Cyriacus

ON ST. CYRIACUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE,

IN THE YEAR DCVI

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY

Cyriacus, bishop of Constantinople. (S.)

BY R. D. B.

§ I. Why the deeds of St. Cyriacus are illustrated. Whether his Acts exist. He was steward of St. Sophia and bishop of Constantinople.

When our predecessors in the History of the patriarchs of Constantinople, St. Cyriacus, whose deeds are to be illustrated, which was prefixed to volume I of August, and in the Passed-Over at the 2nd day of September, had with singular care examined whether John the Faster, who shortly after his death was inscribed in the fasti of the saints of Constantinople at the instigation of the emperor Maurice, can or should be numbered among those in heaven, and had demonstrated, against Pagi, Thomassin and others who strove to extenuate his faults, by the authority of St. Gregory the Great, St. Leo IX, Baronius and others, that he by no means merits so great a glory, we were not a little anxious whether a place was to be given in these our Acts to St. Cyriacus, his successor, who for a long time trod in the footsteps of that most obstinate man, hardened against the prayers and rebukes of St. Gregory the Great and determined not to lay down the title of ecumenical, or not. And indeed Cuper, the author of that History, altogether refuses to call Cyriacus a saint. But it escaped that distinguished writer that Cyriacus, who seems to have sinned more by the will of the emperor Maurice than by his own ambition, did not persevere in his contumacy, but after the death of that prince came to a better fruit and finally was obedient to the commands of St. Gregory. There is a huge difference, therefore, between John the Faster and St. Cyriacus; as will be abundantly established from the end of that controversy, which we shall set forth below according to John the Deacon, the distinguished biographer of St. Gregory the Great.

[2] and Acts were probably not written, Further, although a great many writers of the histories of Constantinople mention St. Cyriacus, none however seems to have handed down his deeds to memory in particular. Hence

it has come about that of his early years, his condition and his parents nothing has reached us. We know however that he had a sister, who discharged the office of deaconess in the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where he himself also was enrolled among the deacons. Afterwards, when he had been made bishop of Constantinople, he was not unmindful of this church; which he built anew in the sixteenth year of the reign of Maurice, or the year of Christ 600. Indeed the church was named Diaconissa, says Codinus [Codinus, De Originibus Constantinopolitanis, in Scriptt. rer. Byzant., Paris edition, page 53; compare Theophanes, Chronographia, page 233; George Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium, volume I, page 279, same edition; Du Cange, Constantinopolis Christiana, part II, page 87, same edition.], because the patriarch, while still a deacon, dwelt there, and his sister was a deaconess in the same place. Nor is what he did when he was either steward or bishop of the church of Constantinople much better known to us. And this scarcity of documents is the more to be lamented in that it is manifest to all from the letters of St. Gregory the Great that he was for many years less than compliant toward the Roman Pontiff, by whom he was several times reproved in the gravest words for his arrogance, until at length, as we shall see below, he obeyed the sharpest admonitions.

[3] he was first steward of the great church, As to St. Cyriacus being called a deacon by Codinus, he seems to be honoured with that title rather because of the office which he discharged than because of the rank in which he stood in the divine hierarchy. For it is read in Nicephorus Callistus Ecclesiastica Historia, book VIII, volume II, page 861. and in several catalogues of the bishops of Constantinople, which Anselm Banduri published Imperium Orientale, book VIII, volume I, page 187., that before he was chosen as bishop of Constantinople he was one of the presbyters of the great church, which is St. Sophia, who could be sixty by the third Novel of Justinian and eighty by the constitution of Heraclius [Du Cange, Constantinopolis Christiana, volume II, §78, page 71, Venetian edition of the Byzantine writers.]. Indeed he was also, as Nicephorus and others report, great steward of the same church: which office is among Christians most ancient. For in the first times of the Church, by apostolic institution, the custom had established itself that deacons should have the care of the Church's goods, and although after Constantine the Great stewards came little by little to be created only from among the presbyters, yet the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon in canon XXVI, of the IV Council of Toledo in canon XLVIII, and of the II Council of Seville in canon IX, consider it sufficient that the stewards of churches be taken from the clergy [Christ. Lupus, Synodorum generalium etc. canones et decreta illustrata, volume II, page 105 and following, Venetian edition 1724; Morin, De Sacris Ordinationibus, part III, Exerc. XVI, chapter 5, page 227.]. But in the church of Constantinople the steward sat among the deacons Ordo ecclesiæ Constantinopolitanæ, in Goar, Rituale Græcorum, page 268., and it is very likely that they were there for the most part deacons, and therefore that departure from the law or custom was made in the case of St. Cyriacus, as also of Paul Banduri, Imperium Orientale, volume I, page 187., likewise promoted to the episcopate of Constantinople; who both, although presbyters, were raised to the office of steward. Now how distinguished this office was among the Greeks is clear from this, that of all the officials of the church of Constantinople the steward was reckoned first after the patriarchal dignity Morin, De Sacris Ordinibus, part III, page 227., and inferior to him in authority were the five exocatacoeli, or the more eminent ministers of the patriarchal court, namely the great sacellarius, the great keeper of the vessels, the chartophylax, and the prefect of the chapel. Hence in the order of the great church of Constantinople, when the patriarch officiates at the altar, the first place is assigned to the steward [Catalogus officialium magnæ ecclesiæ Constantinop., in Goar, work cited, page 274.]: add that in the blessing and promotion of the steward the bishop uses prayers not much unlike those used in the ordination of deacons [Ordo servandus in benedictione et promotione œconomi, in Goar, work cited, page 280.]. What chief functions the office of the great steward embraced, however, learn from Simeon of Thessalonica: The steward, he says [De Sacris Ordinationibus, chapter XIII, in Morin, Commentarius de Sacris Ordinationibus, page 252.], is ordained to have the care of the possessions, the revenues and what is given to each. For he must be solicitous about these for the sake of the public good and of the right order of ecclesiastical affairs. Almost the same is said by George Codinus De Officiis magnæ ecclesiæ et aulæ Constantinopolitanæ, chapter I, pages 2, 5.. But these things are explained much more fully in the Catalogue of the great church of Constantinople: The great steward, says the writer of this Catalogue, adorned with his tunic, stands at the right side of the altar, and when the pontiff celebrates he holds the holy fan. It belongs to him to have knowledge of the incomes, expenses and accounts in the bishopric, and to receive and preserve them. The care of every possession is therefore entrusted to him, and he has the chartularius serving under him, and he records in writing all the fruits accruing to the bishopric, and twice (elsewhere four times Ordo magnæ ecclesiæ Constantinopolitanæ, in Goar, page 280.) each year he gives an account to the pontiff. He is present also in judgments. He also presents the priest to be consecrated. He governs the bishopric also after the bishop's death until the arrival of his successor. In an election he has the first vote. And finally he divides the due portions of the annual goods of the bishopric equally to each of his brothers Catalogus magnæ ecclesiæ Constantinop., in Goar, Rituale Græcorum, page 275.. Nearly the same things occur in the order of the great church of Constantinople.

[4] then bishop of Constantinople: This office of steward St. Cyriacus was discharging when John the Faster, bishop of Constantinople, departed from the living. In his place he himself was elected bishop, as is certain from the testimonies of the Alexandrian or Paschal Chronicle Chronicon Paschale, page 378, Paris edition., of Theophanes Chronographia, page 229, same edition. and of the Catalogues of the bishops of Constantinople, which Banduri published Imperium orientale, volume I, page 897 and following.: which is confirmed also from the register of the letters of St. Gregory the Great, which, after Philipp Jaffé, we shall follow throughout this commentary. But all are not of the same opinion when the beginning of Cyriacus's episcopate is to be determined. For he who places trust in the chronotaxis of the Paschal Chronicle will think that in the XII indiction after the X consulship of Maurice Tiberius (to which corresponds the year 594, as Pagi proves in the Dissertatio Hypatica Annalium ecclesiasticorum Baronii apparatus, page 120, Lucca edition, 1740.) St. Cyriacus was created bishop of the church of Constantinople, and that he presided over it for XII years. But these things do not agree with what is handed down by a great many writers on Byzantine affairs, nor with nearly all the catalogues of the bishops of Constantinople, in which there are assigned to the episcopate of John the Faster thirteen years and five months, beginning from the 12th day of April of the year 582 Acta SS. volume I of August, page 69 ., and to the episcopate of St. Cyriacus eleven years. These things cannot be understood unless it is said with Banduri Imperium Orientale, volume I, page 897., Pagi Critica Annal. eccles. Baronii, at the year 596, number II., Cuper Acta SS. volume I of August, page 74. and others that St. Cyriacus about the end of the year 595 succeeded John the Faster, who had died in the same year, on the second day of September, as we shall endeavour to show in its place from the length of his episcopate and the time of his death.

[5] at which matter St. Gregory the Great greatly rejoices. It is difficult, moreover, to say how much St. Gregory the Great, who, when discharging the office of apocrisiarius at Constantinople, had been joined in the closest friendship with St. Cyriacus, rejoiced at his election: and he could not refrain, writing to him once and again in the month of October of the year 596 Works, volume III, book VII, letter V, columns 854, 858, Migne's edition., from showing the feelings of his soul. And he was the more filled with joy in that he knew from his own letter that he had by no means sought the episcopate. St. Gregory in the same month also congratulated the emperor Maurice, because he had established a most worthy successor to John the Faster, withdrawn from this light. Then he adds: I consider my brother and fellow priest Cyriacus to be very fit in pastoral government, whom long counsels of your Piety have brought forth for the same order. How solicitous he has long been in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs and how well trained, we all know Book VII, letter VII, column 859.. The bishops of that tract too received the election of St. Cyriacus with great gladness: but going beyond the limits of modesty, they were reproved by St. Gregory, who was greatly exulting at their joy. For at the ordination of St. Cyriacus they had cried out: This is the day which the Lord has made; before which words it is set down, says St. Gregory in the letter to Peter, Domitian and Elpidius: “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner. By the Lord this was done, and it is wonderful in our eyes.” (Psalm CXVII, 22–23.) St. Gregory therefore vehemently rebukes those unacceptable words, of which he continues thus: “This is the day which the Lord has made.” For he who for the strength of the building is called a stone, for the grace of illumination has been called a day, who also was made because he was incarnate. In whom we are commanded to exult and rejoice, because he has overcome the darkness of our error by the light of his power in us. In praise of a creature, therefore, that word ought not to have been given which suits the Creator alone Ibid. letter VII, column 860 and following..

§ II. The synodal letter of St. Cyriacus to St. Gregory the Great. He assumes the title of ecumenical bishop. The arrogance of the bishops of Constantinople.

St. Cyriacus sends St. Gregory a synodal letter It was the received custom that, as the Roman Pontiffs newly elected, by letters which were called synodal [Liber diurnus Romanorum pontificum of Garnier, appendix to the note on chapter II, § III and following, in Hoffmann, Nova Scriptorum ac Monumentorum collectio, volume II, page 212 and following; Franc. Bern. Ferrari, de antiquo ecclesiasticarum epistolarum genere, page 91, Meier's edition.], informed the bishops and above all the patriarchs of their ordination and faith, and at the same time asked for prayers that they might more worthily discharge their pastoral office, so also the bishops of the chief sees and above all the patriarchs, when they had first been taken up to govern their church, should send without delay to the Roman pontiff synodal letters, testimonies of their faith. This custom St. Cyriacus does not seem to have satisfied at once: for in the month of August of the year 596 St. Gregory, writing to the presbyter Athanasius, says: Of this too both to our beloved brother the bishop of the city of Constantinople, who has been ordained in the place of the aforesaid holy John,

we wish to send our letter: but since it is not the custom that we should write before his synodal letter is brought to us, for that reason we have delayed: but after it has been brought by you, we shall point these things out to him when it is opportune Letter LXVI, book VI, column 852.. But a little later, namely in the month of October of the same year, these words written to him by St. Gregory show that St. Cyriacus was mindful of the ancient tradition and sent a synodal letter by the apocrisiarii George and Theodore: We have received with full faith the letter you addressed to us, and we give thanks to almighty God, who guards the seamless tunic woven from above, namely his Church, by the alternating confession of the faithful in the unity of grace from every division of error, and who, against so great a flood of faults of the perishing world, so to speak, builds from many timbers an ark, in which the elect of almighty God may be preserved for life… Moreover, since the right faith has been truly and precisely set forth by you, among those whom you have judged to be condemned through the most holy general synods, we find that you have condemned a certain Eudoxius: whose name we find set down in the Latin language neither in the synods nor in the books of the bishops of blessed memory Epiphanius, Augustine and Philastrius, who we know disputed especially against the heretics. If any of the Catholic Fathers truly condemns him, we doubtless follow his sentence. You however, if in your synodal letter you wished to condemn by name those too who outside the holy synods are condemned through the writings of the Fathers, your fraternity has put many too few in your writings; but if those whom the general synods reject, this one too many Letters, book VII, column 856 and following.. That this Eudoxius was bishop of Germanicia, a promoter of the Arian heresy and invader of the see of Antioch, St. Gregory afterwards learned from Eulogius of Alexandria, who communicated the testimonies of SS. Basil, Gregory and Epiphanius Ibid. column 857 and following, 893, 933.

[7] in which he assumes the title of ecumenical, And if in this St. Cyriacus did not err in his synodal letter, yet he was not free of fault in all things, as one who by the example of his predecessor assumed the title of ecumenical, as is clear from the aforesaid letter of St. Gregory; whose words are these: But since the right faith has been wisely set forth by you, it remains that you must doubtless guard peace… Which peace you will truly have with us then, if you turn aside from the pride of a profane name… For it is exceedingly unjust that those who have been made preachers of humility should glory in the elation of a vain name, when the true preacher says: “Far be it from me to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”… Behold, at the title of an abominable name we have been scandalized, and we keep no slight complaints in our mind and ready on our voice… Take care therefore to wipe away quickly the scandal of your heart, that almighty God may be able to hold the sacrifice of your oblation acceptable Ibid. column 857.. Further, since from this and several other letters, of which we are about to speak, it is clear that St. Gregory moved every stone to prevent St. Cyriacus from naming himself ecumenical or being so named by the bishops of the East or the West, we shall discourse briefly on that title.

[8] following the arrogance of his predecessors. Apart from the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, there were three exarchs, namely of Ephesus for the diocese of Asia, of Caesarea for Pontus, and of Heraclea for Thrace, whose power was not much less than the authority of the patriarchs. But when Constantine the Great had changed Byzantium, a city of Thrace, into Constantinople, so that it was with full right called the second Rome, its bishops strove with all their might to procure for themselves a seat among the patriarchs. Whence it came about that in the Council of Chalcedon a canon was read: The bishop of the city of Constantinople ought to have the honour of primacy after the Roman bishop, because it is new Rome Labbe, Conc., volume II, column 948.; as if it had been issued by the Fathers of the I General Council of Constantinople: and although the apostolic legates openly professed that no such canon had ever been passed at the I Synod of Constantinople; nevertheless the Fathers of Chalcedon, going further, stripped the exarchs of Asia, Pontus and Thrace of their supreme power, and transferred it to the bishop of Constantinople Ibid. volume IV, column 769.. But St. Leo the pope, writing to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople Ibid. column 845., and to St. Pulcheria Augusta Ibid. column 849., testified that the canon read out, being always unknown to the Roman see, was fictitious Ibid. column 847.; then he refused to approve by his vote the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon not pertaining to the faith. This controversy then fell quiet, since Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, for whom there shone no hope of drawing St. Leo to his side, complied with his admonitions Ibid., Letter of Anatolius to St. Leo, column 907.. Yet of the successors of Anatolius hardly one imitated his modesty; and Acacius, prouder than the others, never ceased from the work until the bishops of Ephesus and Caesarea, treading in the footsteps of the bishop of Heraclea, subjected themselves to his power: nor could Simplicius Ibid., Letter of Simplicius to Acacius, column 1034 and following. or Felix III Ibid., Letter of Felix III to Acacius, column 1073., Roman pontiffs, break his boldness. And since it was their regular practice to rely on the pronouncement of the Council of Chalcedon: That New Rome, which was honoured with empire and senate and enjoyed privileges equal with most ancient queenly Rome, should in ecclesiastical affairs also be exalted and magnified no less than she, being second after her, several bishops of Constantinople did not hesitate, trampling on the canons of the Church, to give law to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and finally to usurp for themselves the title of ecumenical Ibid. volume V, column 1181 and following.. That the first of the ecumenical bishops was John the Cappadocian is held by Pagi Pagi in the Critica of Baronius at the year 520, number 5. and Vaira Vaira, de Œcumenica papæ potestate.; but John the Faster by Baronius Annales ecclesiastici at the year 518, number 14. and our predecessor Cuper Acta SS. volume I of August, page 57.. But since at the beginning the bishops of Constantinople claimed for themselves only the title of ecumenical, and not the power, and yet St. Gregory the Great complained much of so great a pride, the emperor Maurice did not fear to call St. Gregory an indiscreet man, or even to order that scandal should be avoided between him and Cyriacus over the title of a frivolous name Works, volume III, Letter to Maurice, column 891..

[9] That this is very pernicious Further, that the title of ecumenical is by no means vain or of the least moment St. Gregory shows on several heads: We know that many priests of the church of Constantinople have fallen into the abyss of heresy and have become not only heretics, but even heresiarchs… If therefore anyone in that church seizes for himself that name which has made the judgment of all good men; then the universal Church, which God forbid, falls from its state, when he who is called universal falls. But far from Christian hearts be that name of blasphemy, in which the honour of all priests is taken away, while it is madly arrogated by one to himself Ibid., Letter to Maurice, column 746.. Many other arguments of this kind St. Gregory collects: and his opinion did not at all deceive him, as the event itself proved: for shortly afterwards Theophylact Simocatta, under the rule of Heraclius, relating the deeds of Maurice, did not blush to call Sergius, bishop of Constantinople, great pontiff and bishop of the whole world, however far it extends Theophylact, Hist. Dial., page 2.. Theophylact was imitated by the continuator of the Byzantine History after Constantine Porphyrogenitus; where, recording the ordination of St. Ignatius of Constantinople, he adds: Him they raise to the patriarchal throne, and to him they commit the helm of the world Historiæ Byzantinæ scriptores post Theophanem, page 120.. But to deny the primacy of honour to the Roman Pontiff no one had dared, until Photius, going forth into the battle line, contended that to new Rome, since it had become the first and chief city of the whole empire, there had passed all the rights and privileges which elder Rome had held until then Letter of Nicholas to Hincmar, in Labbe, volume VIII, column 472..

[10] St. Gregory shows to St. Cyriacus and the emperor Maurice Since St. Gregory foresaw that these things would at some time be, he could not but once and again urge Cyriacus to abstain from assuming the title of ecumenical. When therefore Anastasius of Antioch, following the example of the emperor Maurice, made light of the title of ecumenical, and did not think any moment to lie in it, he rightly wrote to him in the month of June of the year 597: But as to your saying that we ought to give place to scandal for no cause, this our most pious lord your son also, for whose life we must pray unceasingly, has now often written to me; and what he says from power, I know that you say from love. Nor have I been surprised that you have set imperial words in your letter, because love and power have the greatest kinship between them. For both presume in a princely way, both always speak by authority. And indeed in receiving the synodal letter of our brother and fellow priest Cyriacus it was not right that I should make delays over the matter of a profane word, lest I should disturb the unity of the holy Church; but nevertheless I have been at pains to admonish him about that superstitious and proud word, saying that he could not have peace with us unless he corrected the elation of the aforesaid word, which the first apostate invented… Letter to Anastasius, Works of St. Gregory the Great, volume III, column 882.. Then in the same month of June, when he perceived that St. Cyriacus was less than obedient to his admonitions, he wrote to him again: I give thanks unceasingly to almighty God, because if charity, the mother of the virtues, remains in your heart toward us, you who hold the very root of goodness never lose the branches of good works. You must therefore show to me and to all your brothers the beauty of the same charity first in this work, that you make haste to take away the word of pride, through which grave scandal is produced in the churches… For then the charity shown is true, if through the conceit of pride there is no schism among us Ibid., Letter to Cyriacus, column 888.. Indeed about the same time he sent a letter to the emperor Maurice, who was calling the Roman pontiff indiscreet and too anxious about a frivolous title, where, after showing that he was following the laws of prudence in this affair, he added: But Cyriacus my brother and fellow bishop I have taken care zealously to admonish, that if he desires to have the peace and concord of all, he should restrain himself from the title of a foolish word Letter to Anastasius, column 891..

[11] and also to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, Besides, St. Gregory, fearing that Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, the patriarchs, to St. Cyriacus the surname of ecumenical

might attribute, the more so because already before this the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch had not infrequently acknowledged authority in the bishops of Constantinople, set out to them in the said month of June of the year 597 on what ground he had broken peace with St. Cyriacus while preserving the unity of the faith: The charity, he says, by which I am closely bound to you does not at all permit me to keep silent, that your holiness may know whatever is being done among us, and not being deceived by false rumours, may hold still more perfectly the way of justice and rectitude as it has perfectly begun. For the representatives of our brother and fellow priest Cyriacus, coming, brought me his synodal letter. And indeed between us and him, as your beatitude knows, there is grave discord because of the title of a profane name, but in a matter of faith I judged that his representatives who had been sent should be received, lest the fault of elation, which has arisen in the church of Constantinople almost against all priests, should cause a dissension of faith and a quarrel to ecclesiastical unity. Those same representatives, however, since they entreated this altogether humbly, I caused to celebrate the solemnities of Mass with me, because, as I have been at pains to make known also to the most serene lord emperor, the representatives of our brother and fellow priest Cyriacus had to communicate with me, since by God's aid I have not fallen into the error of elation. But my deacon ought not to celebrate the solemnities of Mass with our aforesaid brother Cyriacus, because through the profane word he has either committed the fault of pride, or follows it; lest, if, which God forbid, he goes forth (to attend him as he performs the sacred rites), we should seem to confirm the vanity of a foolish name for one placed in such elation. I have been at pains, however, to admonish that same brother to correct himself of such elation, because if he does not correct this, he will by no means have peace with us Letter to Eulogius, column 892.. What Anastasius did is hidden from us: Eulogius was obedient to the just commands of the Roman Pontiff [Another letter to Eulogius, column 933; Acta SS. volume IV of September, page 90 and following.].

[12] also forbidding the bishops of Illyricum to come to a synod at Constantinople. But in the month of April or May of the year 599 St. Cyriacus had not yet laid down the title of ecumenical, and he was of the opinion that he thought it lawful for himself to summon to a synod at Constantinople the bishops of Thessalonica, Dyrrachium, Nicopolis, Corinth, Justiniana Prima, Crete, Larissa and other bishops of Eastern Illyricum, although from the most ancient times they belonged to the Roman patriarchate. When St. Gregory heard this, he at once sent a letter to the bishops of that tract, in which he set out how he himself and his predecessor Pelagius had refused to have peace with the bishops of Constantinople who assumed the name of ecumenical: then, not unmindful that the church of Constantinople, as being the church of new Rome, was seeking power over Illyricum, he adds: Moreover it has reached us that your fraternity has been summoned to the city of Constantinople. And although our most pious emperor does not permit unlawful things to be done there, yet lest perverse men, seizing the occasion of your assembly, should either seek a place for surreptitious action in favour of the superstition of this name, or plan to hold a synod on another matter, so as to bring this in there by cunning machinations, although without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See whatever things have been done have no force, nevertheless before almighty God I beseech and admonish that none of you be held there by any persuasions, any blandishments, any rewards, any terrors, to give assent; but out of consideration of the eternal judgment show yourselves wholesomely and unanimously against depraved desires; and supported by pastoral constancy and apostolic authority, shut out the robber and rushing wolf: and do not yield to him who rages for the rending of the Church; lest by any surreption concerning this matter you allow a synod to be celebrated, which is neither lawful, nor to be called a synod. This too we likewise admonish, that if perhaps nothing has been done about the mention of this perverse name, but a synod is perhaps gathered on another matter, you be altogether cautious, circumspect, vigilant and solicitous, lest anything there be decreed prejudicially or unlawfully against any place or person, or against the canons. But if anything is to be treated for the sake of some incidental advantage, let the matter at issue receive such a form as to overturn none of the ancient statutes. Wherefore again before God and his saints we admonish that you keep all these things with the highest zeal and the whole intention of mind. For if anyone, which we do not believe, shall neglect the present letter in any part, let him know himself to be separated from the peace of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles. So therefore let your fraternity act, that when the Shepherd of shepherds shall come in judgment, you may have no guilt concerning the place of government that you have received Letter to Eusebius and others, column 933.. By which words St. Gregory by no means indicates that he has separated St. Cyriacus from the communion of the Church: but rather, as our Cuper shows was often done in the Church [Acta SS., Chronologia patriarch. Constantin., volume I of August, page 52 and following.], that he does not wish to have dealings with him.

[13] But at last St. Cyriacus obeyed St. Gregory, Nor did St. Gregory afterwards spare labour to bring St. Cyriacus back to better things, and again he sent him a letter by Boniface the apocrisiarius, afterwards Roman Pontiff, in which he vehemently exhorted him to trample with the heel of his heart the profane elation which is always hostile to souls, and to make haste to remove from the midst the scandal of the perverse and proud word to the Church, lest he be found separated from the fellowship of the peace (of Gregory). Then St. Gregory adds: For how hard, how unseemly, how cruel, and how foreign from the purpose of a priest it is for him not to have the peace which he preaches to others, let your holiness consider, and let him abstain from scandalizing his brothers by pride Letter to Cyriacus, column 1290.. St. Gregory wrote this in the month of July of the year 603. His efforts were at last not vain; and so, before he passed to heaven on the 12th day of March of the next following year, he had St. Cyriacus obedient to his admonitions. For it is read in John the Deacon in the Life of St. Gregory: When the emperor Maurice, namely a despiser of the priests of Christ, urged on behalf of Cyriacus, who had succeeded John, that Gregory should not labour over the cause of so frivolous a name, he himself resisted by the authority of his pontificate for so long, until he had utterly removed the plague of the universal name even from the very crafty lips of flatterers Acta SS. volume II of March, page 179..

[14] [Before this he had created St. Pausicacus bishop of Synnada and had permitted St. Theodore, bishop of Anastasiopolis, to go into the wilderness;] Before these things happened, however, St. Cyriacus, for the merit of St. Pausicacus, by nation of Apamea, who from a physician had been made a monk of most severe life, initiated him as bishop of Synnada in Phrygia, however much he resisted Ibid. volume II of May, page 240.: which is some indication that he took care that bishops should be excellent. Nevertheless, at the instigation of the emperor Maurice, whom he strove to please in everything, he caused St. Theodore of Sykeon, bishop of Anastasiopolis in Galatia, to be released from his office. For St. Theodore Ibid. volume III of April, page 49., weary of the episcopal cares through the counsel of Antiochus the hermit, when he had come to the metropolitan Paul, archbishop of the Ancyrans, asked that a successor be given him: but he answered that one could not be given to so good a man. And when a great contention had arisen between them, it was agreed between them that the matter should be referred to the most blessed patriarch of Constantinople Cyriacus, and that what he should determine should be ratified. Blessed Theodore therefore entreated the emperor Maurice of pious memory and the most blessed patriarch Cyriacus that they should decree that a successor be given to him: while the metropolitan set his reasons against his refusal. But the most blessed patriarch Cyriacus, the emperor also so ordering, answered the metropolitan that he should admit the prayers of blessed Theodore, and should leave him the insignia of the episcopate because of the holiness and innocence of his life. Obeying the mandate, therefore, the metropolitan freed Theodore from the burden of the episcopate and left him the insignia of the episcopate. St. Theodore then betook himself to the wilderness of Heliopolis in Galatia, and afterwards to a monastery, shining with divine charisms.

[14] [whence he is summoned by St. Cyriacus and by Maurice, who declares his monasteries exempt.] At that time, so continues Eleusius, his disciple and most diligent writer of the Life of St. Theodore Ibid., the pious emperor Maurice and the blessed patriarch Cyriacus, and the princes, by their letters summoned the holy servant of Christ to Constantinople that he might bless them. Wherefore when he had betaken himself there, and had greeted the most blessed patriarch Cyriacus and the emperor and senate and had blessed them, he stayed with them. With great zeal and honour the emperor and the Augusta and all the household embraced him; and immunities were granted to his monasteries, and this was conceded, that they should be subject to no other bishopric: but only to the most holy and great apostolic church of the royal city itself, God so providing, and with the help of the holy martyr George, because of good will toward those who were living and offering sacrifice in them. This exemption is the more remarkable in that it opposed canon IV of the Council of Chalcedon Collect. concil., volume IV, column 757., by which monks throughout every city or region were ordered to be subject to the bishop. This canon, like the other disciplinary ones of this synod, had been rejected by St. Leo the Great; but it was the more ardently contended for by the Greeks. While St. Theodore was staying at Constantinople, however, St. Cyriacus seems to have wished quite often to enjoy his conversation. Certainly we read the following in his Life Acta SS. volume III of April, page 49.: One day three energumens came to St. Theodore, who were being most grievously vexed in his little cell, when at the same hour he was summoned by the patriarch Cyriacus. Wherefore the blessed man, hastening to go, ordered two of them to be free, and at once they fell prostrate on the ground at his feet, as if dead. The third he permitted to suffer: for the demon that was in him was hard, and could not easily be cast out. Wherefore the holy man said in anger: “Since our most holy patriarch has summoned me, and at the present time I cannot do what concerns you, stand in this place and be tormented; and do not depart from here until I return.” And having said this he betook himself to the most holy patriarch.

§ III. St. Cyriacus crowns the emperor Phocas. The death, burial and cult of St. Cyriacus.

St. Cyriacus, Maurice having been ejected, crowns the emperor Phocas, But in the year (602) in which Maurice gave his son Theodosius as wife the daughter of Germanus the patrician, and St. Cyriacus placed the nuptial crowns Theophanes, Chronographia, page 190; Chronicon Paschale Alexandrinum, page 345. on the betrothed according to the custom of the Greeks Goar, work cited, page 397 and following., there arose in the month of November at Constantinople a deadly sedition [Theophanes, work cited, page 243; Chronicon Alexandrinum, page 345; Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. eccles., volume II, page 860.]. Maurice, namely, who had with full right incurred the hatred of his subjects, when he saw the tumults growing from day to day, and St. Cyriacus himself, against whom jibes

and illiberal jokes the multitude were scattering Theophanes, work cited, page 243., and abusing him with reproaches, began to despair of the whole state of affairs, and at midnight … tried to flee to the East together with his wife and children Nicephorus Callistus, Historia ecclesiastica, volume II, page 860.. Meanwhile Phocas came from Thrace to Constantinople and immediately delegates Theodore a secretis, who, entering the great church, in the hearing of the people recited from a tablet, and ordered the patriarch, the factions of the people and the senate to come to the Hebdomon (the northern part of Constantinople). Which being finally done, when all had betaken themselves to the Hebdomon, the patriarch Cyriacus exacted a pledge from the tyrant, by which he should promise that he would retain the right faith and preserve the Church free from disturbances Theophanes, work cited, page 243; Nicephorus, work cited, page 860.. Thus Phocas on the 23rd day of November is greeted as emperor at Constantinople, and at the Hebdomon, in the venerable church of St. John the Baptist, he receives the imperial crown from St. Cyriacus Theophanes, work cited, page 243; Chron. Alexandr., page 345.. With what rite the inauguration of the emperors at Constantinople was celebrated in the VI century the writers have not reported, but it is permissible to suppose that it was not very different from that which Codinus described De Officiis aulæ et ecclesiæ Constantinop., chapter XX, page 138 and following. and which Gretser Ibid., Commentary on Codinus, page 253., Goar Rituale Græcorum, page 925 and following. and others have explained.

[17] against whom he defends the right of asylum of churches. But about four years after St. Cyriacus had placed the crown on Phocas, he had to defend against him the right of asylum of churches. For when Phocas (in the year 606), after the murder of Maurice, had ordered the empress Constantina and her three daughters, in order to please the faction hostile to them, to be brought out of the church of St. Sophia, to which they had fled, the patriarch Cyriacus opposed himself to Phocas, by no means suffering the poor women to be harshly torn away. Oaths however being interposed by Phocas, and they being made secure that they would suffer nothing unworthy, they are drawn out from the sacred precincts, and shut up in a monastery Theophanes, Chronographia, page 247..

[18] At length he dies, is buried and is venerated as a saint. Shortly afterwards, the Roman see being vacant through the death of Sabinian, St. Cyriacus exchanged the temporary life for the eternal. For it is read in the Alexandrian Chronicle: In the year IV of Phocas, indiction IX, after the II consulship of Phocas Augustus. In this year (which corresponds to the year 606) Cyriacus, patriarch of Constantinople, dies in the month of Hyperberetaeus, according to the Romans October, on the XXIXth day, feria VII: and his funeral was held on the XXXth of the same month, feria I; and his body was laid, according to the received custom, in the church of the holy Apostles At the year 606, page 303; Banduri, work cited, volume I, page 898.. With the Alexandrian Chronicle agree St. Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople In Banduri, volume I, page 189., Nicephorus Callistus Ibid. page 194., Johannes Leunclavius Ibid. page 203. and Matthew Cigala Ibid. page 211., who say (without assigning either the day or the month of his death) that St. Cyriacus, after he had presided over the church of Constantinople for eleven years, fell asleep in the Lord. Theophanes, however, dissents Chronographia, page 247., affirming that on the eleventh day of October of the year 598 a successor was given to St. Cyriacus, Thomas, deacon and sacellarius of the church of St. Sophia; and Philip of Cyprus In Banduri, volume I, page 220., asserting that the episcopate of St. Cyriacus was of only three years. But the opinion of these men, as conflicting with the most certain monuments and the whole series of events, is to be altogether rejected. Moreover, from what we have just disputed it is also clear that St. Cyriacus died two and a half months before St. Gregory, and therefore that Baronius Annales ecclesiastici, at the year 606, number 1 and following. is not free from error where he writes that St. Cyriacus died worn out by grief and sorrow, after he had learned that it had been decreed by the emperor Phocas that only the Roman pontiff was to be called ecumenical, that is, universal bishop, and by no means the bishop of Constantinople. For such a decree neither St. Gregory nor Sabinian, his successor, obtained; but this good fortune fell to Boniface, who, Sabinian having died, was created Roman pontiff in the middle of the month of February of the year 607, that is, three months and some days after the death of St. Cyriacus [Anastasius the Librarian, Vitæ Roman. pontificum, volume IV, page 14, Bianchini's edition.]. The feast of St. Cyriacus is indicated to be celebrated on the 27th day of October by the Mazarin Menaea and the common Greek ones Μεναιον του ὀκτωβριου, page 166, 1843 edition., and according to these by the metrical Martyrology of Siberus Month of October, page 350.. Nevertheless his natal day was formerly celebrated in the church of Constantinople on the anniversary of his funeral, namely the 30th of the same month, as is established from the calendar of this church, which our Morcelli published Kalendar. ecclesiæ Constantinop., volume I, page 10. and showed is to be referred to times older than the schism of the Greeks, namely to the middle of the eighth century. It is indeed very difficult to define which churches followed the fasti of Constantinople; since, as the name of St. Cyriacus, who is called patriarch of Jerusalem and martyr under Julian, is inscribed on the 28th day of October in certain Greek and Slavic synaxaries or menologies, it has hence come about that Cyriacus of Constantinople has been confused with this Cyriacus. Certainly in the Ostromir calendar there is read at the 30th day of October Martinov, Annus ecclesiasticus Slavicus, page 265.: The Passion of SS. MM. Cyriacus the patriarch, Zenobius the bishop and Zenobia his sister. Which sacred fasti may have admitted the same error, who shall define? However that may be, the name of Cyriacus the patriarch is read at the 30th day of October in several calendars and menaea, namely in the Slavic Ostromir, Assemani, Paris and Sisatovac ones, and in the Greek calendars or synaxaries of Jerusalem, Nani, Sirmond and the Medici. In the Slavic Novgorod calendar of the Rumiantsov Museum, as also in the Greek synaxaries of Gotha and Moscow, he is called Cyril or Cyril the patriarch.