« PrethodnaNastavi »
vacant, inasmuch as Ignatius had neither resigned nor been canonically deposed. Such a procedure was not an innovation; there were several precedents. The choice of the government and the ecclesiastical party which was opposed to Ignatius fell upon Photius. He was not only a grata persona at Court; but his extraordinary gifts, his eminent reputation, along with his unimpeachable orthodoxy, were calculated to shed prestige on the Patriarchal chair, and to reconcile the public to a policy which seemed open to the reproaches of violence and injustice. Many of the bishops who had vowed to support the cause of Ignatius were won over by. Bardas, and Photius accepted the high office, which, according to his enemies, had long been the goal of his ambition, and which, according to his own avowal, he would have been only too glad to decline. He was tonsured on December 20; on the four following days he was successively ordained lector, subdeacon, deacon, and priest, and on Christmas Day consecrated bishop, by his friend Gregory Asbestas. For this rapid and irregular elevation to the highest dignity of the Church, which was one of the principal objections urged against Photius, the recent precedents of his uncle Tarasius and Nicephorus, as well as others, could be alleged. The ambiguous position of Gregory, who had been deposed by a synod and suspended by a Pope, furnished another handle against the new Patriarch,
But all the bishops who were present in Constantinople, except five, acknowledged him," and the five dissentients were persuaded to acquiesce when he gave them a written undertaking that he would horour Ignatius as a father and act according to his wishes. But two months later
* E.g. Arsacius, Atticus, Macedonius Metrophanes (loc. cit.), who was one of II., etc. Cp. Hergenrüther, i. 377. the five, saysi: “ When we saw that the
2 He dwells ou his reluctance to mass of the bishops had been seduced accept the post in sone of his letters ; we thought it right to acknowledge cp. Ep. 159 ad Bardai.
him in writing (8.' idLoxelpou oualorias) s Vila Ign. 232.
as a son of our Church and in com. • From Bletrophanes, Ep. 416, it munion with its High Priest (Ignatius) would appear that the formality of in order that even here we might not election loy the bishops was not ob. be found in disagreement with his will ; served ; that, after the consecration of for he (Ignatius) had directed us to Photius, the bishops met and nomi. elect a Patriarch from our Church in nated three candidates, of whom Christ. 'So when Photius signed in l'hotius was not one; but that all our presenco a promise that he would except five then went over to the hold the Patriarch freo blanie l'hotian side.
and neither speak against him nor s Libellus Iyn. 300 ; Vila Ign. 233. permit others to do so, we accepted
he is said to have recovered the document on some pretext and torn it up into small pieces. Then those bishops who weré really on the side of Ignatius, and had unwillingly consented to an impossible compromise, held a series of meetings in the church of St. Irene, and deposed and excommunicated Photius with his adherents.
Such an irregular assembly could not claim the authority of a synod, but it was a declaration of
Photius immediately retorted by holding a synod in the Holy Apostles. Ignatius, in his absence, was deposed and anathematized; and the opportunity was probably used to declare Gregory Asbestas absolved from those charges which had led to his condemnation by the ex-Patriarch (spring A.1). 859).
In the ineantime Bardas persistently endeavoured to force Ignatius to an act of abdication. He was moved from place to place and treated with cruel rigour. His followers were
unwillingly, on account of the violence
Metrophanes, ib. The meeting lasted forty days.
? The chronology is uncertain, and there is a discrepancy between Metro. phanes and Vita Ign. According to the latter source Ignatius was removed to Mytilene in August (859), and was there when the synod in the Holy Apostles was held ; the other assembly in St. Irene is not mentioned, Metrophanes implies that the two synods were almost contemporary, and that the persecution of Ignatius, prior to his deportation to Mytilene, was sub.
sequent to the synod which deposed him. He evidently places the synods in the spring, for he connects the de. position of Ignatius with the recovery of the signed document of Photius (8ς μετά βραχύ και το ίδιος αφείλετο χειρόγραφον και καθείλεν Ιγνάτιον). As Metrophanes was hiniself an actor in these transactions, and was incar. cerated with Ignatius in the Numera, he is the better authority. It was, no doubt, hoped to extract an abdication from Ignatius without deposing him, but the assembly of St. Irene forced the hand of Photius. It was, however, no less desirable after the synod to procure an abdication in view of public opinion.
3 He was removed from Terebinthos to Hieria (where he was kept in a goat-fold), then to the suburb of Promotos (on the Galata side of the Golden Horn ; see Pargoire, Boradion, 482-483), where he was beaten by Lco Lalakon, the Domestic of the Numeri (who knocked out two of his teeth), and loaded with heavy irons. Then he was shut up in the prison of the Numera, near the Palace, till he was taken to Mytilene, where he remained six months (c. August 859 to February 860). He was then permitted to return to Terebinthos, and he is said to have suffered ill-treatment from Nicetas Ooryphas, who was Prefect of the City (see above, Chapter IV. p. 144, note). But a worse thing happened.
barbarously punished. The writers of the Ignatian party accuse Photius of having prompted these acts of tyranny, but letters of Photius himself to Bardas, bitterly protesting against the cruelties, show that he did not approve this policy of violence, which indeed only served to increase his own unpopularity. The populace of the city seems to have been in favour of Ignatius, who had also sympathizers among the Imperial ministers, such as Constantine the Drungarios of the Watch. The monks, from whose rank he had risen, generally supported him; the Studites refused to communicate with the new Patriarch, and their abbot Nicolas left Constantinople.» Photius, as is shown by his correspondence, took great pains to win the goodwill of individual monks and others by flattery and delicate attentions.
The announcement of the enthronement of a new Patriarch, which it was the custom to send to the other four Patriarchal Sees-Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem-had been postponed, evidently in the hope that Iynatius would be induced to abilicate. When more than a year had passed and this hope was not fulfilled, the formal announcement could no longer be deferred, An inthronistic letter was addressed to the Eastern Patriarchis,' and an embassy was sent to Romne bearing letters to the Pope from Michael and Photius. The chair of St. Peter was now filled by Nicolas I., who stands out among the l'ontiff's between Gregory I. and Grogory VII. 18 having done more than any other to raise the Papal power to the place which it was to hold in the days of Innocent III.S Terebinthos; like the other islands in dom on the accession of Basil. In the the neighbourhood of the capital, was nieantime a succession of unwelconic exposed to the Russian invasion of abbots had been imposed on Studion. this year (see below, p. 419). The Sce l'illa Nicolai Slud. 909 599. enemy despoiled the monastery of * See the correspondence of Photius. Ignatius, seized and slew twenty-two The material is collected in Hergenof his household (l'ita Iyn. 233 899.). rother, i. 396 899. One abbot at least Ignatius himself (Livellus Iin., ad lest his nionastery to avoid the conflict. init.) mentions liis sufferings from Cp. l'ila Euthym. jun. 179. cold, insufficient clothing, hunger, . '• The Patriarchate of Antioch was stripes, chains.
at this nioment vacant, and the com. i See Photius, Ep. 159.
munication is adiressed to the : Nicolas of Crete had succeeded oekonomos and synkellos (Ep. 2, col. Naukratios as abbot in 848. He re. Val.). Its tenor corresponds to the mained seven years in exile, first at letter to the Pope. Praenete in Bithynia, then in the 6 He was elected in April 858. Chersonese, whence (865-866) he was Regino, Chron., 8.a. 868, says brought in chains to Constantinople him: “ regibus ac tyrannis imperavit and incarcerated in l.is own monastery eisque ac si dominus orbis terraruni for two years. He obtained his free. auctoritate praefuit."
A man of deeds rather than of words, as one of his admirers says, he was inspired with the idea of the universal authority of the Roman See. The internal troubles in the Carolingian realm enabled him to assert successfully the Papal pretensions in the West; the schism at Constantinople gave him a welcome opportunity of pressing his claims upon the East. But in Photius he found an antagonist, not only incomparably more learned than himself, but equally determined, energetic, and resourceful.
The letter of Photius to the Pope was a masterpiece of diplomacy. He enlarged on his reluctance to undertake the
' burdens of the episcopal office, which was pressed upon him by the Emperor and the clergy with such insistency that he had no alternative but to accept it. He then- in accordance with the usual custom in such inthronistic letters—made a precise statement of the articles of his religion and declared his firm belief in the seven Ecumenical Councils. He concluded by asking the Pope, not for any support or assistance, but simply for his prayers. He abstained from saying anything against his predecessor. But the letter which was sent in the Emperor's name? gave a garbled account of the vacation of the Patriarchal throne, and requested the Pope to send legates to attend a synod which should decide soine questions relating to the iconoclastic heresy. Neither the Patriarch nor the Emperor invited the Pope even to express an opinion on recent events, but Nicolas resolved to seize the occasion and assert a jurisdiction which, if it had been accepted, would have annulled the independence of the Church of Constantinople. He despatched two bishops, with instructions to investigate the facts in connexion with the deposition of Ignatius, and to make a report. He committed to them letters (dated
1 Ep. 1.
2 This letter is not preserved, but we know its tenor from the reply of Nicolas. It was said of Ignatius that he had withdrawn from the duties of his office voluntarily and had been oleposed by it council, and it was suggested that he had neglected (spreveril) lis flock and contemned the decrees of Popes Leo and Benedict (Nicol. Ep. 2). The letters were presented by an embassy consisting of Arsaber, an Iinperial spatharios, and
three bishops, who bore gifts from the Emperor : a gold paten with precious stones (albis, prasinis et hyacinthinis); a gold chalice from which gens hung by golden threads ; a gold shield inlaid with gems; a gold-embroidered robe with trees, roses, and sacred scenes, etc. (l'ita Nicolai Papae, 147). The envoys reached Rome in summer 860 ano were received in audience in S. Maria Maggiore.
3 The legates were Rodoaldus of Porto and Zacharias of Anagni. The
September 25, 860) to the Emperor and to Photius. These letters have considerable interest as a specimen of Papal diplomacy. The communication to the Emperor opens with the assertion of the primacy of the Roman See and of the principle that no ecclesiastical difficulty should be decided in Christendom without the consent of the Roman Pontiff; it goes on to point out that this principle has been violated by the deposition of Ignatius, and that the office has been aggravated by the election of a layman—an election which
our holy Roman Church ” has always prohibited. On these grounds the l'ope announces that he cannot give his apostolic consent to the consecration of Photius until his messengers have reported the facts of the case and have examined Ignatius. He then proceeds to reply to that part of the Emperor's letter which concerned the question of imageworship. The document concludes with the suggestion that Michael should show his devotion to the interests of the Church by restoring to the Roman See the vicariate of Thessalonica and the patrimonies of Calabria and Sicily, which had been withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Pope by Leo III. The short letter to Photius censures the temerity of his elevation and declines to acknowledge his consecration, unless the Papal messengers, when they return from Constantinople, report favourably on his actions and devotion to the Church.
The diplomatic intent of these letters could hardly be misapprehended by a novice. The innocent suggestion (put forward as if it had no connexion with the other matters under discussion) that Illyricum and Calabria should ho transferrell from the See of Constantinople to that of Roine would nover have been made if Nicolas had not thought that there was a reasonable chance of securing this accession to the Pope, in his letter to Michael, ex. to the Emperor in the Roman archives. pressly reserves the decision to himself He complains afterwards that in the f" ac deinde cum nostro praesulatyi Greek translation which was read at significatum fuerit,quiil de eo agendini the Council of 861 it was falsificd by sit apostolica sanctione difliniamus"). interpolations and nisrepresentations The legates had only full powers in
of the sense.
He speaks of such falsi. regard to the question of iniage. fications as characteristically Greek worship.
(" apud Graccos . . familiaris est ista · Nicol. Ep. 2, p. 162: “qualiter .. temeritas," Ep. 9), but inadequate nullius insurgentis deliberationis ter. knowledge of the language must hare minus daretur."
hcen a cause of many niistakes. * The l'ope kept a copy of his letter