Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/520

 JOHN

454

JOHN

town without the knowledge of the people, and to send him straight to Constantinople. In this sudden way Chrysostom was hurried to the capital, and ordained Bishop of Constantinople on 26 February, 398, in the presence of a great assembly of bishops, by Theoph- ilus. Patriarch of Alexandria, who had been obliged to renounce the idea of securing the appointment of Isidore, his own candidate. The change for Chrysos- torn was as great as it was unexpected. His new position was not an easy one, placed as he was in the midst of an upstart metropolis, half Western, half Oriental, in the immediate neighbourhood of a court in which luxury and intrigue always played the most prominent parts, and at the head of a clergy composed of the most heterogeneous elements, and even (if not canonically, at least practically) at the head of the whole Byzantine episcopate. The first act of tlie new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation be- tween Flavian and Rome. Constantinople itself soon began to feel the impulse of a new ecclesiastical life.

The necessity for reform was undeniable. Chrysos- tom began " sweeping the stairs from the top" (Palla- dius, op. cit., v). He called his osconomus, and or- dered him to reduce the expenses of the episcopal household ; he put an end to the frequent banquets, and lived little less strictly than he had formerly lived as a priest and monk. With regard to the clergy, (Chrysostom had at first to forbid them to keep in their houses syneisacta, i. e. women housekeepers who had vowed virginity. He also proceeded against others who, by avarice or luxury, had given scandal. He had even to exclude from the ranks of the clergy two deacons, the one for murder and the other for adultery. Of the monks, too, who were very numer- ous even at that time at Constantinople, some had preferred to roam about aimlessly and without disci- pline. Chrysostom confined them to their monas- teries. Finally, he took care of the ecclesiastical widows. Some of them were living in a worldly man- ner: he obliged them either to marry again, or to observe the rules of decorum demanded by their state. After the clergy, Chrysostom turned his attention to his flock. As he had done at Antioch, so at Constan- tinople and with more reason, he frequently preached against the unreasonalile extravagances of the rich, and especially against the ridiculous finery in the mat- ter of dress affected by women whose age should have put them beyond such vanities. Some of them, the widows Marsa, Castricia, Eugraphia, known for such preposterous tastes, belonged to the court circle. It seems that the upper classes of Constantinople had not previously been accustomed to such language. Doubt- less some felt the rebuke to be intended for themselves, and the offence given was the greater in proportion as the rebuke was the more deserved. On the other hand, the people showed themselves delighted with the sermons of their new bishop, and frequently ap- plauded him in the church (Socrates, " Hist, eccl.", VI). They never forgot his care for the poor and miserable, and that in his first year he had built a great hospital with the money he had saved in his household. But Chrysostom had also very intimate friends among the rich and noble classes. The most famous of these was Olympias, widow and deaconess, a relation of Emperor Theodosius, while in the Court itself there was Brison, first usher of Eudoxia, who assisted Chrysostom in instructing his choirs, and always maintained a true friendship for him. The empress herself was at first most friendly towards the new bishop. She followed the religious processions, attended nis sermons, and presented silver candle- sticks for the use of the cliurclics (Socrates, op. cit., VI, S; Sozoiiiciius, op. cit., VIII, .S).

Unfortunately, the feelings of amity did not last. At first Eutropius, the former slave, now minister and consul, abused liisinfl\ience. He deprived some wealthy

persons of their property, and prosecuted others whom he suspected of being adversaries or rivals. More than once Chrysostom went himself to the minister (see "Oratio ad Eutropium" in P. G., Chrys. Op., Ill, 392) to remonstrate with him, and to warn him of the results of his own acts, but without success. Then the above-named ladies, who immediately sur- rounded the empress, probably did not hide their resentment against the strict bi.shop. Finally, the empress herself committed an inj ustice in depriving a widow of her vineyard (Marcus Diac, " Vita Porphy- rii", V, no. 37, in P. G., LXV, 1229). Chrysostom interceded for the latter. But Eudoxia showed her- self offended. Henceforth there was a certain cool- ness between the imperial Court and the episcopal palace, which, growing little by little, led to a catas- trophe. It is impossible to ascertain exactly at what period this alienation first began; very probably it dated from the beginning of the year 401. But before this state of things became known to the public there happened events of the highest political importance, and Chrysostom, without seeking it, was implicated in them. These were the fall of Eutropius and the re- volt of Gainas.

In January, 399, Eutropius, for a reason not exactly known, fell into disgrace. Knowing the feelings of the people and of his personal enemies, he fled to the church. As he had himself attempted to abolish the ' immunity of the ecclesiastical asylums not long be- fore, the people seemed little disposed to spare him. But Chrysostom interfered, delivering his famous ser- mon on Eutropius, and the fallen minister was saved for the moment. As, however, he tried to escape dur- ing the night, he was seized, exiled, and some time later put to death. Immediately another more exciting and more dangerous event followed. Gainas, one of the imperial generals, had been sent out to subdue Tribigild, who had revolted. In the summer of 399 Gainas united openly with Tribigild, and, to restore peace, Arcadius had to submit to the most humiliating conditions. Gainas was named com- mander-in-chief of the imperial army, and even had Aurelian and Saturninus, two men of the highest rank at Constantinople, delivered over to him. It seems that Chrysostom accepted a mission to Gainas, and that, owing to his intervention, Aurelian and Satur- ninus were spared by Gainas, and even set at liberty. Soon afterwards, Gainas, who was an Arian Goth, demanded one of the Catholic churches at Constanti- nople for himself and his soldiers. Again Chrysostom made so energetic an opposition that Gainas yielded. Meanwhile the people of Constantinople had become excited, and in one night several thousand Goths were slain. Gainas however escaped, was defeated, and slain by the Huns. Such was the end within a few years of three consuls of the Byzantine Empire. There is no doubt that Chrysostom's authority had been greatly strengthened by the magnanimity and firm- ness of character he had shown during all these troubles. It may have been this that augmented the jealousy of those who now governed the empire- — a clique of courtiers, with the empress at their head. These were now joined by new allies issuing from the ecclesi- astical ranks and including some provincial bishops — Severian of Gabala, Antiochus of Ptolemais, and, for some time, Acacius of Beroea — who preferred the attractions of the capital to residence in their own cities (Socrates, op. cit., VI, 11; Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 10). The most intriguing among them was Severian, who flattered himself that he was the rival of Chrysostom in eloquence. But so far nothing had transpircil in pulilic. A great change occurred dur- ing the al isencc (}f (!hrysostom for several months from ('oiistantinople. This absence was necessitated by an ecclesiastical affair in Asia Minor, in which he was involved. Following the express invitation of several bishops, Chrysostom, in the first months of 401, had