ever, was Photius from joining in the designs of Santa- baren, that it was chiefly upon his urgent entreaties the emperor spared the eyes of Leo, which he had intended to put out. Basil died A.D. 886, and Leo VI succeeded to the throne. He immediately set about the ruin of Santabaren; and, forgetful of Photius's intercession, scru- pled not to involve the patriarch in his fall. Andrew and Stephen, two officers of the court, whom .Santabaren had. formerly accused of some offence, now charged Photius and Santabaren with conspiring to depose the emperor, and to place a kinsman of Photius on the throne. The charge appears to have been utterly unfounded, but it answered the purpose. An officer of the court was sent to the church of St. Sophia, who ascended the ambo, or pulpit, and read to the assembled people articles of accu- sation against the patriarch. Photius was immediately led into confinement, first in a monastery, afterwards in the palace of Pegae ; and Santabaren was brought in custody from Eucha'ita and confronted with him; the two accusers, with three other persons, were appointed to conduct the examination, a circumstance sufficient to show the nature and spirit of the whole transaction. The firmness of the prisoners, and the impossibility of proving the charge against them, provoked the emper- or's rage. Santabaren was cruelly beaten, deprived of his eyes, and banished; but was afterwards recalled, and survived till the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the successor of Leo. Photius was banished to the mon- astery of Bordi, in Armenia (or rather in the Thema Ar- meniacum), where he seems to have remained till his death. He was buried in the church of a nunnery at Merdosagares. The year in which his death occurred is not ascertained. Pagi. Fabricius, and Mosheim fix it in A.D. 891 ; but the evidence on which their state- ment rests is not conclusive. He must have been an aged man when he died, for he must have been in mid- dle age when first chosen patriarch, and he lived after that event thirty years, and probably more. He was succeeded in the patriarchate by the emperor's brother Stephen, first his pupil, then his syncellus, and one of his clergy. (Theoph. Continual, lib. v, c. 100; lib. vi, c. 1-5; Symcon j\lagister, Be Basil. Maced. c. 21; Be Leone Basil, fil. c. 1 ; Georg. Monach. Be Basil, c. 2-4 ; Be Lame, c. 1-7.)
The character of Photius is by no means worthy of much respect. He was an able man of the world, but not influenced by the high principles which befitted his sacred office. Yet he was probably not below the aver- age of the statesmen and prelates of his day ; and cer- tainly was not the monster that the historians and other writers of the Romish Church, whose representations have been too readily adopted by some moderns, would make him. A writer in the Edinburgh Review, xxi, 329, says, "He seems to have been very learned and very wicked — a great scholar and a consummate hypocrite — not only neglecting occasions of doing good, but pervert- ing the finest talents to the worst purposes." This is unjust ; he lived in a corrupt age, and was placed in a trying position; and, without hiding or extenuating his crimes, it must be remembered that his private charac- ter remains unimpeached; the very story of his being a eunuch, which, though not having the appearance of truth, shows at least that he was not open to the charge of licentiousness ; his firmness is attested by his repulse of Basil from the communion of the Church, and his mercifulness by his intercession for the ungrateful Leo. It must be borne in mind also that his history has come down to us chiefly in the representations of his enemies. The principal ancient authorities have been referred to in the course of this narrative, though we have by no means cited all the places. We may add, Leo Grammaticus, Chronographta, p. 403-476, ed. Paris; Zonar. xvi, 4, 8, 11, 12; Cedren. Compend. p. 551, 569, 573, 593, ed. Paris; ii, 172, 205, 213, 248, ed. Bonn; Ghj i as. Annal. pars iv, p. 293. 294, 297, etc., ed. Paris; p. *226, 228, 230, etc., ed. Venice ; p. 544, 547, 552, ed. Bonn ; Genesius, fteges, lib. iv, p. 48, ed. Venice ; p. 100,
PHOTIUS
ir,->
PHOTIUS
ed. Bonn; Constantin. Manass. Compend. Chron. vers. 5133 5163, 5233, etc, 5309, etc.; Joel, Chronog. Compend. |i. 17'.'. ed. Paris; p. 55, 56, i d. Bonn ; Ephrai m. Di Pa- triarchis CP. ver. 10,012 10,025, ed. Bonn.
Various notices and documents relating to his history generally, bul especially to his conduct in reference to the schism of the churches, may be found in thi I vols. viii. i\. ed. Labbe : vols. v, vi, ed. Hardouin; vols. xv. xvi. \\ ii. ed. MansL Of modern writers, Baronius (Amtal. Eccks. A.I). 858-886) is probably the fullest, bul at the same time one of the most unjust. Hankius (De . Reriftn Scriptoribus, pars i. c. 18) has a very ample memoir of Photius, which may be advantageous- ly compared with that of Baronius, as it- bias is in the opposite direction. See also Dupin, Nouvell< Biblio- tkequt des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, Steel* ix, p. 270, 2d 1. 1698. An essay by Francesco Fontani, /><■ Pkotio