A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S
FO LIA H IS TO R ICA 56, 1996
Teresa Wolińska
G R E G O R Y IN C O NSTAN TIN OPL E AS A RESPONSAUS OF PO PE PEL AG IUS II
Beginning from the time o f Leo the G reat the bishops o f R om e had their perm anent representatives on the imperial co urt in C on stantino ple1. It was n ot the only place where the papal nuncio nam ed „apocrisiarius” or „responsalis” resided but the role played by the one who dwelled in C onstantinople was exceptional. Thanks to a very long stay in the center o f political, economic and cultural life o f the Empire, the po pe's nuncio had a chance to learn the mechanisms of power, the form of governm ent and the people who were in authority. He had m any opportunities to contact with the emperor, the empress and their family. H e could gain their suppo rt and friendship. T h at was the reason why, very often, this post was a step on the way to become the bishop o f R om e2. From the times o f Justinien the pope could take his office only after having been accepted by the em peror3. Relations with im portant, influential officials of the co urt were a good basis for civil, political or ecclesiastical career. Responsalis had the possibility to get to know the cultural heritage, especially the theological thought of the East. Due to his duties responsalis did n ot lose sight o f C hurch affairs and very often found himself involved in hot disputes and religious controversies. Nuncios could learn personally the patriarchs o f Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. Being represen-tatives o f pope‘s interests at the em peror‘s side they participated in m atters
1 F . D v o r n i k Bizancjum a prym at Rzym u, W arszaw a 1985, p . 41; F . K . S e p p e l t , K. L ö f f l e r , Dzieje papieży od początków Kościoła do czasów dzisiejszych, P oznań 1936, p. 86. This nuncio was Julian from K os. I t is obvious th at before this d ate the popes used to send their nuncios to Constantin ople but they were n o t their perm anent representatives.
2 F rom am ong apocrisiariuses popes-to-be we w ould m ention Vigilius (537-555), Pelagius I (556-561) and G regory himself.
5 „ L ’election pontificale, depuis Justinien, étais soum ise a la ratification de l’em pereur qui d o n n ait la praeceptio or iussio de consacrer l’élu” . A. F l i e h , V. M a r t i n , H istoire de l'Eglise
o f great concern. The scope o f the affairs which were interesting for popes and their representatives was growing as the em peror's power in Italy was weakening. Bishops o f Rom e were forced to take over his duties. Thus their range o f interests incorporated clearly political m atters, e.g. the defence o f Italy against barbarian attacks and gaining supporters for Italy and organizing supplies of food. Pope's responsalis in C o n stan -tinople had the task o f asking for military su pport against the invaders. H e had to be a m ediator between the emperor and the bishop o f Rom e. T he latter tried to take advantage o f the weakness o f the imperial power in Italy, so his nuncio's mission was very delicate - he had to be very skillful and tactful. An equally im portan t duty o f apocrisiarius was to inform the pope ab o ut everything taking place in the E ast n o t only ab ou t things concerning the Church but also ab o ut m atters concerning politics.
The m entioned above duties demanded o f the person nom inated to the post o f aprocrisiarius cleverness, intelligence, perseverance, energy, observancy, experience, and ease in getting in touch with people. He had to be perem ptory and flexible at the same time. Pope Pelagius II (579-590) had to know very well what features o f character his representative should have. Soon after the beginning of his pontificate he decided that Gregory would represent the interests o f the C hurch and the papacy in C onstantinople4. Gregory lived at th at time in a m onastery in Italy which he him self had founded. A t the m om ent o f the nom ination he was abou t 39 years old5, being a m an in his prime physically and intellectually. We do not know m uch ab ou t G regory's education, but as he was born in a noble family6, he was probably given very good one. His experience in public services and good knowledge o f law could be especially helpful at his post. A t first Gregory was preparing himself for a civil career and before starting life of
4 It is very likely th at G regory w as sent to C onstantinople in 579, the sam e year in which Pelagius II started his pontificate. H e often m entioned his stay in Constantinople in his letters w itho ut giving concrete d ates . Gregorii I Papae Registrum epistolarum (her eafter Ep.), ed. P. Evald, L. M . H artm ann, M onum enta Germaniae H istorica (hereafter M G H ), Epistolae
in Quart, t. 1-2, Berolini 1957, Ep. 1, 4; I II , 29; V, 53a; V II, 4; IX , 46. Polish translatio n
o f G regory’s letters: Grzegorz Wielki, Listy, przeł. J. Czuj, t. 1-4, W arszaw a 1954-1955. 5 A ccording to J. C z u j G regory was bo rn ab ou t 540 (Papież Grzegorz W ielki, W arszaw a 1948, p. 7); others biographers o f G regory give the same date.
6 A b ou t G reg ory ’s origin see am ong others: Joannis D iaconi Sancti Gregorii M agni Vita, I, 1, (hereafter Joan. Diac. Vita) Patrologiae cursus completus... Series latina... accurante J. P. M igne (hereafter PL), t. 75; Pauli Diaconi Gregorii M agni Vita, 2, PL, t. 75 (hereafter
Pauli Vita); G rego rius T uron nen sis, H isto ria Fra nc oru m , X , 1, M G H , Scrip tores rerum Merovingicarum, H annoverae 1884-1885; P. С a n n a t a , Gregorio /, [in:] Bibliotheca Sanctorum ,
t. V II, p. 223; L. C r a c c o - R u g n i , Grégoire le Grand et le monde byzantin, [in:] Colloques
internationaux du C N R S , Paris 1987, p. 83-84. The thesis o f the ancients a b ou t the aristocratic
a m on k he was a praefcct or praeto r o f Rom e7. This very im p o rtan t post gave him a chance to show energy and gain sympathy o f R om ans which affected his later vicissitudes. Finally he himself stopped his promising civilian career. After his father's death Gregory decided to settle in one of the m onasteries which he had founded8. It is n ot certain if he was a m onk. It is possible that he lived in the m onastery profiting as a founder9. D uring th a t time he probably deepended his theological knowledge and became know n as a m an very strict to himself, a personification o f traditional C hristian virtues10. It is possible that due to this style o f life he called the po pe's atten tion as was nom inated a deacon. The biographer o f Gregory - Joh n the Deacon claims that it was done by pope Benedict but m ost of the scholars think th at the nom ination was the work o f Pelagius I I “ . I f the latter is true it had to take place shortly before the beginning o f the mission in Constantinople. Historian L. Uspienski is convinced th at at the m om en t o f coming to the capital o f the Empire Gregory was already an archdeacon. L. Uspienski argues that it was custom ary to sent an archdeacon to C onstantinople and th at Gregory himself would comply with this rule when he became a p ope12. As a p ro o f Uspienski quotes a letter from the later period in which Gregory, already a pope, supposedly wrote, th at he was sending his apocrisiarius, archdeacon Boniface, to emperor Phocas, as the custom required13. Boniface, howewer, is called the deacon in the letter; besides the whole excerption seems ambiguous. We are not certain whether the words „as the custom requires” refer to the act of sending a papal responsalis o r to his rank . D urin g his pontificate G regory h ad fo ur representatives in C onstantinople and none o f them was archd eacon14.
7 O n G rego ry’s career see am ong others: C a n n a t a , op. cit., p. 225-233; C z u j , op. cit., p. 8-10; M . D e a n e s l y , A H istory o f Early Medieval Europe, N ew Y ork 1956, p. 178-180; H . H . H o w o r t h , Saint Gregory the Great, Lond on 1911, p. 7-9.
“ Joan. Diac. Vita, I, 6; Pauli Vita, 5.
9 G regory w rote th at he was much indebted to the m on astery in which he had p u t on
a ro be o f a m onk and in which he had been an a b bo t - Ep. I, 14a. In spite o f this H o w o r t h (op. cit., p. 11-12) emphasized th at there is no sufficient p r o o f th a t G regory was a m onk. We only know th a t he used to live m onk-like life.
10 Joan. Diac. Vita, I, 7; Pauli Vita, loc. cit.
11 Joan. Diac. Vita, I, 25; Pauli Vita, 2; C a n n a t a , op. cit., p. 231; P. B a t t i f o l ,
Grégoire le Grand, Paris 1928, p. 47; G . R. E v a n s , The thought o f Gregory the Great,
Cam bridge 1986, p. 5; F l i e h , M a r t i n , op. cit., p. 22.
12 T. U s p e n s к i, Cerkovno-politiceskaja de jatelnost papy Grigorija J Dvojeslowa, K aza n 1901, p . 56. A lso according to H o w o r t h (op. cit., p. 13) G regory w as an archdeacon and he was referred to like th a t by p atriarch Eulogius.
13 Ep. X III, 41. ,
14 G r eg ory ’s representatives in C on sta ntinop le were in turn : H on o r atu s , Sabinianu s, A natoliu s, Bonifacius. G regory in his letters called them all deacons. Ep. I I, 36; I II , 51; V, 6; V, 45; V II, 27; IX , 187; IX , 201; IX , 237; X I, 25; X I, 29; X III, 43: X IV , 8.
W hich is m ore im portant, the letter which pope Pelagius II sent to his apocrisiarius was addressed to „deacon” 15. It is difficult to suppose th at he consciously used the wrong title. Also Gregory's don atio n to the m onastery o f St. Andrew from 587 year mentions of him as a deaco n16. This document originates from the time after his stay in Constantinople we can assume therefore th at he did not become archdeacon during his mission. Eulogius, the patriarch o f Alexandria m ust have been wrong when he wrote about Gregory as an archdeacon17.
A p art from the experience which he gained in civil services, the papal responsalis had knowledge and features o f character helpful in his dif-ficult mission. R. A. M arkus characterizes him in this way: „...a p ar-ticularly sensitive and intelligent W esterner, m oreover a W esterner who had lived in C onstantinople and remained in touch with the capital as well as with several other great ecclesiastical centres o f the Eastern M edi-terran ean ” 18. The time which he spent in the m onastery and as a deacon in Rom e enabled him to undertake theological studies and to become familiar with the problem s o f the Church. Undoubtedly Pelagius II m ust have been convinced o f Gregory's loyalty and devotion to papacy and Italy.
In spite o f his values, Gregory had some disadvantages which m ade his activity in the capital o f the Empire m ore difficult. He tells us th at he did n ot know Greek, the language used in Constantinople at th at time. If it were true, it could have been a big problem. M aking decision o f sending Gregory to the Constantinople Pelagius II could have hoped that educated people spoke Latin there but still the lack o f knowledge o f Greek could restrain his apocrisiarius' con tact with people in the E ast. Th e m ost im po rtant duty of the latter was to inform the pope abo ut everything happening in the East so the limiting o f the circle o f people with whom he had contacts to those speaking Latin could have been a big problem. We m ust stress here that it is very doubtful that Gregory knew no Greek at all. Pelagius II m ust have realized, th at if the inform ation were to be reliable, it should be obtained from varrious sources n ot only from the people close to the imperial court. M oreover, the pope and his nuncio were interested not only in Constantinople but in Alexandria and Antioch as well. It must be noticed th at even in the capital of the Em pire there was
15 P e l a g i u s p ap a II, Epistolae et décréta, PL, t. 72, col. 703-790, E p. Il, A d Gregorium
diaconum.
16 Appendix I, [in:] Gregorii I Papae Registrum epistolarum, M G H , Epistolae in Quart, t. 2, p. 437-439.
17 H о w o r t h, op. cit., p. 13.
18 R. A. M a r k u s , Gregory the Great's Europe, [in:] From Augustine to the Gregory the
a lack of good translators at that time. Gregory wrote ab o ut it himself19. It seems very likely th at in other cities o f the Empire the situation was even worse. It is difficult to suppose that Pelagius II did n ot appreciate the knowledge o f Greek and th at he had sent to C onstantinople a m an, who did n ot speak this language. M any historians call in question G regory's ignorance20. They argue that at the first level o f traditional R om an education pupils were taug ht Greek21. It would be very strange if Gregory did not know th at language to a small extent, at least. In subsequent period of time he could have stopped learning it because o f the lack of time and because he m ight have thought th at the knowledge o f the language less and less p opular in Italy was useless. However, when he settled down in his m onastery and devoted himself to theological studies he m ight have come across some works o f eastern autho rs written in Greek. We can assume from his own later letters and works th at he knew some Greek works and, which is very im portant, some o f these were n ot translated into L atin22. It is possible that he learnt them via other people - pope Pelagius
19 Ep. V II, 27; X , 21. A bou t the knowledge o f Latin in O rient see J. M . S a n s t e r r e ,
Les m oines grecs et orientaux à Лоте aux époques byzantine et carolingienne (m ilieu du VIe fin du IX e s.), t. 1, Bruxelles 1983, p. 64-65. A strong center o f latin cultu re w as in
C onstantinople until VI century. A latin m onastery existed in Chalcedon. See M . S a l a m o n ,
Priscianus und sein Schülerkreis, „P hilolog us” 1979, t. 123, p. 91-96; i d e m , Jordanes
tv środowisku Konstantynopola połowy V I wieku. Uwagi wstępne, „Balcanica Posnanensia” 1990, t. 5, p. 405-415.
20 C. D a g n e s , L'Eglise universelle et le m onde orientale chez saint Grégoire le Grand, „ Istin a ” 1975, p . 465; i d e m , Grégoire le Grand et le m onde oriental, „R ivista di S to ria e L e tteratur a Religiosa” 1981, t. 17, p. 244-245 („Son ignorance sem ble plus politique que réele” - ibidem, p. 245); J. P e t e r s e n , D id Gregory the Great know Greek? [in:] Studies in
Church H istory, ed. D . Baker, t. 13: The O rthodox Churches and the West, O xford 1976,
p. 121-132. H . P e t e r s m a n n , Q uid S. Gregorius M agnus papa romanique eius aetatis de
lingua sua senserint, [in:] Gregorio M agno e il suo tempo, t. 2, R om a 1991, p. 137-148;
H . G r i s a r underlined tha t at the times o f G regory there were strong byzantine influences in Italy (San Gregorio M agno (5 90 -604 ), R om a 1928, p. 170). A different opinion is voiced by M . B. D u n n (The Style o f the Letters o f Saint Gregory the Great, W ashington 1931, p. 3). Th e a u th o r is convinced tha t the fact th at G regory did n o t know G reek „is perfectly in keeping w ith the no rm al education o f a sixth century R om an boy” .
21 P e t e r s e n , op. cit., p. 132-133. A different opinions is voiced by P. C o u r c e l l e ,
Les lettres greques en Occident. D e Maerobe à Cassiodore, Paris 1948, p. 388-392 and by
S a n s t e r r e , op. cit., p. 67-68. Th e la tter w rote tha t Italy „ro m p it avec la langue greque da ns la seconde m oitié do V Ie s.” (ibidem, p. 67), b ut he adm itted at the sam e tim e th a t „II n 'e ta it pa s rare , à l’époque, de voir des moines grecs et orientaux se rendre à R om e” (ibidem, p. 54).
22 C r a c c o - R u g i n i , op. cit., p. 84; J. C z u j , Wstęp, [in:] Grzegorz Wielki, Księga reguły
pasterskiej, PO K , t. 22, W arszaw a 1948, p. X V I; H . d e L u b a c , Exégèse médiévale, p a rt I,
t. 1, p. 211, 221, 222. P e t e r s e n , op. cit., p. 121-133. The la tter underlined th a t G regory occasionally used G reek w ords (ibidem, p. 125-126), he expressed his opinion a b o u t tran sla tio n fro m G reek in to Latin (ibidem, p. 125), in a hom ily concerning Ezechiel (PL, t. 76, I, VII,
o r G regory’s friends in Constantinople. But it is also possible th at Gregory himself had some passive command of Greek and could read and understand texts in th at language. F o r the reasons unknown to us he strongly denied knowing Greek. He did so, which is interesting, after returning to Rom e from his long stay in Constantinople. He insisted on n ot having written anything in th at language23. He refused to answer letters which had been written to him in G reek24. In a similar way, he cut himself off from any eastern patterns and denied to have brought some customs from the E ast to R om e25. His statement m ust raise serious doubts. It would be strange, however, if after a long, at least 6 year, stay in the city in which almost only Greek was spoken he would no t have been able to understand if n ot to speak it. In any case, the fact that some people wrote letters in Greek to him and also attributed the authorship o f some theological Greek writings to him, proves that already the contem poraries o f Gregory were convinced th at he was able to speak it. It is likely th at he did n o t know it very well and almost impossible th at he did no t know it at all.
A no ther shortcom ing o f Gregory as apocrisiarius could be his love for the m onastic life and his dislike o f the „worldly affairs”26. This feature of character could m ean limiting contacts with the em peror's cou rt and so minimalisation o f the possibility of gaining valuable and objective information. It is very difficult to estimate however the validity o f his declaration. As a pope he often complained o f the necessity o f taking care o f secular m atters but despite this he is considered to be one o f the m ost energetic leaders in the history o f the Church.
Coming to C onstantinople Gregory too k a group o f m onks from the m onastery which he had founded with him 27. Am ong them there was M axim ianus, later called off by Pelagius II in order to take over the post o f abbo t o f St. Andrew m onastery28. The decision o f Gregory to take the
col. 852) he im plied th at he was able to com pare the original text o f Septuaginta w ith different translations. See also C r a c c o - R u g i n i , op. cit., p. 84-85; D a g e n s , Grégoire..., s. 250-252; J. M . P e t e r s o n , „ H om o omnino latinus"? The Theological and Cultural Background o f Pope
Gregory the Great, „Speculum ” 1987, t. 62/3, p. 529-551; i d e m , G reek Influences upon Gregory the Great's Exegesis o f Luke 15, 1-10 in H om elia in Evang. II, 34, [in:] Grégoire le Grand. Colloques internationaux du C N R S , Paris 1986, p. 521-529.
23 Ep. X I, 55. The letter tackles a very interesting subject o f som e o f G regory’s w orks being falsified by m onk A ndrew.
24 Ep. I l l, 63. G regory blam es D om enica for having w ritten to him in G reek even thou gh she know s Latin.
25 Ep. IX , 26.
26 Ep. I, 3; I, 4; I, 5; I, 6; V, 53a and m any others.
27 Ep. V, 53a; Joan. Diac. Vita, I, 26; Pauli Vita, 7; Vila auctore anonymo sed synchrone
e x pluribus vetustis codicibus M S S [in:] A d a S S M artii I I ( X I I M ar lii), p. 130.
28 Joan. Diac. Vita, I, 33; P e l a g i u s II, Ep . I; Gregoire le Grand, Dialogues, t. 2, ed. A . de Vogué, P. A ntin, Paris 1979, III, 36. H is calling off took place a b ou t 584-585.
m onks with him was probably caused by his fear of being isolated in the em peror's city. It is possible th at am ong these m onks there were some persons who spoke Greek very well and knew writings o f eastern autho rs and they could help Gregory not only in spiritual m atters but also in his daily contacts with the imperial court. Gregory could enjoy his leisure time am ong them after very exhausting duties at the imperial court and lead a quiet, contem plative life which he loved29. F o r him they were a p a rt of his country, an oasis in the Greek, strange world, which Gregory did n ot understand and did n ot like. T aking the m onks with him proves th at Gregory knew he was not being sent on a single mission but th at he was expected to become a perm anent representative o f Rom e in Constantinople. This fact is significant for understanding the purpose o f his stay in the capital o f the Empire.
Th e dep artu re o f Pelagius* apocrisiarius to the capital o f the Em pire too k place probably in 57930. Em peror Tiberius (578-582) accepted Gregory warmly. The nuncio lived in the Placidia palace31 and started to deal with m any problems entrusted to him by Pelagius. According to L. Uspienski one o f the m o st im p ortan t tasks was to gain the em peror's acceptance o f the consecration o f Pelagius I I32. As it has been said before from the times o f Justinien it was a custom th at the emperor should accept the choice and consecration o f the pope. Pelagius became the bishop of Rome without such acceptance, Uspienski m aintains therefore th at Gregory's task was to obtain it. This argument does not seem convincing. Firstly, there is no source, which could confirm it. Secondly, Gregory, as it has been said, was sent to Constantinople as a perm anent representative of the pope, not as one to perform one task only. It is difficult to suppose that the em peror could have accepted the responsalis o f the pope whom himself he did not accept. On the other hand, Pelagius II would no t have risked sending his apocrisiarius if there had been a danger th at he could be rejected. M ost probably he gained the emperor's acceptance before sending Gregory to him.
25 Ep. V, 53a. See also n ote 26.
30 Th is d ate is given, am ong others, by C a n n a t a , op. cit., p. 251; C z u j , op. cit., p. 12 and 14 (G regory w as to retu rn to Rome in 587 having spent 7 years in Constantinople); E v a n s , op. cit., p. 5; F l i e h , M a r t i n , op. cit., p. 22; F. G r e g o r o v i u s , Istoria goroda
Rim a v srednije vieka, t. 1, Petersburg 1886, p. 229; F. H a l k i n , Le pape St. Grégoire le G rand dans l'hagiographie byzantine, „O rientalia C hristiana Periodica” 1955, t. 21, p. 109;
U s p i e n s k i , op. cit., p. 57; E. M o r g g r a f f , Gregorii M agni Vita, Berolini [no d a te is given by the publisher], p. 3.
31 G r i s a r , op. cit., p. 15; R. J a n i n , Constantinople byzantin, Paris 1950, p. 135, 379-380; V. P a r o n e t t o , Gregorio M agno. Un maestro alle origini cristiane d'Europa, R o m a 1985, p. 29; J. R i c h a r d s , II console di Dio. La vita e i tem pi di Gregorio M agno, Florenzia 1984, p. 59; T. T a r d u c c i , Storia di San Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, R om a 1909, p. 38.
It is unquestionable th at the m ost im portant task o f G rego ry 's mission was to ask for m ilitary and financial aid for Italy, threatened m ore and m ore by the Lom bards33. We know abou t it from the letter o f Pelagius II to his representative. This letter was written in 584 or 58534, therefore in the last p a rt o f Gregory's mission. But the danger o f a b arb arian invasion o f Italy was so great th at it is doubtless th at Gregory tried to gain support from the em peror from the very beginning o f his stay in C onstantinop le35. His efforts were no t successful and probably th at was the reason why the pope wanted to support him with his personal letter. He stressed in it th at he had asked the exarch of R avenna for aid, but the latter answered, th at his forces were too small to defend R avenna and under no circumstances could he send help to Rome. In this city, as we know from the quoted letter, there was neither a garrison nor a comm ander o f his own. Th e pope asked the em peror to send magister militum or dux to R om e36. G regory's du ty was to deliver the pope's letter to the emperor which he did. The Em pire, no m atter what the apologists o f Gregory the G reat say37, did not lose its interest in the western provinces and the successors o f Justinian did n ot forget his w ork38. The greatest danger for the Byzantine Em pire however, came from the no rth in the form o f b arb arian invasions and from the east where it waged wars against the Persians. The possible loss of Italy, which was a very distan t province o f the Em pire, was no t a threat to its existence, yet the invasions from the n orth and east carried such a danger. Trying to preserve the state, the emperors were forced to limit their aid for Italy to the minimum; all forces were sent to defend the eastern p art o f the Empire. While in the W est they broug ht into practice „passive defence” 39 and tried to push one b arbarian against ano ther. They applied to Francs asking for support and paid them for fighting against
M Joan. Diac. Vita, I, 51; P e l a g i u s II, Ep. I; H o w o r t h , op. cit., p. 18.
34 The letter o f Pelagius m entioned above seems to urge G regory to be m ore active in getting help for Italy. T he po pe does n ot explain the situation in Italy in details - pro bably this was n ot necessary.
35 See no te 33.
36 P e l a g i u s II, Ep. I.
37 B a t i f f o l , op. cit., p. 198-200; H o w o r t h , op. cit., p. 93-95.
3* T. S. B r o w n , Gentelmen and Officers. Im perial Administration and Aristocratic Power
in Byzantine Ita ly A. D. 554-800, R om e 1984, p. 148; Ch. D i e h l , G. M a r ę a is , L e monde oriental de 395 à 1081, Paris 1944, p. 124, 127; G . O s t r o g o r s k i , Dzieje Bizancjum,
W arszaw a 1967, p. 89. The la tter gives proofs o f M aurice’s interest in the W est (eg. th e plans o f dividing pow er betw een the sons o f the em peror after his de ath or the existence o f the exarchates o f Ravenn a and Carthage). C. M . P a t r o n o , D ei conflitti tra iim pera tore M aurizio
Tiberio e il papa Gregorio M agno, „Rivista di Storia A ntica” 1909, t. 13, p. 50; J. M .
W a l l a c e - H a d r i l l , The Barbarian W est 400-1000, L on don 1957, p. 43.
39 This, very accurate term , is used by D e a n e s l y , op. cit., p. 213. See also the opinion o f N . C h e e t h a m, Keepers o f the Keys, Lond on 1982, p. 39.
the Lom bards40. This was all which Gregory could obtain, no t because of the em peror's unwillingness to help or lack of energy, but because of objective inability to help more. It is possible that the em peror sent some orders to the exarch o f R avenna and told him to intensify his efforts, because in the letter o f Pelagius II to the Istrian bishops from 586 we read th at thanks to the activity o f exarch Smaragdus time o f peace came to Italy41. L ater events proved however th at the exarch's situation did not change radically in result o f Gregory's intervention at the court and the forces o f the exarchate were still insufficient to stand up to the invaders. It is very likely, th at the failure o f this mission deepened G regory's dislike o f the East. It is very characteristic th at in spite of his very long stay at Bosphorus, he never understood the interests and threats to the eastern part o f the Empire. Although he declared that he was a loyal subject of the em peror, he did not want or could not understand his politics. He never th ought in terms o f the whole Empire, limiting his interests to the problem s o f Italy or o f the West at best. Being a pope, he did not show in his letters interest in the Byzantine affairs. He was not interested in the wars with the Avars and the Persians and never congratulated the em peror on his successes in these wars42. Fu rth em ore, he demanded from the em peror not only military support against the barbarians but also active participation in fight against heresies and schisms. He himself had very little to offer in return. It is true th at Gregory, like his predecessor, gave m oney for the defense o f Italy, but in this case he acted in the interest of Rome and St. Peter's patrim onium 43. He evidently was n ot delighted with being the em peror's „treasurer” and clearly expected refund o f the expenses44. This attitu de o f Gregory is often explained by his R om an patriotism 45 but
40 A. F l i e h , La papauté au temps de Grégoire le Grand, [in:] H istoire du m onde, t. V II, 2, Paris 1929, p. 87; S. G . Ł o z i ń s k i , Istoria papstwa, M oskwa 1986, p . 40. T he cam paigns o f Francs against. Lo m bards too k place, am ong others, in the years 582, 584 and 585. Ch. D i e h l , Etudes sur l'administration byzantine dans l'Exarchai de Ravenne (56 8 -75 1 ), Paris 1888, p. 202-211; P. G o u b e r t , Byzance avant l'Islam, t. II/2, Paris 1965, p. 22-27, 81-82. I t is possible th at G regory m et a t Con stantinop le am bassadors sent by Fran kish king Chilperic fro m N e ustria - F . M o u r r e t , L'Eglise et le m onde barbare [ = H istoire générale de l’Eglise, t. 3], Paris 1921, p. 64.
41 P e l a g i u s II, Ep. III.
4î F o r example, he did no t react to Byzantinians succeses in A rm enia in 591. O s t r o -g o r s k i, op. cit., p. 89. O nly once did he express his interest in the affairs o f the E ast when a chance o f converting the Persians was noticed.
43 H o w o r t h , op. cit., p. 101; M . D . K n o w l e s , D. O b o l e n s k y , H istoria Kościoła, t. 2, W arszawa 1988, p. 51.
44 Ер. V, 39 to the em press C onstantine. G regory also w rote a letter to treasu rer D om nellus com plaining th at the exarch did n o t pay back to him the m oney which h e had borrow ed fr om the pope for the sodiers pay - Ер. IX , 240.
it is strange that the m an who spent m any years in C onstantinople did not understand th at the Persians were m ore dangerous for the Em pire than the Lom bards. While he might have felt sorry because of the neglecting of the interests of Italy he should not have attributed this neglect to the ill will o f the emperor. Gregory's lack o f understanding o f the problem s of the Byzantines proves in a very particu lar fashion th at the distance between the two parts o f the Empire was growing. It is possible th at Gregory was conscious o f this process and that was the reason why he concentrated on the m atters of the West trying to take advantage of the weakness o f the em peror's power in Italy in order to widen the influences o f bishop of Rome. He accused the emperor o f being uninterested in the vicissitudes of Italy and failed to notice his effort to help Rome.
Gregory was interested to a certain degree in eastern theological thought. H e considered his duty to confirm in the East the conviction th at the only true interpretation o f faith was given by the R oman C hurch46. T h at is why he helped persons who were accused o f heresy when he thoug ht this accusation was false. He opposed the views o f Eutychius, the patriarch of C onstantinople, connected with the resurrection of the bodies. The quarrel between them led to a public debate in front of emperor Tiberius47. D uring this discussion Gregory drew argum ents taken directly from the Holy Scripture against his opponents48. This could result both from his conviction th at it is superior to the writings o f theologians and from G regory's ignorance o f theological works, especially written by eastern authors. There is no need to discuss this dispute from the point o f view o f theological arguments here because it was done by other auth ors49. We should only say that this discussion concentrated around the problem of the body after resurrection - will it be m aterial, the same as before death or, as Eutychius tho ugh t, will it be subtler, impossible to touch50. I f the discussion really took place (which is questioned by some historians who suggest th at Gregory opposed the p atriarch's opinion only in his M oralia)51 it m ust have been conducted either in Latin which was probably spoken by the patriarch
46 G regory was convinced ab ou t th at. T h a t the East really did not accept the papal suprem acy is an oth er question.
47 Joan. Diac. Vila, I, 28-30; Sancti Gregorii M agni Moralium libri sive Expositio in librum
Job, X IV , 74, PL 75 (hereafter Moralia).
4* Joan. Diac. Vila, I, 28.
45 A very detailed analysis o f this discussion was m ade by Y. M . D u v a l in the article;
L a discussion entre l'apocrisiare Grégoire et le patriarche Eutychios au sujet de la résurrection de la chair, [in:] Grégoire le Grand. Colloques internationaux du C N RS , Paris 1986, p. 347-367.
50 Joan. Diac. Vita, I, 28; M oralia, loc. cit.', Bedae Opera historica. W ith English translation by J. E. K ing, Cam bridge M ass. H arvard U niv. Press 16, t. 1-2, L o nd on 1954, II, 1 (later Bedae Opera).
and the em peror or via some interpreter. Even if Gregory knew some Greek he surely was not able to lead theological dispute in it. According to Joh n the Deacon the emperor recognized the superiority o f the pope's apocrisiarius and had the book by Eutychius b urnt32. Shortly after this public discussion both opponents were struck by a disease but Gregory recovered while the patriarch died53, which was interpreted as a p ro o f th at Heavens sup ported Gregory and th a t he was right. The news ab ou t Gregory s serious illness is not unlikely. We know th at his health was never very good. His style o f life, fasting and m ortification contributed to this. Patriarch Eutychius really died when Gregory was in C onstantinople in 582. The dispute which is the subject of our interest m ust have been conducted therefore shortly before th at date. It is very difficult to measure how m uch influence had the illness o f the two opponents on the intensity o f the q uarrel54. It is impossible to say why the emperor acknowledged G regory's superiority. He could have been convinced by his arguments but it is also possible th at he accepted Rom e's primacy in doctrinal m atters. He may have supported the pope's nuncio knowing th at he would have a chance to become the bishop o f Rome after the death o f Pelagius II.
1 he stay in Constantinople allowed Gregory to meet n ot only the em peror and his family but also the high officials and dignitaries of the court. As a pope, during his pontificate, he kept corresponding with the people whom he had m et in C onstantinople. But these contacts were confined only to a small group o f people closely connected with the em peror's court. They were persons o f very high rank and social position, well educated. Probably some o f them spoke Latin which could m ake it easier for them m aking friends with the responsalis. It is very characteristic th at Gregory, consciously o r not, tried to be in touch almost exclusively with the influential persons who could give him support during his mission and after its end. An exception to this rule were people coming from Italy, who abandoned it frightened by the Lombards, like the patrician Rusticiana55! A m ong Gregory's acquaintances there were first o f all members o f the em perors’ families - the daughter o f emperor Tiberius and the wife o f his successor M aurice - C onstantine56, M aurice's sister Teoctiste57, his relative
52 Joan. Diac. Vita, I, 28.
Ibidem, I, 30. It too k place in 582. J. W. B a r k e r , Justinian and the Later Roman Empire, Lon don 1966, Historical Lists, p. 279.
H o w o r t h (op. cit., p. 22-23) thinks tha t theit illness m ade their discussion m ore violent and bitter.
35 To R usticiana G regory wrote m any times - Ep. II, 27; IV , 44; V III, 22; X I, 26- X III 26. She is m entioned in Ep. IX , 83; X I, 25.
36 Ep. IV, 30; V, 38; V, 39; VII, 23; V II, 26. 37 Ep. I, 5; V II, 23; X I, 27.
Dom itianus, bishop o f M elitena58. A big group o f Gregory's acquaintances consisted o f dignitaries o f the imperial court, eg. emperor's doctors Theodore59 and Theotim us60, prcfect of the East - Priscos61, prefect of praetorium Panthaleo n62 and Narzes - comes of the imperial court63. It is possible th at it was in C onstantinople th at Gregory m et the future p raetor o f Sicily - Justin64 as well as Teoctiste65, Strategios66, Aristobulos67.
As it has been m entioned in the m om ent o f G reg ory 's arrival to C onstantinople the thron e o f Byzantium was occupied by Tiberius. G re-gory m et his successor, M aurice, when he was comes excubitorum 68. The nuncio was a witness o f his ascending to the throne and he was the godfather o f his firstborn son69. This fact is often quoted as the p ro of th at the fiendship between the em peror and the p op e's apocrisiarius was real and great. This statement however, must be treated with great caution. M aurice could have had m any oth er reasons to choose Gregory as his son's godfather. One o f them could be the suppo rt o f the C apital o f the Apostles for him and his successor. As it has been said it was not unique th at the pope's nuncio would become the bishop o f Rome after his return to his city. M aurice later not only accepted but sup-p orted the choice o f Gregory to this sup-post, so it is very likely th at during G regory's stay in C onstantinople he considered such a possibility. On the other hand the nuncio m ay have treated his friend ship with people from C onstantinople instrumentally. As a pope he corresponded alm ost only with the relatives o f M aurice and with high officials in his court. The fact th at he did not write to the members o f Tiberius' family whom he certainly m ust have known is very striking70. It is very pro bable th at they were no t useful for him. Similarly, after the „Phocas rev olutio n” n ot only he did n ot write to M au rice's widow, empress C onstantine, but he was not even interested in her vicissitudes. He did no t send any letters after 602 to the people connected with the
over-5* Ep. I l l, 62; V, 43.
" Ep. I ll, 64; V, 46; V II, 25; V II, 27.
“ Ep. I ll, 65. 41 Ep. I ll, 51. и Ep. IV, 32.
" Ep. I, 6: III, 63; V, 46; VI, 14; V II, 27. 64 Ep. I, 2.
65 Ep. VI, 17.
66 Ep. V III, 22; X I, 26; X III, 26. These letters are addressed to R usliciana b ut G regory m entioned Strategios in them.
67 Ep. I, 28.
“ Ep. I ll, 61 (G regory describes M aurice’s career). T a r d u c c i, op. cit., p. 38. 69 Joan. Diac. Vila, I, 40. The baptism took place ab ou t 585. C z u j , op. cit., p. 12. 70 The only exception was empress Constantine.
throw n emperor who survived the Phocas revolt71. His enthusiastic letters to the usurper and his wife prove that he was always looking for such a friendship which could be useful for his activity for the benefit o f the C hurch. He gave priority to the interests o f the latter over the loyalty to the people whom he called friends and over the necessity o f condemning the sin of murder.
There are no sources to prove that during his mission to C on stan-tinople Gregory took advantage o f his friends in order to exert pressure on the em peror’s decisions, yet, because we know that later he often did so, we can assume that he did the same when he was a papal am bas-sador.
F o r Gregory the m ost im portant and valuable was the acquaintance with the three succeeding patriarchs of Constantinople. The dispute with Eutychius who occupied the bishop's throne at the m om ent o f Gregory's arrival, has been discussed above. The nuncio was also in to uch with Joh n, „the deacon o f the great chu rch”72 and with Cyriacus73. Later they both became patriarchs o f the capital o f the Empire. The contact with them was even easier because they lived in C onstantinople, were members o f higher clergy and were interested in m onastic life. They shared this interest with Gregory and it was probably one o f the reasons th at the apocrisiarus
71 A t least they are n o t included in Registri epistularum .
72 Ep. I, 4; I, 24; II I, 52; V, 44; VI, 15. Joh n the F aster is m entioned in m any sources o th er th an G regory’s letters: Anastasii Bihliolhecarii Interpretatio Chronologiae S. Nicephori, PL, t. 129, col. 544; N i c e p h o r i C a l l i s t i , Ecclesiasticae Historiae, t. V III, p art. X X X IV ,
Patrologiae cursus completus..., Series graeca..., (accurante J. P. M igne hereafter PG ), 147 , col.
395-398; i d e m Enarratio, PG , t. 147, col. 445; Joannes Ephesinus H istoria ecclesiastica, pars tertia, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (hereafter CSCO ) 104 S .S .., t. 53, book II I , chap te r X LI -X L I I; book V, chapter XV; Chronologia consularis et caesarea, PL, t. 127, col. 792; Pavli Historica, X V II, PL, t. 95, col. 1008; S. Isidori hisp. ep. De viris illustribus
X X X I X , PL, t. 83; Z o n a r a s , Annales, boo k XIV, chapters X I-X I1 I, PG , t. 134-135;
C e d r e n u s , Historiarum compendium, PG , t. 121, col. 753-756, 759-760; T h e o p h a n e s C o n f e s s o r , Chronographie, PG , t. 108, ad a. 574, 582, 583; T h e o p h y l a c t u s S i m - m o c a t t a , Historia, ed. de Boor, Lipsiae 1887, book I, I, 1; I, X, 1-12; I, X I, 16-21; book V II, V I, 1-5; J. B. P i t r a , Iuris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et m onumentu, t. 2, R om ae 1868 (w rittings o f Jo hn the Faster); The papers dealing w ith Joh n w orth m entioning here include, am ong others: R. J a n i n , Jean IV , [in:] Diet, de theol. cath. 8, 1, col. 828-829; P. G o u b e r t , Patriarches d'Antioche et d ’Alexandrie contemporains de S. Grégoire le Grand, „Revue des Etudes Byzantines” 1967, t. 25, p. 74-76.
73 Ep. V II, 4; V II, 28; X III, 43. O ther sources m entioning Cyriac: N i c e p h o r i C a l l i s t i ,
op. cit., t. X V III, chapter LX; i d e m , Enarratio, PG , 147, col. 445; Anastasii Bibliothecarii...,
PI, 129, col. 554; T h e o p h a n e s , op. cit., ad a. 587, 590, 594, 598; T h e o p h y l a c t u s S i m . , op. cit., bo ok V III, IX , 1-21; Pavli Diaconi Historica, PL, t. 95, col. 1018, 1021; C e d r e n u s , Historiarum compendium, 121-122, col. 763, 771, 778; Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. D in dorfus, t. 1: Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae (hereafter CSHB), t. 6, p. 693. See also V. G r u m e l , Cyriac, [in:] Diet, d'histoire et geographie eccl., t. 13, col. 1167-1168.
became a friend o f theirs, especially o f Jo hn, and he was very glad when the latter was chosen bishop o f C onstantinople after Eutychius* d eath74. D uring all the time when Gregory was the pope‘s responsalis his relations with Jo h n were very good. They deteriorated only during his pontificate on account o f the quarrel about the title o f the „ecumenical p atriarch ”75. A m ong the churchm en m et by Gregory in C on stantino ple we should m ention the patriarch of Antioch - Anastasius - deposited from his throne by Justin II76. From the later correspondence we know th at Gregory was friendly towards him and probably tried to convince the em peror to give his post back to him. This was done by M aurice but only after the death o f patriarch Gregory77. A nother very im p ortan t person who was a friend o f the po pe‘s apocrisiarus was the bishop of Sevilla, Leander, who came to Constantinople as an am bassador o f Hermenegild who rebelled against his father, king of Visigoths, on religious ground. Hermenegild, probably under the influence of Leander, sympathized with catholicism and he tried to introduce it in his country against his father's opinion. The latter was a follower o f arian religion78. Gregory met Leander abo ut the year 58379. It is difficult to weight the influence which Gregory could exert on the bishop o f Sevilla but we can be almost sure that he prom oted his mission and tried to help him to gain the em peror's support. He was always an adherent o f winning new tribes for the C hristian faith and surely Wisigoths were n ot an exception to th at rule. D uring his pontificate he tried to convert the Lom bards and sent christianizing mission to the Angles. The idea o f the restitution o f catholicism in Spain was pleasant to him, especially because it's realization would strengthen the position of the pope in the West. Hermenegild was, as a m atter o f fact, a rebel against his own
74 Ep. I, 4.
75 G regory’s letters from the time o f his pontificate express the opinion th a t Jo h n had changed very m uch and becam e haughty. Ep. V, 44.
76 Ep. I, 7; I, 24; V, 41, VII, 24; V II, 31; V III, 2. O ther sources m entioned A nastase: A g a p i o s from M arbo urg, H istoire universelle, ed. Vasiliev, Patrologia O rientals (hereafter PO ), t. 8, p. 447(187); T h e o p h a n e s , op. cit., ad a. 587; N i c e p h o r i C a l l i s t i , op. cit., t. X V III, chapter X X VI; Chronicon Paschale, p. 692; E w a g r i u s z S c h o l a s t y k , H istoria
Kościoła, przeł. S. K azikow ski, W arszaw a 1990, b ook IV, chapter X L; bo ok V; b ook VI,
X X IV . See also R. J a n i n , Anastase, [in:] D iet, d'histoire et géographie eccl, t. 2, col. 1460. 77 I t is very significant th a t G regory sent synodical letters sim ultaneously to A thanasius and to pa triar ch G regory, w ho a t th a t tim e was holding the bishopric in A ntioch.
71 Ep. V, 52a. A b o ut the situ atio n in Spain see am on g o thers: Joannis Biclarensis
Chronicon, PL, t. 72, col. 886; Pavli Diaconi De gestis Langobardorum, III, X X I, PL, t. 95,
col. 525; Spain under the Visigoths, [in:] The Cambridge M edieval H istory, t. 2, p. 159-193; D . M . L e c l e r q , L'Espagne chrétienne, Paris 1906, p. 275-289; J. M . F o n t a i n e , Isidore
de Seville el la culture, Paris 1959, t. 1, p. 5-7, 33; t. 2, p. 740-741, 842.
75 Joannis Biclarensis Chronicon, loc. cit.; F o n t a i n e , op. cit., p. 5; L e c l e r g , op. cit.,
father, but Gregory, when he saw real political advantages, could close his eyes to this. After becoming the pope he still had very good relations with Leander. Gregory owed his friend an inspiration to write one o f his first theological works which gave him a place am ong the D octors o f the C hurch. It was a comm entary to the book o f Job known as M oralia in
Jobm. It is w orth saying th at while attending the pope‘s am bassado r's duties
which forced him to live among „the affairs o f the world” Gregory found time to explain difficult fragm ents of the Holy Scripture to his brothers. Probably among the m onks whom he too k with him from Italy he found safety and rest. It seems th at he never liked the imperial court and could n ot trust Byzantines. Probably he did not feel at hom e in Constantinople. The commentaries to the Job uttered during the meetings with m onks were later written down81.
The lack o f the sources m akes impossible to analyse deeper G regory's work as a nuncio. We have only a few very short and chance m entions o f his activity in Constantinople. One o f them proves th at he tried to guarantee the privileges of Naples. His efforts were successful - the em peror M aurice gave special orders in this m atter82.
We know neither exactly when Gregory returned to Rom e no r the reasons for his coming back. It is likely to have happened in 585 or 5 8 683. The date 584 which is accepted by some historians84 should be rejected because in 585 Gregory was in the capital where he was a godfather to M aurice's son85. It is certain that the reason for Gregory being recalled
80 J. D a n i e l o u , H. J. M a r r o u , Historia Kościoła, t. 1: O d początków do 600 r.,
W arszaw a 1984, p. 325.
81 C. Dagnes thinks th a t ... G régoire, ce Rom ain qui partag e les inquiétudes de ses com patriotes, c’est senti étranger dans la ville im periale. Il y a vécu à la m anière d ’un exile, se liant peu avec les O rientaux, res ta nt da ns un milieu rom ain” . D a g n e s , Grégoire..., p. 244.
Moralia G regory w rote at the request o f this m onks and Leander. Ep. 53a; Gregorii M agni Moralia X IV , 74; Vita auctore..., p. 131; S. Isidori De viris..., X L, PL, t. 83, col. 1102.
J. F o n t a i n e , Augustin, Grégoire et Isidore: esquisse d'une recherche sur le style des M oralia in lo b , [in:] Grégoire le Grand. Colloques internationaux du C N R S, Paris 1986, s. 499-509. G regory ’s other w orks from this period are discussed in D u n n , op. cit., p. 5.
82 Ep. I X, 46.
13 Th e da te 585 is given by: F l i e h , M a r t i n , op. cit., p. 55; D a g e n s , L'Eglise..., p. 463; U s p i e n s k i , op. cit., p. 60; M o r g g r a f f , op. cit., p. 4; F. H a l к i n, Le pape
Grégoire le Grand dans l ’hagiographie byzantin, „O rientalia C hristiana Periodica” 1955, t. 21,
p. 109. The d ate 586 by: C a n n a t a , op. cit., p. 231, 285-286; F l i e h , op. cit., p. 88. 84 J. C h a n t r e l , Histoire populaire des papes des premiers siècles, t. 1, p aris 1865, p. 561; F. M o u r r e t , L ’Eglise..., p. 68. The latter suggests th a t G regory came back to Italy ,,en com pagne de l’exarque” Sm aragdus (ibidem, loc. cit.). H e is w rong - Sm aragdus took over his office du ring G regory’s stay in Constan tinople - P e l a g i u s II, Ep. I. A lso the d a te given by J. C z u j (the end o f 587) seems to be unacceptable (op. cit., p. 14).
was no t his being in disfavor, because after his return to Rome he became one o f Pelagius' reliable collaborators. Paul the Deacon attributes to him the authorship of some o f the letters sent by the pope to the bishops of lstria. The aim of the letters was to put an end to the Istrian schism86. W ithin this con tex t it seems possible th at Pelagius called G regory in because he could rely on him and because he wanted him to be his adviser and, m aybe, successor. The recalling of Gregory may also have been due to some extent to his inability to settle the m ost im p o rtan t m atters, especially the problem o f the em p eror's sup po rt for Italy. Seeing his helplessness and feeling bad in C onstantinople Gregory him self could ask the pope for permission to return to his home country and quiet m onastic life. It is also possible th at Gregory hoped th at he would become the po pe's adviser or the pope himself after the death o f Pelagius II. In the capital o f the Em pire they parted with him surely in sorrow because all testify th at he played his role very well and was a good m ediator between the pope and the emperor. As far as we know during his mission there was n ot any tension between the Capital o f the Apostles and the civil governor o f the Empire, though there were m any causes for frictions. M oreover, in C onstantinople they knew Gregory's character, they knew how to influence him and what to expect o f him. The change on the nuncio's post was always unpredicable. On the other hand, it was probably known th at Gregory was a possible candidate for the bishop's th ron e after Pelagius' death and that is why it was im portant to gain his benevolence. So he got m an y gifts before leaving the em peror's city. A m ong o ther things he received valuable relics o f saints Luke and Andrew87. These were the parts o f their bodies which Gregory accepted willingly. T h at is why we could be surprised with the fact th at later he criticized strongly the custom o f splitting the saint's body to get relics and he refused to send such relics to empress C onstantine88.
Since Gregory was a very intelligent and practical m an, able to judge people and situations, he profited greatly from his stay in Constantinople. His m ost im portant achievement was the winning o f the em peror's support in which also the emperor himself was interested. In the situation when the em peror was losing his influence on the West and when the role played by the papacy was growing, the m ost im po rtant thing for the em peror was to have a pope loyal to the Empire. This could be the reason why the pope's apocrisiariuses became popes themselves supported by the em perors
16 Ibidem; P e l a g i u s II, Ep. III, IV, V; J. C z u j , D odatek III, [in:] Grzegorz Wielki, L is ty, t. 4; Pavli D iaconi D e gestis Langobardorum, III, X X; H o w o r t h, op. cit., p. 25.
P. M a r a v a l , Grégoire le Grand et les lieux saints d'O rient, [in:] Gregorio M agno e il
suo tempo, t. 1, R om a 1991, p. 70; U s p i e n s k i , op. cit., p. 60.
who had known them before. There is no doubt th at Maurice knew very well th at Gregory was highly respected by both the pope and the R om ans and th at he was a foreseen candidate for the bishopric. So it was natural th at he strove for his benevolence. In return for this he gave his support.
Thanks to direct, personal contacts with the emperor, Gregory could learn n ot only his character but also his views, the attitu de to the C hurch and the people who had impact on him. W hen we consider the style o f his letters to M aurice we can be sure th at he knew very well th at this em peror was n ot a new Justinien and th at he did not like to use brutal m ethods towards the Church. Thus, he knew, how far he could go with criticism without risking the emperor's anger. The style o f Gregory's letters to the brutal usurper Phocas is absolutely different89. W. Ullm ann certainly was right when he wrote th at Gregory „did no t wish to provoke the wrath o f the em peror”90. The opinion o f the historians concerning the relation between pope Greorgy the G reat and emperor Maurice are different and range from very severe and unjust Rahner's statem ent that Gregory was absolutely submissive to the em peror91, throug h the views pointing ou t th at he respected M aurice92, to the argum ent that humbleness of the style of his letters to the emperor was only the result o f the etiquette used in those times93. It seems that all these opinions are too one-sided. Gregory did not oppose the em peror's authority but he was not submissive, either. He would be very critical, however, at the same time he would declare his submission and try not to offend Maurice. The problem of the relationship between the pope and the emperor goes beyond the scope of this article and demands a separate investigation. It is only proper to say th at the long stay in Constantinople probably taught Gregory prudence and contributed to the development o f his innate talent for diplomacy.
As a pope Gregory was able to m ake profit from the acquaintances m ade in Constantinople. He asked his friends to help both his responsalisesw and persons who, according to him, could be treated unjustly by the emperor or patriarch o f C onstantinople95. W hen it was necessary to persuade the em peror to take some difficult decision Gregory did not take the official way and acted throu gh the m ediation o f persons who were intimate with the emperor and whom he trusted, eg. his wife C onstantine96 do cto r
19 Ep. X II, 34; X III, 41.
90 W. U l l m a n n , Medieval political Thought, Lo ndo n 1975, p. 50.
91 H . R a h n e r , Kościół i państwo we wczesnym chrześcijaństwie, W arszaw a 1986, p. 223. 92 M a r k u s , op. cit., 23 and 29; M. P a c a u t , L a théocratie. L'Eglise e t le pouvoir au
M oyen Age, Paris 1957, p. 28-29.
91 B a t i f f o l , op. cit., p. 195. 94 Ep. III , 51; V II, 27. 95 Ep. I ll, 63.
Theodore97, Narzes98. These measures were not always successful bu t they proved th at Gregory was very well informed ab ou t personal relationships, inform al influences and dependences in the court. In the light o f the above, G regory's disinclination for „the m atters o f the w orld” declared by him, seems very doubtful. He knew very well who was worth keeping contact with. Gregory was a very good and intelligent observer o f the co urt life so he m ust have been a frequent guest of the em peror. Sometimes he tried to avail o f his influence in order to support different people in their attem pts to get ho no r titles and posts99. We should emphasize th at he did this very seldom. On the whole, the pope acted via his acquaintances for the sake o f the C hu rch 's in terest or to help th e wronged ones. He supported the exertions o f bishop o f M elitena Dom itianus, the em pero r's relative, who tried to convert the Persians100. It is a pity th at we do not know how Gregory acted towards the brutal fight led against the heretics by this bishop. But considering his own activity in ord er to minimize d on atists' influences in Africa we could be almost sure th at he would praise his friend's doings. The mission in Constantinople gave Gregory an o p p or-tunity to establish opinion ab out the weakness o f the Em pire and the impossibility to gain support for Italy from it. It does not seem to have been the case th at he fully took advantage o f this op portunity. Nevertheless, he did n ot limit himself to the asking for help only but tried to concentrate the power in his hands irrespectively o f his official declarations th at he was the em peror's loyal subdominate and th at he accepted the supremacy o f the exarch o f R avenn a101. All this proves th at he m ust have been conscious, to a certain degree, o f the hopelessness o f his appeals to C onstantinople for m ilitary support. T h at is why he wanted to take the responsibility for the defence o f Italy and even initiated peace negotiations with the Lom bards over the emperor's officials' heads102.
97 Ep. I ll , 64.
9* Ep. I, 6; VI, 14; V II, 27.
99 G regory supported V enance’s attem pts to get a po st (Ep. II, 36) but he rejected the request o f exprefect Q uertinus to do the som e thing (Ep. IX , 6).
Ep. I l l, 62.
101 A ccording to U 11 m a n n ’ s opinion (op. cit., p. 49): „... the only sensible conclusion he reached w as th a t it w ould be dangerous and foolhardy for the R om a n C hurch to persist in its pro testa tio ns an d rem onstrations against the em peror’s govem em ent [...] But, and in this lay G regory’s juristic acum en and forsightedness, none o f the disadventages w ould exist if the popes were to press their own governm ental theory in regions in which the em peror’s governm ent an d jurisdiction were ineffective H ence G regory’s turn in g to the W est by sending m ission to G aul and E ngland” . D . A t t w a t e r m aintains tha t: „ the experience gained at C onstantinople enabled him to strenghten the authority o f R om an see in the E ast as well as the W est” (The D ictionary o f Saints, Lon don 1985, p. 155.
102 G regory even concluded a treaty w ith the L om ba rds n o t taking into acco un t the opinion o f the exarch of Ravenna. H e exposed him self to the em peror’s anger. Ep. V, 36.
A lth oug h d uring his stay in C o nstantin ople he d ealt with leading theological disputes and defended persons accused o f heresy, he did not m ake his knowledge m ore profou nd regarding theological eastern thought and did n ot get acquainted with local religious problems. Later, when he became the bishop of Rome, he was forced to ask his friends for help in cases which concerned m atters dem anding knowledge o f eastern heresies103.
The stay in C onstantinople did not weaken Gregory's prejudices against its inhabitants but, on the contrary, m ade them deeper. The pope considered the people o f the East to be shrewd in the bad meaning o f this word, cunning, while the Greek codes o f C hurch laws were, according to him, n o t reliable104. We do not know if Gregory read those codes in the original him self or whether he considered them as bad a priori or if he formed his opinions on the basis of the reports of other people. His conviction th at the R om an codes are superior to the Greek ones concurred with his belief th at the Capital o f the Apostles had the right for primacy and with his very often demonstrated pride o f being a R om an 103. His dislike o f Byzantium is so evident th at it has inclined some researchers to attribute to him the desire to fight against the Em pire“14 or his wish to undertake actions aimed at not letting the „byzantinisation” o f Italy 107. Opinions like these seem to be to o far-fetched but it is a fact that G regory‘s attitude surely caused th a t his relations with the imperial court got worse. It is especially visible durin g his whole pontificate. On the other hand we do not have any inform ation which could prove that during his stay in C onstantinople he had any dispute with the em peror or with somebody from his surrounding. It is possible that taking care o f good relationships with the cou rt he avoided, at th at time, too radical utterances and did no t openly voice his opinion. Only after the return to Rome, when he could feel safe did he dare to criticize very sharply not only the particular moves o f the emperor o r his officials, but the Greek world as well. Gregory‘s negative opinion ab o u t th e in habitan ts o f Byzantium seems to be in conflict with his friendship with people from Constantinople, provided, howewer, th at this friendship was the result o f real feeling and not political cunning. U nfor-tunately we cannot be certain which of these is true. He wrote genuinely personal and warm letters to a relatively small num ber o f people108. The other letters in spite of a very kind form, do not go beyond the official
103 Ep . X , 14. G regory asked his nun cio for explanations concerning eastern heresies 104 Ep. VI, 14.
105 Ep. I l l, 63 - the letter quoted above in which G regory refused to answ er the letter o f D om enica only because it was w ritten in G reek.
106 Ch. R. M o n t a l e m b e r t , Les moines d'Occidenl, t. 2, Paris 1860, p. 111. 107 L. С г a с с o - R u g i n i, op. cil., p. 86-87.
form ulas used in those times. We can notice th at his letters to M aurice did not differ from those written to other m onarchs whom Gregory did n ot know personally eg. to them queen o f Francs - B runhild109, queen Theodelind a110 or to the king o f Visigoths R ek kared111. Only once during his 12-years-long pontificate was he interested personally in the vicissitudes o f M aurice‘s sons112. The eldest was his godson. Even th oug h in m any letters he called for prayers for the em peror's family he did n ot hesitate to dem onstrate delight in M aurice's being overthrown by Phocas113. H e sent his congratulations to the m an who m urdered m any people including his own godson. He was not interested what happened to empress C onstantine and her daughters after M aurice's death. This puts his warm fiendship with the emperor in question114. We could rather think th at both the pope and the emperor acknowledged the necessity o f keeping m oderately pro per contacts and covering up the contradictions because they needed each other. We can also assume that the relationships between Gregory and empress C onstantine were not always go od115.
G regory's pontificate occurred in the period, when the two p arts o f the old Empire were slowly drifting apart. Even R. M arkus who stressed close ties between the Papacy and the E m pire116 adm itted th at in the W est the feeling o f separation from the Byzantium existed and was increasing117. It is difficult to agree with the opinion o f C. Dagens that Gregory distinguished only the Em pire from the barbarians but not the West from the E a st118. It is obvious th at he did no t use such terms and did no t intend to lead a regular battle against the Byzantium. In fact, throu gh critical statements ab o u t „G reeks” as well as throu gh real acts un dertak en w ith o ut the consultation with the emperor eg. in relation to Lom bards and through the dem onstrative lack o f interest in what was happening in the East he
109 Ep. V I, 5; V I, 55; VI, 57; V III, 4; IX , 212; IX , 213; X I, 46; X I, 48-49; X II I, 7. See also letters to the other m onarchs o f Francs: VI, 6; VI, 49; IX , 215 and 226; X I, 47; X I, 50-51; X IIII , 9.
110 Ep. IV, 4; IV , 33; IX , 67; X IV , 12. See also the letter to A gilulf IX , 66. 1,1 Ep. IX , 227a, 228 and 229.
112 Ep. V II, 23. 113 Ep. X III, 34.
114 T his was questioned already by B a t i f f o l : „II ne semble pa s q u ’il ait été très av ant da ns la confiance de l’em pereur M aurice: nous verrons de quels m énagem ents on devait user avec ce prince renferm é, jalo ux de son om nipotence, et destiné à laisser si p eu t d e regrets”
(op. cit., p . 41).
115 See no te 88.
116 M a r k u s , op. cit., p. 22-23. „G reg ory ’s political language is m ore a t ho m e in the com paratively hom ogenous and m ore th oroughly integrated society o f Byzantine C hristendom th an in the societies o f W estern E urop e” .
117 Ibidem, p. 35.
