Of the conduct which controlled Photius as patri- arch, in matters not connected with the Btruggle to maintain his position, it is not easy to judge. That he aided Bardas, who was elevated to the dignity of Caesar, in his efforts for the revival of learning, per- je-hd those efforts to him. U highly proba- ble from his indisputable love of literature (Theoph. Contin. I>< Mir/,, Theophili FUio,c. 26 . That In- pos- sessed many kindly dispositions is indicated by his letters. The charges of the forgery of letters, and of cruelty in his struggles with the party of Ignatius, are, there i- reason to believe, too true; but a- almost all the original sources of information respecting his char- acter and conduct arc from parties hostile to his claims, we cannot confidently receive their charges as true in all their extent. The murder of Caesar Bardas (A.D. 866 or 867), by the emperor's order, was speedily fol- lowed by the assassination of .Michael himself (A.M. 867), and the accession of his colleague and murderer. Basil I (the Macedonian). Photius bad consecrated Basil as the colleague of Michael : but alter the murder of the latter he refused to admit him to the commun- ion, reproaching him as a robber and a murderer, ami unworthy to partake of the sacred elements. Photius was for this offence immediately banished to a mon- astery, and Ignatius restored : various papers which the servants of Photius were about to conceal in a neigh- boring reed-bed were seized, and afterwards produced against Photius, first in the senate of Constantinople, and afterwards at the council held against him. I In- hasty change in the occupants of the patriarchate had been too obviously the result of the change of the im- perial dynasty to be sufficient of itself. Put the im- perial power had now the same interest a- t In W( -lent Church in the deposition of I'hotius. A council (recog- nised by the Romish Church as the eighth oecumenical or fourth Constantinopolitan) was therefore summoned, A.D. St'i'.t. at which the deposition of I'hotius and the restoration of Ignatius were confirmed. The cause was in fact prejudged by the circumstance that Ignatius took his place as patriarch al the commencement of the council. Photius. who appeared before the council, and bis partisans were anathematized and stigmatized with the mosl opprobrious epithets. He subsequently ac- quired the favor of Basil, but by what means is uncer- tain; for we can hardly give credence to the Strange tale related by Nicetas (ibid.'), who ascribes it to the forgery and interpretation by Photius of a certain ge- nealogical document containing a prophecy of Basil's exaltation. It is certain, however, not only that he -aiued the favor of the emperor, but that he soon ac- quired a complete ascendency over him: he was ap- pointed tutor to the sons of Basil, had apartments in the palace assigned to him; and on the death of [gna- tius, about A.D. 877, was immediately restored to the patriarchal throne. With writers of the Ignatian party and of the Romish church this restoration i-. of course. nothing less than a new irruption of the wolf into the
sheepfold. According to Nicetas. he commenced his patriarchate by beating, banishing, and in \ arioUS ways afflicting the servants and household of his defunct rival, and by using ten thousand ails against those who
objected to his restoration as uncanonical and irregular. Some he bribed by gifts and hi --.and bj translation
tO w call bier or more eligible sees I ban those thev occu- pied ; others he terrified by reproaches and accusations, which, on their embracing his party, were speedily and .altogether dropped. That, in the corrupt stale of the Byzantine empire and Church, something of this must
PHOTIUS
167
PHOTIUS
have happened at such a crisis, there can be little doubt ; though there can be as little doubt that these state- ments are much exaggerated. It is probable that one great purpose of Basil in restoring Photius to the patri- archate was to do away with divisions in the Church, for it is not to be supposed that Photius was without his partisans. But to effect this purpose he had to gain over the Western Church. Nicholas had been suc- ceeded by Hadrian II, and he by John VIII (some reck- on him to be John IX), who now occupied the papal chair. John was more pliant than Nicholas, and Basil was a more energetic prince than the dissolute Michael ; the pope therefore yielded to the urgent entreaties of a prince whom it would have been dangerous to diso- blige; recognised Photius as lawful patriarch, and ex- communicated those who refused to hold communion with him. Pope John's yielding attitude in this case betrayed so much womanly weakness that it is, in the opinion of some, thought to have been the origin of that fable about popess Joan (q. v.), in that it obtained for him the feminine sobriquet Joanna. But the recogni- tion was on condition that he should resign his claim to the ecclesiastical superiority of the Bulgarians, whose archbishops and bishops were claimed as subordinates by both Pome and Constantinople ; and is said to have been accompanied by strong assertions of the superi- ority of the Roman see. The copy of the letter in which John's consent was given is a re-translation from the Greek, and is asserted by Romish writers to have been falsified by Photius and his party. It is obvious, how- ever, that this charge remains to be proved ; and that we have no more security that the truth lies on the side of Rome than on that of Constantinople. The ecclesi- astical jurisdiction of Bulgaria was no new cause of dis- sension : it had been asserted as strongly by the pious Ignatius as by his successor (comp. Joan. VIII Papse Epistol. 78, apud Concil. p. 63, etc.). Letters from the pope to the clergy of Constantinople and to Photius himself were also sent, but the extant copies of these are said to have been equally corrupted by Photius. Legates were sent by the pope, and even the copies of their Commonitorium, or letter of instruction, are also said to be falsified ; but these charges need to be care- fully sifted. Among the asserted additions is one in which the legates are instructed to declare the council of A.D. 869 (reputed by the Romish Church to be the eighth oecumenical or fourth Constantinopolitan), at which Photius had been deposed, to be null and void. Another council, which the Greeks assert to be the eighth oecumenical one, but which the Romanists reject, was held at Constantinople A.D. 879. The papal leg- ates were present, but Photius presided, and had every- thing his own way. The restoration of Photius and the nullity of the council of A.D. 869 were affirmed : the words " filioque" (q. v.), which formed one of the stand- ing subjects of contention between the two churches, were ordered to be omitted from the creed, and the ju- risdiction of the Bulgarian Church was referred to the emperor as a question affecting the boundaries of the empire. The pope refused to recognise the acts of the council, with the exception of the restoration of Photius, though they had been assented to by his legates, whom on their return he condemned, and then anathematized Photius afresh (Baron. Annal. Eccles. ad ami. 880, vols. xi, xiii). The schism and rivalry of the churches became greater than ever, and has never since been really healed. See Greek. Church. Photius, according to Nicetas (thill.), had been assisted in regaining the favor of Basil by the monk Theodore or Santabaren ; but other writers reverse the process, and ascribe to Photius the introduc- tion of Santabaren to Basil. Photius certainly made him archbishop of Eucha'ita, in Pontus; and he enjoyed, during Photius's patriarchate, considerable influence with Basil. By an accusation, true or false, made by this man against Leo, the emperors eldest surviving son and destined successor, of conspiring his father's death, Basil had been excited to imprison his son. So far, how-