No More Learning

Sergius III, who then occupied the pontifical throne, an unworthy
creature of Theophylact and of Theodora, returned a favourable answer
1 Mansi, Concilia, vol. XVIII. col. 101.
2 De Cerimoniis, 11. 52 (MPG, cxII. col. 1293–1299).
3 lb. (MPG, CXXII. col. 1341).


## p. 257 (#299) ############################################

Leo VI and Nicholas Mysticus
257
to Leo VI. On these tidings the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus, who
appeared at first to have sought some means of solving the difficulties,
openly declared against the Emperor. On Christmas Day, in the presence
of the whole court, he forbade the Emperor to enter St Sophia (25 De-
cember 906).
Leo VI lost no time in revenging himself on Nicholas Mysticus, im-
plicated in the conspiracy of Andronicus Ducas, who had fled to the
Saracens. Secret correspondence between the Patriarch and the rebel was
seized. On 6 January 907, the Feast of the Epiphany, when the Patri-
arch had once more forbidden the Emperor to enter the church, Leo
yielded, but at the imperial banquet which followed the ceremony he
violently harangued Nicholas Mysticus, and in the presence of all the
metropolitans taxed him with treason. At that moment the Roman
legates arrived at Constantinople. Nicholas refused any dealings with
them, but a considerable section of the bishops abandoned him. The
synod released the Emperor from all ecclesiastical penalties, and Nicholas
Mysticus, compelled to abdicate his office, was sent to a monastery in
Asia. Euthymius was appointed Patriarch, and the rival headship divided
the Greek Church ; several bishops were banished or imprisoned. On
9 June 911 Euthymius anointed the son of Zoë, Constantine Porphyro-
genitus, Emperor.
Seized with remorse in his last moments, Leo VI reinstalled Nicholas
Mysticus on the patriarchal throne, and gave orders that Euthymius
should be deposed (911). His brother Alexander now became sole
Emperor, and chafing at the obscurity in which he had been kept, did his
best also to reverse all that had been done in the previous reign. Zoë was
driven from the palace, Euthymius struck in the face in the presence of
the Emperor, and Nicholas Mysticus solemnly re-instated. His first care
was to send to Pope Anastasius a memorandum in which he traduced the
character of Leo VI, blamed the weakness of Sergius III, whom his legates
had misled, and claimed reparation for the scandal. On the death of
Alexander, 6 June 912, the Patriarch, being marked out as head of the
council of regency for the young Constantine Porphyrogenitus, was all-
powerful for several months. In October 913 Zoë succeeded in ousting
him from the government, but could not induce Euthymius to resume
his office.
Subsequent events in which Byzantium was engrossed for seven
years, war with the Bulgarians, the revolt and coronation of Romanus
Lecapenus, caused the affair of Leo's fourth marriage to sink into the back-
ground. It was only in 920 that Nicholas Mysticus, probably instigated
by Romanus Lecapenus, petitioned Pope John X to send new legates to
Constantinople. The entente with Rome was restored. The memory of
Euthymius, who had died in the interval, was vindicated. In the presence
of the Emperors Romanus and Constantine, Nicholas Mysticus solemnly
promulgated a tomus unionis, reconciling the two parties. Leo's good
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. IX.
17


## p. 258 (#300) ############################################

258
Concord of the two Churches
name was sacrificed for this agreement; he was declared absolved on
special conditions, and the Church stigmatised in severe terms the fourth
and even the third marriage!
Peace then seemed to reign once more between Rome and Constanti-
nople, and the Greek Church had again accepted the arbitration of the
Pope. But the excessive leniency of the Court of Rome towards Leo VI
by no means increased its prestige. On the other hand the Emperor had
set an example which could not be lost on his successors. The alliance
with the Pope had only been a device for calming the agitation produced
by his fourth marriage. The same Emperor who had written letters to
Rome emphasising his zeal for the See of St Peter, had addressed to his
people veritable homilies in which he savagely attacked the doctrine of
the double Procession of the Holy Ghost, a policy hạrdly likely to con-
duce to a lasting peace. And so it turned out; the relations between
the two Churches were constantly dominated by the political affairs of
Byzantium at home and abroad.
Except for the ephemeral schism of Sergius, concord existed officially
between the two Churches for 134 years, from 920–1054. It must be
added that this concord was real. This is the impression produced, if the
official relations are neglected and only those of the ordinary members of
the two Churches are considered. It may safely be said that the large
majority of the Westerners and of the Greeks dreaded schism, and that
the two parties, far from mutual hatred and excommunication, considered
themselves members of the same Church. The influx of Eastern monks
into Rome, Italy, and the entire West at this period, episodes such as the
reception of St Nilus at Monte Cassino and his establishment at Grotta
Ferrata (1004), the numerous Western pilgrims passing through Con-
stantinople and the cordial welcome they received there, shew con-
clusively that the faithful of the two cults were animated with a true
spirit of charity one towards the other and did not attach too great im-
portance to the difference in their customs'. Neither of them desired
schism; it was their pastors and princes, not they themselves, who were
solely responsible for it.
But however favourable the circumstances were for the union, it was
during this period that the definitive separation was prepared. Not that
the causes of divergence were multiplied, but historic events modified the
situation and favoured the rupture.
First of all, there was the diminishing prestige of Rome. After the
end of the ninth century feudal anarchy attacked the Church and did not
spare even the throne of St Peter. The Papacy became a fief for which
the barons of the Roman Campagna disputed. It was the sinister epoch
1 Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 111. p. 684; Epistolae Nicolai Mystici, MPG, (XI,
col. 276.
2 Leo VI, Oratio de Spiritu Sancto, MPG, cvii. col. 131.
3 L Brehier, Le Schisme Oriental du xre siècle, pp. 18–34.


## p. 259 (#301) ############################################

Lessened prestige of Rome
259
of an Alberic, a Theodora, a Marozia, and a Crescentius. Then, dating
from the coronation of Otto (962), the Popes were creatures of the Ger-
manic Emperors. Rome became a field for intrigues, and the Byzantine
Emperors, rivals in Southern Italy of the Germanic Emperors, naturally
sought to win partisans for themselves there and to influence the election
of the Popes. The Papacy, become a tool of the temporal princes, was on
the verge of seeing the catholic character of its power disappear. It had
lost all moral authority, and events were destined to disappoint sadly
the reliance of the Studites on Roman supremacy.
At this moment, with the Papacy weakened, the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople saw his influence increase. That was the inevitable consequence
of the policy of victorious expansion which the Macedonian dynasty fol-
lowed. It was not merely the victories of Nicephorus Phocas, of John
Tzimisces, and of Basil II, but also the success of the missions to Slav
countries, and in particular the conversion of the Russians, which helped
to spread the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The
recovery of Southern Italy was followed by the reconstitution of a
Greek ecclesiastical hierarchy in Apulia and in Calabria, where colonies of
Basilian monks were founded. After the baptism of Vladímir (989), the
clerics of Constantinople had organised the Russian Church, whose
metropolitan bishop was strictly subordinated to the Patriarchate. Simi-
larly Basil II, after terminating the independence of Bulgaria (1018),
substituted an archbishop, a suffragan of Constantinople, for the Patriarch
of Ochrida. The military and diplomatic successes of the same Emperor
in Armenia, and later the annexation of that country by Constantine IX,
resulted in drawing more closely and more cordially the bonds of union
between the Greek and Armenian Churches. Finally, in Palestine the
protectorate over the holy places and the Christian inhabitants passed
at the beginning of the eleventh century from the Franks to the Byzantine
Emperors?
While the Roman Church was ravaged by schism, simony, and
nepotism, the Patriarch of Constantinople bulked more and more as
the spiritual head of the East. Although many of the Patriarchs had
been monks and some had issued even from the monastery of Studion,
they had been accustomed to despise the Papacy. Enjoying virtual auto-
nomy as regards Rome, they actually tried to obtain official recognition
of the fact.
The Emperors far more than the Patriarchs maintained unbroken
relations with Rome, and for them it was always political interests, internal
or external, that were at stake. Thus when Romanus Lecapenus, desirous
of placing his power on a secure basis and assuring the future of his
dynasty, undertook to raise his son Theophylact, a mere child, to the
patriarchal dignity, he applied to Rome. On their side, Pope John XI,
son of Marozia, and his brother Alberic, Prince of the Romans, sought his
1 L. Brehier, L'Église et l'Orient au moyen âge. Les Croisades, pp. 38–39.
17-2
CA. IX.


## p. 260 (#302) ############################################

260
Independence of the Greek Church
alliance. The young Theophylact, aged sixteen years, was consecrated
Patriarch on 2 February 933, in the presence of four papal legates. To
arrive at this result Romanus Lecapenus had extorted an act of abdi-
cation from the Patriarch Tryphon, but there is no indication that this
scandalous act raised the slightest protest from the clergy? Theophy-
lact, devoid of the slightest ecclesiastical vocation, led an absolutely
worldly life while filling the patriarchal chair, trafficking in dispensa-
tions and bishoprics, surrounding himself with pantomimists and dancers,
and shewing a consuming passion for horses, which he bred at great cost.
He survived the palace revolution which overthrew his father (944), and
died in 956 owing to a fall from his horse.
After the middle of the tenth century a strong current of asceticism
swept through the Greek Church. This was the epoch when St Athanasius,
the spiritual director of Nicephorus Phocas, founded the convent of St
Laura on Mount Athos (961), which was to become the most important
monastic centre of the East. All the successors of Theophylact in the
Patriarchate, Polyeuctes (956–970), Basil the Scamandrian (970–974),
Anthony of Studion (974–980), were monks of great austerity, whose
uncompromising attitude led often to conflicts with the imperial power.
It does not appear that in these disputes the Court of Rome ever tried
to arbitrate or that it was ever asked to do so. The relations between
Rome and Constantinople seem under Constantine VII, Nicephorus
Phocas, and John Tzimisces to have been exclusively political. Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, allied with King Hugh of Italy, sent a fleet to his help
to protect Provence and Central Italy against the Saracens. Under
Nicephorus Phocas, Southern Italy was the debateable point, and the
unfortunate embassy of Liudprand, Bishop of Cremona, sent by Otto I
in 968, illustrates the barrier of misunderstanding and prejudice which
separated the Greeks from the Westerners.
In purely religious questions, on the contrary, where the authority of
the Pope was concerned, the Emperors and Patriarchs took the most
important steps without paying any attention to Rome. In 964 Nice-
phorus Phocas published his celebrated Novel on the monasteries, which
aroused violent opposition amongst the clergy, without its opponents
even attempting to support their cause by calling in Rome, as the
Studites had formerly done. Similarly, without consulting the Pope,
Nicephorus Phocas altered the ecclesiastical divisions of Southern Italy
by creating the province of Otranto and by attempting to hellenise
Apulia. No protests were raised by Rome, but we have the testimony
of Liudprand to shew what dissatisfaction was caused among the Latin
clergy by this act.
The feeling which seemed to dominate more and more the Greek
i Gay, L'Italie méridionale et l'empire byzantin, p. 221.
2 Liudprandi Legatio, 62 (MGH, Script. 111. pp. 361–63). Gay, op. cit. pp. 351-
853.


## p. 261 (#303) ############################################

Strained relations with Rome
261
Church was a certain contempt for these Latins, whom it considered
mere barbarians, while the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose authority
had been founded by the Ecumenical Councils, had been able to keep
inviolate the orthodox faith entrusted to him. This is shewn by the
curious conversation which the Patriarch Polyeuctes held with Liud-
prand at the imperial table on 6 July 968, and by the contemptuous
tone in which he questioned him on the number of councils held in the
West. He spoke scoffingly of the Saxon Council, “ too young yet to
figure in the canonical collections. ”ı
Nothing, however, shews more clearly the way in which the authority
of the Papacy was despised than the incident caused by the arrival of
the legates, whom Pope John XIII had sent to support the negotia-
tions of Liudprand with a view to an alliance between the two Empires
(19 August 968). Nicephorus Phocas had just started for the army in
Asia, but when his cabinet dealt with the Pope's letter it discovered with
indignation that Otto had been designated in it as “august Emperor
of the Romans” and Nicephorus as “Emperor of the Greeks. ” This was
a gross blunder which might well be taken for an insult. The Byzantine
Emperors proudly vaunted the tradition which connected them with the
Caesars of ancient Rome, and the term “Hellenes” had acquired at
Constantinople the sense of “Pagans. ” The hapless legates were thrown
into prison pending the decision of the Emperor, and Liudprand himself,
held responsible for this wanton affront, was forced to promise formally
that the objectionable words should be corrected at Rome?
At the end of the tenth century proofs of the enmity of the Patri-
archs of Constantinople towards Rome grew more numerous. Whatever
their origin, whether laymen elected to the patriarchate like Sisinnius,
physician and magister (996–998), or monks like Sergius, Igumen of the
monastery of Manuel (998-1019), they shew the same hostility. In 997
Sisinnius published a regulation against unlawful marriages, which con-
demned by implication the authorisation granted by the Popes to Leo VI
to contract a fourth marriage. In an encyclical to the bishops of Asia
Minor the same Patriarch revived the already ancient dispute about the
double Procession of the Holy Ghosts.
His successor, Sergius, went a step farther. In 1009 he assembled a
synod at Constantinople, confirmed the ordinances of Photius against
Latin usages, and erased the name of the Pope from the diptychs. It
must be borne in mind that at this moment the organisation of a Greek
hierarchy in Russia had singularly increased the power of the Patri-
archate. This extraordinary increase of prestige may possibly have stimu-
lated the Patriarch to claim for himself entire freedom from any spiritual
1 Liud prandi Legatio, 21, 22 (MGH, Script. III. pp. 351-52). Seemingly the
Council of Frankfort held in 794.
Liudprandi Legatio, 47 (MGH, Script. 111. pp. 357–58
3 Schlumberger, Epopée byzantine, vol. 11. pp. 119–120.
2
CH. IX.


## p. 262 (#304) ############################################

262
Eustathius and the autocephalia
jurisdiction of the Papacy. This may be inferred fron the subsequent
course of events? .
The act of Sergius does not seem to have effected a schism in the
proper sense, and it may even be doubted whether it came to the notice
of Rome. Further, we do not know at what moment the name of the
Pope was restored to the diptychs. In his letter addressed in 1054 to
Michael Cerularius, Peter, the Patriarch of Antioch, states that forty-
five years previously, on his way to Constantinople in the time of the
Patriarch Sergius, he had heard the name of the Pope in the liturgy
with those of the other Patriarchs’. But this journey of Peter to Con-
stantinople was in 1009, the very year in which Sergius had, probably
some months previously, ordered the name to be struck out.
The proof that this act was after all not followed by any lasting
rupture is the step taken by Sergius' successor, the Patriarch Eustathius,
at the Court of Rome in 1024. It is only from Western sources that we
learn of this curious attempt'.
Pope John XIX, who, although a layman, had just succeeded his
brother Benedict VIII, received an embassy sent by the Emperor Basil
and the Patriarch Eustathius. Its aim was to obtain from the Pope
a declaration that “the Church in Constantinople should be styled
universal in its sphere, just as the Church of Rome was in the universe. '
The question at issue was to obtain from the Pope autocephalia, that
is the complete autonomy of the Greek Church, over which he would
cease to exercise his jurisdiction. A compromise accepted by both parties
was preferred to a violent rupture like that of Photius. The occasion
seemed favourable; the embassy brought splendid presents which were
not without their effect upon John XIX. He looked round, therefore,
for a method of giving satisfaction to the Greeks without arousing
attention abroad.
But the news of the scandal rapidly spread in Italy and through the
entire West. At this moment the powerful congregation of Cluny had
begun to push triumphantly forward the principles of the reform of the
Church. Many of its chief adherents came to Rome, as did Richard,
Abbot of St Vannes, or wrote, like William of Volpiano, Abbot of St
Benignus of Dijon, indignant letters to the Pope. They felt more than
John XIX himself that it was the very unity of the Church that was
imperilled, and the Pope, intimidated by their angry protests, dared not
grant the Greek embassy what it asked.
This curious episode throws vivid light on the religious policy of the
Emperors and Patriarchs of Constantinople in the tenth century. The
Greeks had no wish for a schism which they knew to be unpopular, but
2
1 L. Bréhier, Le Schisme Oriental, pp. 6-7.
MPG, cxx. col. 795.
3 Radulphus Glaber, iv. 1 (MGH, Script. vii. p. 66). Hugh of Flavigny (MGH,
Script. viii. p. 392).


## p. 263 (#305) ############################################

The party of reform in the West
263
they hoped to profit by the weakness of the Papacy and by the anarchy
prevailing at Rome, in order to build up new legal foundations for the
patriarchal power. The actual phrase of Radulphus Glaber: “quatinus
cum consensu Romani pontificis liceret ecclesiam Constantinopolitanam in
suo orbe, sicuti Roma in universo, universalem dici et haberi,” certainly
appears to shew that the primary object was to obtain from the Pope
that title of “Ecumenical,” which had hitherto been refused to the
Patriarch of Constantinople, and which denoted full legal autonomy. It
seems, then, that there may have been a connexion between the erasure
of the Pope's name from the diptychs ordered by Sergius in 1009 and
the step taken in 1024. Unfortunately, the available sources only supply
some fragmentary details.
A new fact, at any rate, the consequences of which were to be important,
emerges from their evidence. For more than a century, ever since the
reign of Leo VI, the Emperors and the Patriarchs met with nothing but
friendliness at Rome. Thanks to their alliances with the all-powerful
members of the Roman nobility, they obtained nearly all that they
wished from the weak Popes, who only held office at the bidding of an
Alberic or a Crescentius. It was in 1024, therefore, that the Court
of Constantinople encountered an unexpected resistance, that of the
party of ecclesiasticad reform, finding a centre in Cluny, whose doc-
trines were then beginning to spread over the entire West. These
reformers, realising more clearly than John XIX the true interests of
the Church, defended the Pope against himself by forcing him to resist
the Byzantine claims. This was only a preliminary skirmish between the
spirit of the Western Reform and the Patriarchate of Constantinople,
but it was significant and forecasted the stubborn disputes which followed
soon after.
The embassy of 1024 would not appear to have been entirely fruit-
less in results for the Greek Church, if it is correct that John XIX
consented to recognise the title of metropolitan assumed by the Bishop of
Bari, the capital of the Byzantine possessions in Italy'. At this juncture
the catapan Basil Boioannes re-organised the civil and religious adminis-
tration of the Italian conquests. John XIX, by recognising the ecclesi-
astical province of Bari with its twelve suffragan bishoprics, appeared to
sanction the religious constitution established in Southern Italy by the
Greek Emperors.
The prestige of the Byzantine Emperors was now at its zenith.
Basil II, having conquered the Bulgarians and having nothing more to
fear from the Arabs and Russians, may have contemplated the re-estab-
lishment of his imperial authority at Rome and in the West.
Such a
contingency would have been of incalculable consequence for the relations
1 The fact is known from a bull of John XIX preserved in the archives of the
Cathedral at Bari. As to its authenticity vide Gay, L'Italie méridionale et l'empire
byzantin, p. 427.
cH. IX.


## p. 264 (#306) ############################################

264
The two Churches up to 1054
between the two Churches, but these plans were frustrated by the death
of the Emperor in 1025. On his death-bed Basil had designated, as
successor to Eustathius in the Patriarchate, Alexius, Abbot of Studion,
who governed the Church of Constantinople until 1042. There are no
signs of any hostility towards the Popes evinced by this Patriarch,
although their names had not been restored on the diptychs of the
Church of Constantinople. It may at least be said that there was no
official schism between East and West before 1054. In 1026 the Emperor
and the Patriarch offered the most cordial welcome to Richard, Abbot of
St Vannes, the very man who two years previously had wrecked the
attempt of the Greek Church to win recognition of its autonomy.
Churches of the Latin rite existed at Constantinople, such as St Mary of
the Amalfitans, founded by the famous family of the Mauro; St Stephen,
due to the munificence of the King of Hungary; and finally the church
of the Varangian guard, composed of Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxons.
There is no evidence that these had been more disturbed than the churches
of the Greek rite which existed at Rome.
Still less was there any desire on the part of the other Eastern Patri-
archs to break with Rome. Only two years before the definitive rupture
with Rome, in 1052, Peter, elected Patriarch of Antioch, sent, in accord-
ance with traditional custom, his synodica, his profession of faith, to Pope
Leo IX. This letter, entrusted to a Jerusalem pilgrim, was slow in
reaching its destination, but the answer dated 1059 is extant, in which
Leo IX, after congratulating the Patriarch on his election and approving
his profession of faith, sent him in return his own'.
The agreement concluded in 898 and renewed in 920 between the two
Churches had on the whole been observed, and, if the opinion of the large
majority of the ordinary members of the two communities had found
means of expression, schism would have been permanently averted. But
during this long period, which was a period of eclipse for the papal
power, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, whose influence had been
strengthened by the external successes of the Empire, had grown ac-
customed to an almost absolute independence of Rome. Far from
repudiating the tradition of Photius, they had continued to manifest
their hostility to the Latin usages. Peace prevailed officially, but in reality
the champions of the two rituals were secret enemies. The Greek mission-
aries, who instructed Vladímir in the faith at Cherson in 989, were
solicitous to warn him against Latin errors, and went the length of
forging, for the purpose of explaining them, a veritable romance, full of
calumnies as hateful as they were coarse? . Finally, even if the attempt
made in 1024 by Eustathius to obtain official recognition of the autonomy
of the Greek Church had miscarried, it shews that on this question
1 L. Bréhier, Le Schisme Oriental, pp. 16–18.
2 Chronique de Nestor (French translation by Leger), p. 96.


## p. 265 (#307) ############################################

Michael Cerularius
265
as on others the Patriarch had remained loyal to the programme of
Photius.
This peace, equivocal as was its nature, might have lasted longer had
not fresh historical conditions at the middle of the eleventh century
tended to modify the character of the relations between the Patriarch
and the Pope and to accelerate the rupture.
The schemes of the Patriarch of Constantinople had encountered in
1024 the resistance of the Western party of ecclesiastical reform. This
party had for the first time a champion on the Papal throne in Leo IX
(1049). In his diocese of Toul he had already favoured reform; and
when made Pope he determined to extend it to the Church and to claim
vigorously the rights of the Papacy to universal jurisdiction.
Precisely when Leo IX was thus proposing to restore the pontifical
authority, the patriarchal throne of Constantinople was occupied by a
man whose character was as inflexible as his own. Michael Cerularius,
who had succeeded the Patriarch Alexius in 1043, belonged to a family of
bureaucratic nobility long established at Constantinople. Destined to fill,
as his ancestors had done, some high civil post, he as well as his brother
had been carefully educated. But in 1040 he was entangled in a con-
spiracy against Michael IV and John Orphanotrophos. Denounced and
arrested with his brother, he suffered close confinement on Princes
Islands. His brother, unable to endure prison, committed suicide, and as
a result of this tragic event Michael became a monk. Recalled to By-
zantium after 1041, he won the favour of Constantine IX, a former con-
spirator like himself, and became one of his counsellors. Having been for
some time syncellus of the Patriarch Alexius, he was selected by the Em-
peror to succeed him, and was consecrated Patriarch on 29 March 10431.
His contemporaries, and especially Psellus, represent him as a man of
strong and haughty character, ambitious of playing a prominent part in
the Church and even in the State. Of an unforgiving nature, he had his
ancient persecutor John Orphanotrophos deprived of his sight in his
prison (1043). “The anger and the spite of the Patriarch pursued any
man who had once resisted him, at an interval it might be of ten years or
more, and even if submerged among the masses"? From the first days of
his government he assumed towards the Emperor an attitude by no
means customary with the Patriarchs. He was not so much a submissive
subject as a power who was on an equal footing with the Emperor.
Constantine seems to have been afraid of him, and it is noteworthy that
after the death of the Empress Zoë he did not venture on a fourth mar-
riage, in spite of the senile affection which he shewed for his Alan
favourite. Fear of the Patriarch no doubt restrained him.
1 L. Bréhier, Le Schisme Oriental, pp. 52–81.
? Psellus, Accusation de l'archevêque devant le Synode, 63, Revue des Études
Grecques, xvii. 1904. (Extrait L. Brehier, Un discours inédit de Psellos. Paris,
1904, p. 74. )
CH, IX.


## p. 266 (#308) ############################################

266
The Eastern Empire, Leo IX, and the Normans
Such was the man who was destined to face Leo IX. It required the
contact of two characters so headstrong and so unyielding to kindle the
conflict.
The occasion for schism was found when the two powers met in
Southern Italy. The Norman adventurers, who had first of all supported
the revolt of the Lombards against the Empire, were not slow to work
for their own hand and ruthlessly ravaged the rich country of Apulia.
Desirous of ending their pillaging, Leo IX, after vain recourse to spiritual
arms, set about enrolling bands of soldiers and took the offensive against
the Normans. But his interests here coincided with those of the govern-
ment of Constantinople. So at the close of 1051 a military alliance was
concluded between the Pope and the Lombard Argyrus, who, at first
chief of the Normans, had entered the service of the Empire and received
the command of the imperial armies in Italy.
Now this alliance had been concluded against the will of the Patriarch,
who was eager to uphold the jurisdiction of Constantinople over Southern
Italy, and feared to see Leo IX restore the authority of Rome over the
bishoprics of Apulia. This same year, 1051, the inhabitants of Bene-
vento had driven out their prince and had submitted themselves to the
Pope, who had sent them two legates, Cardinal Humbert and the
Patriarch of Gradol.
Thus the interests of the Empire were in formal contradiction with
those of Michael Cerularius, and it was at the very moment when the
imperial government needed the support of the Pope that the Patriarch
shewed his enmity to the Roman Church.
The course of events can be pieced together from the actual cor-
respondence of the Patriarch and the Pope. Argyrus left Italy in 1046
and came to Constantinople, where he stayed until 1051. He was well
received by the Emperor and was a member of his council at the moment
of the revolt of Leo Tornicius (1047). It was then that he quarrelled
with the Patriarch as a result of the dispute with him about the Latin
ritual, and in particular on the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.
When it is borne in mind that, even if Calabria was completely hellenised,
Apulia had remained to a large extent faithful to the Latin ritual, the
cause of this controversy is explicable. Argyrus had come to Constanti-
nople to inform the Emperor of the state of Southern Italy and to urge
him to conclude an alliance with Leo IX. His duty then was to defend
a policy of conciliation and prudence towards the Latin ritual prevailing
in Apulia. He himself, besides being by birth a Lombard, belonged to
this ritual, and as he declined to be convinced Michael Cerularius boasted
of having refused him the sacrament more than four times? .
In spite, however, of the Patriarch, Argyrus returned to Italy in 1051
with a mandate for the signature of a treaty of alliance between the
Gay, L'Italie méridionale et l'empire byzantin, pp. 469, 482 ff.
2 Gay, op. cit. p. 471. L. Brehier, Le Schisme Oriental, pp. 92–93.
1


## p. 267 (#309) ############################################

Michael Cerularius and Rome
267
Empire and Leo IX. But at the very time when this alliance was going
to produce its effect Michael Cerularius commenced hostilities against
Rome. It cannot be denied that he had adopted a policy in contra-
diction to that of the Emperor.
In 1053, indeed, he writes to the new Patriarch of Antioch, Peter, ex-
pressing surprise that the name of the Pope is always mentioned in the
liturgy of Antioch. He falsely declares that this name did not appear
in the diptychs of Constantinople after the council of 692 ; but Peter,
who had just submitted his profession of faith to Leo IX, had no diffi-
culty in pointing out the intentional inaccuracy'. In the same letter
Michael Cerularius related his dispute with Argyrus about unleavened
bread.
At the same moment a former cleric of Constantinople, Leo, Arch-
bishop of Ochrida in Bulgaria, addressed to an Apulian Bishop, John of
Trani, a letter which was a veritable indictment of Latin uses. It was no
longer, as in the time of Photius, a question chiefly of the double Pro-
cession of the Holy Ghost, but of ritual and discipline. The use of un-
leavened bread for the Eucharist and the Saturday fast were quoted as
regrettable instances of persistence in the Mosaic law. Through the
agency of the Bishop of Trani, a rival of the Archbishop of Bari who
was devoted to the Holy See, Michael Cerularius tried to draw the other
bishops of Apulia into a dispute with the Pope'. The letter was com-
municated by John to Cardinal Humbert, who had it translated into
Latin and forwarded to Leo IX 4.
Cerularius further took care that a treatise written in Latin by a
monk of the monastery of Studion, Nicetas Stethatus (Pectoratus), was
circulated. The attacks on the Latins were presented in it under a more
violent form than in the letter of Leo of Ochrida. He not only denounced
the use of unleavened bread and the Saturday fast, but, and this point
must have gone home to Leo IX and the Western reformers, he con-
demned the celibacy of priests as contrary to ecclesiastical tradition.
These charges, interspersed with coarse insults, were bound to cause keen
irritation to the Westerners and to embitter the quarrels.
Finally, to cut short any attempt at conciliation, the Patriarch took a
decisive step. On his own initiative he ordered the closing of the churches
of the Latin rite which existed at Constantinople. The abbots and monks
of the Greek monasteries grouped round these churches were commanded
henceforward to follow the Greek ritual, and on their refusal were treated
as “Azymites” and excommunicated. Some of them resisted, and scenes
1 L. Bréhier, Le Schisme Oriental, p. 92. Vide the two letters in Will, Acta et
scripta, quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculi xi composita exstant,
pp. 178 and 192.
2 L. Brehier, op. cit. pp. 93–94.
3 Gay, L'Italie méridionale, p. 495.
4 Wibert, Vita Leonis, ix. 11. 11 (Muratori, III. p. 296).
6 L. Bréhier, op. cit. pp. 94-96.
CH, IX.


## p. 268 (#310) ############################################

268 Correspondence between the Pope and the Patriarch
of violence ensued in the course of which Nicephorus, the sacellarius of
the Patriarch, trod under foot the consecrated host? .
While Michael Cerularius was thus entering on the contest, the
liance between the Pope and the Emperor had met with a decisive
check. Argyrus, defeated by the Normans (February 1053), had been
forced to abandon Apulia and to fly northwards. Some months later
Leo IX in his turn was defeated and made prisoner at Civitate, and it
was no other than John, Bishop of Trani, whom Argyrus dispatched to
Constantinople to ask fresh help against the Normans.
These events naturally led to correspondence between the Pope and
the Patriarch; and pontifical legates were sent to Constantinople, but
opinions differ as to the exact order of the facts. According to some
authorities, even before Leo IX had replied to the attacks of the Arch-
bishop of Ochrida, that is to say after the close of 1053, Michael Ceru-
larius wrote the Pope a letter, very conciliatory in tone, in which he pro-
tested his zeal for unity and proposed a new alliance against the Normans.
By so acting he demonstrated his goodwill towards the political alliance
between Pope and Emperor, but he remained obdurate on the matter of
the customs which he condemned as heretical. It was not until after he
had sent this appeal for conciliation that Michael Cerularius received the
two letters addressed to him by the Pope. The first was an indignant
refutation of the attacks of Leo of Ochrida on the Roman uses. In the
second the Pope accepted the proposed alliance, but refused to treat with
the Patriarch as an equal, and reminded him that every Church which
broke with that of Rome was only “an assembly of heretics, a conventicle
of schismatics, a synagogue of Satan”. ?
But this manner of presenting the facts does not at all explain the
express contradiction which exists between the violently aggressive acts
of Michael Cerularius against Rome and the extremely conciliatory letter
which he wrote to the Pope. The text of this letter, it is true, is no
longer extant, but the purport of it can easily be gathered from the
answer of Leo IX and the allusions which Michael Cerularius himself
makes to it in his correspondence with Peter of Antioch. It is hard to
believe that the Patriarch, who had wished to break with. Rome in so
startling a manner, wrote it of his own free will. Further, the position
of the imperial army in Italy at the end of 1053 was so desperate, and
the cementing of the alliance with Leo IX appeared so necessary, that
we are led to believe in some governmental pressure being brought to
bear on the Patriarch. It was almost certainly by order of the Emperor
and at the instigation of Argyrus that he consented to this effort at
conciliation
But no compromise was possible between the obduracy of Leo IX
1 Letter of Leo IX (Will, op. cit. p. 801), L. Bréhier, op. cit. pp. 96-97.
2 Gay, L'Italie méridionale, pp. 492–494.
3 L. Brehier, op. cit. pp. 97-109.


## p. 269 (#311) ############################################

The Roman legates at Constantinople (1054)
269
and that of Michael Cerularius. Determined to obtain the submission of
the Patriarch, the Pope sent to Constantinople three legates whom he
chose from among his principal counsellors, Cardinal Humbert, Frederick
of Lorraine, Chancellor of the Roman Church, and Peter, Bishop of
Amalfi. Before departing they had an interview with Argyrus, who
posted them up in the political situation at Constantinople; and this
fact was made use of later by the Patriarch, who alleged that these
legates were mere impostors in the pay of Argyrus.
The legates arrived at Constantinople towards the end of April 1054,
and were given a magnificent reception by the Emperor, who lodged
them in the Palace of the Springs outside the Great Wall. They visited
the Patriarch, but this first meeting was the reverse of cordial. Michael
Cerularius was deeply affronted to see that they did not prostrate them-
selves before him according to Byzantine etiquette. At the ceremonies
they claimed to take precedence of the metropolitans, and, contrary to
custom, appeared at the Palace with staff and crozier,
This attitude conformed to the tone of the two letters which they
brought from the Pope. We know already that, in the letter intended
for the Patriarch, Leo IX, while thanking him for the desire for unity
which he expressed, sharply reproved him for his attacks on the Roman
Church. The letter addressed to Constantine IX was, on the contrary,
couched in deferential terms. With consummate skill he contrasted the
project of alliance against the Normans with the attitude of Michael
Cerularius towards him. After enumerating his principal grievances, he
threatened to break with the Patriarch if he persisted too long in his
obstinacy. In conclusion, he adjured the Emperor to help his legates
to restore peace in the Church. It was clear, therefore, that the Pope
looked only to the authority of the Emperor to get the better of the
Patriarch? .
Discussions were opened. The legates Humbert and Frederick wrote
rejoinders to the treatise of Nicetas Stethatus on the question of un-
leavened bread. While defending the Roman Church, they vigorously
attacked certain uses of the Greek Church, but the treatise, especially
addressed to Nicetas, was written in coarse and violent language. The ill-
starred monk was overwhelmed with epithets such as Sarabaita, veritable
Epicurus, forger.
Then, on 24 June 1054, the Emperor and the legates went across to
the monastery of Studion. After the treatise of Nicetas, translated into
Greek, had been read, a discussion followed, as a result of which the
monk declared himself vanquished. He himself anathematised his own
book and all those who denied that the Roman Church was the Head
of all the Churches. The Emperor then ordered the treatise to be
committed to the flames.
The next day Nicetas went to visit the
1 L. Bréhier, Le Schisme Oriental, pp. 105-107.
2 Will, op. cit. pp. 85-88.
сн. Іх. .