Pope Vigilius, in a letter of 552, describes why he took refuge in the church of *Euphemia (martyr of Chalcedon, S00017) in Chalcedon when he was pressured by Justinian to condemn the Three Chapters. Written in Latin in Chalcedon.
E08326
Documentary texts - Letter
Vigilius, Letter 'Dum in sanctae Euphemiae' (JK 931/JH 1861)
Vigilius begins (Schwartz 1940, 1; Price 2009, 170-71) by describing how he was visited in the basilica on 28 January 552 by a delegation from Justinian, comprising six senior members of his court (including his most celebrated general, Belisarius), who asked him to accept their oaths (evidently that he would not be harmed, though this is not stated) and to leave the church and return to Constantinople. Vigilius gives his response as follows (Schwartz 1940, 1; Price 2009, 171):
Nos quidem in hac basilica pro nulla pecuniaria uel priuata causa confugimus, sed pro ecclesiae tantum scandalo, quod iam in toto mundo pro peccatis innotuit. et ideo, si causa ecclesiae sic ordinatur, ut pacem eius quam auunculi sui piissimus princeps fecit temporibus et modo restituat, ego sacramentis opus non habeo, sed statim egredior. si autem causa ecclesiae finita non fuerit, isdem sacramentis opus non habeo, quia numquam de sanctae Eufemiae basilica exire dispono, nisi scandalum ab ecclesia dei fuerit amputatum.
'We took refuge in this basilica with neither a financial nor a personal motive, but solely because of a cause of offence in the church that has already, for our sins, become notorious throughout the world. Accordingly, if the cause of the church is so ordered as to restore even now its peace, which the most pious prince established in the time of his uncle, I myself have no need of oaths and shall leave immediately. But if the cause of the church is not settled, I have no need of these oaths, because I intend never to leave the basilica of St Euphemia until the cause of offence has been removed from the church of God.'
Vigilius then outlines the events that had caused him to take refuge in the basilica (Schwartz 1940, 1-5; Price 2009, 171-4). He begins with the issue by Justinian in summer 551 of a new edict condemning the Three Chapters and his response to it, but interrupts his narrative to mention that on 31 January a court official had brought him a letter from the emperor (evidently in response to his reply three days earlier) which he found insulting and threatening, so much so that he claims to believe it must have been a forgery. However, he says that its falsehoods make him more determined to give his version of events. He adds (Schwartz 1940, 4; Price 2009, 173):
Nunc autem omnibus hominibus hoc quoque curauimus indicandum quoniam nos ad sanctae Eufimiae basilicam sub magno timore atque anxietate discessimus.
'We have now also been solicitous to inform everybody that we departed to the basilica of St Euphemia under the pressure of great fear and anxiety.'
Vigilius resumes his narrative, including an account of how he took refuge in the basilica of Peter in the Hormisdas district of Constantinople and how soldiers tried to remove him by force (see E08275). He claims that even though Justinian's officials had sworn oaths to protect his safety when he left the basilica, they continued to harass him. On 23 December 551, in fear because he noticed that the entrances to his residence had been placed under guard, he therefore escaped from the building during the night (Schwartz 1940, 5; Price 2009, 174):
Quo facto <dum> sub gravi desperatione nocturnis horis maxime et pauoris aegritudine teneremur, diffugimus, sicut locus ille poterit cunctis hominibus indicare. nam si circumspiciatur quale quantumque discrimen metu faciente despeximus, ut per paruam maceriem fabricantium transire cum pedum dolore nec non in nocturna obscuritate positi cogeremur, tunc poterunt euidenter agnoscere quanta nobis fuerit temporis pro sola ecclesiae causa necessitas aut quanta custodia, quae nos sub tali discrimine coegit discedere.
'At this, in acute desperation, particularly during the night hours, and gripped by a sickening terror, we fled, in a way that all will be able to learn from the place itself: for if they examine the nature and extent of the danger that we overlooked in our fear, so that we were compelled to pass through a thin wall under construction with pain to our feet and in the darkness of night, then they will be able to ascertain how great were the pressures of the moment upon us, for the cause of the church alone, and how strict the guard that forced us to depart in conditions of such danger.'
Vigilius' narrative ends at this point. In the next part of the letter he responds to what he says are lies circulating about his own religious beliefs by giving a lengthy confession of faith (Schwartz 1940, 5-9; Price 2009, 174-7), in which he affirms his adherence to the previous ecumenical councils, to Nicene doctrine on the Trinity and Chalcedonian doctrine on the nature of Christ, and anathematises numerous heretics.
Vigilius concludes the letter (Schwartz 1940, 9-10; Price 2009, 177-9) by saying that on the previous day (4 February 552), he had again been visited by a court official, who renewed the emperor's request that he should accept oaths and return to Constantinople.
Dum hesterna die, id est dominicorum qui fuit pridie Nonas Februarias, magnificus uir Petrus referendarius ad nos cum mandatis clementissimi principis remeasset dicens: Quando uultis, ut ueniant iudices et uobis praebeant sacramenta, quatenus de hac in qua residetis ecclesia egredi debeatis et securi ad regiam ciuitatem remeare?
'Yesterday, that is, on the Lord’s Day, the day before the Nones of February, the magnificent referendarius Peter returned to us with instructions from the most clement prince, saying: "When do you want the officials to come and make you oaths so that you can leave this church in which you are staying and return in safety to the imperial city?"'
Vigilius responds that he will do so when Justinian restores the peace of the church (i.e. by reversing the condemnation of the Three Chapters). He requests Justinian to send representatives who will swear oaths that the emperor will accept Bishop Datius of Milan and others appointed by the pope to negotiate a religious settlement. He indicates that if this is done he will leave the church:
Siquidem ecclesiae causa nulla sacramenta nobis dari deposcimus, sed mox pro gratiarum actione eius occurrimus pietati, quia nihil aliud est quod praeter scandalum nos deo adiuuante perterreat, unde amplius in sanctae Eufimiae basilica sedeamus.
'Even if in the cause of the church we make no demands that oaths be given to us, yet we shall soon hasten to his piety [the emperor] to convey our thanks, since there is nothing apart from the cause of offence that, with the help of God, alarms us and makes us stay longer in the basilica of St Euphemia.'
The letter ends with a clause giving the date, 5 February 552.
Text: Schwartz 1940.
Translation: Price 2009.
Summary: David Lambert.
Cult building - independent (church)
Non Liturgical ActivitySeeking asylum at church/shrine
Oath
Protagonists in Cult and NarrativesEcclesiastics - Popes
Officials
Monarchs and their family
Source
This is one of four related letters by or associated with Pope Vigilius (537-555), preserved as a group in a single manuscript, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Phillipps 1743 (8th c.), a late-Merovingian codex containing papal letters and acts of church councils, originally from the cathedral library at Reims (Schwartz 1940, 26). The letter of excommunication and a badly truncated version of Dum in sanctae Euphemiae are preserved in a few other manuscripts (Schwartz 1940, 27), but the full text of the latter, and the entirety of the other two documents, are unique to this manuscript. Schwartz 1940, 31, suggests that the entire group of documents was brought back from the East by the Frankish embassy whose members are addressed in Letter 4, hence its survival in a Gallic manuscript.The letters date from 551-552, a period when Pope Vigilius, who had been in Constantinople since 547, was under intense pressure from the emperor Justinian to accede to Justinian's condemnation of the so-called 'Three Chapters' (for explanation of this term, see discussion in E08275).
In manuscript order, followed by Schwartz in his edition, the documents are:
1) An encyclical letter from Vigilius, dated 5 February 552, explaining why he had taken refuge in the church of Euphemia at Chalcedon. This is often referred to, from its opening words, as Dum in sanctae Euphemiae ('while in St Euphemia's'). Translated Price 2009, 170-79. See E08275 and E08326.
2) A letter from Vigilius, dated 14 August 551, excommunicating two of Justinian's leading clerical supporters, Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, and Theodore Ascidas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Translated Price 2009, 161-5.
3) What seems to be a covering letter sent with a copy of the letter of excommunication. This is not dated but internal evidence shows that it dates from February 552. Not translated by Price. See E08329.
4) A letter written by some clerics from the church of Milan to a group of Frankish envoys on their way to Constantinople, informing them about the harassment of Pope Vigilius and other opponents of the condemnation of the Three Chapters. This is also not dated, but can be dated by internal evidence to late 551 or early 552. Translated Price 2009, 165-70. See E05616 and E08318.
The letter Dum in sancta Euphemiae
This is Letter 1 in Schwartz's edition and Letter 3 in Price's translation.
Discussion
The letter Dum in sanctae Euphemiae is an encyclical, addressed by Vigilius to the whole church (uniuerso populo dei, 'the entire people of God), which seeks to explain and justify his action in taking refuge in the church of Euphemia, as well as to publicise his complaints about Justinian's treatment of him and counteract hostile claims about him put into circulation by Justinian and his supporters. There are three strands in the letter: a narrative justifying Vigilius' flight to Euphemia's shrine by outlining Justinian's acts of aggression against him from the issuing of the second edict against the Three Chapters in July 551 to Vigilius' flight from his residence in Constantinople on 23 December; a confession of faith, intended to refute any doubts about his orthodoxy; and an account of the messages he had received from the emperor and his representatives, with his responses, in the days immediately before he issued the letter on 5 February 552.While the purpose of the letter was to justify Vigilius' act in taking refuge in the basilica, its references to his flight and residence there are brief and lacking in detail: Vigilius actually says more in the letter about his previous attempt to take refuge in a church, at the basilica of Peter in Constantinople in August 551 (see E08275), no doubt because the attempt on that occasion by Justinian's officials and soldiers to drag him out of the church by force was the most striking illustration of his claims of persecution. We can reasonably infer from Vigilius' silence that nothing similar had occurred at the basilica of Euphemia, but it is possible that one of his reasons for issuing the letter was fear that such methods might be used again (apparently justified: see E08329).
There is a striking omission in Vigilius' letter: when describing his flight on 23 December 551 he gives a detailed account of how he escaped from the palace of Placidia, his residence in Constantinople, but says nothing at all about his arrival at the basilica of Euphemia or how he travelled there. Since this required crossing the Bosporus, it was hardly something that could be done simply on the spur of the moment. This suggests that Vigilius' account of the incident, which implies that his flight was a sudden and spontaneous reaction to a threat from Justinian (the placing of guards at the entrances to his residence), does not tell the whole story. If Vigilius had simply wished to take refuge in a church, there were any number much closer to hand in Constantinople that he could have used, without crossing to Chalcedon. While there is no reason to dismiss Vigilius' claim that he felt threatened by Justinian given the plentiful evidence, this suggests that his move was more of a calculated gesture than he acknowledges in the letter. The basilica of Euphemia was of course the place where the Council of Chalcedon had been held, and presumably Vigilius chose this particular church as a place of refuge because of this historical connection and the message which it sent. However, for whatever reason, he does not mention this in his letter.
Bibliography
Edition:Schwartz, E., I, Vigiliusbriefe. II, Zur Kirchenpolitik Justinians (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Abteilung. Jahrgang 1940, Heft 2; Munich, 1940).
Translation:
Price, R., The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 with related texts on the Three Chapters Controversy (Translated Texts for Historians 51; Liverpool, 2009). All references are to vol. 1 unless otherwise stated.
Further reading:
Chazelle, C., and Cubitt, C. (eds.), The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean (Turnhout, 2007).
Sotinel, C., "Autorité pontificale et pouvoir impérial sous le règne de Justinien: le pape Vigile," Mélanges de l'Ecole française
de Rome. Antiquité 104:1 (1992), 439-463.
David Lambert
24/08/2022
| ID | Name | Name in Source | Identity | S00017 | Euphemia, martyr of Chalcedon | Eufemia, Eufimia | Certain |
|---|
Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL:
David Lambert, Cult of Saints, E08326 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E08326