New regalia. No Knights.

I don't know who thought this was a good idea--but it's not.

Our parish concluded our beautiful 40 Hours devotion with a glorious Mass last night. It was a celebration of Christ incarnate in the Holy Eucharist and as such, it included profound reverence, gorgeous music, and zealous preaching—the perfect antidote to the secularized Catholic culture which has largely abandoned the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

One aspect that was missing from this Mass as compared to the recent past, however, was the Knights of Columbus. In past years, we would have a dozen or so 4th degree Knights in full regalia present. This year, we had four men in tuxes only, holding the canopy over the Blessed Sacrament during the procession after Mass. Where have all our knights gone?

Well, as it happens, the KoC board of directors decided that as of July 1, 2019, the "old" regalia of the Knights of Columbus is to be discarded. Only the new regalia — which looks like something designed by Hugo Chavez, the deceased socialist dictator of Venezuela — may be worn. As a result, the representation of the Knights in full 4th degree regalia at our 40 Hours went from about 8-12 each year...

...to zero.

Back in 2017, when this controversy first erupted, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson explained the rationale for this change in an email. He said, in part:

"The new uniform is part of a comprehensive and necessary effort to keep our Order relevant and attractive to men, particularly younger men."

If causing the Knights to basically disappear from our parish ceremonies was part of this comprehensive strategy to make the Order "relevant and attractive to men, particularly younger men"...well, great job guys.

I would argue that this type of truly foolish misstep is what commonly happens when you have a group of older guys deciding what they think the younger guys might like. To my brother knight, Mr. Anderson, I would humbly suggest that as long as you are living, no decision is forever and clinging to a bad one in the face of overwhelming evidence only compounds the error. The time has come to rescind this unpopular diktat and reinstate the old regalia. Or at least give our brothers permanent permission to wear it.

Or, you can keep enforcing this bad decision until the membership goes the
way of the Sisters of Mercy or Sisters of Saint Joseph.

As for myself, a 4th Degree Knight who never joined the color guard but looked forward to doing so when the responsibilities of middle age subsided, I have no desire to dress like a South American socialist dictator. Perhaps at some point I'll inherit someone's "old" regalia which I can keep in a closet until it may be worn again without disobeying the mandates of the guys at the top.

"Don John of Austria is going to the war." ~ October 7, feast of Our Lady of the Rosary

Click here to share this image on Facebook.

October 7 is the Feast of our Lady of the Rosary, formerly the feast of Our Lady of Victory. The date marks the 448th anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, AD 1571.

The Battle of Lepanto was a miraculous victory in which the combined ships of the Christian Holy League under Don John of Austria, defeated the fleet of the Ottoman Empire in a decisive battle that blocked Turkish imperial aggression from the western Mediterranean. Six years before in AD 1565, the Knights of Saint John had gained a similarly miraculous victory over the Turks at the Siege of Malta which prevented the invaders from establishing a base from which to attack Italy. With the triumph of Lepanto, Turkish sea-power would never again threaten western Christendom on such a scale and with such high hopes of success.

Prior to the Battle of Lepanto, Pope Pius V had enjoined all of Christendom (sadly fractured by the Protestant revolution) to pray the Rosary for the success of campaign. The sailors of Don John also recited the Rosary prior to the battle. The resulting victory was attributed completely to the intercession of our Lady.

The quote on this image is taken from G. K. Chesterton's poem, Lepanto, which reads in part:

But a noise is in the mountains, in the mountains, and I know
The voice that shook our palaces--four hundred years ago:
It is he that saith not 'Kismet'; it is he that knows not Fate;
It is Richard, it is Raymond, it is Godfrey at the gate!
It is he whose loss is laughter when he counts the wager worth,
Put down your feet upon him, that our peace be on the earth."
For he heard drums groaning and he heard guns jar,
(Don John of Austria is going to the war.)
Sudden and still--hurrah!
Bolt from Iberia!
Don John of Austria
Is gone by Alcalar."

Read this entire work here at the American Chesterton Society website.

Or listen to a nice reading of the poem here done by the folks at Unam Sanctam Catholicam.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for the Church which is in distress!

"You Urge Me to Make a New Work from the Old" ~ September 30, Feast of St. Jerome

Saint Jerome instructs Saint Paula and Saint Eustochium in this 16th century
painting by Francisco de Zurbarán.

For this date in the year AD 420, the Chronicon of Prosper of Aquitaine (written in the mid-5th century) contains the following notice:

Hieronimus presbyter moritur anno aetatis suae XCI pridie kalendas Octobris.

That is, in English: “The priest Jerome died at the age of 91 on 30 September.”

His full name was Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, but he is known to later ages simply as Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church. Along with Augustine of Hippo, Jerome was one of the most voluminous scholars of antiquity whose works have come down to us. In his own book entitled: De Viris Illustribus, Jerome provides the following staggering summary of his written works:

I, JEROME, son of Eusebius, of the city of Strido, which is on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia and was overthrown by the Goths, up to the present year, that is, the fourteenth of the Emperor Theodosius, have written the following: Life of Paul the monk, one book of Letters to different persons, an Exhortation to Heliodorus, Controversy of Luciferianus and Orthodoxus, Chronicle of universal history, 28 homilies of Origen on Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which I translated from Greek into Latin, On the Seraphim, On Osanna, On the prudent and the prodigal sons, On three questions of the ancient law, Homilies on the Song of Songs two, Against Helvidius, On the perpetual virginity of Mary, To Eustochius, On maintaining virginity, one book of Epistles to Marcella, a consolatory letter to Paula On the death of a daughter, three books of Commentaries on the epistle of Paul to the Galatians, likewise three books of Commentaries on the epistle to the Ephesians, On the epistle to Titus one book, On the epistle to Philemon one, Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, one book of Hebrew questions on Genesis, one book On places in Judea, one book of Hebrew names, Didymus on the Holy Spirit, which I translated into Latin one book, 39 homilies on Luke, On Psalms 10 to 16, seven books, On the captive Monk, The Life of the blessed Hilarion. I translated the New Testament from the Greek, and the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and how many Letters I have written To Paula and Eustochius I do not know, for I write daily. I wrote moreover, two books of Explanations on Micah, one book On Nahum, two books On Habakkuk, one On Zephaniah, one On Haggai, and many others On the prophets, which are not yet finished, and which I am still at work upon. {Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, Chapter CXXXV]

Jerome’s writings are filled with anecdotes of historical import. One such work is his famous letter to Eustochium mentioned above which he wrote to a young woman who had recently taken a vow of perpetual virginity. Also called De Custodia Virginitatis (On Maintaining Virginity) and written in AD 384, this lengthy missive is filled with allusions to the type of moral behavior prevalent in Rome of late antiquity, not withholding his condemnation from Christians in high places who behaved hypocritically. Here is one example from the letter:

Today you may see women cramming their wardrobes with dresses, changing their gowns from day to day, and for all that unable to vanquish the moths. Now and then one more scrupulous wears out a single dress; yet, while she appears in rags, her boxes are full. Parchments are dyed purple, gold is melted into lettering, manuscripts are decked with jewels, while Christ lies at the door naked and dying. When they hold out a hand to the needy they sound a trumpet; when they invite to a love-feast they engage a crier. I lately saw the noblest lady in Rome — I suppress her name, for I am no satirist — with a band of eunuchs before her in the basilica of the blessed Peter. She was giving money to the poor, a coin apiece; and this with her own hand, that she might be accounted more religious. Hereupon a by no means uncommon incident occurred. An old woman, full of years and rags, ran forward to get a second coin, but when her turn came she received not a penny but a blow hard enough to draw blood from her guilty veins. [De Custodia Virginitatis, Chapter 32]

Jerome here foreshadows the tone of Saint John Chrysostom who would write only a little later. Also in the same letter, Jerome admits that the course Eustochium had chosen for herself will be difficult and fraught with peril. But he encourages her to endure by holding fast to Christ:

Love finds nothing hard; no task is difficult to the eager. Think of all that Jacob bore for Rachel, the wife who had been promised to him. Jacob, the Scripture says, served seven years for Rachel. And they seemed unto him but a few days for the love he had to her. [Genesis 29:20] Afterwards he himself tells us what he had to undergo. In the day the drought consumed me and the frost by night. [Genesis 31:40] So we must love Christ and always seek His embraces. Then everything difficult will seem easy; all things long we shall account short… [Jerome, De Custodia Virginitatis, Chapter 40]

But perhaps the most famous work of Saint Jerome was his Latin translation of Sacred Scripture. This task was enjoined upon him by Pope Damasus in AD 384 and not completed until over twenty years later. This monumental labor would result in the creation of a work which would come to be known in later years as the Latin Vulgate—the standard version of Sacred Scripture in the Latin language. In his preface on the Gospels, Jerome himself explains why he undertook this tremendous task which would cause his name to be well remembered even 1,600 years after his death:

To the blessed Pope Damasus, from Jerome,

You urge me to make a new work from the old, and that I might sit as a kind of judge over the versions of Scripture dispersed throughout the whole world, and that I might resolve which among such vary, and which of these they may be which truly agree with the Greek. Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world , to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invite judging by all of them. Is there indeed any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly raise his voice, calling me a forger, proclaiming me now to be a sacrilegious man, that I might dare to add, to change, or to correct anything in the old books?

Against such infamy I am consoled by two causes: that it is you, who are the highest priest, who so orders, and truth is not to be what might vary, as even now I am vindicated by the witness of slanderers. If indeed faith is administered by the Latin version, they might respond by which, for they are nearly as many as the books! If, however, truth is to be a seeking among many, why do we not now return to the Greek originals to correct those mistakes which either through faulty translators were set forth, or through confident but unskilled were wrongly revised, or through sleeping scribes either were added or were changed? Certainly, I do not discuss the Old Testament, which came from the Seventy Elders in the Greek language, changing in three steps until it arrived with us Nor do I seek what Aquila, or what Symmachus may think, or why Theodotion may walk the middle of the road between old and new. This may be the true translation which the Apostles have approved. I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea. This (Testament) certainly differs in our language, and is led in the way of different streams; it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead. [Jerome, Preface to the Gospels]

The complete works of Saint Jerome are a vast treasure-trove of information on life and Christian belief in the late 4th and early 5th centuries AD. If you dare to dip your toe into this ocean of late antique data, helpfully translated into English, click the link below [Note, this link will open up a PDF in your browser sourced from documentacatholicaomnia.eu]:

The Principal Works of Saint Jerome.

"Let Us Have No Mock-Emperors!" ~ The Battle of Mursa Major, AD 351

The portly profile of Magnentius may be seen on this
bronze follis from AD 352.

On this date in AD 351, the armies of the Western usurper Magnus Magnentius suffered a major defeat at the battle of Mursa Major in the Roman province of Pannonia—present day Croatia. Magnentius had decided to risk battle with the superior forces of Constantius II, the sole remaining son of Constantine the Great. This bloody conflict—which pitted tens of thousands of veteran Roman soldiers against each other—would have a profound negative impact on manpower resources of the Empire in the years ahead.

After the death of Constantine the Great in AD 337, the Roman Empire was divided among his three sons: Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II. After a few years, this status quo proved untenable. As the elder brother, Constantine II felt that his share of the empire was insufficient, and began making demands on the youngest, Constans, who ruled Italy, Africa and Illyricum. For three years, Constans appeared to concede to his domineering brother’s requests. However, when Constantine continued to press his demands for territory in Africa, Constans struck. He arranged an ambush and had Constantine assassinated. The territories of Constantine II were then absorbed into the dominions of Constans.

Still a young man (probably about 17 when he disposed of his older brother) and now possessed of the entire West, Constans proved an energetic defender of the frontiers and a good ruler—at least at first. By AD 350, however, his disgusting personal vices and tendency to shower favors upon his barbarian guardsmen who committed crimes without check, blackened his name across much of his domain. The early 6th century historian, Zosimus, explains what happened next and how Magnentius rose to contend for the imperial power:

Constans, having thus removed his brother, exercised every species of cruelty toward his subjects, exceeding the most intolerable tyranny. He purchased some well favored Barbarians, and had others with him as hostages, to whom he gave liberty to harrass his subjects as they pleased, in order to gratify his vicious disposition. In this manner he reduced all the nations that were subject to him to extreme misery.

This gave uneasiness to the court guards, who perceiving that he was much addicted to hunting, placed themselves under the conduct of Marcellinus prefect of the treasury, and Magnentius who commanded the Joviani and Herculiani (two legions so termed), and formed a plot against him in the following manner.

Marcellinus reported that he meant to keep the birth-day of his sons, and invited many of the superior officers to a feast. Amongst the rest Magnentius rose from table and left the room. He presently returned, and as it were in a drama stood before them clothed in an imperial robe. Upon this all the guests saluted him with the title of king, and the inhabitants of Augustodunum, where it was done, concurred in the same sentiment. This transaction being rumored abroad, the country people flocked into the city, while at the same time, a party of Illyrian cavalry who came to supply the Celtic legions, joined themselves with those that were concerned in the enterprize. When the officers of the army were met together, and heard the leaders of the conspiracy proclaim their new emperor, they scarcely knew the meaning of it. They all, however, joined in the acclamation, and saluted Magnentius with the appellation of Augustus.

When this became known to Constans, he endeavored to escape to a small town called Helena, which lies near the Pyrenean mountains. He was taken by Gaison, who was sent with some other select persons for that purpose, and being destitute of all aid, was killed. [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

Magnentius soon found other western usurpers undercutting his authority. Vetranio was proclaimed emperor in Illyricum at the request of Constantia, daughter of Constantine the Great and sister of the slain Constans. At Rome, Nepotianus, the nephew of Constans and his brothers, raised a rebellion with a large band of gladiators. Magnentius soon quashed Nepotianus and opened negotiations with Vetranio while Constantius II was bogged down in a dangerous war with Persia on the eastern frontier.

This situation endured for a year and it seemed likely that Magnentius and Vetranio would be recognized as co-Augusti along with Constantius II. The son of Constantine, however, had other ideas and made a bold move, perhaps prompted by a miraculous vision of a cross in Jerusalem. Zosimus continues:

Meantime Constantius advanced from the east against Magnentius, but deemed it best first to win over Vetranio to his interest, as it was difficult to oppose two rebels at once. On the other hand, Magnentius used great endeavors to make Vetranio his friend, and thus to put an end to the war against Constantius. Both therefore sent agents to Vetranio, who chose to adopt the friendship of Constantius rather than that of Magnentius. The ambassadors of Magnentius returned without effecting their purpose.

Constantius desired that both armies might join, to undertake the war against Magnentius. To which proposal Vetranio readily assented, and they seated themselves on a throne provided for the occasion. Constantius, speaking first according to his dignity, endeavored to remind the soldiers of his father's munificence, and of the oaths they had taken to he true to his children. He then told them, that they ought not to suffer Magnentius to go unpunished, who had murdered the son of Constantine, with whom they had fought many battles, and had been generously remunerated. When the soldiers heard this, having been previously corrupted by valuable presents, they cried out, that they would have no mock emperors, and immediately began to strip the purple from Vetranio, and pulled him from the throne. [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

Reverse side of the above coin.
VOT V, MULT X on the shield refers
to vows taken by Magnentius to ensure
a five and ten year reign.

Constantius II showed mercy to the more aged Vetranio and allowed him to retire to an estate in Bithynia to live out the rest of his life.

This action set the stage for the great battle of Mursa Major. Constantius II marched his army into Pannonia and sought to bring Magnentius to battle. The cagey usurper withdrew, preferring to attempt to ambush the superior forces of Constantius. At least one of these ambushes achieved the desired result and weakened a part of Constantius’s army. This success convinced Magnentius to muster all his troops and attempt a decisive battle.

Alarmed, Constantius sent one of his bravest and most trusted officers, a man named Philip, into Magnentius's camp, ostensibly to treat for peace. In reality, Philip’s purpose was to determine the state of Magnentius’s army and to undermine their morale. This Philip did. As luck would have it, when Philip arrived at Magnentius’s camp, the whole army was drawn up in ranks. Philip immediately addressed himself to them in the following terms, according to the account of Zosimus:

[Philip began by telling the soldiers] that it did not become them, who were Roman subjects, to make war on Romans, especially as the emperor was the son of Constantine, with whom they had erected many trophies over the Barbarians. That Magnentius, moreover, ought to remember Constantine, and the kindness he had shewn to him and to his parents. That it was Constantine who had protected him when in imminent danger, and exalted him to the highest dignities. Having made these observations, he requested Magnentius to depart from Italy, and to be content with the government of the nations beyond the Alps. [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

This speech nearly caused the army of Magnentius to mutiny. In alarm, Magnentius addressed them, saying that he desired peace with Constantius and would confer with his officers to determine how best to bring this about. The next day, he addressed his army as follows:

He reminded them of the injuries they received from Constans when furious and intoxicated. That the soldiers could not sustain the enormities with which he oppressed the state contrary to all law and justice, but had inclined to what was most for the public advantage, and that after they had freed the cities from so savage a monster, they had compelled him to become their emperor. [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

Almost before Magnentius had concluded his speech, his army rose up and repented of their earlier near-rebellion. They declared themselves ready to fight immediately. With the hopes for a peaceful resolution waning, the two forces attempted to position themselves advantageously, retreating, feinting and advancing to choose a field of battle that best suited their particular strengths. From the account in Zosimus, it seems that Magnentius attempted to position his force between Constantius II and his base of operations in the east, taking cities along Constantinus's lines of communication. He was stymied, however, at the city of Mursa in Pannonia which held out against him. It was there that Constantius caught up with Magnentius and a full-scale battle ensued. Zosimus describes the unique lead-up to the conflict:

When he therefore heard that Constantius was near Mursa, [Magnentius] invented another stratagem to this effect. There was before the city a stadium or place of exercise, formerly used by those that fought for prizes, which was covered over with wood. In this he concealed four companies of Celtae, with orders when Constantius should come up, and they were ready to engage before the city, to attack the enemy by surprise, and to surround them and kill every man. This being discovered by those [friendly to Constantius] that were on the walls, Constantius immediately sent thither Scolidoas and Manadus, two of his officers. They first selected the choicest of their men, both heavy armed and archers, and taking them along with themselves, fastened up all the doors of the stadium. Having then possessed themselves of the upper steps loading into the Stadium, and inclosed the soldiers that were within on all sides, they threw darts at them. And observing some of them with their shields placed over their heads attempting to force open the doors, they fell upon them and did not cease throwing darts or cutting at them with their swords until they had killed them all. This project of Magnentius being thus frustrated, the armies met and engaged in the plain before Mursa, where such a battle was fought as had not occurred before in the course of this war, and great numbers fell on both sides...

At the beginning of the battle, it appears that some of Magnentius's men, led by a Frankish tribune named Silvanus, defected to the side of Constantius [Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman Antiquities, Book XV]. While this loss was injurious to his cause, Magnentius and his supporters fought on stoutly: 

...[The army] of Magnentius became more furious, nor would they cease fighting though night came on, but even their officers continued performing what belonged to common soldiers, and encouraging their men to oppose the enemy with vigor. On the other side likewise, the officers of Constantius called to mind the ancient bravery and renown of the Romans. Thus the battle continued until it was completely dark, nor did even darkness cause them to relax ; but they wounded each other with spears, swords or whatever was in their reach, so that neither night nor any other obstacle which usually causes some respite in war, could put an end to the slaughter, as if they thought it the greatest felicity that could happen to them to perish beside each other. Amongst the officers, that shewed great bravery in this battle and fell in it were Arcadius, commander of the legion called Abulci, and Menelaus, who commanded the Armenian horse archers. What is said of Menelaus is worthy of being related. He could take three darts at once, and with one shot hit three men, by which manner of shooting he killed a great, number of the enemy, and was himself almost the cause of their flight. He was killed by Romulus, who was the first in command in the army of Magnentius, and Romulus himself fell at the same time. He was wounded by a dart which Menelaus had thrown at him, yet continued fighting after he had received the wound, until he had killed the person who had given it to him.

Constantius now gaining the victory, by the army of Magnentius taking to flight, a terrible slaughter ensued. Magnentius, therefore being deprived of all hope, and apprehensive lest the remnant of his army should deliver him to Constantius, deemed it best to retire from Pannonia, and to enter Italy... [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

Magnentius mananged to survive another year before being cornered and slain at the battle of Mons Seleucus in southern Gaul in AD 353.

It is likely that Constantius felt that the Battle of Mursa Major, though a victory, was a horrible waste. Clearly, from the description above, many of the bravest imperial soldiers fell fighting each other, with some modern estimates going as high as 54,000 slain between both sides. Zosimus, writing with the advantage of historical hindsight, puts the thought in Constantius's mind that: "as this was a civil war, victory itself would be scarcely an advantage to him, now the Romans being so much weakened, as to be totally unable to resist the barbarians who attacked them on every side." 

After Magnentius's final defeat, Constantius II would go on to rule the Empire as the sole Augustus until AD 361 when his nephew, Julian the Apostate, rose against him. As an interesting side note, the wife of Magnentius—a woman named Justina—would go on to become the wife of the emperor Valentinian I, mother of Valentinian II, and become better known to history as the Arian persecutor of Saint Ambrose of Milan.

"Ambrose for Bishop!" ~ The elevation by popular acclamation of Aurelius Ambrosius, AD 374

Click here to share on FaceBook.

Aurelius Ambrosius is one of the towering figures of Late Antiquity. A voluminous writer and homilist, and a spiritual father to other great saints including Augustine of Hippo, Ambrose was deeply involved in the theological and political controversies of his day. He is most famous, perhaps, for blocking the entrance to the cathedral of Milan so that Theodosius the Great might not enter before repenting of a grave sin as depicted in the image at right. It is no coincidence that this scene is shown on the cover of a new edition of the Vita Sancti Ambrosii that has just been published. Entitled in English The Life of Saint Ambrose, this ancient biography was written by Paulinus, a deacon of Milan, and was translated into English in 1928 by Sr. Mary Kaniecka.

This work is an important for three reasons. First, Paulinus was Saint Ambrose’s secretary and was therefore an eye-witness to much of what he reports. For those events which he didn’t witness himself, Paulinus makes it clear that he consulted with others who were close to Ambrose, including his sister, Saint Marcellina. Second, many of the anecdotes related in this Vita may be corroborated in the surviving letters of Saint Ambrose, the writings of Saint Augustine, or the 5th century ecclesiastical histories of Socrates and Sozomen. And third, Paulinus’s work contains details about Ambrose’s life which recorded nowhere else.

One of the most important and fascinating anecdotes in Paulinus’s Vita is the tale of how Ambrose came to be appointed bishop of Milan. Given his pedigree and his state in life at the time, he seemed an unlikely candidate for this position. While still a young man, Ambrose served as a lawyer in the court of the Praetorian Prefect of the West, who was at that time an illustrious man named Petronius Probus. Paulinus tells us that Ambrose spoke so brilliantly before Probus that the Prefect took him on as an advisor. Sometime later, Ambrose was advanced to become governor of the provinces of Liguria and Aemilia and took his office in Milan.

While he was serving in that capacity, Auxentius, the bishop of Milan, died. As Auxentius was an Arian, there was tremendous turmoil in the Milanese church as to who his successor should be. The factions, Arian and Catholic, gathered in the church and debated the question with tempers running hot. Fearing a riot, Ambrose proceeded to the scene to prevent any outbreak of violence. I’ll let Paulinus tell the rest of the story:

Click for more info.

And there while he was addressing the populace, a voice of a child is said to have suddenly cried out among the people: “Ambrose bishop!” At the sound of this voice the mouths of all the people were changed, all crying: “Ambrose bishop!” Thus those who disagreed most violently before, because both the Arians and the Catholics wished the other party to be defeated and a bishop of their own to be appointed, suddenly insisted on this one man with miraculous and incredible harmony.

When [Ambrose] noticed this, leaving the church, he had a tribunal prepared for himself—naturally about to become a bishop he mounted higher things. Then contrary to his custom he ordered tortures to be applied to certain persons. Although he was doing this, the people nevertheless kept shouting: “Your sin be upon us” … knowing that he was a catechumen, with the voice of faith assured him the forgiveness of all sins through the grace of baptism.

Then returning home disturbed, he wished to declare himself a philosopher. But he was to be a true philosopher of Christ, because despising worldly pomp he was about to follow the footsteps of the Fisherman, who united the people to Christ not by the ornaments of expression but by artless speech and by the doctrine of the true faith—being sent without wallet, without staff, they converted even the philosophers themselves.

When he was prevented from doing this, he had common women come publicly to him for this purpose only—that when they were seen, the purpose of the people might be changed. But the people kept shouting more and more: “Your sin be upon us.”

But when he saw that he could not carry out his resolution, he prepared himself for flight, leaving the city at midnight. Since he intended to proceed to Ticinum, in the morning he was found at the gate of the city of Milan which is called Roman. For God, Who was preparing a bulwark for his Catholic Church against its enemies and erecting a tower of David against the face of Damascus, that is, the faithlessness of the heretics, prevented his flight. After he was found and while he was being guarded by the people, a relation was sent to the most kind emperor then Valentinian, who heard with greatest joy that the judges sent out by him were sought for the episcopacy. Probus the Prefect also rejoiced because his word was being fulfilled in Ambrose, for he had said to him when he was giving him a commission on setting out—as is the custom—“Go, act not as judge but as bishop.”

And so while the relation was pending he again prepared for flight and hid himself for some time on the estate of a certain Honorable Leontius. But when the answer was made to the relation, he was betrayed by the same Leontius. For the lieutenant of the Prætorian Prefect had received orders that he should insist on carrying out the matter, and since he wished to fulfill what he had been enjoined upon him, having published and edict he warned all, saying that if they wished to look to themselves and their welfare, they should give up the man. 

And so when being handed over and brought to Milan, he recognized the will of God toward him and that he could not resist longer, he demanded that he should not be baptized save by a Catholic bishop, for he carefully guarded against the heresy of the Arians. And so on being baptized he is said to have fulfilled all the ecclesiastical offices and on the eighth day was consecrated bishop with the greatest favor and joy of all.

Thus Aurelius Ambrosius, secular official, governor of Liguria, unbaptized catechumen, and profoundly unwilling to serve, became the Bishop of Milan by popular acclamation. Later, he would be recognized as a confidant of emperors, admonisher of usurpers, discoverer of Christian antiquities, miracle-worker, hymnodist, theologian, saint, confessor and Doctor of the Church. His was truly an amazing life and one worth reading about.

"I am receiving the reward for my deeds" ~ The Miserable Reign of Pope Vigilius, AD 537-555

A 17th century engraving of Pope Vigilius. 

Dark political machinations occur. Huge sums of money change hands. The secular power intrudes upon the domain of the Church, creating a situation whereby the reigning Pope is deposed and another is set up in his place. The deposed Pope is silenced, made a monk and sent into exile. The new Pope is secretly beholden to the secular powers who afforded him his seat. They now expect to see their temporal and ecclesiastical goals supported and advanced by the authority of the Papal office. Indeed, they are willing to coerce the Holy Father if he shows any reticence —and they’ve got a lot of dirt on him.

All of the above has indeed come to pass.

Of course, it came to pass in the 6th century AD.

In the above tale, the deposed Pontiff is Pope Saint Silverius. Born the son of another Pope (Saint Hormisdas), Silverius attained the papal throne in AD 536 following the death of Pope Agapetus who was on a mission in Constantinople when he perished. Silverius’s election was due in large part to the support of the Gothic King of Italy, Theodahad. All this occurred during a tumultuous time when the resurgent Roman Empire under Justinian was attempting to topple the Gothic monarchy and restore Italy to the empire. Shortly after, the feckless Theodahad was killed by his Gothic subjects and the more warlike Vitiges took the throne of Italy in his place. Having to contend with the invasion of Italy by Justinian’s skillful general, Belisarius, the Arian Vitiges left Pope Silverius to rule the Catholic Church in peace.

Thanks in no small part to the good will of Pope Silverius, Belisarius was able to capture Rome from the Goths in AD 537, ending over 60 years of Gothic rule. At about the same time, however, another player arrived on the scene in Italy. This was Vigilius, son of a noble Roman family, who had spent several years as Pope Agapetus’s representative in Constantinople. There, Vigilius had come into contact with the Empress Theodora who had strong sympathies toward the Monophysites.

Monophysitism is the heretical belief that Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the orthodox belief that Christ has two natures (human and divine) joined in a hypostatic union. This argument had been the cause of various schisms since the Council of Chalcedon in AD 450, as well as numerous attempts by religious and political authorities to reconcile the two sides using both the velvet glove and the mailed fist.

When Belisarius invaded Italy in AD 536, Pope Agapetus himself sojourned to Constantinople in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty between the Goths and the Romans. While there, he discovered that the Patriarch of Constantinople, Anthemius, was a Monophysite heretic and famously deposed him before Justinian and Theodora. Appalled, Justinian demanded that Agapetus rescind his deposition and threatened the Pope with banishment. To this, Agapetus replied: “With eager longing have I come to gaze upon the most Christian emperor, Justinian. In his place I find a Diocletian, whose threats, however, terrify me not.” [Liber Pontificalis, LIX. Agapetus]

At this bold public display of papal authority, Justinian quailed and the deposition of Anthemius stood. But Agapetus perished in Constantinople shortly afterwards, and with the Roman cathedra vacant, the Augusta Theodora sensed a golden opportunity. In his 6th century work known as the Breviarium, the north African archdeacon Liberatus describes what happened next:

Augusta summoned Vigilius, deacon of Agapetus, and asked him secretly to promise her that if he were made pope, he would annul the synod of Chalcedon, where the dual nature of Christ had been maintained, and would write to Theodosius, Anthemius and Severus and in his letters approve their faith, and she offered to give him an order to Belisarius to make him pope and to bestow on him 700 pounds of gold. So Vigilius gladly gave his promise, desiring the bishopric and the gold, and after making his pledge, went to Rome.[Liberatus, Breviarium, 22 – See Liber Pontificalis, LX. Silverius, footnote 1] 

Having hurried back to Rome, Vigilius bided his time until the military situation stabilized. Once it became clear that Belisarius held the city firmly and that the besieging Gothic army was not able to dislodge him, a conspiracy was hatched. Secret letters were revealed, purporting to be from Silverius to King Vitiges, offering to let the Goths into the city surreptitiously during the night. Pope Silverius protested his innocence, but he was accused of conspiring with the Goths by Belisarius’s own wife, Antonina—herself an agent of Theodora. The Liber Pontificalis describes the scene as follows:

Click for more info.

Silverius went alone with Vigilius into the [Pincian Palace] and Antonina, the patrician, was lying upon a couch and Belisarius, the patrician, was sitting at her feet. When Antonina saw him, she said: “Tell us, Lord Pope Silverius, what we have done to you and to the Romans that you should wish to betray us into the hands of the Goths?”

While she was yet speaking John, the subdeacon of the first district, took the pallium from his neck and carried it into an inner chamber and stripped him of his vestments and put on him a monk’s robe and led him into hiding. [Liber Pontificalis, LX. Silverius]

This scene, as well as the entire reign of Silverius, his exile, death and the beginning of the reign of Vigilius are portrayed in detail in the third book of my Belisarius series, Rome the Eternal. I tried hard to stick to the history, given how fascinating the story is.

Immediately thereafter, to no one’s surprise at all, Vigilius was elected Pope. His first act was to send the deposed Silverius into exile at Patara, a city in the east. Given the chaotic situation in Rome and the power of Belisarius and Antonina, few among the clergy or the laity protested his actions or his irregular election. Later, when some friends of Silverius were able to plead his case before Justinian, the emperor took pity and ordered a trial for the deposed Pope in Rome. As a result, Silverius was brought back to Italy, but upon landing, he was seized by Vigilius’s henchmen and exiled to Ponza, a desolate island in the Tuscan sea, where he soon died of starvation.

Click for more info.

At this point, Theodora felt that she had achieved a great victory and happily prepared to receive the spoils. According to the Liber Pontificalis, she wrote to Vigilius, saying: “Come fulfill for us what you promised of your own free will concerning our father Anthemius and restore him to his office.”

But if the Augusta expected Vigilius to simply comply, she was in for a surprise. Now safely ensconced in his office far distant from Constantinople, Vigilius gave a most unexpected reply, as recorded in the Liber Pontificalis: “Far be this from me, Lady Augusta. I spoke beforetime wrongly and foolishly. Now I do assuredly refuse to restore a man who is a heretic and under the anathema. Although unworthy, I am the vicar of the blessed Peter, the apostle, as were my predecessors, the most holy Agapetus and Silverius, who condemned him.” [Liber Pontificalis, LXI: Vigilius]

Upon receiving this audacious response, Theodora must have been furious. Seeing that her pawn had gone rogue, the empress began looking for reasons to drag him back to Constantinople. And reasons, like dragon’s teeth sown in the ground, soon erupted everywhere. Vigilius was not popular in Rome as the clergy and the laity seemed to hold a silent grudge against him for his awful treatment of Silverius. Thus, they were more than happy to provide fodder for scandal. One rumor claimed that Vigilius had struck a notary with such force that the man died. Another said that he had ordered the murder of the husband of his niece, Vigilia.

With these accusations in hand, Theodora ordered Vigilius to be seized by her agents and put aboard a ship for Constantinople. As the ship sailed down the Tiber, the Roman people threw sticks and stones after it, crying out: “Your hunger go with you! Your pestilence go with you! You have done evil to the Romans; may you find evil where you go!” [Liber Pontificalis, LXI: Vigilius]

Arriving in Constantinople some months later, Vigilius was greeted by the emperor with a kiss. But the good feelings would not endure. For two years, the imperial court browbeat the Roman Pontiff, attempting to make him compromise on matters of doctrine in an attempt to placate the Monophysite sect. Specifically, Vigilius was asked to condemn a document called The Three Chapters which was particularly offensive to the Monophysites. However, the bishops of the West viewed such an act as the prelude to nullifying the Council of Chalcedon, the true goal the Monophysites had in mind.

Thus, if Vigilius condemned The Three Chapters, the Churches of the West would anathematize him as a heretic. If he did not condemn it, the Emperor and Empress—his one time patrons—would be wroth. As a result, Vigilius walked a tightrope trying desperately to appease the imperial couple while not resorting to concessions that would be seen as heretical in the West.

It is likely during this time that the partisans of Theodora used the scandalous accusations mentioned above as leverage to make Vigilius yield on points of doctrine, threatening to reveal all unless the Pope conceded to their will. But either through sheer obstinance or thanks to a nascent terror at offending God in this way, Vigilius refused to yield, saying to the Emperor and Empress: “Do with me as you will. I am receiving the reward for my deeds.”

Finally, in exasperation, one of the members of court struck Vigilius and flung the scandalous accusations in his face: “Murderer, do you not know to whom you speak? Do you not know that you slew Pope Silverius and killed the son of a widow woman with kicks and blows?” [Liber Pontificalis, LXI: Vigilius]

In terror, Vigilius fled to sanctuary in the church of Saint Peter in Constantinople. There he remained some time while the officers of the imperial court attempted to cajole him to negotiate on the doctrinal questions which the emperor wanted settled. When Vigilius refused to budge from his place of refuge, Justinian lost patience and ordered him removed by force. The imperial officers arrived and attempted to drag Vigilius out, grabbing him by his hair, beard and feet as he clung to the altar. His grip was so tight, however, that the altar itself collapsed and the imperial officers fled.

A fresco of the Second Council of Constantinople from the
Great Lavra of Mount Athos. Pope Vigilius may not be the
figure shown bound and chained in the lower left corner,
but that would be an apt representation of his treatment
during the council.

Vigilius would eventually emerge from sanctuary and into the hands of Justinian. At this point, the sources are contradictory, but the Liber Pontificalis claims that he was held in prison and members of his clergy were sent to toil in the mines. By AD 553, Justinian had prepared an ecumenical council to deal with the matter. He had carefully stacked the deck, however, with bishops from the east whom he was sure would support his position. Realizing this, Vigilius refused to attend the council, which would come to be known as the Second Council of Constantinople. With Vigilius absent, the bishops of the council proceeded to anathematize the Three Chapters as well as their authors.

For a few months more, Vigilius held to his position while serving time in an island exile. Then, finally, worn out and sick from a painful illness, Vigilius capitulated and accepted the acts of the Council. Once he did so, Justinian allowed him to return to Rome. But the Pope never made it. He died in Sicily while on his way home less than a year after knuckling under to Imperial pressure.

While the man he disgracefully deposed--Silverius--became venerated as a saint, Pope Vigilius never did. He remains to this day one of the few early Popes who did not attain sainthood.

For a detailed treatment of this miserable episode in Church history, check out this article entitled “Church and State: The Reign of Justinian” in The American Catholic Quarterly, Volume 37, pages 266-285.

Ironically, Justinian’s victory did little to heal the schism between the orthodox and the Monophysites who yet remained in bitter separation. It did succeed in further alienating the Western Church from the East as the bishops in Italy and Africa viewed the entire affair as sordid and heavily tainted with worldly politics, blackmail and underhanded intrigue.

How this situation relates to the present state of Holy Mother Church and her position vis a vis the dominant political forces in the world today, I leave for the reader to determine as best he can.

"Proceed to Rome and desolate that city." ~ The Sack of Rome by Alaric, August 24, AD 410

Alaric escorts the Christian treasures of Rome to safety at Saint Peter's Basilica
during the Gothic sack of AD 410. [Click to enlarge].

The sack of Rome, the Eternal City, by Alaric and his Goths occurred on this date, August 24, in anno Domini 410. This catastrophic event, caused as much by the inept diplomacy of the Romans as by the intrepidity of Alaric, was a major turning-point in history that shook the Roman Empire to its very core. Indeed, this event was such a profound shock that it inspired Augustine of Hippo to write his greatest and most influential work, The City of God, as a response. Writing later in a work called Retractiones, Augustine records the event and the immediate reaction to it, saying:

Rome, in an invasion of the Goths advancing under their king Alaric, was overthrown by their disastrous attack. The worshipers of false gods and of many gods, to whom we colloquially refer as pagans, tried to blame this on the Christian religion and began to blaspheme the true God with more bitterness and more severity than usual.” (Augustine, Retractiones, Chapter LXIX]

So shattering was this event that few Roman historians of the time seemed to want to record it in their works. Of those who did, such as Olympiodorus of Thebes, only fragmentary and derivative passages have survived antiquity. Even Jordanes, in his 6th century work On the Origin and Deeds of the Goths, passes over Alaric’s exploit in a cursory way without elaboration.

One ancient source that covered the sack in some detail was Hermias Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History. Perhaps drawing on the lost history of Olympiodorus, Sozomen provides the following account of the lead-up to the sack, explaining how the foolish decisions of the emperor Honorius and his court at Ravenna offended Alaric and drove him to lay siege to the magnificent ancient capital, Rome:

The Western Empire fell a prey to disorders, because many tyrants arose. After the death of Stilicho, Alaric, the leader of the Goths, sent an embassy to Honorius to treat of peace; but without avail. He advanced to Rome, and laid siege to it; and by posting a large army of barbarians on the banks of the Tiber, he effectually prevented the transmission of all provisions into the city from Portus. After the siege had lasted some time, and fearful ravages had been made in the city by famine and pestilence, many of the slaves, and most of the barbarians by race within the walls, deserted to Alaric. [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book IX, Chapter 6]

At this time, the first indications of religious strife within the city were made manifest as the pagans among the nobility felt that an appeal to their gods might be effective at warding off the Gothic horde. Sozomen explains:

Click for more info.

Those among the senators who still adhered to pagan superstition, proposed to offer sacrifices in the Capitol and the other temples; and certain Tuscans, who were summoned by the prefect of the city, promised to drive out the barbarians with thunder and lightning; they boasted of having performed a similar exploit at Larnia, a city of Tuscany, which Alaric had passed by for Rome, and had not taken. The event, however, proved that no advantage could be derived from these persons for the city. All persons of good sense were aware that the calamities which this siege entailed upon the Romans were indications of Divine wrath sent to chastise them for their luxury, their debauchery, and their manifold acts of injustice towards each other, as well as towards strangers. [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book IX, Chapter 6]

These “persons of good sense” were no doubt the Christians in the city who feared that Alaric had been sent by God as an avenger for the blasphemies against Christ committed in Rome. Another ecclesiastical historian of the same period, Socrates Scholasticus, records an incident which emphasizes this point:

It is said that as he was advancing towards Rome, a pious monk exhorted him not to delight in the perpetuation of such atrocities, and no longer to rejoice in slaughter and blood. To whom Alaric replied, 'I am not going on in this course of my own will; but there is a something that irresistibly impels me daily, saying, 'Proceed to Rome, and desolate that city.' [Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book VII, Chapter 10]

At the behest of Pope Innocent I and the emperor Honorius, both of whom were in Ravenna at the time, Alaric raised the first siege of Rome and hastened to Ariminum to open negotiations with high hopes that he would be given an exalted rank and honors. But Honorius and his courtiers, misunderstanding their military situation, offered him only money and provisions and were inflexible on all other points. Alaric soon became frustrated with their dithering. Returning to Rome, he renewed the siege of the city and raised up Attalus, the prefect of the city, as a puppet emperor and rival to Honorius.

With Attalus as additional leverage, Alaric tried again to negotiate with Honorius. But while these negotiations were dragging on, a terrible famine struck Rome because the grain supply from Africa had been stopped by officers loyal to Honorius. Attalus proved completely unable to cope with this situation, and was at loggerheads with Alaric over what to do next. As a result, Alaric agreed to strip Attalus of his position in exchange for pledges from Honorius that peace negotiations would continue in earnest.

While talks were still in progress, however, an attack was carried out on Alaric by a rash warlord named Saros, himself Goth in the employ of Honorius. Only supported by 300 men, this attack failed in its intent, but started a chain-reaction with disastrous results. Alaric immediately broke off negotiations and departed with his whole army from the vicinity of Ravenna, heading south. Sozomen picks up the thread:

Alaric retraced his steps, and returned to Rome, and took it by treachery. He permitted each of his followers to seize as much of the wealth of the Romans as he was able, and to plunder all the houses; but from respect towards the Apostle Peter, he commanded that the large and very spacious church erected around his tomb should be an asylum. This was the only cause which prevented the entire demolition of Rome. [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book IX, Chapter 9]

Sozomen then provides an anecdote of a single incident that took place during the sack:

I shall recount a pious action performed by a barbarian, and record the bravery of a Roman lady for the preservation of her chastity. The barbarian and the lady were both Christians, but not of the same heresy, the former being an Arian, and the latter a zealous follower of the Nicene doctrines. A young man of Alaric's soldiers saw this very beautiful woman, and was conquered by her loveliness, and tried to drag her into intercourse; but she drew back, and exerted herself that she might not suffer pollution. He drew his sword, and threatened to slay her; but he was restrained by the passion which he entertained toward her, and merely inflicted a slight wound on her neck. The blood flowed in abundance, and she offered her neck to the sword; for she preferred to die in her chastity than to survive, after having consorted lawfully with a husband, and then to be attempted by another man. When the barbarian repeated his purpose, and followed it with more fearful threats, he accomplished nothing further; struck with wonder at her chastity, he conducted her to the church of Peter the apostle, and gave six pieces of gold for her support to the officers who were guarding the church, and commanded them to keep her for her husband. [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book IX, Chapter 10]

A few other anecdotes from the sack may be gleaned from another Christian source, the History Against the Pagans written a few years after the event by Paulus Orosius. As this obscure work and its relationship to the sack of Rome is not particularly well known, I will provide the substantial passages below without comment.

Alaric appeared before trembling Rome, laid siege, spread confusion, and broke into the City. He first, however, gave orders that all those who had taken refuge in sacred places, especially in the basilicas of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, should be permitted to remain inviolate and unmolested; he allowed his men to devote themselves to plunder as much as they wished, but he gave orders that they should refrain from bloodshed.….

Click for more info.

While the barbarians were roaming through the City, one of the Goths, a powerful man and a Christian, chanced to find in a church building a virgin advanced in years who had dedicated herself to God. When he respectfully asked her for gold and silver, she declared with the firmness of her faith that she had a large amount in her possession and that she would bring it forth at once. She did so. Observing that the barbarian was astonished at the size, weight, and beauty of the riches displayed, even though he did not know the nature of the vessels, the virgin of Christ then said to him: "These are the sacred plate of the Apostle Peter. Presume, if you dare! You will have to answer for the deed. As for me, since I cannot protect them, I dare not keep them."

The barbarian, stirred to religious awe through the fear of God and by the virgin's faith, sent word of the incident to Alaric. He ordered that all the vessels, just as they were, should be brought back immediately to the basilica of the Apostle, and that the virgin also, together with all Christians who might join the procession, should be conducted thither under escort. The building, it is said, was at a considerable distance from the sacred places, with half the city lying between. Consequently the gold and silver vessels were distributed, each to a different person; they were carried high above the head in plain sight, to the wonder of all beholders. The pious procession was guarded by a double line of drawn swords; Romans and barbarians in concert raised a hymn to God in public. In the sacking of the City the trumpet of salvation sounded far and wide and smote the ears of all with its invitation, even those lying in hiding. From every quarter the vessels of Christ mingled with the vessels of Peter, and many pagans even joined the Christians in making profession, though not in true faith. In this way they escaped, but only for a time, that their confusion might afterward be the greater. The more densely the Roman refugees flocked together, the more eagerly their barbarian protectors surrounded them.… [Orosius, The History Against the Pagans, Book VII, Chapter 39]

This scene is recreated in the 19th century German engraving included at the top of this post. Orosius is also instructive with regard to the aftermath of the siege, which he describes as follows:

The third day after they had entered the City, the barbarians departed of their own accord. They had, it is true, burned a certain number of buildings, but even this fire was not so great as that which had been caused by accident in the seven hundredth year of Rome. Indeed, if I review the conflagration produced during the spectacles of Nero, her own emperor, this later fire, brought on by the anger of the conqueror, will surely bear no comparison with the former, which was kindled by the wantonness of the prince. Nor do I need in a comparison of this sort to mention the Gauls, who, after burning and sacking the City, camped upon her ashes for almost an entire year. Moreover, to remove all doubt that the enemy were permitted to act in this manner in order to chastise the proud, wanton, and blasphemous City, it may be pointed out that her most magnificent sites, which the Goths were unable to set on fire, were destroyed at this time by lightning. [Orosius, The History Against the Pagans, Book VII, Chapter 39]

Orosius closes his account of the sack with an interesting comment which seems to indicate that he had visited Rome himself in the aftermath of the sack, or had at least spoken with several eyewitnesses:

Although the memory of the event is still fresh, anyone who saw the numbers of the Romans themselves and listened to their talk would think that "nothing had happened," as they themselves admit, unless perhaps he were to notice some charred ruins still remaining. [Orosius, The History Against the Pagans, Book VII, Chapter 40]

To corroborate the point that the sack did not do permanent, irreparable harm to Rome, Sozomen concludes his account by saying of the citizens of Rome: “Those who were there saved, and they were many, rebuilt the city.” [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book IX, Chapter 9]

It's worth mentioning that both Sozomen and Orosius wrote in the days before the much more devastating sack of Rome by the Vandals in AD 455. At that point it became clear that the prostration the city had suffered under Alaric was not a singular event—and that much worse might be expected in the future.

Eugenius takes the throne, AD 392 ~ The Really, Truly Last Pagan Emperor of Rome...Maybe

A gold solidus of Eugenius minted at Lyon ca. AD 393.
[Taken from the Dumbarton Oaks collection]

On August 22, AD 392, an unlikely man was raised to the imperial purple of the Western Roman Empire. His name was Eugenius and for most of his career up to that point, he had been an academic serving the Western imperial court. The pagan historian Zosimus, writing in the early 6th century AD, describes Eugenius’s early career and his path to power:

There was in the court a person named Eugenius, a man of learning, who was a professor and teacher of rhetoric. He had been recommended to the notice of Arbogastes by Rictomeris as a person of a kind and obliging disposition, with a desire that he would make him his familiar friend, being one who would be serviceable to him in any circumstances where the assistance of a real friend would be needful. When Rictomeris was departed to the emperor Theodosius, by daily conversation Eugenius became the sincere friend of Arbogastes, who had no secret which he did not confide to him. [Zosimus, Historia Nea, Book IV]

The Arbogastes mentioned above was a powerful Frankish general who became commander of the Western Roman armies in the 380s. As with many of the Romanized barbarians who managed to attain supreme military command, Arbogast was resentful when the Western emperor attempted to issue him a command or restrain his ambitions. In AD 392, Arbogast had a very public quarrel with Valentinian II, the reigning emperor of the West, and the tension between the two soon became untenable. When Valentinian attempted to strip him of his rank, Arbogast tore up the order, threw it at the emperor’s feet, and dared him to do anything about it. He also began to plot a future without Valentinian’s interference. Zosimus continues:

Recollecting Eugenius, therefore, at this juncture, who by his extraordinary learning and the gravity of his conversation seemed well-adapted for the management of an empire, [Arbogastes] communicated to him his designs. But finding him not pleased with the proposals, he attempted to prevail on him by all the arts he could use, and entreated him not to reject what fortune so favorably offered. Having at length persuaded him, he deemed it advisable in the first place to remove Valentinian, and thus to deliver the sole authority to Eugenius. [Zosimus, Historia Nea, Book IV]

Shortly thereafter, Valentinian II was dead. He was found strangled in his chambers. The official verdict was that he had committed suicide, though some accused Arbogast of having solicited the deed of the bedchamber eunuchs. Zosimus, for his part, claims that Arbogast himself had dealt the emperor the mortal wound. Realizing that he could not take the throne himself, Arbogast decided to elevate his friend Eugenius as emperor of the West. The two together seemed like a formidable pair, Arbogast being “brave and skillful” and Eugenius being “learned and virtuous” according to Zosimus.

A silver siliqua of Eugenius. The resemblance of the
numismatic portraits of Eugenius to those of Julian
the Apostate is striking—particularly Eugenius's beard
which was symbolic of the pagan philosophers.

One of Eugenius’s first acts was to replace all of the officers of the Western court with his own men. Many of these new officers, apparently, were pagans. Furthermore, in response to a petition submitted by Symmachus, one of the leading members of the Roman Senate and Prefect of the City of Rome, Eugenius allowed the Altar of Victory to be placed again in the Senate House at Rome. This famous pagan altar had first been removed in AD 356 at the order of Constantius II. Later replaced by Julian the Apostate, the Altar was removed again by Gratian in AD 383.

The leading Christians in Italy were deeply dismayed by this move. In a letter to Eugenius, Saint Ambrose of Milan acknowledges him as emperor, but promises to exercise the same boldness when speaking to him as he did with his predecessors on the throne. He then rebuked Eugenius for delivering favors and money to pagan officers, saying:

[W]hen your Clemency took up the reins of government it was afterwards discovered that favors of this kind had been granted to men, excellent indeed in matters of state but in religion heathens. And it may, perhaps, be said, august Emperor, that you did not make any restitution to temples, but presented gifts to men who had deserved well of you. But you know that we must constantly act in the cause of God, as is often done in the cause of liberty, also not only by priests, but also by those who are in your armies, or are reckoned in the number of those who dwell in the provinces. When you became Emperor envoys requested that you would make restitution to the temples, and you did not do it; others came a second time and you resisted, and afterwards you thought fit that this should be granted to those very persons who made the petition. [Ambrose, Letter LVII]

But was Eugenius truly a pagan emperor? Or was he merely seeking supporters among the pagan Roman nobility by granting them symbolic favors? It seems likely that he was a lukewarm Christian who was willing to seek allies wherever he could find them. Writing about 50 years after the events, the ecclesiastical historian Hermias Sozomen maintains that Eugenius “was by no means sincere in his profession of Christianity.” He then goes on to describe how Eugenius resorted to pagan fortune-tellers to determine what course of action to take. [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book VII, Chapter 22]

Though Eugenius may have been a nominal Christian himself, it appears that one of his most important supporters, Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, was a very public and very outspoken pagan. Despite his religious leanings, Flavian had served as the Praetorian Prefect of Italy, Gaul and Africa under Theodosius. With the rise of Eugenius and Arbogast, Flavian switched his allegiance, possibly seeing an opening for a pagan revival, though some scholars have suggested that his motives were purely political (eg., Michele Salzman's article in the Journal of Early Christian Studies here). Regardless, Flavian seems to have influenced Eugenius to embrace the pagan elements which were still very active in Rome. The ecclesiastical historian Rufinus, writing about a decade after the events, records Flavian’s zeal for the old pagan rites:

But the pagans, who are always reviving their errors with new ones, renewed the sacrifices and bloodied Rome with horrid victims, examined sheep guts and from the divination of entrails proclaimed that victory for Eugenius was assured. Flavian, who was then prefect, engaged in this in a spirit of deep superstition and great fervor, and it was owing to his statements that they assumed that Eugenius’s victory was assured, since he had a great reputation for being wise. [Rufinus: Ecclesiastical History, Book 11.33]

Paulinus of Milan, writing in his Life of Saint Ambrose about twenty years after the events, similarly indicates that Flavian and Arbogast were the primary pagan influences on Eugenius who he portrays as a weak Christian, “forgetful of his faith.” When Eugenius arrived in Milan to prepare for the coming battle against Theodosius, Paulinus records that Ambrose had fled, “avoiding rather the sight of the sacrilegious man.” Furthermore, it seems that the churches of Milan rejected Eugenius's attempt to placate them with gifts, and refused to offer prayers for his success in the coming fight. These snubs were not appreciated—Arbogast and Flavian were particularly offended. Paulinus continues:

Click for more info.

Arbogast, Count at that time, and the Prefect Flavian had promised as they were leaving Milan, that when they should return victorious, they would make a stable in the basilica of the church of Milan and would review the clergy under arms. [Paulinus, Life of Saint Ambrose, Chapter VIII]

And so, Arbogast, Eugenius and Flavian marched off to face Theodosius at the Battle of the River Frigidus and there met their fate. Paulinus renders his verdict, saying:

When the wretched men become wickedly credulous of their demons and open their mouths in blasphemy against God, they deprive themselves of hope of victory. Moreover the cause for their disturbance was this: because the gifts of the emperor [Eugenius], who had involved himself in sacrilege, were spurned by the Church nor was the association with the Church in prayer granted him. But the Lord who is wont to protect His Church cast His judgment from heaven and transferred complete victory to the pious emperor Theodosius….Eugenius and his satellites were crushed. [Paulinus, Life of Saint Ambrose, Chapter VIII]

Thus ended what may be termed the last serious attempt at a pagan restoration of the Roman Empire. It remains unclear, however, if Eugenius himself was a pagan or if he was merely a nominal Christian adopting a position tolerant of pagan practices in an attempt to rally the pagan Roman nobility to his cause. To me, the latter seems more likely.

The Unconquerable Ricimer Dies ~ August 18, AD 472

A fanciful later European engraving of Ricimer. Though he
ruled from behind the throne of the Western Empire for
16 years, his likeness was never preserved.

On August 18, in anno Domini 472, the powerful generalissimo of the Western Roman Empire, Ricimer, passed from this life.

A barbarian of noble birth, half Visigothic and half Suevian, Ricimer first appears in history as a soldier in the Western Roman army under the command of Flavius Aetius. It is in this capacity that he became allied with Majorian, another follower of Aetius. Both men, it seems, participated in the campaigns of Aetius against the Franks, though Majorian later had a falling out with the great commander prior to his famous victory over Attila.

After the assassination of Aetius and Valentinian III in AD 454-5 and the subsequent sack of Rome by the Vandals, Ricimer and Majorian would rise to power together, overthrowing the weak emperor, Avitus. The following brief passage may be found in the Fragmentary History of Priscus:

“Now that they were free from their fear of the Goths, both Majorian and Ricimer openly revolted. Avitus, disquieted partly by the domestic turmoil, partly by the Vandalic wars, retreated from Rome and held fast to the road to Gaul. Majorian and Ricimer attacked him on the road and forced him to flee to a sacred precinct, where he abdicated his rule and removed his imperial attire. No sooner had Majorian’s men lifted the siege than Avitus’s life ended in starvation, after eight months on the throne. Others say that he was strangled.” [Given, Fragmentary History of Priscus, p. 133]

Avitus was the first in a line of emperors who would be dominated and undone by the efforts of Ricimer who soon became invested as Magister Militum, attaining supreme military power in the West. He was not, however, able to take the throne himself due to his clear non-Roman lineage. His Roman colleague Majorian was made emperor in AD 457, but after four years of rule, he was deposed by Ricimer, who viewed him as a threat to his power, and later beheaded. Ricimer then put the more pliable Libius Severus on the throne to serve as a puppet. When Severus died of natural causes four years later (though Cassiodorus claims that Ricimer had him poisoned), Ricimer took full control of the Western Empire during a two-year interregnum.

At the height of his power, Ricimer was called “the unconquerable” by the late Roman poet Sidonius Apollinaris and it was said that he never once lost a battle. Sidonius says further:

“If the Norican is restraining the Ostrogoth, it is that Ricimer is feared. If Gaul ties down the armed might of the Rhine, it is he that inspires dread. And because the Vandal foe plundered me [Italy] while the Alan, his kinsman, swept off what remained, this man took vengeance by the force of his own arms.” [Anderson, Sidonius: Poems and Letters, Volume 1, p. 41]

At this point, the Eastern Roman emperor Leo I intervened, naming Anthemius, a general in Illyricum, as Western Emperor. Ricimer accepted this and soon after married Alypia, the daughter of Anthemius, to solidify his position. Not willing to depend on his powerful new son-in-law as his sole military support, Anthemius appointed his Illyrian colleague Marcellinus to command his army as counter-balance to Ricimer. But if Anthemius thought that Ricimer would meekly surrender his authority in the West, he was sorely mistaken.

When Leo and Anthemius put together a vast armada to destroy the Vandal menace in north Africa in AD 468, Ricimer joined the cause, but under the nominal command of Marcellinus. The great campaign, which emptied the coffers of both the Eastern and Western empires, ended up a complete disaster for the Romans, but a boon for the scheming Ricimer. The Roman fleet was destroyed and the army captured by the Vandals. Both halves of the empire found themselves devoid of troops and bankrupt as a result of the catastrophic defeat. Ricimer, however, had remained on the sidelines, losing none of his soldiers, and many blamed him for not fully supporting the effort and secretly wanting it to fail. Further enhancing Ricimer's position, Marcellinus was later assassinated in Sicily, and some suspected a conspiracy hatched by Ricimer had been responsible for his rival's death.

Following this debacle, Ricimer decided that he’d had enough of Anthemius. Priscus explains what happened next:

Click for more info.

Ricimer began a conflict between himself and the Western emperor Anthemius, and moreover, although he was betrothed to Anthemius’s daughter Alypia, he instigated a civil war in the city [of Rome] that lasted for five months. The magistrates and the people fought for Anthemius, the mass of domestic barbarians for Ricimer. Also present was Odoacer, a man of the Skirian race….

Anthemius lived in the palace, but Ricimer barricaded the locations near the Tiber and plagued those inside with hunger. During an engagement fought by the two sides, much of Anthemius’s party fell. Ricimer deceitfully concluded a treaty with the remaining men and then introduced Olybrius as emperor. For five months altogether, a civil war controlled Rome until Anthemius’s supporters surrendered to the barbarians and left the emperor naked. Anthemius joined the crowd of beggars and placed himself under the protection of the martyr Chrysogonos. There he was beheaded by Gondoubandos, Ricimer’s brother [actually, his nephew], after a reign of five years, three months, and eighteen days.

Ricimer thought Anthemius worthy of a royal burial, while he introduced Olybrius into the royal court. Within thirty days after Olybrius succeeded to the Roman throne in the way described, Ricimer lost his life by vomiting most of his blood. Then Olybrius died of edema. [Given, Fragmentary History of Priscus, p. 170]

Following Ricimer’s death in AD 472, the expiring Western Empire passed through the hands of several weak emperors and warlords until the above-mentioned Odoacer was able to consolidate his power, shrug off attempts of the East to assert authority, and rule in his own right as a barbarian King over Italy.