MARINUS I.

A.D. 882-884.

 

EMPEROR OF THE EAST.                    EMPERORS OF THE WEST.

Basil I (The Macedonian), 867-886.     Louis II, 850-875.

                                                                  Charles II (The Bald), 875-877.

                                                                  Charles III (The Fat), 881-888.

 

IN Marinus, John VIII had a worthy successor. A native Early of Gallese (a town in the Roman Duchy which commanded the road from Rome to Ravenna by Todi and Perugia), and the son of the priest Palumbo, he entered the service of the Roman Church at the early age of twelve, as we learn from his own words recorded in the fourth session of the Eighth General Council. Ordained subdeacon by Leo IV, he was attached to the Church of S. Maria ad Praesepe, and in 860 was present as a subdeacon when Pope Nicholas received the envoys of Photius and the emperor. Ordained deacon (862-66), he was sent in the last-named year on that embassy to Constantinople which the imperial officials stopped on the Bulgarian frontier of the empire. Three years later he was dispatched by Hadrian II to preside, as his third legate, at the Eighth General Council. He enjoyed the full confidence of John VIII, as he had of his two predecessors, and was much honored by that discerning pontiff. He made him bishop of Caere (Cervetri), treasurer (arcarius) of the Holy See, and archdeacon. Among the many com missions entrusted to the courageous ability of Marinus by John VIII (880) was the one to the Emperor Basil which resulted for the legate in an honorable imprisonment. In 882 we find him at Naples on a diplomatic mission to its bishop, Athanasius.

After such a record of a well-spent life, it is not surprising that, immediately (December 16) on the death of John, the unanimous voice of the Roman people, though acting against the canons which forbade translations from See to See, called Bishop Marinus to the papal throne. He seems to have been consecrated immediately without any waiting for the consent of the emperor. But it was not to a bed of roses that he had been called. Faction troubles, which the strong hand of John had kept down, began at once. And the Annals of Fulda assign even to this very year the murder of the rich superista Gregory, “by his colleague, in the precincts (in paradise) of St. Peter’s”. The murderers did not hesitate to drag the dead body through the church, staining its pavement with the blood of their victim. Lapôtre believes this Gregory to have been that relation of John VIII who is said to have put an end to his life by the blow of a mallet; and that his (Gregory’s) marvelous death recorded by the Ratisbon continuation of the Annals of Fulda, is no other than this assassination described by Meginhard. Further, the contents of a note, which is added to the name of Hadrian III in a catalogue, to the effect that he caused George of the Aventine to be blinded, and the widow of the above-named Gregory to be whipped, are also by some authors connected with this event. But in all this finely-woven connected story there is too great a preponderance of the merest conjecture.

The emperor, Charles the Fat, from whom Marinus might naturally have looked for support, only made the condition of the empire worse than he found it. He came into Italy after Easter, and spent the whole summer there. And while, unable to keep his own counts from fighting with their armed followers under his very eyes, in attempting to do what it would have required a powerful, strong-minded ruler to accomplish, “he excited against him the feelings of the Italian nobles”. For in an assembly at Verona, he dispossessed, as far as words went, Guy, or Guido, Count of Tuscany, and others of their fiefs which their ancestors had held before them for generations, and gave them to men of low degree. Headed by Guy, the affronted nobles flew to arms, and, so far from losing their fiefs, “seized much more than they had held before”, laconically adds Meginhard. Moving south to meet the Pope, Charles received him with becoming honor at the monastery of Nonantula, where they remained together on June 20, consulting on the needs of the empire. Guy, who had meanwhile allied himself with a powerful body of Saracens, and was terrorising the whole country, was here declared guilty of high treason. Berenger of Friuli was deputed to strip him of his fief by force. A campaign successfully begun by him was brought to an ignominious termination by the usual fever. Even the emperor was stricken with it, and had to withdraw from Italy, leaving that country in greater confusion than it was before he set foot within it. To no purpose was it decreed (next year) that the Bavarians should march against Guy. Before the year (884) had run its course, Charles was compelled to make peace with the outraged Italians. With such an emperor, no wonder that Marinus could effect nothing in the way of bringing order into the country.

In one respect, at any rate, Marinus reversed the policy of his predecessor, rather unfortunately as the sequel proved. He absolved Formosus from the sworn promises he had made to John, and restored him to his bishopric. Formosus was certainly very different in character from George of the Aventine and the other leaders of the party with which he had become involved. He was rather weak than wicked. And it is not unlikely that it was because John VIII saw that Formosus might easily become the tool of designing men or that, at least, the faction, which had secured his interest, might cloak their nefarious plans under the good name of the Bishop of Porto that he forbade him to come to Rome again. It is quite possible, also, that John was wholly mistaken in his estimate of the character or guilt of Formosus. But it is plain, at any rate, that the latter must have become closely identified with one faction which was at a bitter feud with another, if we are to judge only from the brutal manner in which even his dead body was treated under Stephen (VI) VII. The simple fact that he had left his See of Porto for that of Rome is not enough to account for the animosity with which he was pursued even after death. But of all this, more will be said when the reign of Stephen VII is treated of. It is sufficient to observe here that Marinus would have been well advised if he had left Formosus in exile. Great scandal would have been avoided if he had trusted to the wisdom and justice of his predecessor.

If, however, Marinus deviated from the policy of John in the case of Formosus, he did not with regard to Photius. He had stood by at the Eighth General Council and seen that heresiarch ape the conduct of Our Lord before Pilate; he had suffered thirty days imprisonment on his account, and had personal knowledge of the man he was dealing with, and, following the example of his predecessors, he condemned him. Hence the attack made upon him by Photius. Unfortunately the letter which, at the dictation of the latter, the emperor Basil sent to Hadrian III, is lost. Its contents are only known through the answer sent to it by Hadrian s successor, Stephen (V) VI. Basil, or rather Photius, urged inter alia that Marinus had been a bishop before his election as Pope, and hence could not be transferred from one See to the other. Such a charge came with very good grace from Photius, who had translated so many of his own friends from one See to another! Stephen, however, whose letter will be given more in full under his Life, had no difficulty in showing, from examples which he adduced, that translations had often been made for a good and sufficient cause. And he maintained that the character of Marinus, Our Lord’s “immaculate priest”, was reason enough for his translation. The breach between Rome and Constantinople, which, at any rate, had not increased under John VII I, was rapidly widened under his immediate successors.

Frodoard, who, in harmony with the epitaph of Marinus, praises his wisdom and his zeal and success in overcoming the errors of the Greeks and restoring unity to the Church, has preserved for us some knowledge of his relations with France. In response to the profession of faith which he received from the deservedly famous Fulk, archbishop of Rheims, Marinus sent him the pallium. Further correspondence passed between them. Besides asking the Pope to confirm the privileges of the Church of Rheims, and to interest himself in the young king Carloman, who, along with Fulk himself, had visited Rome with his father, the emperor Charles the Bald, the archbishop begged him to take cognizance of the action of Erminfrid. This man had seized on a monastery belonging to Fulk, but which was situated in the diocese of Eurard, archbishop of Sens. The Pope accordingly wrote to Eurard and to John, archbishop of Rouen, in whose diocese Erminfrid was then living. But of the issue of this affair we know nothing.

The same may almost be said of the rest of the work of Marinus. However, to pass over his confirmations of the privileges of a few monasteries, another little scrap of information regarding his actions should not remain unnoticed by an Englishman. Out “of regard for Alfred, king of the Anglo-Saxons, and at his request, (Marinus) freed the school (or quarter) of the Anglo-Saxons resident at Rome from all tribute and tax. He also sent many gifts on that occasion, among which was no small portion of the holy and venerable cross, on which Our Lord J. Christ was suspended for the general salvation of mankind”. And, on the other hand, we find it recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that “that same year (883) Sighelm and Aethelstan carried to Rome the alms which the king (Alfred) had vowed to send thither”. And there may now be seen in the Museo delle Terme, in Rome, a part, no doubt, of his “alms”, viz. three silver coins of Alfred, which, together with many other somewhat later English coins, were found (1883-4), as we have already noticed, in an earthen vase on the site of the House of the Vestal Virgins.

While the chroniclers give us the year of the death of  Marinus, the month is a matter of conjecture. With Duchesne and Pagi it may be assigned to May, and with the former to the 15th. From the same author we cite the epitaph from Marinus’s tomb, which was in St. Peter’s “between the Silver Gate and the Roman Gate in the Portico”:

“Marinus, who with his humble mind pleased God and was an honor to the world, ordained that his members should be buried in this spot, in the hope that one day the earth would give them back to him. Shining like the stars in heaven, he was beloved by kings and peoples. Adorned with learning, he scattered abroad the good seed. Overcoming the Greeks, he banished schism from the East. Whoever you are who visit this temple of St. Peter, pray that he may reign in heaven”.