ON ST. EUGENIUS I, ROMAN POPE.
IN THE YEAR 657.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY. Concerning his cult, Pontificate, and burial.
Eugenius I, Roman Pope (St.)
BY THE AUTHOR D. P.
Although this holy Pontiff seems neither to have been inscribed in the Martyrology of Usuard, nor to have been known to any of the Founders of the older Calendars; yet his cult is not so recent that before the Gregorian reformation of the Roman Martyrology there was none; especially in Italy, From the commendation of Anastasius, where there was greater care of increasing the number of holy Pontiffs, whose virtue, praised by Anastasius and other ancients, seemed to have deserved that title. When therefore the Librarian wrote of him, as he had received from his elders, that "Eugenius, a Roman by nation, of the first Aventine Region, a Cleric from the cradle, of his father Ruffinianus … was benign, mild, gentle, affable to all, and more illustrious for sanctity … who also was buried at St. Peter the Apostle's, on the day of the fourth of the Nones of June"; certain Italian Churches, 200 years ago he was ascribed to some Calendars, augmenting the Martyrology of Usuard with some additions, on the said day wrote thus: "At Rome, the deposition or passing of St. Eugenius Pope I and Confessor"; namely from the common opinion, which, distinguishing nothing in Anastasius, had hitherto persuaded that the day which he names of burial was always and everywhere to be taken for the day of death: of which opinion the error and origin I first detected and refuted, in the Propylaeum of May or the Chronico-historical Essay on the Series of the Roman Pontiffs, Dissertation IV, which according to the new partition in the Paralipomena will become someday VII.
[2] But three Martyrologies of this kind, numbering Eugenius among the Saints, we found. At Florence one, in the Medicean Library of the Grand Duke at the church of St. Lawrence, written on membranes; found at Florence, and another likewise a Manuscript with Carlo Strozzi the Senator; and a third, probably printed from those, in the year 1486 by Francesco de Bonnacorsis the Priest. Some in Germany, whom the Author of the Cologne edition, prepared in the year 1521, and the publisher of the German Martyrology Canisius, followed; ascribed his name (by I know not what cause) to 22 January, as we then said among those Passed Over. Another Manuscript Pietro Galesini, Apostolic Protonotary, had; who wrote a new Martyrology with Saints collected from everywhere, and published it dedicated to Gregory XIII at Venice in the year 1578; where in like manner Eugenius was referred to, but on 3 June, perhaps from an error of the copyist, in some Anastasian copy, writing III for IV Nones. There, when the aforepraised Galesini had given a great elogium of that Pontiff, almost taken from Anastasius, and indeed in the first place, in the Notes on the same 3rd day it is thus written: "When we undertook the work of the Martyrology, we proposed this to ourselves first of all, that we should diligently ascribe the Roman Pontiffs, celebrated by the unanimous speech of all with the praise of sanctity; such as this Eugenius we have received to be from the monuments of the Pontifical Annals." Galesini indeed intended that this labor of his, accommodated to the use of the Roman Church for the individual days of the year, should become common to all Churches: but he could not so approve it to the Roman censors, then by Galesini, but on 3 June, that they did not judge it to be for the most part more prolix than what should be prescribed to be recited with the Canonical Office, to omit other reasons. Meanwhile occasion was given of compiling another Martyrology, whose Authors, the prolixity of Galesini being chastened, and finally the Roman, for the 2nd day. and the error as to the day corrected, ordered to be read, not in the first, but in the last place, "At Rome, of St. Eugenius Pope and Confessor." And following this, Ferrari in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, and Constantino Ghini in the Birthdays of the Holy Canons, each by his own judgment composed a grander Elogium, the Ecclesiastical Annals of Cesare Baronius having meanwhile appeared.
[3] The election excused by Baronius, He at the year 652 writes thus about the promotion of Eugenius: "When St. Martin was driven into exile, without any hope of restitution; Calliopas fulfilled at Rome what he had received in command from the Emperor Constans; namely that in the place of Martin another Pontiff be substituted. For a long time the Roman Clergy seemed to resist his attempts, from that time at which the same St. Martin was led from the city; asserting that a crime was being attempted contrary to right and law, that, while the Roman Pontiff was living, another should be substituted in his place, and there was long altercation. But, lest the Roman Church should be compelled to undergo the danger which threatened, that, unless the Clergy itself elected, his praised virtue. a Roman Bishop should be given to them unwilling by the Emperor, who would be of the same Monothelite heresy with him as a propagator; they were compelled unwilling to undergo that hard condition of electing another Pastor. And so they elected Eugenius … who had before earned the greatest praise, because, almost from the cradle, devoted to ecclesiastical offices, through the individual grades, he had ascended with greater progresses in virtue; and won for himself the greatest benevolence of the people, because toward the poor he had always been most munificent. Such and so great a man therefore they chose to preside over the Church in the place of Martin, yet with a vicarious Prefecture, while he lived; which happened to be done this year, on the ninth of August, as is gathered from Anastasius when he counts the time of his See." But how does this agree, if here he counts the years of his See as two and four months; when, from the 2nd day of June, going back four months, Eugenius ought to have been elected at the beginning of February? Meanwhile in all the copies, against which the Royal edition of Anastasius was checked, are found eight months, twenty-four days: nor anywhere hitherto found four months.
[4] I think, that he was not only elected, in the year 653; I, in my aforecited Essay, treating of St. Martin, partly from his own Letters, partly from the faithful Relation of a certain most Christian man; showed, that, to cast him down under the calumny of attempted treason, Theodore Calliopas, sent by Constans the younger, exhibited the Prince's order on 17 June, and took him captive on the 19th of the same month, on a Wednesday, and so in the year 653; the course of the Dominical letters proving it, of which while F runs, such a concurrence is found. Then led into Greece, Martin stayed in various places, and namely in the island of Naxos a whole year; where he seems to have received the sentence of his Deposition from the Emperor (tyrannical namely and of no validity) and to have consented, that Eugenius, long ago elected at Rome (as said), should be ordained Vicar. Should be ordained, I say, but also that the Bishop was ordained with Martin assenting, Vicar Bishop of the city of Rome, and indeed with the right of succession; in the same manner in which it was often done formerly in the time of the persecutions, I proved from the mind of our Henschenius, in my aforecited Essay in the said Dissertation IV, otherwise VII, treating of the three Bishops ordained by St. Peter for the city of Rome, and of the Vicar Bishops, both of him and of very many other successors. Namely I showed, that the reckonings of the old Catalogues are best saved, by taking the Epochs of the Roman Bishops from the year of even any Vicarial Ordination; by which title such men were more justly called so, even before they became Pontiffs, with the prerogative of supreme Head; who afterward were also called Roman Bishops, and now are named Cardinal Bishops.
[5] in the year 654 on 4 September. These things being thus set forth, proceeding conformably concerning Eugenius I write, that in the time of the Emperor Constans, declared by the Clergy unwilling for a while as Elect, or rather as Vicar of the absent Martin, in the year 653 in the month of June, about the 23rd day; afterward, the same Martin from the Island of Naxos probably assenting, ordained (for speaking of him in his 2nd Letter he prays especially for him, as for the Pastor of the Roman Clergy and people, who, as he says, is now shown to preside over them); Ordained, I say, in the year 654, on 4 September on a Sunday; and at last, by the probable cession of the same Martin, made about Easter in the year 655 supreme Pontiff; he sat in all 2 years, 8 months, 25 days, the day of death also being computed, which Anastasius does not seem to comprehend; having died in the year 657, on 31 May, that is, after the death of St. Martin (which happened in the year 655 on the 16th day of September) 1 year, 8 months, and then acknowledged as supreme Pontiff: 15 days: for which whole time at least he was supreme and undoubted Pontiff, independently of our presumption about Martin, abdicating some months before death: about which matter we shall see on 12 November, when at Rome the same Martin is venerated, on account of his body translated there. Baronius, when, the reckonings being made otherwise, but erroneously, he had written that Eugenius survived Martin no more than six months and twenty-three days, but died in the year 655; and when he did not find any mention made by Anastasius of Presbyters or Deacons ordained by him, namely Cardinals, but only of Bishops, 22 through diverse places; "He seemed," he says, modestly using the Pontifical power, "because while Martin was living he knew well that he could not legitimately sit as Pontiff, but only conduct himself in his place as it were a Vicar." Indeed I too marvel the more at that silence of Anastasius about Presbyters and Deacons ordained, the more time I grant to him in the supreme Pontificate; yet I would not doubt, whether Eugenius ever conducted himself as a true Pontiff, as Baronius seems to doubt.
[6] who, while he was still only Vicar in the year 653: "In his times," says Anastasius, "Peter the Patriarch of Constantinople, substituted in the place of Pyrrhus, directed a Synodal letter to the Apostolic See, according to custom, altogether most obscure and beyond rule; not declaring two operations or wills in the Lord Jesus Christ. And the People and Clergy being inflamed, because he had directed such a Synodal letter; it was by no means received, but with greater uproar cast out by the holy Church of God; so that the People and Clergy would not even allow the same Pope to celebrate Masses in the Basilica of the holy Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which is called At the Manger, unless this Pontiff himself had promised, by no means ever to receive it. [he was compelled by the people to reject the Synodal letter of Peter of Constantinople,]" But Baronius adds: "From which it plainly became known to the Emperor, that it was impossible to plant heresy in the Roman Church; since he perceived clearly, that not only the Pontiff, but all the Clergy and the Senate and Roman People, were wont so freely and ingenuously to detest and execrate whatever had suspicion of heretical depravity." I should believe this was done on the feast of the Lord's Nativity, when it was the custom for the Roman Pontiffs to say Masses in the Liberian Basilica of St. Mary Major; and that in the first half-year after the deportation of Martin: for that in the year 653 Peter was substituted for Pyrrhus, Baronius rightly gathers from Nicephorus, and appears more clearly from Theophanes. Already then therefore Eugenius discharged the Pontifical offices: but this he could not do, unless ordained Bishop; nor could he be lawfully ordained Bishop, even only Vicar, unless Martin assented; before he should discharge Pontifical functions. whence it is confirmed that he assented to such an Ordination. For that Eugenius received a sacrilegious Ordination, and presumed to minister in it, the sanctity of the man does not allow one to suspect; nor even would the zeal of the People and Clergy, such as we have already seen, have allowed it; and that too with the so recent Constitution of Boniface III of the year 607, by which it was forbidden under anathema, that no one, while the Pontiff was living, should presume to speak of a successor, or make parties for himself; much less ordain another against his will, even as Vicar.
[7] But as Anastasius said of Pope Deusdedit, for the year 616, "he divided through his services and to all the Clergy one entire largess (roga)"; and of his successor Boniface V, that "he loved the Clergy, and gave an entire largess to his Clergy"; so also he praises Eugenius, that "he gave the largess customary to the Clergy, His liberality toward the poor and the Clergy. and ministered alms to the needy." And this indeed seems to have been done on the day of Ordination, as the Pontifical still prescribes is to be done, explained by me on 19 May, among the poems of Cardinal Jacobus, on the Coronation of Boniface VIII, verse 333, Note Y. But Eugenius, not content with that, added, that even on the day of his passing, he should command Presbyteries to be disbursed in full to the poor and to the Clergy of his household. Du Cange in the Glossary, and Macri in the Hierolexicon, agree, and it is sufficiently plain to one reading Anastasius, that both the Roga and the Presbyterium are a money largess, and differ only in this, that the Roga was also given to laymen, and by laymen, namely Emperors and Kings; but the Presbyterium was called only that which the Pontiff distributed among his Presbyters and also the Deacon Cardinals, and other Clerical ministers of the Curia. But in what respect this "in full" (integrum), that "entire" (integra) is said, I have nowhere found explained: it must have been something great at that time, which so notably deserved to be noted in Anastasius.
[8] The same Anastasius said, that Eugenius was buried at St. Peter's: and therefore the Roman Canon, The burial at St. Peter's on 2 June. who under Eugenius III, five hundred years after that one, published a description of the Vatican Basilica, to be reprinted after our Commentary on SS. Peter and Paul, referred his name among the Pontiffs there entombed; but neither he, nor his Scholiast Paolo de Angelis under Innocent X, allege any surviving memory of such a burial found in his time: which is to us an argument, that not even in the 12th century was his cult known, and his tomb, entirely obscured. Something more, but rashly, Jorge Cardoso presumes on this day, in the Lusitanian Hagiology. For when Father Luís Lobo, Without foundation the Portuguese claim that they have his body, Priest of our Society, in the year 1619 had brought to Portugal the body of some St. Eugenius the Martyr, dug out from the cemetery of Callixtus by the license of Paul V, for the sake of Lady Catarina de Mendoza, Duchess of Aytona, who had followed her husband, the Legate of the Catholic King, to Rome; because on the little case, in which the Relics were handed over, someone, more zealous to please than to assert only things certainly ascertained, had inscribed, "The body of St. Eugenius Pope, whose feast is celebrated 2 June"; Cardoso did not at all hesitate in his Notes to assert, that the Martyr Eugenius the Pope died; and was buried in the cemetery of St. Callixtus, either from the beginning, or translated there from the Vatican Basilica.
[9] and indeed as of a Martyr from the cemetery of Callixtus, Of these none has even the least probability of truth; since in the 7th century there was no occasion at Rome of enduring martyrdom; nor was anyone then buried in the cemeteries, ancient and almost blocked up; much less was anyone then or afterward brought there from an urban Basilica. To have related these things therefore, let it be to have refuted them. Yet because it pleases the Portuguese to be so far credulous, and to retain the day indicated to them, at the discretion of I know not whom; let there also be added from Cardoso, dug out with the Bodies of Lucius P.M. and Anastasia V.M. that the body of whatever St. Eugenius, when he himself was writing in the year 1666, was in the possession of Don Diogo Lobo, Baron of Alvito, Canon of the Metropolitan of Lisbon, who placed it, received from Father Luís his brother, in his domestic Oratory. But what became of the two bodies, of the aforementioned Duchess likewise extracted and handed over thence, under the titles of St. Lucius Pope and Martyr, and St. Anastasia Virgin and Martyr, there is no leisure to inquire. St. Lucius the Pope, together with the body of St. Cecilia and her Companions, into her church built by himself, long ago Pope Paschal I translated in the year 822; as is said on his Life on 4 March. St. Anastasia, Virgin Martyr, who suffered under Aurelian at Rome with Cyrilla, is venerated on 28 October: but her body too must have been raised long ago, if truly to it pertain the Relics, which as such are shown at Rome in the church of St. Mary, named by the People.