PHOTIUS
45
PHOTIUS
ciliation with Ignatius. It is doubtful how far Igna-
tius beheved in him, but Photius at this time never
tires of expatiating on his close friendship with the
patriarch. He became so popular that when Ignatius
died (23 Oct., 877) a strong party demanded that
Photius should succeed him; the emperor was now
on their side, and an embassy went to Rome to explain
that everyone at Constantinople wanted Photius to
be patriarch. The pope (John VIII, 872-82) agreed,
absolved him from all censure, and acknowledged
hin as patriarch.
This concession has been much discussed. It has been represented, truly enough, that Photius had shown himself unfit for such a post; John VIII's acknowledgment of him has been described as showing deplorable weakness. On the other hand, by Igna- tius's death the See of Constantinople was now really vacant; the clergy had an undoubted right to elect their own patriarch; to refuse to acknowledge Photius would have provoked a fresh breach with the East, would not have prevented his occupation of the see, and would havegiven his party (includingthe emperor) just reason for a quarrel. The event proved that almost anything would have been better than to allow his succession, if it could be prevented. But the pope could not foresee that, and no doubt hoped that Photius, having reached the height of his ambition, would drop the quarrel.
In 878, then, Photius at last obtained lawfully the place he had formerly usurped. Rome acknowledged him and restored him to her communion. There was no possible reason now for a fresh quarrel. But he had identified himself so completely with that strong anti-Roman party in the East which he mainly had formed, and, doubtless, he had formed so great a hatred of Rome, that now he carried on the old quarrel with as much bitterness as ever and more influence. Nevertheless he applied to Rome for legates to come to another synod. There was no reason for the synod, but he persuaded John VIII that it would clear up the last remains of the schism and rivet more firmly the union between East and West. His real motive was, no doubt, to undo the effect of the synod that had deposed him. The pope sent three legates. Cardinal Peter of St. Chrysogonus, Paul, Bishop of Ancona, and Eugene, Bishop of Ostia. The synod was opened in St. Sophia's in November, 879. This is the " Pseu- dosynodus Photiana" which the Orthodox count as the Eighth General Council. Photius had it all his own way throughout. He revoked the acts of the former synod (869) , repeated all his accusations against the Latins, dwelling especially on the filioque griev- ance, anathematized all who added anything to the Creed, and declared that Bulgaria should belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. The fact that there was a great majority for all these measures shows how strong Photius's party had become in the East. The legates, like their predecessors in 861, agreed to every- thing the majority desired (Mansi, XVII, 374 sq.). As soon as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation. Instead John, naturally, again excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again. This time it lasted seven years, till Basil I's death in 886.
Basil was succeeded by his son Leo VI (886-912), who strongly disliked Photius. One of his first acts was to accuse him of treason, depose, and banish him (886). The story of this second deposition and banishment is obscure. The charge was that Photius had conspired to depose the emperor and put one of his own relations on the throne — an accusa- tion which probably meant that the emperor wanted to get rid of him. As Stephen, Leo's younger brother, was made patriarch (886-93) the real explanation may be merely that Leo disliked Photius and wanted a place for his brother. Stephen's intiusion was as glaring an offence against canon law as had been that
of Photius in 857; so Rome refused to recognize him.
It was only under his successor Antony II (893-95)
that a synod was held which restored reunion for
a century and a Ijalf, till the time of Michael Cferular-
ius (1043-.58). But Photius had left a powerful anti-
Roman party, eager to repudiate the pope's primacy
and ready for another schism. It was this party, to
which Casrularius belonged, that triumphed at Con-
stantinople under him, so that Photius is rightly con-
sidered the author of the schism which still lasts.
After this second deposition Photius suddenly dis-
appears from history. It is not even known in what
monastery he spent his last years. Among his many
letters there is none that can be dated certainly as be-
longing to this second exile. The date of his death,
not quite certain, is generally given as 6 February,
897.
That Photius was one of the greatest men of the Middle Ages, one of the most remarkable characters in all church history, will not be disputed. His fatal quarrel with Rome, though the most famous, was only one result of his many-sided activity. During the stormy years he spent on the patriarch's throne, while he was warring against the Latins, he was negotiating with the Moslem Khalifa for the protection of the Christians under Moslem rule and the care of the Holy Places, and carrying on controversies against various Eastern heretics, Armenians, Paulicians etc. His interest in letters never abated. Amid all his cares he found time to write works on dogma, Biblical criti- cism, canon law, homilies, an encyclopa;dia of all kinds of learning, and letters on all questions of the day. Had it not been for his disastrous schism, he might be counted the last, and one of the greatest, of the Greek Fathers. There is no shadow of suspicion against his private life. He bore his exiles and other troubles manfully and well. He never despaired of his cause and spent the years of adversity in building up his party, writing letters to encourage his old friends and make new ones.
.4nd yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrep- resented the story of Ignatius's deposition with un- blushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire sub.servience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII's successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast, their ofhce over- flows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker for God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns
