ON ST. MENNAS OR MENAS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,
In the year DLII.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.
Mennas or Menas, patriarch of Constantinople (St.)
BY THE AUTHOR J. P.
§ I. He is praised, and consecrated patriarch by St. Pope Agapetus; he is punished by Vigilius with an ecclesiastical penalty; whether he turned this back upon him, as some will have it.
This is the third Patriarch of Constantinople who is illustrated by us on today's day: St. Mennas, from being provost of the hospice at CP. whose biographer records few things about the deeds done by him, as will be plain from the narration which we shall subjoin to this Commentary, so much so that he has passed over or was ignorant of very many things, which we shall endeavor to supply and to illustrate. In the first place, that biographer at number 1 rightly writes that our Saint was taken from the presbyterate of the city of Constantinople to the archbishopric of that same city. To which add these words from Liberatus the Deacon, to be cited below: This Mennas was provost of the greater hospice, which is called Samson, an Alexandrian by race, accepting the synod of Chalcedon. That title is confirmed from the document which we alleged in our Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, which will be mentioned again and again in this Commentary: for there, at page 65, are these words: A copy of the petition of Mennas, presbyter and hospice-keeper &c. Concerning the hospice of Samson, Du Cange supplies various notices in book 4 of Christian Constantinople, §9, page 164. The biographer also indicated above rightly records that Mennas was substituted for Anthimus in the patriarchal chair, as may be seen in the said Chronological History published by us before the first tome of this month of August; but Epiphanius immediately preceded both. See the same History from page 63; where it is shown that Evagrius Scholasticus strayed from the truth in book 4 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 36, when he wrongly asserts that Epiphanius succeeded Anthimus, whereas he had preceded him. For the rest, the things which our biographer has in the same place concerning this Anthimus are treated at greater length in the praised History of the Patriarchs of CP.; where the reader will find that he was a hypocrite, that he fraudulently invaded the chair of Constantinople, and was removed from it by Pope Agapetus on account of heresy, after he had occupied it for some months.
[2] Menas is substituted for him, says the biographer most briefly. he becomes patriarch and is notably praised by St. Agapetus, But his excessive brevity ought deservedly to be supplied from the History just cited. And indeed, as regards the time, we have endeavored at page 65 to dig out from the chronological marks of the Consuls that his election was made in the month of March of the year 536. But that this Man was adorned with excellent proclamations of praise by Pope Agapetus we learn from that same holy Pontiff's epistle to Peter of Jerusalem, which is recited in the first session of the fifth synod of Constantinople held under Mennas in the year 536, and is extant in Labbe, tome 5 of the Councils*, from column 47. But since that notable laudation is had among us in the History cited, we do not transcribe it hither anew. The following things, however, which that holy Vicar of Christ writes in this epistle concerning our Patriarch, seem worthy of some explanation.
[3] And this, he says, we believe to have been added to his dignity, and is ordained by his hands, that from the times of Peter the Apostle the eastern church has never received any other bishop ordained by the hands of our see. And perhaps, either for the demonstration of his praise, or for repelling the insults of enemies, so great a thing has come to pass, that he himself may seem to be like those whom at some time in these parts the election of the first of the Apostles himself ordained. Among which that phrase by the hands of our See seems to leave something of doubt, namely whether that ordination was performed immediately by the hands of St. Pope Agapetus himself, or mediately, that is, by another bishop who could easily have accompanied him as he set out from the Roman See to Constantinople. But Liberatus the Deacon, a contemporary author, meets that doubt, when in his Breviary, in Labbe, tome 5 of the Councils, column 774, he thus describes this ordination as made immediately by Pope Agapetus himself, chapter 21: Then the Pope (Agapetus), by the favor of the prince, ordained Mennas bishop in his stead (namely Anthimus's), consecrating him with his own hand in the basilica of holy Mary. Concerning the sacred buildings of the Mother of God, Du Cange treats in Christian Constantinople, book 4, §2; but which of these this was in which the aforesaid consecration took place has not been ascertained by us.
[4] The same biographer as above assigns two reasons for the journey to Constantinople undertaken by Agapetus, namely that he might look after the churches, and might abolish Anthimus. But Liberatus the Deacon, in the place cited, after he had made mention of that same Pope Agapetus's ordination, set out to Constantinople for grave reasons: records these things: At which time Theodatus, king of the Goths, writing to the Pope himself and to the Roman senate, threatens that he would slay with the sword not only the senators, but also their wives and sons and daughters, unless they should treat with the emperor to remove his appointed army from Italy. But the Pope, an embassy having been undertaken for that same cause, set out for Constantinople. Then the same author writes in the same place concerning Anthimus, driven from his see: When the princes asked, he says, that the Pope would receive Anthimus in greeting and communion, he said that it could be done if he should prove himself orthodox by a written statement, and should return to his own chair. He said it was impossible that a transferred man should remain in that see. But though the Augusta secretly promised many gifts, and again held out threats to the Pope, the Pope persisted in this, that he would not hear her petition. But Anthimus, seeing himself driven from the see, gave back to the emperors the pallium which he had, and departed to where the Augusta might protect him with her patronage. These things not a little illuminate the passage of the biographer which I brought forward from him a little before. But if anyone desires more concerning the things done at Constantinople by St. Agapetus, he will find them in Anastasius the Librarian, On the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs, in that same St. Agapetus.
[5] to which afterwards Pope Vigilius also made his way, But now, that our discourse may return to St. Mennas, the biographer's narration at number 2 needs a special explanation, where too briefly and meagerly he relates these things which were transacted between Pope Vigilius and St. Mennas: This Vigilius after some time came to Constantinople, and, being treated with great honor by the emperor and by the Augusta, is carried away in a mind that thinks lofty things. Whence, when on some occasion he had inveighed against the Patriarch, he punished him with an ecclesiastical penalty. Francis Pagi, in the Historical-Chronological-Critical Breviary of the Roman Pontiffs, tome 1, in Pope Vigilius, number 21, treating of his setting out from Sicily to the city of Constantinople, says at page 297: But at length, in the year DXLVI, already, as it seems, far advanced, a landing having been made in the Peloponnesus, he went on to Constantinople by a land journey: for that he had the same route through Hellas and Illyricum, Facundus hands down in book 4, chapter 3 … Now Vigilius entered Constantinople on the XXV day of January of the year DXLVII, as the Continuator of Marcellinus has it at that year of Christ. By these things the matters are made clear which the biographer writes in passing concerning Pope Vigilius's coming to Constantinople.
[6] where he brought a sentence of ecclesiastical penalty upon our Patriarch, But what the same man runs over hurriedly concerning the honor with which Vigilius was there received, and also concerning the ecclesiastical penalty with which he punished our Patriarch, so too Theophanes briefly relates in his Chronography, published at Paris with the royal types. Adorned, he says, from page 190, with so many tokens of honors and of respect by the emperor, Pope Vigilius was so emboldened that he imposed upon Mennas, bishop of Constantinople, as a penalty an exclusion from communion to be borne for four months: and, on the other side, Mennas appointed a like punishment against him. This last seems suspect, or falsely attributed to Mennas, for reasons which we shall indicate below, and thus the writer of his Life would more rightly not have mentioned it: but both he and Theophanes deserve to be corrected, when they ascribe the sentence brought by Vigilius against Mennas to Vigilius's great spirits, and do not add what reason impelled Vigilius to bring it. Baronius, in his annotations on the Roman Martyrology on this day XXV of August, indicates this cause of that penalty inflicted on our Patriarch: He for a time adhered to Theodore, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, for which cause he was interdicted from sacred things by Vigilius the Roman Pontiff, as that same Vigilius's letters indicate.
[7] In the fifth tome of the Councils in Labbe, in the Fragment of the condemnation of the aforesaid Theodore made by Pope Vigilius, and for what cause. there are these words to our purpose, from column 336: And thee, Mennas, bishop of the see of Constantinople, who art bound by a not unlike fault, with all the metropolitan and lesser-city bishops belonging to thy diocese; but also thy easterns, or the bishops of divers provinces of greater and lesser cities, who have given assent to these excesses for which we have condemned Theodore, formerly bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia — by a more humane sentence, out of consideration for God, we suspend from sacred communion for so long, until each one of you, recognizing the error of his own prevarication, shall have washed away his own fault with us by competent satisfaction. The subscription runs thus: With God's help, and by his grace, I, Vigilius, bishop of the holy Catholic Church of the city of Rome, have subscribed to this condemnation and excommunication of Theodore of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and of Mennas, bishop of the city of Constantinople, who communicates with him, and of the other prelates. Given on the XIX of the Kalends of September, in the reign of the lord
Justinian, perpetual augustus, in the 25th year, after the consulate of Basil, a most illustrious man, in the 11th year, * that is, in the year of Christ 551. But what things Theodore with intolerable audacity and impudence perpetrated against the Three famous Chapters, and what other crimes he added to these perverse machinations, is narrated in the Fragment cited, column 334; so that it is not necessary to transcribe them hither at greater length. There may also be seen the things which Baronius and Pagi write on this subject, and also Binius in his annotation on the said Fragment, column 337.
[8] This the more deserves to be weighed by us, whether our Patriarch turned back against Vigilius himself the ecclesiastical sentence That Mennas brought against him by Pope Vigilius. Theophanes affirms it, as was related above: Baronius denies it at the year of Christ 552, number 16, where, against Nicephorus Callistus writing these things in the Ecclesiastical History, book 17, chapter 26 — To such insolence did Vigilius proceed that he even excluded Mennas from communion for four months. The same indeed Mennas also did against him — he roundly pronounces that he asserts this most lyingly. It might easily be believed that this was invented by that schismatic historian, and thus one little fair to Pope Vigilius, had not Theophanes, so many centuries before that author, handed down the same — and a saint, indeed. What Baronius would have answered to his authority, since he makes no mention of him, we have not ascertained. Perhaps he would have answered the same thing which he brings forward in the same place against Nicephorus: that if he (namely Mennas) had dared it, mention of these things would plainly and chiefly have had to be made of necessity in that same Vigilius's circular or encyclical Epistle, which is had in Labbe as cited, column 328 and following.
[9] But Antony Pagi in the Critique of Baronius at the year of Christ 552, number 4, opposes the following to this argument of Baronius: turned back upon himself Baronius writes wrongly that Nicephorus, book 17, chapter 26, badly hands down that Mennas, bishop of Constantinople, was suspended from communion by Vigilius, and that Mennas brought a like sentence against Vigilius, on the ground that there is no mention of this matter in the praised encyclical. For Theophanes, far more ancient than he, supports Nicephorus, whose words we brought into the midst at the year DXLVII: because, since these things were accomplished in that year, Vigilius had no need to mention them in his encyclical. But truly neither the authority of the erring Theophanes, nor Pagi's reasoning resting upon Theophanes's error, overturns Baronius's argument. Let us therefore hear Theophanes speaking, page 190: Adorned with so many tokens of honors and of respect by the emperor, Pope Vigilius was so emboldened that he imposed upon Mennas, bishop of Constantinople, as a penalty an exclusion from communion to be borne for four months: and, on the other side, Mennas appointed a like punishment. And so, on account of the infliction of such a penalty, and also because the things which had been decided and decreed concerning the union and concord of the churches were not being fulfilled by Vigilius, the emperor, indignant, sent men to detain him. He, fearing the emperor's wrath, fled for refuge to the altar of Sergius the martyr, which was erected in the monastery of the Hormisdae: from which, being torn away by force, he seized the columns supporting the altar and, being strong with a heavy and tall body, dragged them along with himself and utterly overthrew them. At last the emperor, repenting of the deed, received Pope Vigilius into favor. Vigilius likewise, being asked by Theodora augusta, on the twenty-ninth day of June, which is sacred to the holy Apostles, restored peace to Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople.
[10] by Pope Vigilius. Pagi at the year of Christ 552, number 4, observes that two errors have here been committed by Theophanes and Nicephorus, one indeed of time, the other of place, writing thus: In this, therefore, both Theophanes and Nicephorus are deceived, that the things which were done in the previous year they write to have happened in the year in which Vigilius came to Constantinople; and that he, when the soldiers were pursuing him in the year that had elapsed, overthrew the columns of holy Sergius the martyr; whereas Vigilius himself discloses that this happened in the church of St. Peter, as we saw at the previous year.
Pagi rightly recognizes that Theophanes erred in referring that flight of Vigilius, and the other violent things inflicted upon him in the year 551, to the year 547. But I do not sufficiently understand why the same Pagi has separated by four years the things which Theophanes joined together, and has willed that Mennas's excommunication happened in the year 547, whereas Theophanes refers this and the other things to one and the same year. Noris had affirmed the same before Pagi in the Historical Dissertation on the Fifth Synod, page 18: whom afterwards Francis Pagi followed in the Breviary of the Deeds of the Roman Pontiffs, tome 1, page 297. But since all have followed Theophanes, here erring, as their guide, there will be no weight in their authority, if we shall have made it plain that the excommunication of which Theophanes speaks ought to be removed to the year 551.
[11] an excommunication Let us therefore repeat the words of Theophanes recited a little before: And so, on account of the infliction of such a penalty (of Mennas's excommunication) .. the emperor, indignant, sent men to detain him. He, fearing the emperor's wrath &c., fled. But since that wrath of the emperor and the Pontiff's flight, as the adversaries themselves confess, fell in the year 551, how could they have happened on account of an excommunication brought in the year 547 and lifted after four months? These things therefore were done on the occasion of the excommunication which was inflicted on Mennas in the year 551; and thus it must be said that both in this and in the rest of its adjuncts Theophanes strayed from the right path of chronology. But now, at what time Vigilius brought that ecclesiastical sentence against Mennas and others, on account of which he, the emperor being angered, took refuge in a church, we learn from Vigilius himself. For he relates this very thing both in the Fragment of the condemnation and in the encyclical Epistle, published in tome 7 of the Councils in Labbe from column 328. This Encyclical of Vigilius was given on the Nones of February in the year 552, as Noris and both Pagis rightly gather from the XXV year of the emperor Justinian: but the Fragment of the condemnation was written on the XIX of the Kalends of September in the year 551: while the excommunication uttered by word preceded the written sentence by thirty days, on the XV of July in the year 551, as the Fragment has it at column 336 in these words: And although thirty days ago, for your aforesaid excesses, we had removed you from the fellowship of the Apostolic communion &c. The excommunication therefore fell on the XV day of July in the year 551.
[12] Further, that Mennas was involved in this excommunication by Vigilius together with the rest, he turned back upon him, the adversaries do not deny, and it can easily be proved. For Mennas with all who adhere to Theodore is suspended from communion in the Fragment, as is plain from what was said at number 7: but Vigilius in the encyclical Epistle also testifies that they had before been suspended by word from his communion, when at column 329 he thus speaks: For the things which by word we had said with public voice to all the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and other clerics of the church of Constantinople concerning the said excommunication, we afterwards also confirmed in writing on the XIX day of the Kalends of September lately past, in the Basilica of blessed Peter in Ormisda. This sentence, therefore, uttered by word, is the very one on account of which Justinian was so greatly indignant, and which Theophanes records at a time not its own: nor that any other preceded in the year 547 is gathered from the Fragment, in which at column 335 Vigilius thus writes: But we have shown our long-suffering, granted by the divine largess, both toward thee and toward those seduced by thee, in this nearly five years now elapsed: that is, from the time in which he had come to Constantinople, where he was now living in the fifth year. Since these things are so, we rightly conclude that Baronius's argument, drawn from the silence of the encyclical Epistle, avails not only against Nicephorus but also against Theophanes: and that it is so far from having been overturned by Pagi that rather its force is strengthened from this, that in the Fragment of the condemnation also nothing is read about a sentence turned back by Mennas: for neither in the Epistle nor in the instrument of condemnation ought these things to have been kept silent, if they had been done, since in both those documents there are recorded both the things done at Constantinople and the sentence uttered by Vigilius's mouth.
[13] For these things which we have thus far set out against the adversaries, very suspect to us, and not probable. the following also make, which by way of an addition can be opposed to the deed which they impute to Mennas. First, because the eulogy of the Synaxary, which is drawn from the Menology gathered by the command of the emperor Basil, and which will be given below, does not assert this, saying: He (Vigilius) inflicted upon most holy Mennas the penalty of not sacrificing. And he indeed received the penalty rejoicing. Secondly, because if these things which are related in Theophanes concerning that ecclesiastical sentence hurled back by Mennas against Vigilius are truly Theophanes's own, and not intruded into his text by heretics or schismatics out of hatred of Pope Vigilius; if, I say, these are Theophanes's, then a suspicion will be able to arise whether Theophanes did not in this matter make use of the spurious writings of heretics. For indeed, that before Theophanes's age many apocryphal and unworthy things were falsely attached to the deeds of St. Mennas and of Vigilius, we learn from the third council of Constantinople, which was the sixth general one, and was celebrated in the year of Christ 680. See Labbe, tome 6 of the Councils, column 980. Brief is that passage in the same place, column 984 and following: The holy council cried out: Anathema to the book which is said to be Mennas's to Vigilius, and to those who feigned or wrote it. Anathema to the petitions which are said to have been made by Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora of divine memory, which have also been shown to be false. Anathema likewise to all who falsified the Acts of the holy and universal fifth council. And these things indeed, which we have discussed thus far at sufficient length concerning the present controversy between Pope Vigilius and our Patriarch, altogether persuade us that the sentence hurled by Vigilius against Mennas was not hurled back by the latter against him.
Annotations* read X.
§ II. St. Mennas, repentant, is received into favor by Pope Vigilius; the time of his death, the announcements in the sacred Fasti, his eulogy, the writer of his Life, an illustrious miracle of the most holy Eucharist.
Mennas imprudently subscribes to the emperor's edict As our Patriarch, when a grave discord had arisen between the easterns and the westerns on the occasion of the Three famous Chapters, imprudently subscribed to the edict of the emperor Justinian, by which he wished those same Three Chapters to be condemned — not out of obstinacy, but either out of human frailty, or rather out of fear, yet against the will of Pope Vigilius — so it is no wonder that he did penance, sought pardon from Pope Vigilius for the injuries brought upon him, and obtained Catholic communication with that same Pontiff, the sentence being lifted by which the same Pope Vigilius had suspended him from sacred things. But that he subscribed imprudently to that decree framed against the Three Chapters not out of obstinacy but either out of fear or out of human frailty, we have set forth from the words of Facundus, bishop of Hermiane in Africa, who lived at that time and wrote to the emperor Justinian in defense of the Three Chapters. His text we recited in the Chronological History, which has already been designated several times, page *65.
[15] against the Three famous Chapters: It can here be observed in passing that Vigilius was then unwilling publicly to promulgate in writing the sentence of deposition brought against Theodore, and the suspension from communion against Mennas, lest, without doubt, he should further exasperate Justinian's mind, as we gather from his own words in the encyclical epistle in Labbe, tome 5, column 333: Now also we suggest, he says, and ask, for the peace which through thy piety God formerly gave to the Church, that thou permit it no longer to be disturbed by the insinuation of any men: nor suffer Theodore, the author of the whole scandal, further to vex the Catholic faith: since six months ago he was by us, among others, deprived of sacred communion, and deposed from his episcopate for his depravity, namely by that page which we have hitherto deferred to bring forth publicly, out of regard for your mildness and in hope of his conversion, as has been said.
[16] Overcome therefore by Vigilius's constancy, Justinian removed the edict which he had ordered to be published, and left the whole examination of the Three Chapters to a future synod, [but the same emperor orders it to be abolished, and Mennas, repenting of the deed, returns into favor with Pope Vigilius.] as Vigilius wished. And so Mennas, Theodore, and the other bishops of that same faction published statements of faith and of penitence, and sought pardon for the injuries done to Vigilius. In the copy of the first profession, which is inserted into the Constitutum of Pope Vigilius on the Three Chapters in Labbe, tome 5, among very many other things are these, at column 338: But as for a petition in the cause of the three chapters, concerning which the question arose, against the constitution of the most pious prince and of your Beatitude, I indeed made none; but I will and consent that all petitions which have been made under this form be given back to your Beatitude. But as for the injuries, whatsoever have been done to your Beatitude or to your See, those indeed I did not do: but because for the peace of the Church haste must be made in every way, just as though I had done them, I ask pardon. And because in the time of the discord I received into communion those excommunicated or not received by your Beatitude, I likewise ask pardon. And there follows in the same place: In this form Mennas, bishop of Constantinople, Theodore, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and others acted. But now let us proceed to other matters.
[17] That in the year of Christ 552 our Saint passed from this life, The year and day of his death, the announcements in the sacred Fasti, we have indicated to be sufficiently agreed among authors in our Chronological History, page 66, where also there was treatment of the time of his see, and of his death-day, which we judged more probable to have fallen not about the beginning of December, as pleased Noris, cited in the same place at page 67, but in the month of August. But whether he died on this day XXV of August is not certainly established. For although he is then announced in the Roman Martyrology and in various Greek Fasti, yet elsewhere he is set down on other days. The Roman Martyrology runs thus: At Constantinople, of holy Mennas the bishop. The Menology of Sirleto had gone before, in which he is praised on the same day. Add the great Menaea of the Greeks, as is to be seen on this day with us in St. Epiphanius patriarch of CP., which celebrate St. Mennas in these verses:
Ὁ κόσμος ἐκλέλοιπε τῆς ἐκκλησίας, Μηνᾶς γὰρ ἐκλέλοιπε ἐκ τῶν ἐνθάδε.
Which we render into Latin to this sense:
The Church's excellent ornament has failed, For Mennas has failed, departing from life.
[18] But in our apograph of the Life, which we are to give below, and his eulogy, it is deferred to the XXVII of August. But in the Synaxary gathered by the command of the emperor Basil, with us at the end of the first tome of the month of August, page 667, he is marked on the XXIV day of the same month: Μηνὶ τῷ αὐτῷ κδ᾽. Μνήμη τοῦ ὁσίου Μηνᾶ ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. That is: In the same month (August, on the) XXIV day. The memory of holy Mennas, archbishop of Constantinople. His Greek eulogy, which was printed in the same place, we thus render into Latin in our accustomed manner: Our holy father Mennas, from the time when Justinian the elder reigned, was a presbyter of the church of Constantinople; but on account of his virtue he was elected patriarch of Constantinople, and consecrated by Agapetus the Roman pontiff, who at that time had set out from Rome to bring a remedy to the ecclesiastical controversies, and anathematized Anthimus the heretic, and drove him from the throne.
[19] But after he had returned again to Rome, and a little after had died, another was consecrated, and after some time, he too setting out for Constantinople, from the Synaxary of the emperor Basil was held in honor by the emperor and the Patriarch and kindly received: and, carried away by levity, he inflicted upon most holy Mennas the penalty of not sacrificing: who received the penalty rejoicing, as a pontiff of God. But the emperor, angered, sent the Pope back to Rome, treated with injuries. And after these things holy Mennas, when he had well governed his flock, passed over to God. For what cause Pope Vigilius brought this sentence against Mennas we said in §1; where some other things too, narrated in this eulogy, are illustrated. From the announcements said above it is established that a true and legitimate worship is owed to our Patriarch.
[20] an apograph of the Life: Further, we give the Acts of our holy Patriarch from a Greek apograph which was taken from a manuscript codex of the Imperial library of Vienna comprising the Saints of the month of August: but concerning this codex we add no more here, since discourse about the same has fallen out rather often elsewhere in the course of this month. But these Acts are prefaced with KZ, that is, the XXVII day of this month. The author is anonymous, and very meager in the narration of the things which pertain to the Saint himself: whose Acts, indeed, he fills for half their part with the narration of a most celebrated miracle. But inasmuch as it is my part to bring forth those things which the said biographer transmitted in writing to posterity, and to truncate nothing in the same, I rejoice indeed that an opportunity has been offered me by him of illustrating and confirming that notable miracle which, among so many others of the marvelous Sacrament of the Eucharist, certainly claims for itself an excellent place, and is narrated by the writer of the Life below, number 4 and following.
[21] [in which is narrated, and here confirmed, an illustrious miracle of the most holy Eucharist.] This same miracle in substance, though different in its circumstances, St. Gregory of Tours records, who flourished in the same century, in the book On the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 10 of Ruinart's edition, column 732 and the one immediately following. But that I may pass over in this place the other discrepancies which can be read in the same place, one above all deserves to be observed, as I shall say below in the Annotations. Evagrius Scholasticus, who also lived at that time, inserted this miracle into his Ecclesiastical History published by Henry Valesius, book 4, chapter 36, pages 410 and 411; add Nicephorus Callistus, who in book 17 of his history, chapter 25, also narrates that prodigy. See more in the Annotations concerning variant readings. As regards the time of this notable miracle, Baronius narrates it at the year 552 from Evagrius: but whether it happened then, I have not ready to hand whence I might confirm or weaken it. But since we are engaged in illustrating the matters which are recorded by the biographer, there occur in him some other things which it is useful to mention here.
[22] Certain other things in the author of the Life The things which he narrates concerning the Great church, built at the emperor's command and dedicated by our holy Patriarch, and also concerning the relics of the Saints carried around by him with solemn rite, seem to need to be set forth somewhat more broadly. Du Cange, in book 3 of Christian Constantinople, page 5 and following, has curiously gathered many and various things concerning that church, from which I shall taste a few. The most august temple of holy Sophia, he says, or of the divine Wisdom, and long given the common appellation of the Great church, always excelled the rest which were raised up in the city of Constantinople, because it was reckoned especially the patriarch's seat, and therefore the primary one, and the chief of the whole East. Then the same author writes that the names of various emperors were also given to that Great church, and — which makes for our purpose — that the Great church was called Justinianean; because, when the Greater Constantinian, or Constantian, church was consumed, as he narrates at page 9, in the sedition of the Victoriati, of which he had made mention at page 8, the emperor Justinian, the city being settled and the authors of the sedition punished, began in the same year to build a new and far more ample one..
[23] The Great church burned down on the first day of the sedition, are set forth by us which was drawn out to the fifth, from which to the dedication, which was made on the XXVI of December in the year of Christ DCXXXVII (rather 537) &c. Its first consecration, concerning which Du Cange at page 9, and which the biographer too understands, is thus noted in the Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes at the year 537: The greater church at Constantinople, constructed by the emperor Justinian in singular fashion in the world, is dedicated on the VI day of the Kalends of January. Theophanes, page 184: In this year, he says, on the twenty-seventh day of the month of December, in the first Indiction, the first consecration of the Great church was accomplished. These things concerning the time: but concerning the solemn rite of the same he adds these in the same place: And the assembly of the supplicating people proceeded from the temple of holy Anastasia, the patriarch Mennas sitting in the emperor's chariot, and the emperor himself proceeding among the people. Theophanes here says from the temple of holy Anastasia, concerning which Du Cange, book 4, page 141; but our biographer writes from the temple of holy Plato*: which of the two is the truer, is not certainly established for me. Concerning this latter church, moreover, Du Cange writes in book 4, page 133.
[24] It remains that I supply in this place the things which the author of the Life does not have. and are supplied from elsewhere Baronius at the year of Christ 552: The people, he says, now breathing again, and rejoicing in the longed-for peace, immense thanksgivings are everywhere and by all rendered to God: when public feasts also are prepared which bear a certain appearance of triumph. For in this very year Mennas .. on the twenty-ninth day of June celebrated the consecration of the basilica of the holy Apostles, when the sacred relics, carried around in a golden chariot, were laid away by that same Mennas. Let us bring the matter forward from Theophanes, page 192: On the twenty-eighth day of the month of July, on the third weekday, the consecration of the house of the holy Apostles was made, and the deposition of the holy relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy, who are holy Apostles. And the bishop Mennas went in procession together with the holy relics, borne in a golden imperial vehicle adorned with gems: and he carried the three caskets of the holy Apostles upon his knees, and so celebrated the dedication. But on what occasion those bodies had been uncovered, Procopius records in On the Buildings of the Emperor Justinian, book 1, chapter 4.
[25] are supplied, Pagi in the Critique of Baronius at the year 552, number 17, observes first that in the text of Theophanes just recited one should read on the XXVIII day of June. Secondly, he draws this dedication back to the year 550 in these words: But in the year DL, in which that dedication was accomplished, Justinian gave the fifth Quinquennalia, and the XXVIII day of June fell on the third weekday, and is marked by the vigil of the feast of the holy Peter and Paul: concerning whose most celebrated church at length
Du Cange treats in book 4, page 105 and following. You have, reader, the things concerning which I judged you were to be forewarned. It now remains that I set forth the Life, besides which I find no other among us. This too I shall endeavor to elucidate with Annotations.
Annotations* read XXVII
LIFE
by an anonymous author,
From a manuscript codex of the Imperial library of Vienna, J. P. translator.
Mennas or Menas, patriarch of Constantinople (St.)
A. By an anonymous author.
Οὗτος ὁ ἀοίδιμος Μηνᾶς ὑπῆρχεν ἐπὶ Ἰουστινιανοῦ τοῦ βασιλέως πρεσβύτερος τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἐκκλησίας, ἐνάρετον βίον καὶ εὐλάβειαν κεκτημένος. Ὅθεν διὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἔνθεον πολιτείαν, καὶ τὴν ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν προεχειρίσθη ἀρχιερεὺς, καὶ ποιμὴν τῶν λογικῶν προβάτων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔτη ἐννέα, χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ Ἀγαπητοῦ Πάπα Ῥώμης, ἀνελθόντος ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ἐπὶ διορθώσει τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ καθαιρέσει Ἀνθίμου. Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Ἄνθιμος πρότερον μὲν ἦν ἐπίσκοπος Τραπεζοῦντος· μετατεθεὶς δὲ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, ἠλέγχθη αἱρετικὸς, τὰ Εὐτυχοῦς καὶ Διοσκόρου καὶ Σευήρου φρονῶν. Διὸ, ὡς διαταράξας τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ὑπὸ τοῦ μακαρίου Ἀγαπητοῦ καθαιρεῖται, καὶ ἀντικαθίσταται Μηνᾶς. Διατρίβοντος δὲ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Ἀγαπητοῦ, καὶ κοιμηθέντος ἐκεῖσε, χειροτονεῖται ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ Βιγίλιος.
[2] Οὗτος ὁ Βιγίλιος μετά τινα χρόνον ἀνελθὼν ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, καὶ πολλὰ τιμηθεὶς παρά τε τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τῆς Αὐγούστης, ἐπήρθη εἰς ὑψηλοφροσύνην. Ὅθεν κατά τινα συντυχίαν διενεχθεὶς τῷ πατριάρχῃ Μηνᾷ, δέδωκεν αὐτῷ ἐπιτίμιον. Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς καὶ πᾶσα ἡ σύγκλητος σὺν παντὶ τῷ πληρώματι τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἠγανάκτησε κατὰ Βιγιλίου ἐπὶ τῇ ὕβρει τοῦ πατριάρχου Μηνᾷ. Ὅθεν φοβηθεὶς ὁ Βιγίλιος τὴν ὀργὴν τοῦ βασιλέως, ἔφυγεν ὑπὸ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Σεργίου, τοῦ ἐν τοῖς Ὁρμίσδου, τοῦ βασιλέως προστάξαντος ἐκβληθῆναι αὐτὸν συρέντα ἀπὸ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. Ὅστις βιαζόμενος τοὺς κίονας κατέστρεψε, τοὺς βαστάζοντας τὸ θυσιαστήριον· μέγας γὰρ ἦν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ, καὶ βαρὺς τῷ σώματι· ὃν ἐξαγαγόντες τῆς πόλεως, καὶ μὴ βουλόμενον ἐπὶ τὴν Ῥώμην ἀπήγαγον.
[3] Οὗτος ὁ ἀοίδιμος Μηνᾶς καὶ τὴν μεγάλην ἐκκλησίαν, ἣν ὁ βασιλεὺς ᾠκοδόμησε, τοῦ δήμου ἐν τῇ στάσει καύσαντος τὴν προτέραν ἐκκλησίαν ἐνεκαίνισε, τὴν λιτὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Πλάτωνος ἐξαγαγὼν, καὶ τὰ λείψανα τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρων, τῶν ἐναποκειμένων ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ μεγάλῳ ναῷ τῆς ἁγίας Σοφίας, βαστάζων ἐπὶ ἅρματος βασιλικοῦ καθεζόμενος, τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ πάσης τῆς πολιτείας προπορευομένων αὐτοῦ.
[4] Ἐπὶ τούτου τοῦ μακαρίου Μηνᾶ καὶ θαῦμα γέγονε, λόγου πολλοῦ ἄξιον. Ἔθος παλαιὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλευούσῃ πόλει συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι, ὅτ᾽ ἄν τῶν ἁγίων μερίδων τοῦ τιμίου σώματος καὶ αἵματος, ἐναπομείνοι μὴ μεταδοθέν· παῖδας ἀφθόρους μεταπέμπτους γίνεσθαι παρὰ τῶν εἰς χαμαιδιδασκάλου φοιτώντων, καὶ ταῦτα κατεσθίειν. Ὅπερ ἐπειδὴ γέγονεν, ἦλθε μετὰ τῶν παιδίων, ὑαλουργοῦ παῖς Ἑβραίου τὴν δόξαν· ὃς τοῖς γονεῦσι τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς βραδύτητος πυνθανομένοις, ἐξεῖπεν τὸ γεγονὸς, καὶ ὅπερ ἀποφαγὼν σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις παισὶν εἴη. Ὁ δὲ πατήρ αὐτοῦ θυμωθεὶς, ἐν τῇ καμίνῳ ἔνθα τὴν ὕαλον διεμόρφου, τὸν παῖδα καθίησιν ἀνάψας. Ὡς δὲ τὸν παῖδα ἡ μήτηρ ζητοῦσα, εὑρεῖν οὐκ ἴσχυε (λεληθυίας γὰρ αὐτῆς τοῦτο γέγονε) πανταχοῦ τῆς πόλεως περιήει ποτνιωμένη καὶ λύγιον * κωκύουσα.
[5] Μετὰ δὲ τρίτην ἡμέραν παρὰ τὴν θύραν τοῦ ἐργαστηρίου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἑστῶσα, ὀνομαστὶ ἀνεκάλει τὸν παῖδα, τοῖς θρήνοις σπαραττομένη. Ὁ δὲ τῆς φωνῆς τῆς μητρὸς συνεὶς, ἐκ τῆς καμίνου ἀνταπεκρίνατο· ἡ δὲ τὰς θύρας διατεμοῦσα, εἴσω τε γενομένη, ὁρᾷ τὸν παῖδα τῶν ἀνθράκων μέσον ἑστῶτα, τοῦ πυρὸς αὐτοῦ μὴ προσάψαντος· ὃς ἀνερωτώμενος ὅπως ἀπαθὴς ἐμεμενήκει, γυναῖκα ἔφη πορφυρὰν ἀμπεχομένην ἐσθῆτα, συχνὰ φοιτῶσαν παρ᾽ αὐτὸν, ὕδωρ ὀρέγειν, καὶ τούτῳ τοὺς πλησιάζοντας τῶν ἀνθράκων κατευνάζειν, σιτίζειν τε αὐτὸν, ὁσάκις πεινώῃ.
[6] Ὅπερ ἐπειδὴ εἰς Ἰουστινιανὸν ἠνέχθη, τὸν μὲν παῖδα, καὶ τὴν μητέρα τῷ λουτρῷ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας διὰ Μηνᾷ φωτισθέντας ἐκλήρωσε· τὸν δὲ φύσαντα, οὐκ ἀνασχόμενον Χριστιανοῖς ἐναριθμηθῆναι, ἐν συκαῖς ὡς παιδοφόνον ἀνεσκολόπισεν. Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως γέγονεν. Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ μακαρίου Μηνᾶ, προεχειρίσθη εἰς τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν Εὐτύχιος, ἀποκρισιάριος τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῶν Ἀμασέων, ἀνὴρ ἅγιος, καὶ πλήρης χάριτος Θεοῦ· ὧν ταῖς εὐχαῖς, Κύριε, σῶσον πάντας ἡμᾶς, καὶ ῥῦσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ἡμῶν ἀπὸ πάσης ἐπιβουλῆς τοῦ ἀντικειμένου, ὅτι εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, Ἀμήν.
On account of his excellent endowments the Saint is ordained archbishop of CP., This famous Mennas was a presbyter of the church of Constantinople in Justinian's reign, endowed with virtue and piety. Whence, on account of his divine manner of living and his orthodox faith, he was appointed archbishop, and was pastor of the rational sheep of Christ for nine years a, consecrated by Agapetus the Roman Pope b, who had betaken himself to Constantinople c to look after the churches and to remove Anthimus. For this Anthimus was at first indeed bishop of Trebizond; but, being translated to the chair of Constantinople, he was convicted of heresy, as one who followed the dogmas of Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Severus. Therefore, as a disturber of the church, he is expelled from his dignity by blessed Agapetus, and Mennas is substituted for him. But while Agapetus tarried at Constantinople, and died there, Vigilius * is put in his place.
[2] This Vigilius after some time d came to Constantinople, difficulties with Pope Vigilius, and, being treated with great honor by the emperor and by the Augusta, is carried away in a mind that thinks lofty things. Whence, being on some occasion incensed against the Patriarch Mennas, he punished him with an ecclesiastical penalty. Therefore the emperor, and the whole senate, with the whole multitude of the church, were indignant at Vigilius on account of the injury brought upon Mennas the patriarch: and so Vigilius, fearing the emperor's wrath, took refuge at the altar of St. Sergius M. in the quarter of Hormisdas: but the emperor ordered him to be cast out thence, torn away from the altar: who, straining with his strength (for he was of tall stature and robust body), overthrew the columns which supported the altar. Then they drove him out of the city, and compelled him unwilling * to go to Rome e.
[3] This renowned Mennas also dedicated the great church which the emperor built after the people in the sedition had burned the former church, a supplication being led thither from the temple of St. Plato, and carried around the relics of the holy Martyrs he translates the relics of the holy MM.: which had been laid up in the great holy church of holy Sophia, sitting in the imperial chariot, the emperor and the governors of the city going before him.
[4] Under this blessed Mennas there happened a very memorable miracle. a notable miracle of the Eucharist, An ancient custom prevailed in the church of Constantinople f, that, when anything remained of the particles of the precious body and blood which had not been distributed g, uncorrupted boys h from among those who attend the letter-school should be sent, who i should eat it. When this had happened, there came along with the boys the son of a glassworker, a Hebrew by religion, who, when his parents inquired the cause of his delay, set forth what had been done, and what he had eaten with the other boys. But his father, seized with anger, casts the boy into the kindled furnace in which he shaped the glass. But the mother, while she kept seeking the boy, and could not find him (for what had been done was hidden from her), went about the whole city crying out and weeping vehemently k.
[5] But after the third day, while she stood at the door of her husband's workshop, which happened in his time, she called out to the boy by name, tearing herself with laments. And he, understanding his mother's voice, gave answer out of the furnace. But she, when she had broken open the doors and had entered in, sees the boy standing in the midst of the coals of fire, which had not touched him. And being asked how he had remained unharmed, he said that a woman clothed in a purple mantle had come to him often, and had held out water, and with it had quenched the coals that came near; and had furnished him food whenever he was hungry.
[6] This matter having been reported to Justinian l, the boy indeed and the mother, being enlightened by Mennas with the bath of regeneration, is set forth. he enrolled among the clergy m: but the father, who was unwilling to be numbered among the Christians, he crucified at the Figs n as a parricide. And these things indeed were so done. But blessed Mennas being dead, there was put in his place in the episcopate Eutychius, the apocrisiarius of the church of the Amaseans, a holy man, and full of God's grace o. By whose prayers, O Lord, make us all safe, and free our souls from every infestation of the adversary, for thou art blessed unto the ages. Amen.
ANNOTATIONS.
column 733: They also cried out together that they should cast the author of this crime into the very flames. And when he had been cast in, the fire so wholly absorbed him that scarcely a small token of his bones was in any way left. But I do not see why, Evagrius being left aside, who could better have learned this deed, the narration of Gregory of Tours should be preferred.
* after Silverius
* rather, they permitted him going willingly
* perhaps λυγρῶς