A letter of 552, written while Pope Vigilius was taking refuge in the basilica of *Euphemia (martyr of Chalcedon, S00017) in Chalcedon, during the Three Chapters controversy, states that two of his deacons had been forcibly removed from the basilica and that Vigilius and numerous priests had been injured in the incident. Written in Latin, probably in Chalcedon.
Evidence ID
E08329
Type of Evidence
Documentary texts - Letter
Letter accompanying a copy of Pope Vigilius' excommunication of Theodore of Caesarea and Menas of Constantinople
[...] magis maior creuit uiolentiarum acerbitas ita, ut iniquissima praesumptione sub graui discrimine abstraherentur sanctissimi uiri Pelagius et Tullianus diacones de basilica beatissimae martyris Eufimiae in Calchedonam, ubi sanctus papa caesus est et diuersorum sacerdotum turba conlisa [...]
'[...] the bitterness of acts of violence grew so much greater that, with the most unjust audacity, the holy men Pelagius and Tullianus the deacons were dragged under grave danger from the basilica of the most blessed martyr Eufimia in Chalcedon, where the holy pope was wounded and a crowd of different priests were hurt [...]'
Text: Schwartz 1940, 16.
Translation: David Lambert.
Cult PlacesEcclesiastics - lesser clergy
Cult building - independent (church)
Rejection, Condemnation, SceptisismDestruction/desecration of saint's shrine
Non Liturgical ActivitySeeking asylum at church/shrine
Protagonists in Cult and NarrativesEcclesiastics - lesser clergy
Ecclesiastics - Popes
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.
Letter accompanying a copy of the letter of excommunication
Letter 3 in Schwartz's edition; not translated by Price. This document has been quite badly garbled in transmission (for full discussion, see Schwartz 1940, 29-31), but the key part of the text is evidently a covering letter sent with a copy of Vigilius' letter excommunicating Menas of Constantinople and Theodore of Caesarea, and which explains why Vigilius had released the excommunication letter to the public, six months after it was originally written. Although in the manuscript it is headed 'Further letter of Pope Vigilius' (Item epistola papae Vigilii), it is not by Vigilius himself since it refers to him in the third person. The letter has no named addressee, but at one point the author refers to its recipient(s) taking it with them to Provence (ipsas chartas in Prouinciam uobiscum deferatis). This suggests that it was addressed to the Frankish envoys whose letter from the church in Milan survives as the fourth item in the dossier. In the manuscript the letter is dated 14 August 551, the same date as the letter of excommunication. This must be erroneous, since the letter itself says that it was written six months later: thus around February 552.
Discussion
The incident described in this passage took place in February 552, at some point after 5 February, when Vigilius issued his letter Dum in sanctae Euphemiae. The main purpose of the letter in which it appears was to explain why Vigilius had finally published the letter excommunicating Menas, the patriarch of Constantinople, and Theodore, bishop of Caesarea, which he had written on 14 August 551. After keeping it confidential for six months, he published it in retaliation for the incident mentioned here, having copies of it displayed in 'the basilicas of various saints in the imperial city [Constantinople] and in prominent places' (per sanctorum diversorum basilicas in ciuitate regia et in locis celeberrimis).Exactly what happened in the incident is impossible to know for certain, since this letter gives so little detail and no other source mentions it at all. One obvious question is whether the assault on those in the basilica was directed specifically at the deacons Pelagius and Tullianus, or whether it was an unsuccessful attempt to remove Vigilius himself. Price opts for the former (Price 2009, 49), suggesting that the deacons were targeted 'doubtless because of their role in the composition of the encyclical' (i.e. Dum in sanctae Euphemiae). One would expect that if Vigilius himself had been the target this would be mentioned explicitly, but given the brevity of the letter's account, this cannot entirely be taken for granted. If, as the letter implies, there was some kind of melee inside the church, the intended target of the attack may not even have been clear to those on the receiving end. We might expect that an attempt to seize the pope would be reported elsewhere; on the other hand, the letter claims that Vigilius was wounded (caesus, a word that implies something more than trivial), which in itself might be expected to receive mention in other sources but does not.
The two deacons, Pelagius and Tullianus, are widely recorded in sources for Vigilius' time in Constantinople; Pelagius eventually succeeded him as pope. The letter also claims that a crowd of sacerdotes were hurt in the incident. It is not clear whether sacerdotes here means 'priests' or 'bishops': the latter was its predominant meaning in this period, but if there were enough sacerdotes present to constitute a 'crowd' (turba), it seems more likely that it denotes lesser clergy, though there were a number of Italian and African bishops in Constantinople at this point alongside Vigilius (thirteen are listed in the letter excommunicating Menas and Theodore: Schwartz 1940, 14; Price 2009, 164).
After this event, Justinian evidently changed his tactics and applied pressure to the bishops on his own side, eventually compelling Menas, Theodore, and several other bishops to go the basilica of Euphemia and give Vigilius a document apologising to him and declaring their adherence to previous ecumenical councils, including Chalcedon. In return, Vigilius revoked the excommunication of Menas and Theodore and left the basilica. This is recorded in Vigilius' First Constitutum, a document submitted by him to the Council of Constantinople in 553 (translated Price 2009, vol. 2, 145). The exact date is unknown, but it was before 26 June 552, when Vigilius and Justinian were formally reconciled. It was not long, however, before Justinian renewed his campaign of coercion against Vigilius, until he finally gave in and condemned the Three Chapters in December 553 (Price 2009, 54).
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).
Further reading:
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.
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.
Record Created By
David Lambert
Date of Entry
29/08/2022
| ID | Name | Name in Source | Identity | S00017 | Euphemia, martyr of Chalcedon | Eufimia | Certain |
|---|
Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL:
David Lambert, Cult of Saints, E08329 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E08329