vilifying the memory of the dead emperor as a tyrant, from whose yoke the church was now
fortunately freed.^221 This is a dark spot, but the only really dark and inexcusable spot in the life of
this pontiff. He seemed to have acted in this case on the infamous maxim that the end justifies the
means.^222 His motive was no doubt to secure the protection and aggrandizement of the Roman see.
He did not forget to remind the empress of the papal proof-text: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my church," and to add: "I do not doubt that you will take care to oblige and bind him
to you, by whom you desire to be loosed from your sins."
The murderer and usurper repaid the favor by taking side with the pope against his patriarch
(Cyriacus), who had shown sympathy with the unfortunate emperor. He acknowledged the Roman
church to be "the head of all churches."^223 But if he ever made such a decree at the instance of
Boniface III., who at that time was papal nuntius at Constantinople, he must have meant merely
such a primacy of honor as had been before conceded to Rome by the Council of Chalcedon and
the emperor Justinian. At all events the disputed title continued to be used by the patriarchs and
emperors of Constantinople. Phocas, after a disgraceful reign (602–610), was stripped of the diadem
and purple, loaded with chains, insulted, tortured, beheaded and cast into the flames. He was
succeeded by Heraclius.
In this whole controversy the pope’s jealousy of the patriarch is very manifest, and suggests
the suspicion that it inspired the protest.
Gregory displays in his correspondence with his rival a singular combination of pride and
humility. He was too proud to concede to him the title of a universal bishop, and yet too humble
or too inconsistent to claim it for himself. His arguments imply that he would have the best right
to the title, if it were not wrong in itself. His real opinion is perhaps best expressed in a letter to
Eulogius of Alexandria. He accepts all the compliments which Eulogius paid to him as the successor
of Peter, whose very name signifies firmness and solidity; but he ranks Antioch and Alexandria
likewise as sees of Peter, which are nearly, if not quite, on a par with that of Rome, so that the three,
as it were, constitute but one see. He ignores Jerusalem. "The see of the Prince of the Apostles
alone," he says, "has acquired a principality of authority, which is the see of one only, though in
three places (quae in tribus locis unius est). For he himself has exalted the see in which he deigned
(^221) His letter "ad Phocam imperatorem," Ep. XIII. 31 (III. 1281 in Migne) begins with "Gloria in excelsis Deo, qui juxta
quod scriptum est, immutat tempora et transfert regna." Comp. his letter "ad Leontiam imperatricen" (Ep. XIII. 39).
(^222) Gibbon (ch. 46): "As a subject and a Christian, it was the duty of Gregory to acquiesce in the established government;
but the joyful applause with which he salutes the fortune of the assassin, has sullied, with indelible disgrace, the character of
the saint." Milman (II. 83): "The darkest stain on the name of Gregory is his cruel and unchristian triumph in the fall of the
Emperor Maurice-his base and adulatory praise of Phocas, the most odious and Sanguinary tyrant who had ever seized the
throne of Constantinople." Montalembert says (II. 116): "This is the only stain in the life of Gregory. We do not attempt either
to conceal or excuse it .... Among the greatest and holiest of mortals, virtue, like wisdom, always falls short in some respect."
It is charitable to assume, with Baronius and other Roman Catholic historians, that Gregory, although usually very well informed,
at the time he expressed his extravagant joy at the elevation of Phocas, knew only the fact, and not the bloody means of the
elevation. The same ignorance must be assumed in the case of his flattering letters to Brunhilde, the profligate and vicious fury
of France. Otherwise we would have here on a small scale an anticipation of the malignant joy with which Gregory XIII. hailed
the fearful slaughter of the Huguenots.
(^223) The words run thus: "Hic [Phocas] rogante papa Bonifacio statuit Romanae et apostolicae ecclesiacaput esse omniuim
ecclesiarum,quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium rum scribebat." Paulus Diaconus, De Gest. Lomb. IV., cap.
7, in Muratori, Rer. Ital., I. 465. But the authenticity of this report which was afterwards frequently copied, is doubtful. It has
been abused by controversialists on both sides. It is not the first declaration of the Roman primacy, nor is it a declaration of an
exclusive primacy, nor an abrogation of the title of "oecumenical patriarch" on the part of the bishop of Constantinople. Comp.
Greenwood, vol. II. 239 sqq.