208

ATTICUS

ATTIOUS

ins ignorance and making the most of his know-ledge, was often credited with higher theologicalattainments than he possessed. He had goodnatural abilities, and he spared no pains to makeup for the deficiencies of his early education bydiligent study, often derating whole nights toreading. Att.ieus gained no reputation as apreacher. His sermons, mediocre in style, hadneither learning nor eloquence to recommend.them, and the nice Byzantine ear was offended byhis rough Armenian dialect. As a presbyter hewrote out his sermons and learnt them by heart;but as a bishop he preached extemporaneously.But the contrast between his discourses and thosewhich his golden-mouthed predecessor had deli-vered from the same ambo was keenly felt. Theywere listened to coldly without applause, and noshorthand writer was employed to take them down(Soc. vii. 2; Soz. viii. 27; Niceph. xiii. 29, xiv.27). The statements of Palladius with respectto the enemies of Chrysostom are always to beleceived with caution, and it would be hardlyrife on his authority to convict Atticus of igno-Tiuce of the Scriptures, and infrequent preaching.

The precise grounds of quarrel between Atti-cus and Chrysostom we do not know; but heproved himself one of Chrysostom’s most bitterand uncompromising adversaries. If not, as Palla-dius asserts (c. xi.), the architect of the wholecabal for the overthrow of Chrvsostom, he cer-tainly took a very leading part in carrying itinto execution. The organization of the synodof the Oak owed much to his practical skill. Heand Arsacius appeared as witnesses against thearchbishop on the charge of illegally confiscatingthe property of the see, and eagerly clamouredfor his immediate condemnation. “ His guilt wasclear, why should there be any further delay ? ”(Phot. Cod. 59.)

We have not the means of distinctly tracingAtticus’ share in the subsequent events by whichthe overthrow of Chrysostom was finally accom-plished ; but all we know of his character andconduct, and the position he occupied as one ofthe leaders of the party resolved on the arch-bishop’s destruction, confirms the conviction thatae was very far from being idle. Chrysostom wasan obstacle to his advancement, to be removedout of his way. Nor was he likely to be veryscrupulous as to the means. Among the voicesthat were clamouring round the feeble emperor,seeking to force his fluctuating mind to a deci-sion favourable to their own interests, that ofAtticus must have been one of the loudest, andleast readily silenced.

The expulsion of Chrysostom took place June10, 404. His successor, the aged Arsacius, didnot long enjoy the reward of his intrigues. Hisdeath followed in little more than a year, Nov. 5,405. Few questions could be more importantto the party now triumphant than the choice ofthe new archbishop. It had proved a mistakenpolicy to place on Chrysostom’s throne a mildbut inert old man, to be used as a tool in carry-ing out their measures, and a screen for theiracts of violence and cruelty. The large majorityof the people of Constantinople still regardedChrysostom as their lawful bishop, and heldaloof from the religious assemblies of the in-truder. They were supported in their resistanceby Pope Innocent and the Western Church, to-gether with a considerable number of the most

highly esteemed Eastern prelates. A wise headand a vigorous hand were needed to meet theemergency. Four months of intrigue ended inthe selection of Atticus, March 406.

The appointment of Atticus took place whilethe Occidental deputies despatched by Honoriusin Chrysostom’s behalf were on their way toConstantinople. The news of it greeted them ontheir arrival. What share he had in the igno-minious treatment of these envoys is unknown,Palladius, however (c. iv.), does not scruple tosuggest that he was the author of the base at-tempt to bribp them to desert the cause theyhad come to maintain, and the instigator of theirsubsequent ill-treatment (Niceph. xiii. 33).

Vigorous measures were at once adopted byAtticus in conjunction with the other membersof the triumvirate to which the Eastern Churchhad been subjected, Theophilus of Alexandria,and Porphyry of Antioch, to crush the adherentsof Chrysostom. An imperial rescript was ob-tained imposing the severest penalties of confis-cation of property, loss of rank, fine, and banish-ment on all, of whatever rank or condition, whodared to reject the communion of the patriarchs.A large number of the bishops of the East per*severed in the refusal, and suffered a cruel persecution; while even the inferior clergy and laitywere compelled to keep themselves in conceal-ment, or to fly the country. The small minorityof Eastern bishops who for peace' sake desertedChrysostom’s cause were made to feel the guiltof having once supported it. They were com-pelled to leave their sees and take other diocesesin the inhospitable regions of Thrace, where theymight be more under Atticus’ eye and hand (Soc.vii. 36 ; Niceph. xiii. 30 ; Pallad. c. xx).

Unity seemed hardly nearer when the death ofChrysostom (Sept. 14, 407) removed the originalground of the .schism. A large proportion of theChristian population of Constantinople still re-fused communion with the usurper, and con-tinued to hold their religious assemblies, morenumerously attended than the churches, in theopen air in the suburbs of the city (Niceph. xiv.23, 27). Stung to the quick, Atticus employedall means—force and persuasion, threats andbribes—to reduce the recusants to submission.But he obtained no decisive result. Chryso-stom’s adherents demanded that the archbishop’sname should be restored to the diptychs of thechurch. On no other terms would they listento propositions of reunion. This was a step forwhich Atticus was not prepared. To do sowould be to nullify his own episcopate. It wasin vain that Porphyry’s successor, Alexander ofAntioch—the first who had dared to replacethe revered name on the rolls of the church—visited Constantinople and used his personal in-fluence with his brother patriarch ; in vain thatthe people of the imperial city, excited by hispresence, made the demand openly of their arch-bishop. At last, fear extorted from Atticus whathigher considerations failed to obtain. The popu-lar excitement was growing dangerous. To opposethe general wish was no longer safe. The em-peror, fearing for the public peace, counselledyielding to the universal voice. At last by atardy act of justice, most unwillingly granted,Chrysostom’s name took its place on the registersand in the public pravers of the Churclv of Con-stantinople. When Atticus had been once forced