3. Of CONSTANTINOPLE (3). Of the eminent men whose names occur in the long series of the Byzantine annals, there is hardly one who combines so many claims upon our attention as Photius. The varied information, much of it not to be found elsewhere, contained in his works, and the sound critical judgment displayed by him, raise him to the very highest rank among the Byzantine writers : his position, asone of the great promoters of the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, give him an almost equal eminence in ecclesiastical history ; and his position, striking vicissitudes of fortune, and connection with the leading political characters of his day, make him a personage of importance in the domestic history of the Byzantine empire.

The year and place of his birth, and the name of his father, appear to be unknown. His mother's name was Irene : her brother married one of the sisters of Theodora, wife of the emperor Theophilus (Theoph. Continuat. lib. 4.22) : so that Photius was connected by affinity with the imperial family. We have the testimony of Nicetas David, the Paphlagonian, that his lineage was illustrious. He had at least four brothers (Mountagu, Not. ad Epistol. Photii, 138), Tarasius, Constantine, Theodore, and Sergius, of whom the first enjoyed the dignity of patrician. Photius himself, in speaking of his father and mother, celebrates their crown of martyrdom, and the patient spirit by which they were adorned; but the rhetorical style of the letter in which the notice occurs (Epist. 234, Tarasio Patricio fratri) pre vents our drawing any very distinct inference from his words; though they may perhaps indicate that his parents suffered some severities or privations during the reign of Theophilus or some other of the iconoclast emperors. This is the more likely, as Photius elsewhere (Epistol. 2. Encycl. § 42, and Epistol. ad Nieol. Papam) claims Tarasius, patri arch of Constantinople, who was one of the great champions of image worship, as his relative, which shows the side taken by his family in the controversy. What the relation between himself and Tarasius was is not clear. Photius (ll. cc.) calls him πατρόθειος, which probably means great uncle. But the ability of Photius would have adorned any lineage, and his capacious mind was cultivated, as both the testimony even of his opponents and his extant works show, with great diligence. "He was accounted," says Nicetas David, the biographer and panegyrist of his competitor Ignatius, "to be of all men most eminent for his secular acquirements and his understanding of political affairs. For so superior were his attainments in grammar and poetry, in rhetoric and philosophy, yea, even in medicine and in almost all the branches of knowledge beyond the limits of theology, that he not only appeared to excel all the men of his own day, but even to bear comparison with the ancients. For all things combined in his favour : natural adaptation, diligence, wealth, which enabled him to form an all-comprehensive library; and more than all these, the love of glory, which induced him to pass whole nights without sleep, that he might have time for reading. And when the time came (which ought never to have arrived) for him to intrude himself into the church, he became a most diligent reader of theological works." (Nicet. Vita Iynatii apud Conlcil. vol. viii. ed. Labbe.

It must not, however, be supposed that Photius had wholly neglected the study of theology before his entrance on an ecclesiastical life : so far was this from being the case, that he had read and carefully analysed, as his attests, the chief works of the Greek ecclesiastical writers of all ages, so that his attainments in sacred literature might have shamed many a professional divine. There is not sufficient evidence to support the statement of Baronius, that Photius was an eunuch.

Thus highly connected, and with a mind so richly endowed and highly cultivated, Photius obtained high advancement at the Byzantine court. He held the dignity of a Proto-a-Secretis or chief justice tice (Codin. De Officiis CP. p. 36, ed. Bonn) ; and, if we trust the statement of Nicetas David (l.c.), of Protospatharius, a name originally denoting the chief sword-bearer or captain of the guards, but which became, in later times, a merely nominal office. (Codin. ibid. p. 33.) To these dignities may be added, on the authority of Anastsiusa sius Bibliothecarius (Concil. Octavi Hist. Apud Concil. vol. viii. col. 962, ed. Labbe), that of seilator ; but this is perhaps only another title for the office of "Proto-a-Secretis." (Gretser. et Goar. Not. in Codin. p. 242.)

Though his official duties would chiefly confine him to the capital, it is probable that he was occasionally employed elsewhere. It was during an embassy "to the Assyrians" (a vague and unsuitable term, denotiing apparently the court of the Caliphs or of some of the other powers of Upper Asia) that he read the works enumerated in his and wrote the critical notices of them which that work contains, a striking instance of the energy and diligence with which he continued to cultivate literature in the midst of his secular duties. Of the date of this embassy, while engaged in which he must have resided several years at the Assyrian court, as well of the other incidents of his life, before his elevation to the patriarchate of Constantinople, we have no means of judging. He could hardly have been a young man at the time he became patriarch.

The patriarchal throne of Constantinople was occupied in the middle of the ninth century by Ignatius [IGNATIUS, No. 3], who had the misfortune to incur the enmity of some few bishops and monks, of whom the principal was Gregory Asbestus, an intriguing bishop, whom he had deposed from the see of Syracuse in Sicily [GREGORIUS, No. 35], and also of Bardas, who was then a minor. [MICHAEL III.] Ignatius had excomninunicated Bardas. on a rumnour of his being guilty of incest, and Bardas, in retaliation, threatened the patriarch with deposition. It was important from the high character of Ignatius. that wnoever was proposed as his successor should be able to compete with him in reputation, and the choice of Bardas fell upon Photins, who had already given countenance to Gregory and the other opponents of the patriarch. Ignatius was deposed, and Photius elected in his place. The latter was a layman, and, according to some statements, was under excommunication for supporting Gregory ; but less than a week served, according to Nicetas David (ibid.), for his rapid passage 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, sub-deacon; the fourth, deacon; the fifth, presbyter; and the sixth, Christmas-day A. D. 858, beheld his promotion to the patriarchate, the highest ecclesiastical dignity in the empire. Nicetas (ibid.) states that his office was irregularly committed to him by secular hands. Photius himself, however, in his apologetic epistle to Pope Nicolats I. (apud Baron. Annal. ad ann. 859, § lxi. &c.), 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 that the Byzantine court would fail to secure a sufficient number of subseerviellt bishops, to give to the appointment every possible appearance of regularity.

A consciousness that the whoie transaction was violent and indefensible, whatever care might be taken to give it the appearance of regularity, made it desirable for the victorious party to obtain from the deposed patriarch a resignation of his office ; but Ignatius was a mant of too lofty a spirit to consent to his own degradation, and his pertinacious refusal entailed severe persecution both on himself and his friends. [IGNATIUS, No. 3.] Photius, however, retained his high dignity; the secular power was onl his side; the clergy of the patriarchate, in successive councils, confirmed his appointment, though we are told by Nicetas David (ibid.) that the metropolitans exacted from him a written engagement that he 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 subserviency for which they were afterwards deposed by the Pope Nicolautis J The engagement to treat Ignatius with kindness was not kept; in such a struggle its observance could hardly be expected; but how fatr the severities inflicted on him are 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 Nicolaus, in a council at Rome, embraced the side 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 Nicetas (ibid.), the kindred and friends of Photius himself, were shocked by the treatment of the unhappy Ignatius. To add to his troubles, the Caesar Bardas appears to have had disputes with him, either influenced by the natural jealousy between the secular and eccleallsiastical powers, or, perhaps, disappointed at not finding in Photius the subserviency he had anticipated. The letters of Photius addressed to Bardas (Epistolae, 3, 6, 8) contain abundant complaints of the diminution of his authority, of the ill-treat-ment of those for whom he was interested, and of the inefficacy of his own intercessions and complaints. However, the opposition among his own clergy was gradually weakened, until only five bishops remained who supported the cause of lgnatins

The quarrel between Nicolaus and Photius of course separated the Eastern and Western Churches for the tire. Photius wrote to Nicolaus to endeavour to conciliate his favour, but without effect. Photius was anathematized, and deposed by Nicolaus (A. D. 863); and a counter anathema and sentence of deposition was pronounced against Nicolaus by a council assembled at Constantinople by Photius. The schism, as neither party had power to carry its sentence into effect, continued until the actual deposition of Photius.

Of the conduct of Photius as patriarch, in matters not connected with the struggle 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, perhaps suggested those efforts to him, is highly probable from his indisputable love of literature. (Theoph. Contin. De Mich. Teophili Filio, 100.26.) That he possessed 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 Ignatis. are, there is reason to believe, too true; but as almost all the original sources of information respecting his character and conduct are 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 [MICHAEL III.], was speedily followed by the assassination of Michael himself (A. D. 867) and the accession of his colleague and murderer Basil I. (the Macedonian) [BASILIUS I. MACEDO]. Photius had consecrated Basil as the colleague of Michael; but after the murder of the latter he refused to admit him to the communion, reproaching him as a robber and a murderer, and unworthy to partake of the sacred elements. Photius was immediately banished to a monastery, and Ignatius restored : various papers which the servants of Photins were about to conceal in a neighboring reed-bed were seized, and afterwards produced against Photins, first in the senate of Constantinople, and afterward at the council held against him. This hasty change in the occupants of the patriarchate had been too obviously the result of the change of the imperial dynasty to be sufficient of itself. But the imperial power had now the same interest as the Western Church in the deposition of Photius. A council (recognised by the Romish Church as the eighth oecumenical or fourth Constantinopolitan) was therefore summoned A. D. 869, at which the deposition of Photius and the restoration of Ignatius were confirmed. The cause was in fact prejudged by the circumstance that Ignatius took his place as patriarch at the commencement of the council. Photius, who appeared before the council, and his partizans were anathematized and stigmatized with the most opprobrious epithets. He subsequently acquired the favour of Basil, but by what means is uncertain; 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 genealogical document containing a prophecy of Basil's exaltation. It is certain, however, not only that he gained the favour of the emperor, but that he soon acquired a complete ascendancy over him; he was appointed tutor to the sons of Basil, had apartments in the palace assigned to him; and, on the death of Ignatius, about A. D. 877 [IGNATIUS, No. 3], was immediately restored to the patriarchal throne. With writers of the Ignatian party and of the Romish Church, this restoration is, 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 various ways afflicting the servants and household of his defunct rival, and by using ten thousand arts against those who objected to his restoration as uncanonical and irregular. Some he bribed by gifts and honours and by translation to wealthier or more eligible sees than those they occupied ; others he terrified by reproaches and accusations, which, on their embracing his party, were speedily and altogether dropped. That, in the corrupt state of the Byzantine empire and church, something of this must have happened at such a crisis, there can be little doubt; though there can be as little doubt that these statements are much exaggerated.

It is probable that one great purpose of Basil in restoring Photius to the patriarchate 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. Nicolaus had been succeeded by Hadrian II., and he by John VIII. (some reckon him to be John IX.), who now occupied the papal chair. John was more pliant than Nicolaus, and Basil 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 disoblige; recognised Photius as lawful patriarch, and excommunicated those who refused to hold communion with him. But the recognition 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 Rome and Constantinople; and is said to have been accompanied by strong assertions of the superiority 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, however, 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 ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Bulgaria was no new cause of dissension : it had been asserted as strongly by the pious Ignatius as by his successor. (Comp. Joan. VIII. Papae Eistol. 78, apud Concil. p. 63, &c.) 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 carefully 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 legates were present, but Photius presided, and had everything his own way. The restoration of Photius and the nullity of the council of A. D. 869 were affirmed : the words "filioque," which formed one of the standing subjects of contention between the two churches, were ordered to be omitted from the creed, and the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Church was referred to the emperor as a question affecting the boundaries of the empire. The pope refused to recognize 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 he anathematized Photius afresh. (Baron. Annal. Eccles. ad ann. 880. xi. xiii.) The schism and rivalry of the churches became greater than ever, and has never since been really healed.

Photius, according to Nicetas (ibid.), had been assisted in regaining the favour of Basil by the monk Theodore or Santabaren; but other writers reverse the process, and ascribe to Photius the introduction of Santabaren to Basil. Photius certainly made him archbishop of Euchaita in Pontus; and he enjoyed, during Photius' patriarchate, considerable influence with Basil. By an accusation, true or false, made by this man against Leo, the emperor's eldest surviving son and destined successor, of conspiring his father's death, Basil had been excited to imprison his son. So far, however, was Photius from joining in the designs of Santabaren, that it was chiefly upon his urgent entreaties the emperor spared the eves of Leo, which he had intended to put out. Basil died A. D. 886, and Leo [LEO VI.] succeeded to the throne. He immediately set about the ruin of Santabaren; and, forgetful of Photius' intercession, scrupled 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 accusation 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 Euchaita 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 emperor'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 monastery of Bordi in Armenia (or rather in the Thema Armeniacum), 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 statement rests is not conclusive. He must have been an aged man when he died, for he must have been in middle age when first chosen patriarch, and he survived 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. Continuat. lib. 5. c.100 lib. 6.1-5; Symeon Magister, De Basil. Maced. 100.21, De Leone Basil. fil. 100.1; Georg. Monach. De Basil. 100.24, De Leone, 100.1-7.)

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 average of the statesmen and prelates of his day; and certainly 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 vol. xxi. p. 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 perverting 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 character remains unimpeached; the very story of his being an eunuch shows that he was not open to the charge of licentiousness; his firmness is attested by his repulse of Basil from the commnnion 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, Chronographia, pp. 463-476,ed. Paris; Zonar. 16.4, 8, 11, 12; Cedren. Compend. pp. 551, 569, 573, 593, ed. Paris, vol. ii. p. 172, 205, 213, 248, ed. Bonn; Glycas, Annal. pars iv. pp. 293, 294, 297, &c., ed. Paris, pp. 226, 228, 230, &c., ed. Venice, pp. 544, 547, 552, ed. Bonn ; Genesius, Reges, lib. iv. p. 48, ed. Venice, p. 100, ed. Bonn; Constantin. Manass. Compend. Chron. vs. 5133-5163, 5253, &100.5309, &c.; Joel, Chronog. Compend. p. 179, ed. Paris, pp. 55, 56, ed. Bonn; Ephraem. De Patriarchis C. P. vs. 10,012-10,025, ed. Bonn. Various notices and documents relating to his history generally, but especially to his conduct in reference to the schism of the churches, may be found in the vols. viii. ix. ed. Labbe, vols. v. vi. ed. Hardouin, vols. xv. xvi. xvii. ed. Mansi. Of modern writers, Baronius (Annal. Eccles. A. D. 858-886) is probably the fullest, but at the same time one of the most unjust. Hankius (De Byzantin. Rerum Scriptoribus, pars 1.100.18) has a very ample memoir of Photins, which may be advantageously compared with that of Baronius, as its bias is in the opposite direction. See also Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Ecclesias-tiques, Siècle ix. p. 270, 2de edit. 1698. An essay by Francesco Fontani, De Photio Novae Romae Episcopo ejusque Scriptis Dissertatio, prefixed to the first volume of his 12mo, Florence, 1785, is far more candid than most of the other works by members of the Romish Church; and is in this respect far beyond the Mènzoire sur le Patriarche Photius, by M. Weguelin, in the (de Prusse) des Sciences et Belles-Lettres, Ainné MDCCLXXVIL. 4to. Berlin, 1779. p. 440, &c. Shorter accounts may be found in Mosheim (Eccles Hist. by Murdock, book iii. cent. ix. pt. ii. c. 3.27-32), and in the works cited at the close of this article. Fabricius has given a list of the councils held to determine questions arising out of the struggle of Ignatius and Photius for the patriarchat or out of the contests of the Eastern and Western Churches with regard to Photius. He has also given a list of writers respecting Photius, divided into, 1. Those hostile to Photius; and 2. Those more favourable to him. Of the historians of the lower empire, Le Beau (Bas Empire, 54.70.38, &c., 71.72.1-3) is outrageously partial, inflaming the crimes of Photius, and rejecting as untrue, or passing over without notice, the record of those incidents which are honourable to him. Gibbon (Decline and Fall, 100.53, 60), more favourable, has two separate, but brief and unsatisfactory, notices of the patriarch.