by abject apolopies. He became a kind of king-maker. When Theodora succeeded (1055–6), he "tried to rule over the empress" (Psellus, "Enkomion", 357). Michael VI (1056–7) was not sufficiently submissive, so Cærularius worked up a revolution, deposed him, went himself to cut off his hair, and shut him up in a monastery. In his place he set up Isaac Comnenus (Isaac I, 1057–9). Isaac knew well to whom he owed his place and was at first very docile. At this time Cærularius reached the height of his power. He appointed all the officers of state, and was the real sovereign of the empire. So little did ho disguise this fact that he began to Wear the purple shoes that Were always the prerogative of the emperor. "Losing all shame", says Psellus, " he joined royalty and priesthood in himself; in his hand he held the cross while imperial laws came from his mouth" (in Bréhier, op. cit., 275). Then Isaac got tired of being the patriarch's puppet and wanted to reign himself. So once again Cærularius worked up a revolution. This time he meant to have himself crowned emperor. But Isaac was too quick for him; he had him arrested at once and tried for high treason. Michael Psellus was employed to bring the charge against him. He was accused of treason, paganism, and magic; he was "impious, tyrannical, murderous, sacrilegious, unworthy". He was condemned to banishment at Madytus on the Hellespont. On the way there was a shipwreck from the effects of which he died (1059).
As soon as he was dead his apotheosis began. The emperor professed much regret for what had happened; his body was brought back to Constantinople and buried with great pomp in the church of the Holy Angels. Psellus, who had brought the charges against him, now preached a panegyric in his honour, describing him as the best, wisest, holiest, most misunderstood of men (this "Enkomion " is pubhshed by Sathas; see bibliography). It seems that, as soon as he was dead and therefore no longer dangerous, the Government found it more prudent to pretend to share the popular enthusiasm for him. From Psellus's two accounts (the indictment at the trial and the funeral oration) it is not difficult to form an opinion about Cærularius's character. He was by far the strongest man in the Eastern Empire during a time of its general degradation, far more capable than the contemptible emperors he set up and deposed. His life was austere. He had unbounded ambition, pride, and savage vindictiveness. It was said at the time that he never forgave an injury. He was not a scholar, nor in any way so great a man as his predecessor and model, Photius. It seems that his breach with Rome was a part of a general scheme. He wanted to make himself autocrat of at least Eastern Europe. He could easily cow the feeble emperors; he could and did dictate orders overweeningly to the other Eastern patriarchs, but he knew that he could not frighten nor persuade the pope to tolerate such a position. A breach with the West was thus the first necessary step in a career that was meant to end in a combination of patriarchate and empire in his own person. He did not succeed in that plan, but he did something much more momentous; he founded the schismatical Byzantine Church.
Will, Acta et Scripta quæ de controversiis ecclesiæ græcæ et latinæ sæculo XI composita extant (Leipzig, 1861): Psellus,History, ed. Sathas in Byzantine Texts (London, 1898); Psellus, Enkomion in Sathas. Bibl. medii ævi, IV' (1857), 326 sqq.; also in P. G., CXXII, 477–1186; Bréhier, Le schisme oriental du XIe siècle (Paris, 1899); Hergenröther, Photius, III (Ratisbon, 1869); Pichler, Gesch. der kirchl. Trennung zwischen dem Orient u Occident (Munich, 1864–5); Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903); Fortescue, The Orthdox Eastern Church (London, 1907), chap, v, The Schism of Cærularius.
Adrian Fortescue.
Michael de Sanctis (de los Santos), Saint, b. at Vich in Catalonia, 29 September, 1591; d. at Valladolid, 10 April, 16525. At the age of twelve years he came to Barcelona, and asked to be received into the monastery of the Trinitarians, in which order, after a three years' novitiate, he took vows in the monastery of St. Lambert at Saragossa, 5 Sept., 1607. When one day a Discalced Trinitarian came to St. Lambert's to receive Holy orders, Michael felt himself drawn to this more austere congregation. After mature deliberation, and with the permission of his superior, he entered the novitiate of the Discalced Trinitarians at Madrid, and took vows at Alcalá; he became priest and was twice elected superior of the monastery at Valladolid. He lived a life of prayer and great mortification, was especially devout towards the Holy Eucharist, and is said to have been rapt in ecstasy several times during Consecration. He, was beatified by Pius VI, 24 May, 1779 and canonized by Pius IX, 8 June, 1862. His feast is celebrated on 5 July. He is generally represented kneeling before an altar where the Blessed Sacrament is exposed.
Vita e miracolidi S. Michele dei Santi, published anonymously; (Rome, 1862); Carmichael, The Congregation of S. Michele del Santi in The Catholic World. LXXIV (New York, 1902), 629–41; Guérin, Vies des Saints, 5 July; Stadler, Heiligen-Lexikon (Augsburg, 1858–82), 439–440.
Michael Ott.
Michael of Cesena (Michele Fuschi), Friar Minor, Minister General of the Franciscan Order, and theologian, b. at Cesena, a small town in Central Italy, near Forli, about 1270; d. at Munich, 29 Nov., 1342. Of his early life little is known. Having entered the Franciscan Order, he studied at Paris and took the doctor's degree in theology. He taught theology at Bologna and wrote several commentaries on Holy Scripture and the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard. At the general chapter of Naples (31 May, 1316) he was elected minister general and went at once to Assisi, where he convoked a chapter to consider the revision of the Constitutions of the order. Returning to Bologna, he issued the document, " Gravi qua premor" (21 Aug., 1316), which, together with several other ordinances regarding the matter of poverty, induced John XXII to publish the Bull, "Quorumdam exigit" (7 Oct., 1317), whose purpose was to explain the decretals of Nicholas III, "Exiit qui seminat" (13 Aug., 1279), and of Clement V, "Exivi de paradiso" (6 May, 1312). As it concerned the principal chapter of the Franciscan Rule, this action caused no little disturbance within the order. The Bull was warmly opposed by Michael and his party, who claimed that in adopting the strict poverty upon which Michael had insisted in his letters, they were following the example and teaching of Christ and His Apostles. Thus the controversy finally shifted to a speculative theological question: whether or not it was consonant with Catholic Faith to hold that Christ and the Apostles had no property individually or in common; and while in the famous dispute at Narbonne in 1321 the inquisitor, John of Belna, claimed that it was heretical, Berengarius of Perpignan declared it a Catholic dogma in perfect accordance with the decretals of Nicholas II and Clement V. The matter having been brought before John XXII, a further attempt to settle the controversy was made by distinguishing between dominion and simple use, so that both propositions, Christ and the Apostles had no property, i. e., dominion of property, and Christ and the Apostles possessed property, i. e., the use of property, were true. In the Bull "Quia nonnunquam" (26 March, 1322) the pope declared that he intended merely to explain the decrees of his predecessors, and excommunicated anyone who attempted to misconstrue the meaning of the papal Constitution "Quorumdam exigit". In June of the same year a general chapter of the order was convoked at Perugia and decided that to assert that Christ and His Apostles possessed no earthly goods was not only not heretical, but sound and Catholic doctrine. At the same time Bonagratia of Bergamo was commis-
