the papal biographer from whom we learn these facts, “great was the joy of the orthodox, while black night fell upon the heretic”.

With their imperial sympathies the popes ought to have been the last persons with whom any emperor should have quarreled. This the new emperor, Anastasius, understood and, by the hands of his exarch Scholasticus, sent the Pope a profession of faith, in which he declared his orthodoxy and consequent adhesion to the Sixth General Council. The patriarch John, also, who had been forcibly placed in the See of Constantinople by Philippicus, sent a profession of faith to Constantine (whom he calls the head of the Christian priesthood), in which he endeavored to make out that he had always really been orthodox at heart, but had acted as he had done to ward off greater evils from the Church. And he maintained that the decree of faith drawn up at the pseudo-council of Philippicus was orthodox in sense, if not at first sight in words. As a sole comment upon this, let it suffice to point out that it was conduct of the same weak kind on the part of our own bishops under Henry VIII that brought about the so-called Reformation and all the evils, social and religious—notably the Civil War—that it has produced in England. The exarch or the Roman people suffered Peter to receive the dukedom of Rome on condition of his promising not to molest any of his opponents.

With Muratori, we may refer to this year the action of the holy archbishop of Milan, Benedict. It would seem that of old, certainly in the fifth century, the church of Pavia had been subject to that of Milan. For some cause the right of the archbishops of Milan had been lost; perhaps because the Lombard kings had obtained exemption for the bishops of their capital from the jurisdiction of Milan. And so when it was shown to Benedict, who wished to recover the rights of Milan, that for a long time the bishops of Pavia had been consecrated at Rome, and had been subject only to its jurisdiction, he waived his contentions once and for all.

After the year 713 we know nothing more of the life of Constantine. When, in conclusion, it is stated that in his time, as in the time of Pharao, there was a season of extraordinary scarcity and one of extraordinary plenty, and that he consecrated a great many bishops both when going to and when returning from Constantinople, and at other times, practically all has here been said that is known of this “worthy predecessor of the greater popes under whom Rome effected her emancipation from the yoke of Byzantium”.

Constantine was buried in St. Peter’s, April 9, 715.