STEPHEN (V.) VI.

A.D. 885-891.

 

 

EMPERORS OF THE EAST.                                          EMPERORS OF THE WEST.

Basil the Macedonian, 867-886.                                   Charles III (the Fat), 881-888.

Leo VI, the Wise, 886-912.

 

 

STEPHEN, the successor of Hadrian III, who was a Roman of the aristocratic quarter of the Via Lata, proved by his conduct, as did his father Hadrian, that his character was as noble as his birth. His education was superintended by his relative, Zachary, “the most holy bishop (of Anagni) and librarian  of the Apostolic See”, and the “simple-minded Job” of John, the deacon, a man who has often been to the fore, though not always in honour, in the preceding pages.

Hadrian II, perceiving the youth’s piety and his earnest application to his studies, ordained him sub-deacon, and installed him in the Lateran palace. “When he had received this honour he led a wonderful life”. In body chaste, in character kindly, in face cheerful, prudent, generous and talented, he showed himself the friend of the poor and the needy. Honoured by Hadrian, he was even more honoured by Marinus, who ordained him deacon and priest “of the title of the Quatuor Coronati” near the Lateran, and lived in the very closest intimacy with him.

At the time of the death of the successor of Marinus, the Romans were suffering from want occasioned by a plague of locusts and by the excessive dryness of the season. Convinced that Stephen’s holiness would bring them relief from their troubles, they determined to make him Pope. Accordingly, when there had gathered together “the bishops  and the clergy, the senators and the nobles, the people, and a crowd of both sexes, they unanimously declared that they wanted Stephen to be their bishop”. Proceeding at once, along with John, bishop of Pavia and imperial missus, to the house of Stephen, they burst open the doors, and hurried him off to his titular Church. It was to no purpose that both father and son (for they were found together) protested they were unworthy of the honour which the people wished to bestow upon them. From the Quatuor Coronati they escorted Stephen to the Lateran palace to receive the homage of the higher clergy and nobility. The heavy rain which fell whilst the Pope-elect was being conducted to the Lateran seemed to the people to be the harbinger of happier times. Without waiting for the imperial consent, Stephen was consecrated on the following Sunday by Formosus. Powerful where no resistance was possible, Charles the Fat determined to depose the new Pope, as his consecration had taken place without his consent. He accordingly despatched his archchancellor, Liutward, bishop of Vercelli, and certain bishops of the Roman See to carry out his will. Their mission, however, they were unable to accomplish. Stephen was too firmly seated in the affections of the people. And he pacified the emperor by showing him, from the election decree which he forwarded to him, with what unanimity he had been elected and consecrated. The decree had been signed by more than thirty bishops, all the cardinal priests and deacons, the minor clergy, and the principal laity.

With wondrous works, says his biographer, did the Pope at once begin to adorn his ministry. But it was no easier in the ninth than in the twentieth century to perform wondrous external works, at any rate, without money; and the Book of the Popes draws a melancholy picture of the condition of the pontifical treasury as Stephen found it on his accession. With his bishops, the imperial legate, and “the honourable senate”, the Pope wandered through the palace examining all the places where the papal valuables ought to have been. But the treasures of the Pope, both sacred and profane, were conspicuous by their absence. Not only was most of the pontifical plate missing, but even the sacred vessels and ornaments of the altar, the gifts of the great, such as the fine golden cross presented by Belisarius, had disappeared. The papal cellars and granaries were also empty. Stephen took such a large company with him in his round of inspection that all might know in what state he had found everything.

It is usual to explain this disastrous condition of affairs with regard to the loss of the papal property, by pointing out that it was becoming quite customary to sack pontifical and episcopal residences on the death of their owners. Hence was issued the eleventh canon of the council held at Rome by John IX. in 898. This canon forbade the continuance of this “most detestable practice”  under pain of civil and religious penalties. It must not, however, be forgotten that the nomenclator Gregory had carried off “almost all the treasures of the Roman Church”, and that Pope John VIII wrote to complain that he could not recover them. No doubt, to explain the complete want of everything experienced by Stephen, both causes must be allowed for. Feeling more than ever in need of money on account of the famine, Stephen turned to his father, and succoured the needy with the wealth of his family. Stephen VI was not the first Pope who used his ancestral wealth in the same way.

The Liber Pontificalis goes on to inform us of the care taken by the Pope to have round his person men distinguished for learning and piety; of his personal care of orphans; of his entertaining the nobility with good cheer for soul and body at the same time; of his daily Mass and perpetual prayer, which he never interrupted save for the needs of his people; and of his having spiritual books read to him during his meals. To check the irreverence of the people in church by their unbridled talking, and to put a stop to the magical practices which he had heard were rife among them, Stephen often himself preached to the people during Mass. His biographer has preserved one of these sermons for us. It runs as follows :

“We have to admonish you, dearest children, that in assembling in the most sacred temple of God, you be mindful to diligently attend to that which brings you here. For if with lively faith you believe it to be the temple of God, that belief ought to be manifest by your deportment in it. Though the Lord is present everywhere, He is in an especial manner present in His temple; there, it is His will that we resort to Him in prayer, and there His graces and mercies are poured out, not on the ungrateful, but on all who approach with piety, and in proportion to the fervour of each as He has said : Many sins are forgiven her because she has loved much. For the temple of God is the place of prayer, as He says in another place : My house is a house of prayer to all nations; and the Psalmist : Sanctity, O Lord, becometh Thy house. Now, if it be the house of prayer, it ought to be used as such to pray, to chant the divine praises, to confess our sins, to cancel, by bitter tears and groans of contrition, our offences, and with firm hope to implore the forgiveness of our transgressions; because in the temple is found, in a special manner, the mercy-seat; there are, assisting the orders of angelic spirits, the choirs of the saints who present before the Lord of Hosts the vows of the people and the suffrages of the priest, when, at the altar, he supplicates for the faithful.

“With what face, therefore, can he dare to present himself in the most holy temple of the Almighty, who only comes to profane it by his garrulity and absurd fables? For if on the judgment day, an account shall be rendered for every idle word; how much more rigorously will not that judgment be exacted for such discourses, contumaciously carried on in the sight of so many saints, and in a place specially consecrated to God? With what hope of pardon for past transgressions can they approach the Almighty who come before Him only to add to their account by perpetrating new ones? Tremble at the chastisement of Him who with a scourge drove out those who bought and sold from the temple; for less guilty was their conduct, who there carried on a traffic of things in themselves useful, than is that of Christians who gratuitously insult the divine presence by their absurd nonsensical garrulity and scandalous bandying of stories!

“When ye assemble in the place of prayer, remain in a recollected silence, the heart intent on entreaty to God, that the suffrages offered up for you by the priest, may be accepted by Him, and that his prayers may be heard having ever in mind the admonition of our Lord: When you come to prayer, forgive those who may have offended you, that your heavenly Father may forgive you your offences. Meditating such things as these through the inspirations of Divine grace, and being imbued with the doctrines of the apostles and evangelists, having first of all obtained mercy from the Almighty with the fruit of good works,like lamps illuminating the sanctuary round about,you will merit to be hereafter presented to Christ in the realms of joy, and to be there crowned in the company of the saints. For the rest, most dearly beloved, we wish you to be aware that the Lord in instituting the law for His people, as Moses testifies, enjoined this ordinance, saying : The sorcerer you shall not suffer to live (Exod. XXII).

“Now it grieves me to say that in this city there are some who not only do not reprehend, but who on the contrary encourage and patronize the abandoned persons, who dread not by abominable incantations to consult devils, regardless of the doctrine thundered in their ear by the apostle. What participation of light with darkness, or what agreement of Christ with Belial? For inasmuch as contemning Christ, they turn after the custom of the Gentiles to take counsel of demons, they by all means avow themselves not to be Christians. And how execrable, how impious it is, turning one s back on Christ to offer homage to demons, we leave you, beloved children, to ponder in your own breasts, that the thought of it may transfix you with horror.

“Wherefore, whosoever from henceforth shall be found to pollute himself with this pestilence, by judgment of the Holy Ghost, we pronounce an outcast from the vivifying Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and if any one shall be found to set these salutary admonitions at defiance treating them with contempt, and incorrigibly persisting in his pestiferous enormity let him be anathema for ever, from God the Father, and from His Son Jesus Christ”.

Not to disconnect our knowledge of this Pope derived from the man who knew him, it will be best to follow to the end what the Book of the Popes tell us about him. Whatever money he could procure he expended on the repair or adornment of churches, on ransoming such as had fallen into the hands of the Saracens, and on whatever was required for the public good. The fame of his virtues spread everywhere, and crowds flocked to him for his blessing from east and west.

Of all that Stephen accomplished for the external glory of the House of God, his biography only mentions a portion. And here only a selection of that portion will be made. In the case of the basilica of St. Peter, Stephen not only made offerings to it of various ornaments, and issued decisions as to the services carried on within its walls, but confirmed a most important regulation regarding its use which had been made by Pope Marinus. It appears that a custom had grown up by which the authorities of the basilica exacted an annual charge from those “who there daily offered up the sacrifice to the Lord”. This custom, condemned by Marinus, had again come into force under his successor. It was put a stop to by Stephen.

Not only was his own church of the Quatuor Coronati endowed by Stephen with gifts of ecclesiastical ornaments of various kinds, and copies of the sacred Scriptures, but similar presents, especially of copies of parts of the Bible and of other good books, were made by him to churches in Ravenna, Imola, and other places “for his one aim was to do what might please God”.

He also turned his attention to the plague of locusts which had begun to devastate the papal territory in the days of Hadrian III, and was still continuing its destructive ravages. He tried both natural and supernatural remedies. He offered a reward of five or six denarii for every pint of locusts which was brought in to him. Though this resulted in considerable locust-catching activity, it did not affect the plague. When human means had been tried and found wanting, the Pope turned to God by prayer. We are told that he betook himself to the oratory of Blessed Gregory (where was preserved the saint’s couch), hard by St. Peter’s, and that after he had spent no little time in tearful prayer, he blessed some holy water, gave it to the mansionarii, and told them to give it to the people and to bid them sprinkle their fields with it, and implore the mercy of God. The united faith of pastor and people was rewarded. The locust plague ceased. With even this story left a little incomplete, the first part of the Liber Pontificalis comes to an abrupt close. We must look elsewhere for further information about the work of Stephen VI.

Stephen VI had the misfortune of witnessing political events in the West which at least heralded that unhappy period for Italy and the Popes which we purpose to examine in another volume. In the forefront of these events was the deposition of Charles the Fat. Physical  and intellectual decay brought it about that the Carolingian race ended as the Merovingian had already done, viz. in the deposition of its last representative who held any imperial sway. With the widening of the territories over which Charles ought to have held sway, came a narrowing of his intellect. He grew daily stouter and more incompetent. Finding him in every way useless, he was deposed in the diet of Tribur (November 887) by his nobles, acting under the leadership of Arnulf, Duke of Carinthia, a natural son of Carloman, the late king of Bavaria. Charles did not survive his disgrace long. He died January 13, 888.

Powerful nobles soon seized upon the chief portions of his empire. Arnulf, who had distinguished himself in campaigns against the advancing Slavs, was chosen king of Germany; and the west Franks, setting aside the child, Charles the Simple, the posthumous or illegitimate spring of Louis the Stammerer, elected as their king the valiant Eudes, or Odo, Count of Paris, who had inflicted many a severe blow upon the Normans, and who thus became the first “Capetian” sovereign. It has been already noted that Boso had made himself king of Provence or Cisjurane Burgundy. Now (887), Rodolf, “chief of the rival family of the Welfs, equally allied to that of the Carolingians, caused himself to be recognised as king of Transjurane Burgundy -regnum Jurense- (Franche-Comté and Western Switzerland), with St. Maurice for his capital.”

In Italy strife soon became vigorous between Berenger of Friuli and Guy or Guido IIII, of Spoleto for the crown of that country and for the imperial sceptre. From the time that the Frankish ancestors of Guido had, in the middle of the ninth century, been named dukes of Spoleto, they had gone on steadily strengthening their position. They made their duchy hereditary, and by marriage and diplomacy so extended their influence that Guido, the third of that name, felt that the time had now come to make himself king of Italy, if not emperor. If Berenger had the advantage of being allied with the Carolingian family, and of having had at least the name of king of Italy from the very beginning of 888, Guido was near Rome, and, perhaps through the exertions of his relative Fulk, Hincmar’s successor in the archbishopric of Rheims, had already (886) been adopted by the Pope “as his only son”. The north of Italy which so far, under the Carolingian rule, had enjoyed comparative peace, became now, like the south, the abode of war. After a considerable amount of fighting, Guido, who had previously failed to seize the crown of the western Franks, gained the upper hand, and had himself proclaimed king of Italy in a diet held at Pavia at the end of the year 888, or in the beginning of 889.

Diet of Pavia, 889.

Of the thirteen short decrees of the diet, the first two treat of “our mother the holy Roman Church”. They lay down that her honour must be preserved. “For it is preposterous that the head of the whole Church, and the refuge of the weak should be harassed, especially as on her healthy condition depends the well-being of all of us”. After passing other decrees regarding the freedom of the Church, the assembly elected Guido (Wido or Guy) to be “their king, lord (senior), and defender” as he had undertaken to exalt the holy Roman Church, to observe the laws of the Church, to frame just laws for his subjects, to extirpate rapine, and to promote peace (c. 12).

Not content with being thus proclaimed king, Guido made use of his influence with the Pope to procure from him the coveted title of emperor, Crowned by Stephen (February 21, 891), he proclaimed “the renovation of the empire of the Franks”, though he was anything but master even of Italy. For with the good-will of Arnulf of Germany, Berenger still maintained himself in his duchy; and in south Italy, while the power of the Saracens was still unextinguished, that of the Greeks was making steady headway. The death of Pope Stephen, some six months after his coronatian of Guido, meant the loss of another hope for the peace of Italy. The understanding which existed between Stephen and Guido would doubtless have worked well in the interest of the prosperity of Italy. Nor can what is stated in the Ratisbon continuation of the Annals of Fulda, under the year 890, be urged against the fact of this understanding. We there read that, in the Lent of 890, Arnulf of Germany went to Pannonia, and, at a place called Omuntesberch, held a diet with the Moravian duke, Swatopluk (or Zwentibold). There, influenced by the Pope, Swatopluk begged Arnulf to go to Rome, “the abode of St. Peter”, and free “the Italian kingdom” from bad Christians and pagans. But pressing business in his own kingdom caused the king, though unwillingly, to decline the invitation. It is certain, however, as will be shown immediately, that what the Annals proceed to relate about Hermengard under this same year (890) really belongs to the preceding year; and as the Annals are here obviously chronologically inaccurate, it is generally believed that the invitation to Arnulf here spoken of refers to that sent him later on by Pope Formosus, who was on as good terms with him as Stephen had been with Guido. Indeed, in the manuscript used by Marquard Freher in the preparation of his edition of these Annals (1600), the name of the Pope was actually given as Formosus, at least in a gloss. There seems, then, no reason to doubt of the harmony existing between Guido and Stephen.

Swatopluk

It has been thought that this Swatopluk, of whose good-will towards Pope Stephen we have just seen an instance, received a crown from him. In Mansi’s edition of the Councils there is a record of a council held “in the plain of Dalmatia” under a King Swatopluk. At the request of the king’s envoys, a Pope Stephen sent to Dalmatia Honorius, “cardinal-vicar of the Holy Roman Church”, to whom he gave full powers to act in his name. The principal business of the synod, the proceedings of which were conducted both in Slavonic and Latin, was the coronation of the king by the cardinal legate. This transaction has been referred to Stephen VI, in the first place, because of the good-will which existed between him and “ King Zventopolco (Swatopluk)”. And attention has already been called to the fact that Slav princes set the example of entrusting the patronage of their kingdoms to the sovereign pontiffs. Swatopluk was one of those princes. In the letter (already quoted) of Stephen VI to that prince condemning the use of the Slavonic tongue in the sacred liturgy, he praises the king because he chose the vicar of Blessed Peter “as his chief patron before all the princes of the world, and commended himself to the saint’s guardian ship (tuicioni)”. In turn, Stephen promised ever to be his protector. Finally, in confirmation of all this, there is adduced the authority of Dandolo. Though a late, he is not an unreliable authority. He says : “By the preaching of Blessed Cyril, Svethopolis, king of Dalmatia, with all his people, embraced the Catholic faith. And in the presence of the bishops of the true faith and of the apocrisiarii of the emperor Michael, on whom he acknowledged that his kingdom depended, he was crowned on the plain of Dalmatia by Honorius, cardinal-legate of the Apostolic See”. There can be little doubt, however, that this papal coronation of a king of Dalmatia must be referred to a later date. About the middle of the eleventh century, the Serb, Stephen Bogislav (Boistlav), threw off the Byzantine yoke. His son, Michael, became king of the Servians. This successful movement not unnaturally influenced the Slavs of the Adriatic. They also sought independence; and, to strengthen their position, turned to the Pope. It is to this period and to these political events that the council “in the plain of Dalmatia”  must be referred. Knowledge of it has come down to us through the Chronicle of the Presbyter of Dioclea (Dukla), who wrote in the second half of the twelfth century, and is believed to be the earliest of the Croato-Dalmatian writers. Unfortunately his work is based on little more than popular tradition, and is full of anachronisms. Still with regard to the incident with which we are dealing, it is more than curious that a Pope Stephen and an emperor Michael were contemporary. Stephen (IX) X became Pope on August 3, 1057; and Michael VI, Stratiotikos, only ceased to be emperor on August 31, 1057. It is certain, moreover, that Suinimirus (Zvonimir), King of Dalmatia, received a crown from Pope Gregory VII not twenty years after. If, then, in the present case, the Presbyter of Dioclea has been guilty of any mistakes, and that, it would seem, remains to be proved, he has assigned to Stephen IX, to Honorius and to Swatopluk, actions which he should have ascribed to Gregory VII, to Gebizo, and to Zvonimir. All that relates, however, to the early history of Slavonic Dalmatia is wrapped in obscurity; and, in English works, at any rate, it is very difficult to obtain any information on the subject at all.

Boso, whose usurpation of the kingdom of Provence (or Aries or Burgundy) was so strongly condemned by John VIII, died January 11, 887, leaving his son Louis a minor. But the reins of government were held firmly for him by his mother, Hermengard. She exerted herself to obtain from Pope Stephen what Boso had failed to obtain from John VIII, viz. that the new kingdom of Provence should be recognised by the Pope. A similar request was preferred by her to Arnulf of Germany, who seems to have claimed the imperial rights of Charles the Fat. At any rate, Eudes, Berenger, and Hermengard all turned to him for confirmation of their claims. It was to make good her petition that Hermengard paid a visit to Arnulf at Forcheim after Easter, in the May of 890, according to the above-mentioned continuation of the Annals of Fulda; but really in 889, as appears from a diploma of Arnulf, cited by Muratori. The energetic widow was successful in both her appeals; and at the council or diet of Valence (August 890) Louis was proclaimed king by the bishops and nobles of the new kingdom. The acts of the council relate that, on the personal representations of Bernoinus, archbishop of Vienne, Pope Stephen, “on whom rests the care of all the churches”, both by word and writing urged the bishops of Cisalpine Gaul to elect Louis king. This he did, because he had been moved “even to tears” by the story which the archbishop had to tell of the miseries of the country after the death of Boso. It had been harassed not only by its own people, whom no power could restrain, but by the pagans. On the one side had pressed the devastating Northmen, and on the other the Saracens had laid waste Provence and reduced the country to a desert. Moved by the letters of the Pope, and asserting that the emperor Charles (The Fat) had already granted him the kingly dignity, and that Arnulf, his successor, had done the same, the archbishops and bishops of the kingdom proclaimed Louis their sovereign. We shall meet with Louis again, full of his mother s ambition, and contending for the imperial title.

Frodoard has preserved for us extracts of Pope Stephen’s correcorrespondence with various archbishops of France, among others with Aurelian of Lyons, who was present at the council of Valence. On the death of Isaac, bishop of Langres, Aurelian consecrated to fill the vacant See, Egilon, abbot of Noirmoutier, without consulting clergy or people. Not to be treated in the same cavalier fashion a second time, the clergy and people unanimously elected Teutbold, a deacon of the church of Langres, “when God called Egilon (or Geilon) to Himsel” (c. 887), and begged the Pope himself to consecrate their candidate. But, says the historian, “anxious to preserve intact the privileges of each church”, Stephen would not consecrate him, but sent him to Aurelian, and bade the archbishop consecrate him at once, if it were the fact that he had received the suffrages of clergy and people, and if there were no canonical impediment in the way. If there proved to be any obstacle, the Pope was to be informed of it, and Aurelian was not to consecrate another without consulting the Pope. To see to the carrying out of these orders Stephen despatched, as his legate a latere, Oirann, bishop of Sinigaglia. Aurelian procrastinated, and again was Teutbold sent to Rome for consecration. And again, too, for the same reason did the Pope do as he had done before. Thereupon, construing Stephen’s excessive desire for fairness into a confession of weakness, Aurelian set the Pope’s orders at naught, and furtively consecrated another stranger for the Church of Langres. Determined not to accept the candidate thus foisted upon them, the people of Langres again betook  themselves to the Pope. This time Stephen did consecrate Teutbold, and wrote to Fulk of Rheims to install him at once. This Fulk could not do before King Eudes was assured by the report of his own ambassadors that such was the Pope’s will. This Langres incident, which has been related almost in the exact words of Frodoard, shows Pope Stephen as the champion of the rights of bishops and people alike. The true verdict of history notes this role as a distinctive feature of the line of the Sovereign Pontiffs, even if it be true that, for a period during the Middle Ages, it applied itself to curtailing the power of the former, for the all-necessary purpose of drawing closer the bonds between the ruling authorities in the Church and its Head. It was tyrannical conduct on the part of such metropolitans as Aurelian that inspired the publication of the False Decretals, and not any grasping ambition of the Popes. To Rome the oppressed ever turned, always sure of sympathy and generally of effectual aid.

Aurelian, however, was not always in opposition. About the same time that he was interfering with the liberties of the Church of Langres, he was commissioned by the Pope, along with various other bishops, to put a check on the doings of Frothar of Bordeaux. Owing to the ravages of the Normans, the latter had been allowed, with the consent of John VIII, to exchange his See of Bordeaux for that of Bourges till such times as he might be able to return to his proper See. But Frothar not only usurped also the See of Poitiers, but seems to have made himself disliked by the people of Bourges. Their complaints were carried to the Pope. Stephen decided that, as the cause of Frothar’s translation had disappeared, the archbishop must return to his original See or incur excommunication. Frothar does not seem to have obeyed; for Hugh of Flavigny, who wrote a chronicle in the early years of the twelfth century, has preserved a fragment of a letter of the Pope to Aurelian of Lyons, in which that archbishop is ordered to consecrate a new bishop for Bordeaux “on account of the effrontery of Frothar”. It is supposed that Frothar’s death put an end to any further difficulties. The affair is not without its interest, as it adds to the evidence that, in ecclesiastical matters at this period, the higher clergy were as insubordinate, and acted with almost as much license, as the greater nobles in civil affairs.

Passing over, for the present, Stephen’s correspondence with Henmann of Cologne on the subject of the restoration of the See of Bremen to the jurisdiction of his archiepiscopal See, it may be noted that Stephen s dealings with the archbishop of Ravenna also serve to show his great regard for the rights of others. For if he severely blames (887-8) Romanus of Ravenna for venturing, against the canons, to elect his successor, and orders him to undo what he has attempted; he is careful, on the other hand, to explain  to Dominicus, the successor of Romanus, that in consecrating a bishop for Piacenza during the vacancy of the See of Ravenna, he had no wish to detract from its rights.                  

But of all the ecclesiastics concerning whom Stephen had correspondence, the most important was Photius. Hadrian III had received from the emperor Basil a sharp letter in which, among other points, the election of Marinus, who had shown himself the most uncompromising opponent of Photius, had been vigorously attacked. To this document, inspired, as the Pope plainly insinuates, by Photius, Stephen sent a temperate yet firm reply. It well deserves to be quoted in its entirety.

“We have received the letter of your serenity addressed to our predecessor Hadrian, and we are very much astonished that you could write in the way you have you, who hold the scales of justice, and who know well that our sacerdotal and apostolical dignity is not subject to the power of kings. For though on earth you are the image of our emperor Christ, you ought to confine your attention to what belongs to this earth –as we pray God you may be spared for many years to do. As you have been by God set over worldly affairs, so through Peter, the prince (of the apostles), have we been placed by God over spiritual concerns. Take, we beg you, in good part what follows. It is yours to break the might of tyrants with the sword of power, to dispense justice to your subjects, to make laws, to regulate the military and naval forces (of the empire). These are the chief duties of your imperial power. But a care of the flock has been entrusted to us, a care as much more noble as heaven is distant from earth. Hearken to the Lord’s words to Peter : Thou art Peter, etc. But what says He about power and empire : Fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul. Hence we beg you to abide by the decrees of the princes of the apostles, to honour their name and dignity. The episcopate of the world is dependent upon St. Peter, through whom we with doctrine most pure and undefiled teach all.

“But let not your majesty, by reason of your power over lesser matters, boldly assert itself to decide on higher affairs; rather reflect by what authority you would do this. He who, by his slanders, has poisoned your ears against the most holy Marinus, would not refrain from blaspheming our Lord Jesus Christ. Who, on the one hand, is he who has dared to say such things against His stainless spouse and priest, and against the mother of all Churches? At any rate he is deceived should he think that the disciple is above the master, or the servant above his lord. We are truly astonished to see your consummate prudence seduced into entertaining such thoughts against that holy man (Marinus). For were we not to say who he was, the very stones would tell of him.

“If you are of the number of the sheep of God, as we trust you are, transgress not the limits of the princes of the apostles. Who has induced you, we would ask, to assail with ridicule the universal Pope, and to rail against the holy Roman Church, to which with all reverence you are bound to submit? Know you not that she is the head (princeps] of all Churches? Who has made you a judge of bishops, by whose holy teaching you ought to be guided and by whom prayers are offered to God for you? ... You have written that he (Marinus) was not Pope. How knew you that? And if you knew it not, why were you so quick to pass sentence on him? Those who hold that Marinus was already a bishop and hence could not be transferred from one See to another, must prove that assertion. Know, most honoured emperor, that though that impediment could be urged against him (which it could not), there are examples enough to justify his being raised to the first See What has the Roman Church done that that seducer has led you to raise your voice against her? Is it that, in accordance with ancient custom, no letter was sent to you concerning the assembling of the Constantinopolitan synod? ... But to whom was the Roman Church to write? To the layman Photius? If you had a patriarch, our Church would often communicate with him by letter But for our love for you, we should have been compelled to inflict on the prevaricator Photius more severe penalties than our predecessors have done. We warn you, son of ours in spirit, rise not up against the Roman Church. We were glad to hear that you had destined one of your sons (Stephen, his youngest son) for the priesthood. We beg you to send us some well-equipped war-ships (to guard the coast) from April to September, as well as soldiers to defend our walls from the Saracens. (Concerning their ravages), we will only note that we lack even oil for the lamps used in the service of God”.

When this dignified letter reached Constantinople, Basil  the Macedonian was dead, and his son Leo VI, surnamed  the Wise, reigned in his stead (886-912). Towards Photius, “the most gracious and sweet”, Leo had never been well disposed, and when he received the Pope s letter he took advantage of it to depose Photius. He assembled “all the priests of the truth” (who, condemned by Photius, had suffered grievous persecutions), exiled him, and proclaimed his young brother, Stephen, patriarch. Then addressing Stylian and the other adherents of Ignatius, he told them what had been done, and begged them to communicate with the new patriarch. “But if, seeing that he was ordained deacon by Photius, you would rather not communicate with him until you have consulted the Romans who condemned Photius, let us write and ask the Pope to grant a dispensation from censures to those ordained by Photius. Accordingly the emperor wrote to the Pope, as did also Stylian of Neocaesarea and his friends”.

If Photius, now shut up in a monastery, was practically dead to the world, “the evil which he had done lived after him”. By his letter to Walbert, patriarch of Aquileia, and other writings, he had long been busy in trying to show that the Latin Church was in error by teaching, contrary to the tradition of the Fathers, that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost, proceeded from the Father and the Son. The Greek Church, in harmony with the doctrines of the Fathers, as he maintained, taught, on the other hand, that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father only. Ignoring those passages of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, where the doctrine of the Catholic Church was clearly and distinctly stated, he affected to have proved his point when he had shown that it was often said that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father. That was enough. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father, therefore not from the Father and the Son, but from the Father only. And he infers, equally falsely, that because the Westerns taught that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son, He did so, according to them, by a double procession; and that hence He was the Grandson of God the Father.

It is not the place here to show that, in accordance with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from one principle, by one procession. It is enough to state now that, while Photius and his works sank into oblivion at this period, it was from the armoury of his works that were afterwards drawn the subtle swords which were most used to sever the union of East and West, and to keep it severed. Of all the enemies of that united kingdom on earth which Our Lord came from heaven to establish, Photius was the most deadly. And if he did harm to the Church, he did as much to the State. Under the guiding hand of the See of Peter, the West, despite a thousand obstacles, moved on to civilisation, to learning, and to liberty. The East, following first one and then another heresiarch condemned by Rome, hurried back to barbarism, ignorance, and despotism. And, with that miserable fatality with which men not unfrequently cling to what is ruining and degrading them, the East is today proud of Photius who freed them from the thraldom of Rome, and gave them military despotism in Church and State, national misery and poverty, and superstitious ignorance and fanaticism.

The letter which the emperor Leo wrote to the Pope has  not been preserved. The letter of Stylian to him is the the one which, containing a succinct account of the doings of Photius, has been already so often quoted. It is addressed : “To the most holy and most blessed Stephen, Lord and oecumenical Pope, Stylian bishop of Neocaesarea of the province of Euphratesia and the bishops who are with me, as well as all the bishops, priests, and deacons of the Church of Constantinople, all the superiors (of the monks) in the eastern and western portions (of the empire), and all the priests, who as monks lead a retired life”. After recounting in brief the history of the usurpations of Photius, Stylian proceeds to address himself to the Pope, whom he styles “sacred and venerated head”. “As we know that we must be corrected, and, according to the canons, punished by your Apostolic See, we humbly beg your holiness to have mercy on us, i.e. on those who not without some show of good reason accepted the ordination of Photius; so that he who received the legates of the Apostolic See, Radoald and Zachary (who in the beginning confirmed Photius in the See of Constantinople), and then Eugenius and Paul (who a second time communicated with Photius), may not be condemned equally with Photius; and so that another great number may not be driven from the Church”. Examples are then adduced to show that to grant pardon in similar cases has been the custom of the Church. “Hence it well becomes you to expel Photius, a schismatic from the beginning, ordained by schismatics and a worker of innumerable evils; but, on the other hand, we entreat you to deal mercifully with those who have been deceived by him”. Stylian goes on to tell the Pope that some wished him to communicate with them on the ground that they had received a dispensation from the Pope to exercise their sacerdotal functions; but that, pending instructions from the Apostolic See, he had refrained from doing so. “ Though I would venture to assert this, O venerated head, that none of those who communicated with Photius did so of their own will, but rather compelled by the violence of princes”.

To this letter Stephen replied that he was not astonished that they had expelled Photius, already condemned by the Church, but that he was surprised that whereas their letter spoke of the expulsion of Photius, that of the emperor stated that he had resigned. Hence before he can pronounce sentence, bishops from both parties must be sent to him that he may find out the whole truth”.  “For”, he concluded, “the Roman Church has been set as a model and example to the other churches. Whatever it defines has to remain for ever inviolate, and so it is only right for her to pass sentence after careful examination”. This letter was written about the year 888. Some time elapsed before the Pope’s requirements were complied with; and when at length ambassadors and letters did arrive in Rome from Constantinople, Stephen was dead or dying.

Stylian’s reply has come down to us. In it the discrepancy pointed out by Pope Stephen between the letter of the emperor and that of the Greek bishops is explained. “Those who have written that Photius has renounced his See are those who have recognised him as a bishop. But we, who following the decisions of Popes Nicholas and Hadrian, do not consider that he possesses the least vestige of the priesthood, how could we write that he had renounced (the patriarchal See)” ?... “But”, continues the letter, “we renew our entreaties for those who have recognised Photius by force, and we beg you to send circular letters to the patriarchs of the East, in order that they may extend the like indulgence towards them”.

In the answer which Stephen’s successor, Formosus, sent  to this letter (end of 891 or beginning of 892), he pointed out that, in the request for pardon, it had not been stated whether there was question of laymen or clerics. The laity deserve pardon, continued the Pope. But the case of the clerics is different. However, as Stylian has asked him “to tolerate some things, but to abolish others”, he is sending, as legates, bishops Landenulf of Capua and Romanus, to go into the different matters with Stylian himself, Theophylactus, metropolitan of Ancyra, and a certain Peter, a trusted friend of his. After the renewal of the condemnation of Photius himself, those who had been ordained by him might be received into lay communion if they offered a written confession that they had done wrong, and humbly asked for pardon. What is contained in his (the Pope’s) instructions to his legates must be closely followed.

Of the doings of this embassy, unfortunately, nothing is known. But the biography of Antony Cauleas, who is regarded both by the Greeks and Latins as a saint, and who succeeded the youthful Stephen (May 17, 893) in the patriarchal chair, states that he again brought peace to the Church, and reunited the East and West. Still, for some time after this, correspondence went on with Rome on the subject of those who had been ordained by Photius. And though Stylian continued to ask for pardon for them, the Popes persevered in ratifying the policy of their predecessors. Hence John IX (898-900), while praising the archbishop for his continued and unflinching loyalty to “his mother the Roman Church”,& declares that he accepts Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, and Antony to the same extent as Popes Nicholas, John, Stephen VI (Sextus, as John calls him), and the whole Roman Church have done, and that he grants to those who have been ordained by them the same concessions as those granted to them by his predecessors. He exhorts Stylian to do likewise, and looks forward to the schism, which has lasted nearly forty years, being healed by the archbishop’s prayers.

After this, we hear no more of Photius or his works for some time. “It seemed in the tenth century as though his memory was to be consigned to oblivion. But after the middle of the eleventh century, his works were again brought to the light, and in the twelfth century he was reckoned by the Greek schismatics among the doctors of the Church; though it was not till the sixteenth century that they ranked him among their saints”.

Affairs of Italy

No doubt during the reign of Stephen VI negotiations  with Constantinople were much hindered by the condition of affairs in South Italy. In the midst of the disorders still being caused by Saracen raids and internal feuds among the principalities, the Greeks continued to improve their hold upon that part of Italy. Soon after the death of Stephen they even captured (October 18, 891) Beneventum. It is significant of their power that the patrician George, after expelling the candidate who had been canonically elected bishop of Tarentum and who in accordance with ancient custom was to have come to Rome for his consecration, wished to intrude a candidate of his own, and have him consecrated at Constantinople.

What Erchempert tells us of the career of the perjured Atenolfus is well calculated to furnish a clear idea of the men and the actions which were leaving South Italy open to be preyed upon by Greek and Saracen. Among his other famous or rather infamous doings, he came to an understanding with the intriguing Athanasius, prince-bishop of Naples, and seized Capua (January 7, 887), of which his brother Lando was count. In accordance with the terms of the agreement he had made with Athanasius, he declared himself the vassal of the bishop, and sent him his son as a hostage. Tiring, however, of this dependence, Atenolfus procured the assistance of Guido of Spoleto and obtained the restoration of his son. Then, no doubt with a view to getting free from any restraint from Guido, he turned to Pope Stephen, and offered to place himself in subjection to the See of Rome, to restore Gaeta (which he had treacherously seized), and to help the Pope against the Saracens on the Garigliano. “These promises”, quietly adds the monk, “Atenolfus  forgot, and of course did not fulfil any one of them!”. Then, having taken what belonged to his brother, viz. the lordship of Capua, Atenolfus proceeded to annex all the property which belonged to the monastery of Monte Cassino and which was situated within the territory of Capua. This famous monastery, destroyed by the Saracens in 883, had begun to be rebuilt by the abbot Angelarius (886). Justly indignant, the abbot despatched our historian to Rome. Erchempert returned with the papal blessing for the monks, a papal privilege for the monastery, and hortatory letters addressed to the spoiler. Monte Cassino regained its property; but wreaking his vengeance on the ambassador, Atenolfus seized everything of which Erchempert was possessed, “even the cell which had been given me by the abbot”.

To avenge the treatment he had received at the hands of Atenolfus, Athanasius sent against Capua (888) an army composed of Greeks, Neapolitans, and Saracens. With help, both Saracenic and otherwise, obtained from Aio, Duke of Beneventum (the latest of those to whom Atenolfus had proffered his submission), the Count of Capua advanced to meet his enemies. And while the Christians were slaughtering one another, the Saracens of both sides quietly joined hands and looked on. Atenolfus was victorious, and showed his gratitude to his benefactor by denying him the help which he soon afterwards stood in need of against the Greeks, and which he had in vain tried to purchase from Franks or Saracens. With the assistance of these latter, who now attached themselves to him as the stronger man, Atenolfus turned against Athanasius and fearfully harried the territory of Naples. So that, reflects our historian, those who by the aid of the Saracens had sent innumerable Christians to captivity and death were, by the just judgment of God, in turn themselves scourged by them. “Who”, he asks with the Preacher, “will pity an enchanter struck by a serpent, or any that come near wild beasts?”

With South Italy a prey to men with the passions of an  Atenolfus -to Franks, to Saracens, and to Greeks- (worse  than the Saracens) with North Italy the battlefield of rival emperors, and with Rome itself full of conspiring factions, the days of the amiable yet firm Stephen VI came to a close (c. September 891). With the political horizon as black as we have described it, and soon with the advent of wild Hungarian hordes to become blacker, we are prepared to see the storm of unbridled anarchy that swept over Italy in the course of the next hundred and fifty years, well nigh swamping in its fury the bark of Peter itself.

Stephen’s tomb was in the portico of the old St. Peter ‘s. His epitaph, preserved by Mallius, is conceived in a happier vein that many of the others we have cited :

“ Whoever thou art who comest, with contrite heart, to beg the prayers of Peter, the great key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom, gaze with clear eye on the spot where a holy body lieth. This tomb contains the sacred remains of the great pontiff Stephen V, who for twice three years ruled the people and the City, and did what was pleasing in the eyes of God. The earth has received his body turned to dust, but his sweet soul has in triumph ascended into heaven. Do ye, brethren who come hither, pray the Almighty Judge, I beg you, to grant pardon to Stephen”

Among the decrees attributed to this Pope is one of peculiar interest. Consulted by Liutbert, archbishop of Mayence, as to whether in a certain specified case it was lawful to employ the ordeals of hot iron or boiling water, Stephen replied in the negative, and on such general grounds as amounted to a condemnation of the whole system of ordeals so dear to the Northern nations. “It is Ours”, he declared, “to judge of crimes that are known either by the confession of the culprit, or by the testimony of witnesses. What (cannot be discovered by those means, and) remains completely hidden, must be left to the judgment of Him who alone knows the hearts of the children of men”.

The practice of ordeals was not abolished by the Church all at once. Its roots, like those of the system of slavery, had struck too deep down to be violently eradicated at one pull. But, under her guidance, first those ordeals which involved danger to life were abolished, and, when in process of time the justice of the principles stated by Stephen VI had been driven home, then the whole custom of appealing to the “judgments of God” was set aside.

We cannot leave the biography of Stephen without calling attention to the fact that, despite the rapidly increasing difficulties of the journey to Rome, love of the “Eternal City” and its ruler still attracted our country men to Rome. In fact, as an entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, soon to be quoted, shows, it was regarded in England as noteworthy if a year passed without some distinguished persons leaving this island for Rome. It will suffice here to quote Stevenson’s translation of the entries made in our earliest Chronicle without further comment :

A.D. 887. Aethelhelm, the ealdorman, carried the alms of the West Saxons and King Alfred to Rome.

888. This year Beocca, the ealdorman, carried the alms of the West Saxons and King Alfred to Rome; and Queen Aethelswith, who was King Alfred’s sister, died on the way to Rome, and her body lies at Pavia.

A.D. 889. In this year there was no journey to Rome, except that King Alfred sent two couriers with letters.

A.D. 890. This year abbot Beornhelm took the aforesaid alms to Rome; or, as the notice reads in the Chronicle of the noble Ethelwerd (an. 889), he carried to Rome the alms for the people, and principally those of the western English and King Alfred.

Conclusion

With Stephen VI we bring to a conclusion our account of the Popes under the Carolmgian emperors. It may perhaps be thought that, as Formosus was so much connected with Stephen VI and his immediate predecessors, his biography should have been included in this volume. But apart from the fact that, wherever a division was made, some things that ought to be closely joined would have to be separated, the last of the Carolingian emperors died during the pontificate of Stephen VI; and Formosus is probably more connected in the minds of men with the treatment his dead body received at the hands of Stephen VII, than with the deeds during life which he accomplished in connection with Boris of Bulgaria or with any of his predecessors in the chair of Peter.

Full of the deeds of lasting fame performed by SS. Leo III and IV, Nicholas the Great, and Hadrian II, gazing with admiration at the old hero John VIII, priest, soldier, and sailor in one, the last doughty champion of law and order in Italy for many a weary year, the historian leaves with regret the line of the great Popes of the ninth century a line that has earned the praise of Catholic and non-Catholic writers alike. He is the more loath to leave the bright light of their deeds from the fact that the outlook is gloomy to the last degree. He has to pass from contemplating Peter in honour by the side of his Divine Master, to consider him in dishonour - to behold him but too often the sport of petty princes instead of the respected of the universe. He has to write of the “iron age” of Cardinal Baronius. But as the Rock of Peter was not broken by the fierce blows dealt it for three hundred years by the masters of the civilised world; as it was not dissolved when “the world awoke and found itself Arian”, nor shattered when the barbarians broke in pieces the majestic might of old Rome; as it was not overturned by Byzantine astuteness nor Prankish violence, so we shall find that it did not even crumble by any internal decay; for was not the Rock of Peter embedded in the eternal Rock, which is Christ?. Had not the strength of the bed-Rock passed into the Rock of the foundation? Indeed, is it ever destined to fail? For was it not of it that was said : “I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world”? If well nigh submerged by the waves of the barbarism of the tenth century, the following century will not have half run its course before the Rock of Peter will be seen towering up aloft above the waters, a pillar of strength to those who leaned upon it, a source of dread to those who would rear themselves up against it