The patriarchal throne of Constantinople was occu- pied in the middle of the 9th century by Ignatius (s. v.), who had the misfortune to incur the enmity of some few bishops and monks, and also of Bardas, who was all- powerful at the court of his nephew Michael, then a minor. Ignatius had excommunicated Bardas on a charge of incest, and Bardas, in retaliation, caused the patriarch's deposition, and the election of Photius in his place. Though a layman, and, according to some state- ments, under excommunication for supporting Gregory, less than a week sufficed, according to Nicetas David (ibid.), for the rapid passage of Photius through all the needful subordinate gradations : the first day witnessed his conversion from a layman to a monk; the second day he was made reader; the third day subdeacon; the fourth, deacon; the fifth, presbyter; and the sixth (Christmas-day, A.D. 858) beheld his promotion to the
PHOTIUS
16G
PHOTIUS
patriarchate, the highest ecclesiastical dignity in the empire. Nicetas {ibid.) states that his office was irreg- ularly committed to him by secular hands. Photius himself, however, in bis apologetic epistle to pope Nich- olas I (apud Baron. A mal. ad ann. 859, § l\i. etc.), states that the patriarchate was pressed upon his acceptance by a numerous assembly of the metropolitans, and of the other clergy of his patriarchate; nor is it likely thai tin- Byzantine court would fail to Becure a suffi- cient number of subservient bishops to give to the ap- pointment (very possible appearance of regularity. A consciousness thai the whole transaction was violent and indefensible, whatever care might be taken to give it the appearance of regularity, made il desirable for the victorious party to obtain from the deposed patri- arch a resignation of his office: but Ignatius was a man of too lofty a spirit to consent to ln> own degradation. Photius, however, retained his high dignity: the Becu- lar power was on his side; the clergy of the patriarch- ate, in successive councils (A.D. 858, 859 I, confirmed his appointment, though we are told by Nicetas David that the metropolitans exacted from him a written engage- ment that lie would treat his deposed rival with filial reverence, and follow his advice; and even the legates of the Holy See were induced to side with him, a sub- serviency lor which they were afterwards deposed by pope Nicholas 1. The engagement to treat Ignatius with kindness was not kept; in such a struggle its ob- servance could hardly he expected; but how far the severities inflicted on him arc to be ascribed to Photius cannot now be determined. The critical position of the latter would be likely to aggravate any disposition which he might feel to treat his rival harshly: for Nicholas, in a council at Rome t A.D. 862 ), embraced the aide of Ignatius, and anathematized Photius and his adherents; various enemies rose up against him among the civil officers as well as the clergy of the empire: and the minds of many, including, if we may trust Ni- cetas (ibidJ), the kindred and friends of Photius him- self, were shocked by the treatment of the unhappy Ig- natius. To adil to Photius's troubles, the Caesar Bardas appears to have had disputes with him. either influ- enced by the natural jealousy between the secular and ecclesiastical power-, or. perhaps, disappointed at not finding in Photius the subserviency he had anticipated. The letters of I'hotius addressed to ISardas (Epistolce, 3, 6, 8) contain abundant complaints of the diminution of his authority, of the ill-treatment of those for whom lie was interested, and of the inefficacy of his own in- tercessions and complaints. However, the opposition
at ig his own clergy was gradually weakened, until
only five bishops remained who supported the cause of Ignatius. Yet, notwithstanding these defections from the deposed patriarch. Photius labored zealously for a restoration of friendly feelings between himself and the Western patriarch. Nicholas, however, spurned all ad- vances, and in A.D. 863 anathematized and deposed Photius anew. ( it course the Roman patriarchate, fail- ing to seme the aid of the Eastern emperor, could not give practical effect to the deposition, ami Photius re- mained in his place. In order 1.. retaliate on Rome, he now assembled a council of the Eastern clergy at Con- stantinople (A.D. 867), in which the question was re- moved from the region of a personal dispute between
the bishop8 to a controversy of doctrine and discipline
between the churches of the Past and West themselves. in this council Photius first brought forward distinctly certain grounds of difference between the churches. which, although considerably modified, afterwards led
to their final separation. In all these doctrinal differ- ence-, the conned condemned tin Western Church, ex- communicated Nicholas and his abettors, and withdrew from the communion of the see of Rome. The charge of heresy against the church of Rome in genera] was embrai ed in the following articles: l. That the Church of Home kepi the Sabbath as a fast; 2. That il permit- ted milk anil cheese in the first week ol Lent ; .;. I bat
it prohibited the marriage of priests; 1. That it con- lined the rite of anointing persons baptized to the bish- ops alone; 5. That it bad corrupted tie- Nicene Creed by the addition of the words JUioque. A- neither party bad the secular power wherewith to carry its sentence into effect, the separation of the Eastern and Western churches became simply a schism, and a- such lasted until the actual deposition of Photius, LD, !