Other Versions of Judas

The character of Judas in the New Testament fascinated the Middle Ages, even so far as creating more stories about him that take place after his death. One of the common places to find him is the various versions of the voyage of Brendan. Whether there is an original, authentic version of this tale is unknown; what is true is that 1) almost every version of the tale (and there are about 100) includes the encounter with Judas, and 2) the accounts do not all match. Different authors produced different versions of the meeting.

Judas is found on a rock in the ocean. One version does not tell of the encounter in "real time," but has Brendan mention it afterward to his companions. His companions, set with the cold and hail they've been enduring, complain that the warmth of Hell would not be worse. Brendan says:

We have seen Judas, the betrayer of our Lord, in a dreadful sea, on the Lord’s day, wailing and lamenting, seated on a rugged and slimy rock, which was now submerged by the waves and again emerged from them somewhat. Against the rock there rushed a fiery wave from the east, and a wave of coldness from the west alternatively, which drenched Judas in a frightful manner; and yet this grievous punishment seemed to him a relief from pain, for thus the mercy of God granted this place to him on the Sundays as some ease amidst his torments. What, therefore, must be the torments suffered in hell itself?

Some think that, because this is such a simple way to describe it, that this is an earlier version that gave later writers the motivation to expand with more detail.

Another version describes a devil that appears on the ship, visible only to Brendan, who questions why he is present. The devil explains that he is being tortured in the deep dark sea, and shows Brendan a vision of Hell. There Brendan sees various torments, and, at the very bottom of Hell, hears weeping. There he sees Judas on a rock in the sea (but this is in Hell), being buffeted by fire at the front and ice from behind. Judas looks up and explains that this will continue until Judgment Day. There are no mollifying circumstances because of any good deeds he may have performed in his lifetime, as we say yesterday.

(Interesting that Dante also puts Judas at the very bottom and that ice is involved.)

An Anglo-Norman version has him clinging to the rock himself lest he be washed away, and he tells Brendan his whole story, claiming that his punishment is because he despaired of Christ's mercy and killed himself instead of asking forgiveness. This Judas lists two Hells, and that he is the only soul tortured by both: one is a hot mountaintop, one is a cold and odorous valley, with a sea in between. Six days of the week he is tortured in a different way, and on Sunday he gets to cling for life to this rock in the middle sea.

Scholars have tried to match details of Brendan's voyage with geography, linking the voyage to the Canary Islands, the Azores, Faroes, or even as far as Greenland or North America. One person thinks the rock on which Judas is found is Rockall, a granite islet of <8500 square feet (see illustration).

But away from geography and back to literature. There is a lot of variety in Judas' suffering because of his status as (probably) Hell's most famous citizen. Writers felt comfortable outing various methods of suffering. So what was the medieval concept of Hell? Was there a uniform, agreed-upon version of what Hell was for, who went there, and how souls were treated? Let's take a very un-Dante-esque trip starting tomorrow.

Judas and Brendan

I discussed the medieval attitude toward Judas yesterday, and how the Middle Ages found a place for him in literature and legend outside of his brief appearance in the New Testament. One of the oddest ideas is that, because of a good deed or two attributed to him during his life, he is allowed time out of Hell.

I have written before of Brendan the Navigator, who was the main character of a "medieval best-seller." Over 100 manuscripts exist, from as early as the 10th century, about Brendan undertaking a voyage with 16 monks (or 14, or three) to find the Isle of the Blessed (or the Garden of Eden). The story produced several versions, with Brendan experiencing different lands and strange beings. The most consistent anecdote that appears in all versions, however, is the meeting with Judas Iscariot.

After passing by the fiery mountain which is the entrance to Hell, and the loss of a crew member, Brendan and the remaining crew sail south and see something protruding from the ocean. It is a stone, with an unkempt man one it. He wears a cloak, attached to two forks in a way that allows the wind and waves to lash the cloak folds against his face constantly.

Brendan asks the man his identity and the reason for his punishment. It turns out that this is Judas Iscariot, and the punishment they observe is actually a respite from Hell. He is normally stuck on the fiery mountain they saw, where he is constantly burned. But this is not for every day of the year. On certain days he is freed from the fire and put on this rock. Those days are Sundays, the Twelve Days of Christmas (25 December to 6 January), from Easter to Pentecost, and the feast days of the Purification and Assumption of Mary (quite a few, really).

Brendan asks Judas about the significance of this "respite" and why it is arranged this way. The cloak he wears is granted him because he once gave a cloak to a leper who was exposed to too much sun. The rock is because he once put a rock as a stepping stone in a trench to make a journey easier. The forks represent forks that Judas gave to priests to hold up a cauldron. But why does the cloak whip him around the face and eyes, if it is supposed to represent a good deed? Because originally he stole the cloak that he later gave away.

While they talk, Brendan and crew become surrounded by demons who have come to return Judas to Hell. Brendan invokes the name of Jesus and holds the demons at bay. Threatening to torture Judas doubly because they are being prevented from torturing him at the mountain, Brendan tells them they have no authority to do so. The demons eventually drag Judas away and Brendan continues his voyage.

I mentioned that an encounter with Judas was standard in the various version of Brendan's voyage. This version is very detailed, but there were other versions. Let's cover them tomorrow before moving on.

Judas in the Middle Ages

The character of Judas (mentioned yesterday) from the New Testament both horrified and fascinated Christians of the Middle Ages. Although he does not survive after the Crucifixion like the other apostles, who went on to travel and proselytize, he lived on in the imagination and in literature. Someone in the 2nd century CE created the Coptic Gospel of Judas, a series of dialogues between Judas and Jesus that express 2nd century theological ideas. It paints Judas' actions as directed by Jesus himself, rather than a disgruntled (for whatever reason) apostle turning on his leader.

Matthew 27:5 says he hanged himself. Acts 1:18 says he fell into a field that he bought with the silver and his body burst open. Judas does not get mentioned outside of Acts and the Gospels. The canonical New Testament has nothing else to say about him. Although Judas' end is mentioned in the Bible, not every early Christian writer knew his story, leading some to extend it, which in turn gave later centuries fodder for literature.

Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, writing around 130 CE, relates how Judas, rather than killing himself right after the betrayal:

went about in this world as a great model of impiety. He became so bloated in the flesh that he could not pass through a place that was easily wide enough for a wagon – not even his swollen head could fit. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all; and a doctor could not see his eyes even with an optical device, so deeply sunken they were in the surrounding flesh.

The 12th century Latin Vita Judae ("Life of Judas") creates a biography for him, painting him as a tragic figure with an anecdote that might seem familiar to fans of Greek tragedy:

Before the child is born, his father has a vision that his son will kill him; so when Judas is born, his legs are wounded and he is abandoned outside of Jerusalem. Some shepherds find the baby and he is raised by a woman in a town called Scariot. As a grown man, Judas enters the service of King Herod. When Herod desires fresh fruit for one of his feasts, Judas steals some from a local orchard, and when caught he kills the farmer, not knowing it is his own father. When the townspeople threaten to kill Judas, he finds protection in Herod, who has him married to the murdered farmer’s wife (Judas’s mother, though unknown) to make peace. Judas’s true identity is revealed when his mother sees him naked and recognizes the scars on his legs.

Judas flees and meets Jesus; the rest happens as the Gospels tell it.

So there he is, turned from a demonic betrayer into a villain, but a villain perhaps worthy of pity because of fate and circumstances out of his control. Even more interesting than that, however, is the medieval idea that Judas was not completely bad, and that during his life he performed one or more good deeds. Those good deeds had a softening effect on his post-death existence. Tomorrow I'll tell you how his good deeds allowed people (like a Celtic saint) to meet him and speak to him.

Great and Holy Wednesday

Yesterday's post mentioned how Kassia the Blessed was the only female poet whose verse was used in the Byzantine liturgy. It is recited on Great and Holy Wednesday, the Wednesday before Easter, and commemorates the Bargain of Judas. The story behind it is found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John.

The story in the Gospels is that, on the Wednesday before Passover, Jesus was in the house of Simon the Leper. Before dinner, a woman named Mary anoints Jesus' head and feet with spikenard, an expensive oil derived from a plant in the honeysuckle family. The apostles feel that the oil should have been sold and the money distributed among the poor. The Gospel of John says that Judas wanted to sell the oil and keep the money for himself. It is after this event that Judas decides to go to the Sanhedrin and make a deal that he will deliver Jesus into their hands in exchange for money.

Roman Catholicism calls this day Holy Wednesday in the lead up to Easter. In Ireland it was referred to as Spy (meaning an "ambush") Wednesday. Where does the poetry of Kassia fit in the Byzantine liturgy? Towards the end of matins (a morning prayer service), the Hymn of Kassiani speaks from the viewpoint of the woman, Mary, who washes and anoints Jesus:

O Lord God, the woman who had fallen into many sins, having perceived Thy divinity received the rank of ointment-bearer, offering Thee spices before Thy burial wailing and crying: "Woe is me, for the love of adultery and sin hath given me a dark and lightless night; accept the fountains of my tears O Thou Who drawest the waters of the sea by the clouds incline Thou to the sigh of my heart O Thou Who didst bend the heavens by Thine inapprehensible condescension; I will kiss Thy pure feet and I will wipe them with my tresses. I will kiss Thy feet Whose tread when it fell on the ears of Eve in Paradise dismayed her so that she did hide herself because of fear. Who then shall examine the multitude of my sin and the depth of Thy judgment? Wherefore, O my Saviour and the Deliverer of my soul turn not away from Thy handmaiden O Thou of boundless mercy."

The italicized line is the one supposedly added by the Emperor Theophilos (in an anecdote explained in yesterday's post).

The figure of Judas Iscariot fascinated the Middle Ages. Since he kills himself shortly after betraying Jesus, there are no tales as there are with the other apostles about traveling, converting people, and performing miracles. The Middle Ages did not let him go from their imaginations, however, and his life story was not only expanded, but continued, even to the point where medieval people met him! Let's take a look at what Judas Iscariot meant to medieval legend, starting tomorrow.

Kassia the Poet

Kassia was born to a wealthy family in Constantinople sometime between 805 and 810 CE. By 843 she had founded a convent and was its first abbess. This convent had a connection to the monastery of Theodore of Stoudios, who supported her work and was, like her, in favor of religious icons.

Her "work" was poetry and hymns. She is distinguished as the only woman whose hymns are part of the Byzantine liturgy, and she shares a distinction with Anna Comnena as the only woman of the early Byzantine Middle Ages who composed works under her own name. Her "Hymn of Kassiani" is chanted each year on Great and Holy Wednesday that commemorates the bargain made by Judas.

There is a tradition around this Hymn that, as she was writing it alone in her cell, the Emperor Theophilos rode to see her. Why would this be? The answer to that goes back to the year 830, when they were both very young.

In that year, the unwed Theophilos was presented with a "bride show" arranged by his mother of suitable woman from whom was supposed to pick a wife. His mother, Euphrosyne, had given him a golden apple to present to his choice. With his eye on the beautiful Kassia, he approached her with the apple but made a tactless remark to which she made a reply. The story is recorded by a few writers of that era, and the exchange went like this:

Theophilos: "Ἐκ γυναικὸς τὰ χείρω." (By a woman came bad things.)

Kassia: "Kαὶ ἐκ γυναικὸς τὰ κρείττω." (But out of a woman came better things.)

Theophilos was referring to Eve's transgression in Eden. Kassia's reply was referring to the Virgin Mary. Theophilos did not like this retort, and passed her by, choosing instead Theodora.

Back to the story: the tradition says that Theophilos never forgot the beauty of Kassia and wanted to see her again. She heard the noise of an imperial retinue arriving, and did not want to face the emperor and risk the temptation of breaking her monastic vows. She hid in a closet, and quietly observed Theophilos enter her cell alone. He cried at not finding her, saw what she was writing, and added one line to the Hymn: "those feet whose sound Eve heard at dusk in Paradise and hid herself for fear."

Kassia was in favor of religious icons at a time when Theophilos (and many others) were iconoclasts. Several contemporary historians wrote that she was exiled to Italy during the iconoclasm conflicts and died some time after 867. She was named a saint in the Orthodox Church with a feast day of 7 September. In 2022, her sainthood was embraced by the Episcopal Church.

Now, about Great and Holy Wednesday and the bargain of Judas, I know your mind went immediately to "30 pieces of silver." There's more to it, however, and tomorrow we'll look at legends of Judas in the Middle Ages.

Theophilos and Theodora

In yesterday's post we saw how Emperor Theophilos got his bride, Theodora the Blessed, in a bride show. Afterward, Theophilos' stepmother, Euphrosyne, who helped arrange the bride show (and maybe pre-picked the winner) retired to the Monastery of Gastria, which had been founded by Theoktiste, the mother of Theodora. The new husband and wife went on to have seven children.

Theophilos was an iconoclast, and Theodora an iconodule, which caused them to clash. The Monastery of Gastria supported the use of icons in religious worship, and Theodora would sometime send their daughters to Gastria to visit their step-grandmother. This secret was revealed when the two-year-old daughter Pulcheria mentioned to her father about the "beautiful dolls" kept in the monastery, and how the people would kiss their faces. Theophilos forbade the girls from seeing Euphrosyne ever again.

The marriage lasted 12 years, until Theophilos died of dysentery on 20 January 842. (The illustration, from the Manasses Chronicle, shows him on his death bed.) As his health was failing, he feared that his chosen successor would be supplanted by Theophobos, a general who had married Theophilos' aunt. Theophobos was invited for a stay in the palace at Constantinople. When Theophilos died, his officers had orders to immediately execute Theophobos, removing the potential rival.

This left his youngest child as the heir, with Theodora (and other advisors) named as regent for the two-year-old Michael III. Theodora turned out to be a capable leader in her own right. Although she had several advisors chosen by her husband before his death, coins minted right after his death show her and no advisors on one side, Michael III and eldest daughter Thekla on the other.

Theodora in March 843 at the Council of Constantinople did away with iconoclasm definitively. One step taken was to release the iconodule Methodios I, imprisoned by Theophilos, and make him patriarch of Constantinople to get rid of the iconoclast patriarch John the Grammarian.

When Michael III turned 15 (in 855), he took a mistress. His interests seemed to be in youthful pursuits rather than governance. Theodora arranged a bride show to find him a suitable wife, hoping this would help him settle down. The mistress, Eudokia Ingerina, was allowed to be present, but Theodora disqualified her because she was not a virgin. Michael was forced to marry a wife he did not want, so he decided to overthrow his mother and the regents. He had one advisor killed and proclaimed himself sole ruler on 15 March 856. Theodora did not fight back, retiring from power but living in the palace until Michael sent her and his sisters to Gastria. Our last recorded mention of Theodora was at Michael's funeral; she was buried at Gastria when she died.

Speaking of bride shows, it seems that Theodora might not have been Theophilos' first choice. Tomorrow I'll tell you about "the one that got away."

Michael's Bride Show

I mentioned yesterday that Euphrosyne arranged a "bride show" for her step-son Theophilos (c.813 - 842) in 830 CE. Euphrosyne herself had been pulled out of a convent to marry Theophilos' father, Michael II, who needed her as the daughter of a previous emperor to help add legitimacy to his own reign.

There was no similar candidate immediately available, so Euphrosyne sent people out to the province to gather a collection of beautiful and well-born females. Theophilos was very keen on the whole business, and had it take place in the Triclinium of the Pearl (a new hall he had prepared) in the Great Palace in Constantinople. (The illustration is a 20th century depiction of the event.)

Between 788 and 882, there were five bride shows held in order to find a suitable Byzantine empress. The marriages that resulted were not always happy. Constantine VI divorced his winner and married again, causing controversy. The offspring of Theophilos, Michael III, would simply ignore his bride and keep a mistress. Leo VI "the Wise" went through four disastrous marriages, starting with a bride show. The ultimate efficiency of finding the "right wife" through a bride show is questionable.

A later Byzantine chronicler—much later, but he seemed to have access to a source closer to the event itself—named Symeon Logothete offers details about 830. Euphrosyne gave her step-son a golden apple to hand to the woman he chose, signifying her as his new bride. Symeon tells that Theophilos, while surveying the potential brides, approached a particular beautiful one named Kassia and remarked that evil had come to man through a woman (referencing Eve in the Garden of Eden). Kassia promptly replied that better things had also come to man from a woman (referring to Christ's mother, the Virgin Mary). Theophilos did not like her retort, and passed her by.

Theophilos then went on to choose Theodora, daughter of an army officer. Theodora was known to be devout; after her coronation, she donated 15 pounds of gold to the Patriarch of Constantinople (Antony I at the time) and to the clergy. The couple had seven children, including the future Emperor Michael III. Theophilos took great interest in his daughters as well as his sons. He had coins struck with two of the daughters on each side.

The couple were on opposite sides of an important Byzantine issue. Theophilos was an iconoclast like his father; Theodora was an iconodule, one in favor of religious icons, like Euphrosyne (some think the show was rigged and Euphrosyne picked Theodora to win because of their similar positions). This affected the way they raised their children. Tomorrow I'll delve into their family life.

Because I like to link each day's blog post to the previous and the following, I have to make choices about which direction to take. I'm going to "pre-load" a link, so to speak: after tomorrow, I'll come back to the "one that got away" at the bride show, Theophilos' first pick of Kassia. I really think you should meet her.

The Empress Euphrosyne

Yesterday's post mentioned the desperate and failed attempt of Constantine VI to get a male heir. His legitimate daughter, however, went on to sit on a throne in Constantinople.

Euphrosyne was born c. 790 to Constantine and his first wife, Maria of Amnia. Constantine divorced Maria and sent her and his daughters to a convent so that he could marry his mother's lady-in-waiting, the teenage Theodote. Constantine succumbed to a palace coup arranged by his own mother. Maria never left the convent, but Euphrosyne had a grander life ahead of her. To understand, we have to introduce the man she married.

Michael II (770 - 829) started his career as a soldier, a companion of a man who rose to be emperor himself (in 813), Leo V the Armenian. Michael actually helped Leo overthrow the previous emperor, Michael I Rhangabe. Leo, in an act of ingratitude years later, decided that his friend was too accomplished at managing palace coups, and sentenced Michael to death. Michael therefore managed to arrange a conspiracy and had Leo assassinated at Christmas in 820.

Michael then took the throne, but spent the first few years dealing with revolt of another military commander, Thomas the Slav. Having finally put down the revolt, he decided he had to shore up his reputation as a fit emperor. He had originally married Thekla, the daughter of a general, by whom he had a son. Sadly, Thekla died c.823.

Michael decided that he could enhance his legitimacy as emperor by marrying into the family of a previous emperor. The ideal candidate was Euphrosyne, in her early 30s and completely devoid of any romantic entanglements since she had been raised in a convent. She was brought to court, married to the emperor, and became empress. (They are pictured above from a later German history text.)

They had no children. When Michael II died on 2 October 829 (kidney failure is deemed to be the cause), his son Theophilos was only 16/17, so Euphrosyne aided him in the early years. She arranged a "bride show" (as her grandmother Irene had done for Euphrosyne's father). Michael chose the teenage Theodora the Armenian from the line-up by handing her a golden apple.

With this step-motherly duty done, Euphrosyne decided to return to the convent. She stayed in touch with the doings of the court and her step-son, however. When rumor reached Constantinople that Theophilos had been killed during a campaign in Anatolia, senior officials began to pick a successor without waiting to confirm the rumor. Euphrosyne sent a letter to Theophilos urging him to return at once. He did; the rumor was false. Michael Synkellos (c. 760 – 4 January 846), who later was made a saint, records that while he was imprisoned Euphrosyne offered him food and drink. That is the last we hear of her in any written record.

This is the second time in a few days that we have heard mention of a "bride show." Tomorrow I'll tell you about Michael's bride show, and the one that got away (probably wisely).

Constantine VI, Part 2

As I mentioned yesterday, Constantine VI (771 - c.805) had proven himself a poor excuse for a Byzantine emperor to the military and government. He also got on the wrong side of the religious leaders when dealing with the lack of a male heir.

He had married Maria of Amnia (pictured here), who had been chosen by Constantine's mother, the Empress Irene, in a "bride show." Thirteen candidates were brought before Irene (this was after Irene called off the engagement to Rotrude, daughter of Charlemagne). The emperor and his bride were married in 788, but after six years of marriage they had produced two daughters and no son.

So Constantine took the steps taken by so many others in his position: he divorced his wife, sending her and their two daughters (Euphrosyne and Irene) to a convent on an island. This was bad enough so far as the Church was concerned, but it didn't solve his dynastic problem. For that he decided to marry his mistress, Theodote, who had been a lady-in-waiting to Empress Irene. Theodote was 15 or 16 at the time.

The wedding of an emperor was usually conducted by the patriarch, but Patriarch Tarasios refused to perform the ceremony. Theodote's uncle Plato, a minor official, expressed his disapproval of the relationship, and condemned Tarasios for not speaking out publicly against the emperor's actions. Constantine found a monk named Joseph who would perform the ceremony.

This second marriage created what is known as the Moechian Controversy, from the Greek moicheia, "adultery." Abbot Theodore of Stoudios of the Sakkudion monastery loudly condemned the pair and demanded the excommunication of the emperor and of Joseph. Constantine responded by sending his men to the Sakkudion Monastery, having Theodore flogged, and exiling him and his monks to Thessalonica. Theodote's uncle was imprisoned in Constantinople.

Constantine had lost the support of almost everyone. Irene organized a conspiracy against her son, for which she found many willing supporters to aid her. In August 797 Constantine was deposed, blinded, and confined to a private palace. Theodote went with him. We do not know how long he lived after that. Ironically, Theodote had born him a son, Leo, in 796, but the child lived less than a year. Abbot Theodore mentions in a letter that another son was born sometime after Constantine was deposed.

Maria remained a nun; the last mention of her is c.823. Constantine's attempts to create a dynasty by divorcing her did not bear fruit, but his daughter with Maria, Euphrosyne, did become empress of the Byzantine Empire! Let's look at that story next time.

Constantine VI, Part 1

As I mentioned yesterday, Constantine VI's death was not from natural causes, and if you knew about his life, you might understand. 

Born on 14 January 771, he was named co-emperor with his father, Emperor Leo IV, when he was five years old. Leo died on 8 September 780 of tuberculosis, leaving the nine-year-old Constantine as sole emperor, although under the regency of his mother, Irene of Athens, until 790.

In the ten years of the regency, Irene exerted much control over the Byzantine administration. (She was behind the Second Council of Nicaea, condemning iconoclasm.) In 790, Constantine began making plans to wrest control from Irene—he was coming into his majority, after all—but his plot to do so was reported to Irene by Alexios Mosele, a general of Armenian descent. Irene had her son placed under house arrest. To forestall further problems, she demanded that all heads of the army pledge their loyalty to her. The Armenian troops refused, and Irene sent Alexios to manage them. In a twist, the Armenians declared Alexios their new commander and declared their loyalty to Constantine.

This move, when made public, motivated other troops and cities in Asia Minor to follow suit, declaring their allegiance to Constantine alone and demanding that Irene release her son from house arrest. Constantine, released, placed his mother under house arrest and dismissed all of her retinue and counselors.

Unfortunately, Constantine did not prove to be a wise ruler or smart military strategist. Recent military failures, such as the attempt to restore Adalgis to the Lombard throne, had left the armies eager for a turnaround in their track record, but it wasn't going to happen under Constantine's leadership. The army lost faith in him, and two years after confining his mother to the palace, he released her, declared her "empress," and made her role in government official, hoping that she could help him restore order and regain the respect of the army and citizens. (See above the gold coin struck with both their countenances.)

The desired successes were not forthcoming, however. Fearful that he would be deposed in favor of someone else in the dynasty, he had his uncle blinded. His father, Leo, had four half-brothers whom Constantine considered too close to him blood-wise and therefore potential candidates, so he had their tongues cut out. He also feared that the popular Alexios had plans to usurp the throne, and so had him flogged, tonsured, imprisoned, and eventually blinded.

Speaking of dynasties: he had two daughters by his wife Maria of Amnia, but after six years no son. Since he had lost the loyalty of the military forces, why not take steps to alienate the religious part of the empire by doing something inappropriate regarding his marriage?

But that's tomorrow's tale.

The Byzantines Come to Italy

I outlined yesterday the complicated relationship between the Franks under Charlemagne, the Lombards in Italy, and the Byzantine Empire. The final straw seemed to be the breakdown of plans to betrothe the seven-year-old Emperor Constantine VI to Charlemagne's daughter Rotrude. As a result, the Byzantine Empire wanted to drive the Franks out of Lombardy and restore Adalgis, son of the previous ruler Desiderius, as king.

Adalgis earlier had made contact with Emperor Constantine V. Many Lombards did not submit to Frankish rule, assuming that Adalgis would return and claim the throne. The Byzantine army arrived in southern Italy in late 788, led by Adalgis and a Byzantine administrator named John who had experience leading the army against the Abbasids in 781 when they invaded Asia Minor.

Unfortunately, some Lombards had accepted Charlemagne's overlordship. The prince of Benevento, for instance, Grimoald III, had chosen alliance with the Franks and led part of the combined force of Lombards that met the Byzantine army. Along with Grimoald was Duke Hildeprand of Spoleto, who had originally fought the Franks but had paid homage to Charlemagne 10 years earlier in exchange for the Franks' promise to defend his land from further invasions. A small number of Franks were involved in this army.

The clash between Byzantins and the Franks/Lombards took place at Calabria (the "toe" of the "boot" of Italy). Details are few, though the victory of the Lombards is undisputed. Alcuin of York, in a letter dated a year after the encounter, offers the details that there were 4000 Byzantines killed and 1000 captured, upon which the remaining force fled to the ships. One of those captured was Sisinnios, the brother of Patriarch Tarasios. Adalgis did not get his throne, and in fact disappears from the historical record, although you can see a portrayal of him above from 1664.

Several years later, in 797, Constantine VI sent a strategos ("general") to Charlemagne's seat of power, Aachen, probably to discuss the release of prisoners from the battle. Sisinnios was not released until 798 following negotiations by Empress Irene. By that time, Constantine VI was dead...

...and it wasn't from natural causes. Let's look at the (fairly brief) life of Emperor Constantine VI tomorrow.

Relations with Charlemagne

When the report of the Second Council of Nicaea (in 787 CE) was written up approving the use of icons for religious purposes, it mentioned the firm agreement between the pope in Rome and the emperor of Constantinople. As a document that would be made public to let everyone know the outcome of deliberation, it was going to upset at last one person: a powerful person with strong religious views who felt he deserved the pope's respect, and who had unorthodox connections with the Byzantines.

Before we go on to try to explain the controversy involved, let's explain the map you see here. The orange sections are the Byzantine Empire, which include Rome (and Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica), since the Byzantines had effectively been the guardians of the Roman Empire. The rest of the areas were controlled by Lombards.

Let's try to spell this out. Charlemagne was the king of the Franks. There was a Frankish presence in Lombard-controlled northern Italy (part of Lombardy), having driven out King Desiderius and his son Adalgis in 774. Constantinople wanted to restore Adalgis to the throne, and so they started an expedition to Italy in 788 to try to regain Lombardy from the Franks. This, of course, put them at odds with Charlemagne. The pope wanted an alliance with Charlemagne, as the closest strong ruler and a good person to have on your side. But the pope had just had a major agreement with the Byzantines.

It gets a little more twisted when we find out that Adalgis, hanging out in Pavia after being ousted from Lombardy, hosted the widow and children of Carloman I, Charlemagne's younger brother who had been forced to renounce the throne and go to a monastery. Even more twisted is the fact that Desiderius had been Charlemagne's father-in-law by virtue of his daughter Desiderata's marriage to Charlemagne (who had divorced her in 771).

The proceeds of the Council did not mention Charlemagne at all as being important to the adoption of the new policy among the Christian world. This was a public embarrassment for the pope, and things got worse when the Byzantines came to Italy to free Lombardy.

One of the other reasons for the attempt to drive the ranks out of Lombardy was the breakdown of negotiations for a royal marriage: Charlemagne's daughter Rotrude to Constantine VI, the seven-year-old emperor still under the regency of Empress Irene.

That's a lot to digest. Let's look at the actual fighting tomorrow and see who won.

Second Council of Nicaea, Part 2

The first part of the Second Council of Nicaea—in which I discuss the agenda of the first three sessions—is here.

The fourth session was to get to the heart of the debate, with Biblical support for icons. Exodus 25:19 discussed the making of the Ark of the Covenant, decorated with cherubs. Genesis 31:34 was about Laban searching for the important stolen idols taken from his house. Some Church Fathers wrote about images positively.

During the fifth session, a selection of writings was shared to prove that iconoclasm originated from pagans, Jews, and Muslims, and therefore was antithetical to Christianity.

The sixth session had to be held to reverse the decisions of a prior council. Constantine V had been against icons, and held the Council of Hieria (Hieria was a suburb of Constantinople) to eliminate icons for good. Held from February to March 754, 338 bishops gathered to decide that it was impossible to portray God the Father, and that a portrayal of Jesus would only show the image of the man and could not also show that he was divine; it was therefore inadequate, erroneous, and disrespectful. If icons were to be restored, then the Council of Hieria needed to be repudiated.

Finally, the seventh session (13 October 787) created their official stance:

As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone—for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented.

These images should be venerated for what they represent, but not adored in and of themselves.

The proceeds were written up by Patriarch Tarasios to be carried by the papal legates back to Pope Adrian I. The document acknowledged the unity between the pope and the Byzantine emperor regarding icons. Unfortunately, the document left someone out, someone significant to Western Europe. It could have become a problem for the pope. I'll explain that next time.

Second Council of Nicaea, Part 1

The Second Council of Nicaea (24 September - 13 October 787) was the last of seven ecumenical councils that took place with participation from both the Western Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. It took place on the site of the first council, Nicaea (now called İznik, Bursa, in Turkey). Its purpose was to debate the use of idols and images, but covered some other topics.

The religious use of icons had been suppressed in the Eastern Orthodox Church during the reign of Leo III (717 - 741). I talked about it in 2013. His son, Constantine V, also enforced the ban on images at the Council of Hieria, which Constantine referred to as the seventh ecumenical council. That designation was overturned, however, at the currently discussed council.

Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople was appointed by the Empress Irene—he had been a senator, and secretary to Irene—and wished to restore the use of icons. He and Irene requested the council with the support of Pope Adrian I, who agreed to participate. They tried meeting initially in 786 at a church in Constantinople, but bishops who were opposed to icons sent soldiers to break up the gathering.

Irene then sent the guards on a mission against Arabs attacking in Asia Minor to get them out of the way. The Council was assembled again, this time in Nicaea. Tarasios disguised two monks as emissaries of the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem to give more legitimacy to the Council. For those bishops opposing, he warned them that they could keep their positions if they did not make any public statements against the decisions of the Council. Once these conditions were established, the Council assembled with over 300 bishops or their proxies, with Tarasios presiding.

There were seven sessions in all. The first dealt with the subject of whether dissenting bishops would be allowed to remain in office. I've already mentioned how Tarasios dealt with this. The second session read a letter from Pope Adrian, translated into Greek, explaining his approval of images. The letter was a little condemnatory on Byzantine attitudes toward papal authority, but the residing clergy finally agreed to submit to the pope.

In the third session, the bona fides of the eastern representatives (Antioch and Jerusalem, etc.) were examined. It was decided that they were, in fact, not authentic. This did not cause the disbandment or illegitimacy of the Council, however.

The remaining three sessions started to tackle (finally) the question of icons, with pros and cons presented. We will finish up with those tomorrow.

Pope Benedict II

To continue yesterday's post and talk about "re-orienting" wayward bishops with "wrong" ideas, we should first look at the Bishop of Rome, Benedict. By Bishop of Rome (elected by the clergy) I mean he was the pope, of course.

He was born Benedict, son of John. This was before it was common for popes to take regnal names. The first pope to do so was Mercurius, who was elected pope in 533 and felt it was improper for a Christian pope to be named for a Roman god, so he took the name John II. Many popes had names that they considered already suitable. Benedict had been involved in the courts of Popes Agatho and Leo II, and was known for his knowledge of Scriptures from an early age.

His confirmation as pope at the time had to come from the emperor, and the emperor at the time for the Roman Empire (what there was of it) was Constantine IV. It took a year for the request to go to Constantinople and for the reply to come back to Rome. He tried to persuade Constantine that they could save time by allowing the Exarch in Ravenna (the Byzantine emperor's local administrator) to ratify papal elections. Constantine was interested in the idea, but request for papal confirmations continued to go to Constantinople.

One of Pope Benedict's acts that connects to recent posts here was his confirmation of Pope Agatho's decree that Wilfrid should be returned to the See of York as archbishop.

Then, after the Sixth Ecumenical Council to determine once and for all the official stand on Monothelitism, bishops who adhered to Monothelitism were sent to Rome for re-education. Benedict did not want to simply condemn Macarius, who had been the Patriarch of Antioch: he wanted to convince him that Monothelitism was wrong and Macarius should relent. According to the notes of the Second Council of Nicaea, which addressed how to manage heretical bishops, Benedict spent 30 days trying to persuade Macarius.

A motive for not simply leaving Macarius deposed has been suggested: his successor at Antioch had just died, and Benedict might have wanted to reinstate Macarius. Macarius was not about to change his stance. He had told the emperor in the Sixth Ecumenical Council that he would rather be cut to pieces and thrown into the sea than admit the doctrine of two wills in Jesus.

So far as we know, Benedict's attempts failed. Macarius dropped out of the historical record. As for Benedict, he was pope from 26 June 684 to 8 May 685.

The Second Council of Nicaea was also called the Seventh General Council; it was the last of seven general councils between both the Western Roman and Eastern Byzantine Churches. We'll look at its subjects tomorrow.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council

The Sixth Ecumenical Council was called to settle a matter that had bothered the Byzantine Church for several years. The issue was Monothelitism, the idea that Jesus only had a single nature to him, either human or divine. There were lots of clergy who felt that he had a dual nature.

The Emperor Constans II had been so annoyed (or uninterested) in the debate over the two that he published a decree that the issue should not even be discussed. His son, Constantine IV, decided that the issue needed resolution, but that the emperor was not qualified to make that decision (and suffer the wrath of the losing side), so he wrote to the pope in Rome to find a way to solve the problem. Pope Agatho took up the challenge with several synods in the west that came up with an answer, which was then taken to Constantinople for the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which was also known as the Third Council of Constantinople, as depicted above in a painting in a church in Bucharest).

The imperial palace hosted 37 bishops on 7 November 680, with the patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople. Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem were represented by proxy. A few priests and bishops from Rome were present, to represent the conclusion of the West that Jesus had dual natures. Constantine was present for many of the sessions, participating in the discussions; he was present at the closing session on 16 September 681, at which 151 bishops were present.

A letter from Pope Agatho was read, stating that Jesus was both human and divine; this had been commonly accepted for centuries. The majority accepted this. There were champions for Monothelitism, however. One of them, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, claimed that Monothelitism had been proposed by ecumenical councils in the past and by statements from popes, but he was challenged to present that evidence. A letter from Pope Honorius to an earlier patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius I, seemed to express support for Monothelitism. The papal legates had no problem declaring that Honorius was wrong and needed to be condemned in the light of the current stance on Monothelitism.

During the months of debate, one proponent of Monothelitism attempted to prove the rightness of it (and of his faith in it) by declaring that he could in fact bring the dead back to life, proving that God was on his side in the debate. A corpse was found, and the priest whispered prayers into its ears, but the result one would expect took place. The corpse remained dead.

Macarius was deposed by the council; he and four others who would not relent on their belief were sent to Rome for "further instruction." Tomorrow, I'll tell you about the man who took on the responsibility of bringing Macarius back "into the fold" so to speak.

Byzantine Economy

Constantine IV had other problems besides potential usurpers and Umayyads. Because his father, Constans II, had moved the administrative seat from Constantinople to Sicily, a large part of the treasury was in the middle of the Mediterranean, not in Constantinople, where Constantine was still living. When Mizizios tried to take control of the empire in Sicily, he had possession of a large part of the empire's funding.

Not only that, but the Arab raids mentioned yesterday also meant the loss to Constantinople of some important mines that were the source of precious metals like gold and silver. This created an economic crisis which needed addressing. Constantine re-issued a copper coin that had been created by Justinian, whose reign just over a century earlier (527 - 565) was looked on by many as a golden age. Constantine took further steps to re-organize the economy to the way it was in Justinian's time. Shortly after, Constantine bore a son whom he named Justinian II, further creating the symbolism of a return to a more glorious period in Byzantine history.

Counter-attacks in Syria and Egypt that reversed some of the progress of the Arab invasions further enhance the new emperor's reputation. The death of Umayyad Caliph Muawiyah I in 680, the architect of the Arab attempt to conquer Constantinople and its territories not long before, put an end to fears of Arabs for a long time.

He then took on a challenge his father had avoided: dealing with the Monothelitism controversy. Appealed to by the patriarchs and priests, he claimed it was not his decision, but that the church must rule on whether Jesus had one nature/energy/will or two. He wrote to Pope Donus in Rome to suggest an ecumenical council to decide the matter. By the time the letter reached Rome, Donus had died, but Pope Agatho agreed to the need and ordered synods throughout the West to confirm the West's belief in the matter. This culminated in a synod in Rome, after which Agatho sent emissaries to Constantinople.

Constantine called for the Third Council of Constantinople, which was also the Sixth Ecumenical Council (depicted above in the 12th century chronicle by Constantine Manasses). The emissaries from the pope met with the Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Byzantine bishops, and the matter was settled.

Constantine had two brothers, Heraclius and Tiberius. They had also been crowned co-emperors by their father, but Constantine decided that, if he were to die, he would rather be succeeded by his son. He had both brothers mutilated by slitting their noses. This physical deformity made them ineligible to rule. When he died on 10 July 685, Justinian II succeeded him at the age of 16.

But let's not summarize the Sixth Ecumenical Council in just a sentence or two. There's a little more to the story, including an attempt to bring someone back from the dead. Come back next time and I'll tell you.

Constantine IV

Constantine's father, Constans II, died in 668 while in Sicily, and immediately some Sicilian bishops wanted someone else to take over, even though Constans had made his son co-emperor years before (in 654, when Constantine was four years old), marking his son as the rightful successor. The bishops did so because they considered Constans a heretic for his tacit support of Monothelitism. The bishops' choice—the Armenian Mizizios, a general in the Byzantine army—was not the choice of Pope Vitalian.

Reportedly, Mizizios did not want the position, but he stayed at the head of this rebellion for seven months until Constantine led an expedition to Sicily to suppress the rebels, killing Mizizios and the man who killed Constans. On the other hand, the Liber Pontificalis ("Book of Popes") recorded that it was the Exarchate of Africa (a Byzantine administrative district) that suppressed the revolt and sent Mizizios' head to Constantinople. (Years later, Mizizios' son John also rebelled in Sicily, and we are told Constantine went to Sicily to stop him; this revolt lasted seven months. It is possible that early historical records have conflated these two rebellions.)

With this slightly rocky start, the 18-year-old emperor went on to reign for 17 years. As well as rebellion to the west, he had to focus on danger from the east. There was a desire by an Umayyad Caliph, Muawiyah I, to overthrow the emperor in Constantinople. Carthage and Sicily were attacked in 667. Fleets captured or attacked other coastal cities for the next two years, and by the start of 668, Constantinople was besieged by both a land army and a fleet.

The countryside was ravaged, but the city itself was merely blockaded, not attacked. It became a waiting game. By June of 668, the Arab armies encamped around Constantinople were running out of food and malnourished. Famine followed, and an outbreak of smallpox caused the leaders to lift the siege and retreat to the town Cyzicus across the water. They continued to raid outlying Byzantine territory until they returned to Syria in 669/70.

Although he had done nothing to oppose the invaders except keep the city together, Constantine's popularity rose after the unsuccessful siege. He had other problems, however, including an economic crisis, which we'll talk about tomorrow.

Constans II

Constans continued to do things that were uncommon for other Byzantine Emperors. He was the first Byzantine Emperor to visit Rome (in 663) since the fall of the Western Empire in 476. Pope Vitalian greeted him warmly (since 476, the emperor in Constantinople was also the emperor of the entire Roman Empire, west as well as east, and so the pope's secular lord). Constans, however, did not respect Rome, in that he took treasures from several buildings, including the Pantheon, to be sent back to Constantinople (even though he was making Sicily his new power base).

Three years later, he declared that the pope did not have authority over the Archbishop of Ravenna, since Ravenna was the city of Constans' representative, the Exarch. The Exarchate of Ravenna was an administrative district that owed allegiance to Constantinople. It was the Exarch Theodore I Calliopas in 652 who arrested Pope Martin on Constans' orders, dragging him from the Lateran and putting him on a ship to Constantinople for trial, for daring to get involved in Constans' decree about Monothelitism.

Although much of what I have reported about Constans seems self-serving, he did undertake some larger issues. Concerned about delays of traffic on the Silk Road, he sent emissaries to China to discuss with Emperor Taizong of Tang China how to better manage the tribal conflicts in the Turkic Khaganate that were causing disruption. Chinese histories talk of the meetings in which Constans II sent gifts such as red and green gems (see the illustration).

Very few Byzantine emperors seemed to die of old age, however, and at the age of 37 Constans was assassinated by his chamberlain while taking a bath. His 18-year-old son became Emperor Constantine IV. Constantine was willing to manage the issue of monothelitism, and had better luck than his father against the encroaching Arabs. I'll tell you about him tomorrow, as well as his first challenge, a usurper pushed into place by the Sicilian bishops.

Monothelitism

The Western Roman Empire and Eastern Byzantine Empire had many differences over the centuries. Some of the biggest differences were religious. One such was the Filioque controversy: did the Holy Spirit proceed from the father, or the Father and the Son? Another was the question of Monothelitism.

Monothelitism ("one will") had come up in the 600s in opposition to dyothelitism ("dual wills"), the doctrine that Jesus had two "wills": a divine aspect and a human aspect. Monothelitism was the opinion that he had one will, a single "energy."

The debates over this had started generations earlier. The Church had determined that Jesus was the Son of God, but exactly how a human could also be God was still being argued. The First Council of Nicaea had decreed that Jesus was fully divine, and any other thought was heretical (this was to combat Arianism; this is the council where Nicholas of Myra reportedly slapped Arius). By declaring that God's Son became a man, they opened the door to discussion (and debate) over how two different natures could combine in a human being.

The debates could be fierce, and fights broke out over them. Emperor Heraclius (610 - 641) suggested monothelitism in order to establish one unifying doctrine. Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius I wrote to Pope Honorius, arguing that the idea of two wills in Jesus could lead to the argument that his human and divine wills were opposed to each other. (Consider the scene in Gethsemane when Jesus asks if fate can be taken away.) Sergius wanted Honorius to agree that divisive arguments should be suppressed. Honorius went along at first, but arguments arose that monothelitism was inconsistent with orthodoxy.

When Constans II came to power in 641, the debate in the Eastern Mediterranean was still raging. Constans tried to suppress it by decree, which did not endear him to either faction. This decree, called the Type of Constans, made it illegal to discuss whether Christ had one or two natures or energies and the matter was to be forgotten. He was 17 years old at the time, and did not care much about religion.

When Pope Martin I wrote to him, telling him to condemn both monothelitism and his own decree, Constans had Martin arrested and brought to Constantinople for trial. Martin was exiled to Crimea. When Adrian of Canterbury—a monk and an acquaintance of Constans—was traveling through Gaul, he was detained by Frankish authorities (Ebroin, Mayor of the Palace) on suspicion of being there to create disruption. The only disruption I can imagine of which he might be accused is regarding monothelitism, which the Roman Catholic West opposed.

When Constans died, his son, Constantine IV, was asked to rule on the subject, but he refused, saying it should be determined by church synods. Several were held over the following years, and monothelitism was declared erroneous.

Before we leave Constans, however, I want to talk about the last years of his reign that did not have anything to do with religion, including his connections with China. See you next time.

Constans Moves Westward

Yesterday's post mentioned Ebroin, Mayor of the Palace under King Clotaire III, distrusting Adrian of Canterbury because of Adrian's connection to Byzantine Emperor Constans II. Ebroin worried that Adrian was in Gaul to create disruption on behalf of Constans. This raises the question: what would a ruler in Gaul fear from a ruler at the far eastern end of the Mediterranean, in Constantinople?

That was precisely the problem: Constans was no longer in Constantinople; he had moved his seat of power to Syracuse on the island of Sicily, much closer to Gaul. And he brought his military.

Constans II (630 - 668) was not particularly well-liked. He was crowned co-emperor at the age of 10 in 641 and became sole ruler after his brother Heraclonas was deposed on suspicion that he had poisoned their father to gain the throne. During his time, the Byzantines withdrew from Egypt in the face of Muslim approaches. He also refused to take sides in a ferocious religious debate over the nature of Jesus. He even decreed in 648 that there should be no discussion on the matter, which did not defuse the situation as he had hoped, nor did it endear him to either side.

The Rashidun Caliphate was moving across the eastern Mediterranean: Armenia, Cappadocia, Crete, Rhodes. Constans fought back, leading a fleet in the Battle of the Masts, in which 500 Byzantine ships were destroyed and Constans almost died. He traded clothes with a sailor to disguise himself and escape.

Besides Muslims, he was fearful of his younger brother Theodosius, whom he suspected of wanting to take over the throne. He pushed Theodosius into taking Holy Orders, but then had him killed in 660.

He finally decided to get involved in religious matters after all, because Pope Martin I had condemned Constans publicly for halting the debate. Constans actually had Martin arrested by the Exarch of Ravenna (a Byzantine representative) and brought to Constantinople where he was condemned and exiled to a Greek town on the Crimean peninsula, where he remained until his death.

After having inspired his subjects to hatred of his poor leadership, he decided to abandon Constantinople for Sicily, taking the military and attacking the Lombards who were threatening Rome from the north. Despite his treatment of Pope Martin, current Pope Vitalian was friendly with him. (After all, there was no emperor in Rome, so they had to look to Constantinople for the highest secular authority, and Vitalian knew what had happened to Martin.)

So, as far as Ebroin in Gaul was concerned, Constans' military aspirations and his proximity might have been a threat. To be fair, however, would a Benedictine like Adrian be the likeliest person sent by Constans to be a disruptive element? There was another aspect of Byzantine culture that Ebroin might have feared a Benedictine could be part of: the nature of Jesus that was such a hot topic between the East and West. Tomorrow I'll discuss the hot topic of Monothelitism.

Adrian of Canterbury

Adrian (also called Hadrian) was born in North Africa sometime prior to 637; Bede referred to him as a Berber. He became a well-known teacher and a Benedictine monk. He knew Byzantine Emperor Constans II, who introduced Adrian to Pope Vitalian, who made Adrian his advisor.

While Adrian was abbot of a monastery near Naples, Pope Vitalian twice offered him to go to England and become Archbishop of Canterbury. In each case he declined, suggesting others: first a nearby monk named Andrew, who also declined, then Theodore of Tarsus, who accepted the role. Adrian had been through Gaul before, and Vitalian that Adrian would accompany Theodore to England.

The journey took them awhile. They left Rome on 27 May 668 and went by ship to Marseille, then to meet with Archbishop John of Arles while applying for passports of safe conduct through Gaul. These had to come from Ebroin, the Mayor of the Palace under Clotaire III. By the time they got to the north of France it was winter, and since travel would be more difficult, they waited until spring. Adrian went to stay with Bishop Emmon of Sens, then Bishop Faro of Meaux. (Theodore stayed with Bishop Agilbert of Paris.)

When King Ecgberht of Kent sent a message to Theodore in the spring of 669 to hurry up, he went to England, arriving in May. Adrian was detained on the orders of Ebroin, who suspected that Adrian might be an emissary of the Byzantine emperor, Constans II, intending to disrupt the Franks.

Adrian eventually made it to England and became abbot of Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's in Canterbury, administering the place for 39 years. Adrian and Theodore together made Canterbury a center for learning, teaching Greek as well as Latin and several subjects that were later part of the Trivium and Quadrivium of medieval universities. Writing later, Bede praised the two for their love of teaching and the spread of learning.

After Adrian died in 709, miracles were reported at his tomb.

Why did Ebroin suspect Adrian of being an agent of Emperor Constans? What could the Byzantine emperor do that would threaten Gaul? Let's look at that tomorrow.

Archbishop Theodore

Theodore of Tarsus likely never thought that a Greek who in his youth had to flee Persian and Muslim invasions would one day wind up Archbishop of Canterbury, but here he was, on his way to England after being consecrated by Pope Vitalian on the recommendation of a friend, Adrian of Canterbury.

The position had been vacant for at least four years after the death of Deusdedit and the unexpected death of his appointed successor, Wighard. There was much work to be done upon his arrival on 27 May 669. Many sees had been vacant for years, with no archbishop to appoint new bishops. The Synod of Whitby in 664 had decided to choose certain Roman Christian practices (like the calculation of the date of Easter) over Celtic Christian practices, but these had not been widely adopted.

His first step was to fill the vacant sees with new bishops. Once these positions were filled, he called the Synod of Hertford in 673. This was intended to promote reforms concerning the date of Easter, episcopal authority, prohibitions on consanguinity in marriage, the role of itinerant monks, and others. He also declared that there should be an annual synod, although there are no records that they rook place until many years later.

He also dealt with the enormous diocese of Northumbria, breaking it up into smaller territories that each needed their own bishop. This of course raised the ire of Wilfrid, whom Theodore ultimately saw fit to depose and expel in 678.

Theodore and Adrian also established a school at Canterbury that taught Greek as well as Latin. Some of their teachings can be found in the Leiden Glossary. According to Bede,

They attracted a large number of students, into whose minds they poured the waters of wholesome knowledge day by day. In addition to instructing them in the Holy Scriptures, they also taught their pupils poetry, astronomy, and the calculation of the church calendar ... Never had there been such happy times as these since the English settled Britain.

A golden age of Anglo-Saxon scholarship came out of this school, as did Benedictine abbots to spread their knowledge around the island.

Theodore held the position of archbishop for 22 years, dying in 690 at the age of 88. He was buried at St. Peter's Church, now called St. Augustine's Abbey. He is venerated as a saint with a feast day on 19 September.

But what of Adrian of Canterbury, the abbot who refused the archbishopric twice and suggested to the pope that it go to another? Let's learn more about him tomorrow.

Wighard, the Almost Archbishop

When Deusdedit was Archbishop of Canterbury (from 655 to 664), he had in his household a Saxon priest named Wighard. The date of Deusdedit's death is recorded by Bede; twice in fact. Unfortunately, in each of those instances the description of when he died differs significantly. Whatever the case, however, there is no confusion that Wighard was elected as his successor, and sent to Rome to be consecrated and accept the pallium from Pope Vitalian. Sending him to Rome instead of requesting the pallium to be delivered would be a stronger symbol of papal approval.

There may be no confusion about Wighard being the successor, but exactly how he was chosen is, again, up for debate because Bede tells two different stories. Bede's Historia Abbatum (a history of the abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow) stated that he was chosen by King Ecgberht of Kent. Fifteen years later, Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum ("Ecclesiastical History of the English People") stated that he was chosen by Ecgberht and King Oswiu of Northumbria and Bernicia with the consent of all the clergy.

Some historians prefer the second story, because they think Oswiu would have involved himself in the choice in order to avoid the chance of the headstrong and influential Wilfrid being selected. Bede mentions a letter from Pope Vitalian to Oswiu, indicating that a messenger from Oswiu accompanied Wighard. The letter also apologizes to Oswiu that Vitalian had not yet found a replacement for Wighard.

A replacement for Wighard? As it turns out, Wighard died in Rome some time between 664 and 667. Plague was a possible cause, bubonic or otherwise. It is assumed that Wighard never actually got consecrated, and so was not officially an Archbishop of Canterbury, although he often gets mentioned in lists of that position.

Wighard is sufficiently obscure so far as artists go that there is no representation of him to post here as an illustration. I have instead chosen to share a screen shot of a novel written about his death. The author creates a mystery about his death and sets his heroine, a Celtic nun, to solve the murder. Since we know so little about him and his death, the event is ripe for creative elaboration.

So where did Vitalian find a candidate for the position? I told this story almost exactly 10 years ago! I'll quote you the relevant paragraph here:

Bede tells the story of Adrian of Canterbury in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum ["Ecclesiastical history of the English people"]. Adrian was born in North Africa—we don't know when, but he died about 710—and was abbot of a monastery when Pope Vitalian ... offered him the position of Archbishop of Canterbury on the death of Archbishop Deusdedit in 664. Adrian turned down the offer, and suggested a nearby monk, who also declined. When the pope asked Adrian a second time, Adrian introduced to the pope another friend who happened to be in Rome, Theodore of Tarsus.

Which brings us back to Theodore of Tarsus. The Adrian mentioned here had been to England, and Vitalian asked him to go with Theodore to help show the way. They set out for England in 668, about four years after the death of the last Archbishop of Canterbury. Tomorrow we'll see what impact on the English Church Theodore had.

Theodore of Tarsus

This blog has covered many men and women from the past who, at a young age, decided to take on a religious lifestyle, whether in a monastery or as a hermit or a parish priest. Some of them came to greater prominence as leaders of orders or monasteries, usually in their home countries. Theodore of Tarsus probably experienced a more radical shift from his origin to his ultimate career than anyone.

He was born in 602CE in Tarsus, a town (now part of Turkey) on the Cydnus (now Berdan) River on the far eastern coast of the Mediterranean. He was of Greek descent, and grew up speaking Greek, the language most common in Tarsus. The Byzantine Empire at the time was frequently warring with the Persian Sassanid Empire, and Tarsus suffered for it. Persian forces captured Tarsus in 613-614; later evidence suggests that Theodore was familiar with Persian culture. He probably studied at Antioch, several days' journey south.

The Persian occupation at the eastern end of the Mediterranean was still amenable to Greeks, but in 637 Tarsus and the surrounding area were conquered by Muslims. Theodore went to Constantinople, where he studied astronomy, astrology, medicine, Roman civil law, Greek rhetoric and philosophy, and how to calculate the date of Easter.

At some point in his 50s, he took the long trip to Rome and stayed with a community of monks, during which time he added Latin language and literature to his repertoire. When the See of Canterbury fell unexpectedly vacant in 667, Theodore was chosen to become the new archbishop by his new friend, Pope Vitalian. Theodore was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury in Rome on 26 March 668, and arrived in on 27 May 669.

Before we get to his career in England, however, I want to talk briefly about his election and his predecessor. For Theodore, it was an example of being in the right place at the right time. See you tomorrow.

Saint Wilfrid, Part Two

Wilfrid's knowledge of Roman Christianity and his opposition to Celtic Christianity made him the ideal candidate to attend the Synod of Whitby in 664 to determine which form should take precedence in England, especially regarding the date on which Easter is celebrated each year.

His arguments won, and Ahlfrith, son of King Oswiu of Bernicia, appointed Wilfrid Bishop of Northumbria. Wilfrid felt that there were no validly consecrated bishops in England who could consecrate him, so he traveled to Gaul—where earlier he had spent several formative years—to be made bishop. He was consecrated by Bishop Agilbert of Paris, who had attended Whitby. (Agilbert did not speak the local language, and so Wilfrid was his interpreter.) While he was out of England, his patron Ahlfrith led a revolt against Oswiu. When Bishop Wilfrid returned to Northumbria, he found his appointment there had been canceled and another man put in his place, so he went to stay at the monastery at Ripon.

In 668, Theodore of Tarsus became Archbishop of Canterbury. Theodore re-appointed Wilfrid as bishop of Northumbria. Wilfrid spent the next nine years building churches and founding monasteries. Wilfrid also wanted to make changes to the liturgy nd establish some religious reforms, but so did Theodore of Tarsus, and the two did not always agree. When Wilfrid had a dispute with Ecgfrith, King of Northumbria (another son of Oswiu), the archbishop took the opportunity to step in, establish his reforms over Wilfrid's, and also break up the large diocese into smaller divisions that would be easier to administer with three new bishops. Ecgfrith expelled Wilfrid, who traveled to Rome to get the pope's support. Pope Agatho (577 – 10 January 681) determined that the division of the large diocese was acceptable, but Wilfrid should be allowed to name the new bishops. Ecgfrith ignored the pope's wishes and imprisoned Wilfrid when he returned to Northumbria, because Wilfrid convinced Ecgfrith's wife, Æthelthryth, that she should practice saintly celibacy.

Later, exiled from Northumbria, Wilfrid went to the Kingdom of Sussex where he converted them to Christianity. Theodore, pleased, made peace with Wilfrid and persuaded the new king of Northumbria, Aldfrith (also a son of Oswiu), to take Wilfrid back. This only lasted until 691, when Aldfrith found reason to expel Wilfrid again. Aldfrith, like his brother, did not support Bishop Wilfrid's pope-granted right to name bishops. Moreover, Aldfrith still embraced Celtic Christianity. Wilfrid was banished and went to Mercia.

He enjoyed a good relationship with King Æthelred of Mercia, who made him bishop of the Middle Angles. A papal-initiated council was held in South Yorkshire in 702 to determine Wilfrid's rights and authority. The assembled English prelates decided that Wilfrid should have all his titles and possessions (parishes) confiscated. Wilfrid appealed to the pope, and regained the northern monasteries of Ripon and Hexham (the Wilfrid Chapel at Hexham Abbey is shown above). He died in 709/710. Although he created controversy for many, including his fellow religious, he was revered as a saint.

It is past time to give Theodore of Tarsus some attention, the Greek who fled Persia as a child and wound up in the top position of the English Church. See you tomorrow.