« PrethodnaNastavi »
dominion and revenue of his chair. It is plain that he could not hope that the Emperor and the Patriarch would agree to such a large concession unless they received a due consideration; and it is equally obvious that the only consideration which the Pope could offer, was to consent to the consecration of Photius, and crush by the weight of his authority the schism which was so seriously distressing the church of Constantinople. Notwithstanding his severe animadversions on the uncanonical elevation of Photius, he intimated that this was not an insuperable difficulty; if his delegates brought back a satisfactory report, matters might be arranged. It is perfectly clear that Pope Nicolas proposed a bargain, in the interest of what he calls ecclesiastica utilitas.'
It is impossible to say whether the Imperial government took into serious consideration the Pope's proposal. But there were at all events some, probably among the moderate section of the Photians, who thought that the best solution of the ecclesiastical difficulty would be to agree to the bargain, and Photius was so gravely alarmed that, in a letter to Bardas, he complains bitterly of the desire of persons who are not named to deprive him of half his jurisdiction. It would seem that there was a chance that the diplomacy of Nicolas might have been successful. But if Michael and Bardas entertained any idea of yielding, they were persuaded by Photius to relinquish it.
The two legates of the Pope were won over to the Photian party by cajolements and threats.3 A council assembled in May (A.1). 861),* remarkable for the large number of bishops
" It is not, I think, without signi. μεθα. The meaning was seen by ficance, as indicating tho Popu's idon, Libolov, loc. cil. thint this pornesc is 119ced in the letter 3 on their arrival at Rhacoestos 10 Michael in reforence to the rostiti. they had received costly dresses from tion of the provinces (“vostrum impc. Photius. They were kept in isolation riile decus quod in oninibus ecclesia. for three months, so that they should sticis utilitatibus vigero audivimus"), have no converse with the Ignatian and also in the letter to Photius (“.ec. party, and only hear the Photian side. clesiasticae utilitatis constantiam "), Threats of exile and insects (“longa where the suggestion seems to be exilia et diuturnas pediculorum comethat Photius can prove his devotion stiones "); induced them to transgress to the interests of the Church by their instructions and acknowledge complying with the wishes of the Photius. Nicolaus, Epp. 6 and 9. It l'ope. Lebedev (op. cit. 48-49) has was the Emperor who threatened and apprehended that Nicolas was pro- Photius who cajoled. Stylianos, Ep. posing a “deal.”
429. 2 Ep. 157, p. 492 αφαιρείται αφ' ημών * In the Church of the Apostles. το ήμισυ της αρχής and το ήμισυ αφηρή. This synod was called the First and Socond (otpurn val deutépa), of which was a coincidence. Ignatius had been perhaps the most probablo oxplanation brought back to Constantinople sonic is that suggested boy Hergenrother time before, and was permitted to (i. 43S), that it resilmeed and confirmed resido in the Palace of Posis which the acts of the synol of 839 held in had belonged to his mother, the the same church.
who attended The Emperor was present, and Ignatius unwillingly appeared. Seventy-two witnesses, including both highly-placed ministers and men of humble rank, came forward to prove that Ignatius had been appointed to the Patriarchate, not by free election, but by the personal act of Theodora.? We are in the dark as to the precise circumstances of the elevation of Ignatius. There is no doubt that he was chosen by Theoclora, but it is almost incredible that the usual form of election was not observed, and if it was observed, to condemn his elevation was to condemn the elevation of every Patriarch of Constantinople as uncanonical. For virtually every Patriarch was appointed by the Imperial will. In any case at this synod—if we can trust the accounts of the supporters of Ignatius—the government exercised considerable pressure. The assembly, including the representatives of Rome, whether they were convinced or not, confirmed the deposition of Ignatius, and declared him unworthy. The authority of Photius was thus established by the forinal act of a large council, subscribed by the legates of the Roman see.”
Empress Procopia. Ho unwillingly "We must suppose that he had resigned himself to appear before the been condemned on the same ground synod, where he refused to recognize in A.D. 879 at the local council; but the authority of the Papal legates. this charge does not seem to have ? Pope Nicolas observes this (loc. been mentioned in Michael's letter to cil.). the Pope, who indeed points this out in :s Seventeen canons, passed by this his letter of 2.1). 862 (Ep. 5): “omni. Council, remained in force, and are bus accusationibus remotis .
preserved (ansi, xvi. 335 899.). opponentes tantummoloquod jwtentia l'anons 16 and 17, forbidding for the saeculari sedem pervaserit.” Seventy. future the consecration of bishops in two witnesses (for the number cp. the circumstances in which Photius Hergenrother, i. 426, n. 38), including had been consecrated, and the sudden men of all ranks-senators, artisans, elevation of a layma to the episcopate, fish-merchants—were produced to give were calculated to conciliate the can. sworn evidence that Ignatius had been onical scruples of the Pope. Canons uncanonically appointed. Cp. l'it. 13-15 were aimed against schismatics Ign. 237. The acts of the Council and intended to strengthen the hands were burnt at the Council of A.D. 869; of Photius. Most of the other rules and our knowledge of its proceelings dealt with monastic reformi, and by is derived chiefly from the Libellus one of them (201), prohibiting members Ign. and the l'it. Int. There were 318 from leaving their cloisters at their bishops, etc., present, the same number own caprice, it is thought that Photius as at the Council of Nicaea, as the hopied to prevent the Ignatians from Photians noted with satisfaction : travelling to Ronie. Cp. Lebedov, J. Lebedev (op. cit. 53) thinks that this cit. 63.
The legates had exceeded their instructions. When they returned to Rome in the autumn, their action was repudiated by the Pope, who asserted that they had only been directed to roport on the whole matter to him, and had received no power to judge the question themselves. There is no doubt that they had betrayed the interests of their master and suffered themselves to be guided entirely by the court of Byzantium. An Imperial secretary soon arrived at Romne, bearing a copy of the Acts of the Council with letters from the Emperor and the Patriarch. The letter of Photius could hardly fail to cause deep displeasure to the Roman bishop. It was perfectly smooth, courteous, and conciliatory in tone, but it was the letter of an equal to an equal, and, although the question of Ronan jurisdiction was not touched on, it was easy to read between the lines that the writer had the will and the courage to assert the independence of the see of Constantinople. for the ecclesiastical provinces of Illyricum and Calabria, he hypocritically threw upon the government the entire responsibility for not restoring them to Rome, and implied that he himself would have been willing to sacrifice them.'
The Imperial secretary remained in Rome for some months, hoping that Nicolas would be persuaded to sanction all that his legates had done in his naine. But the l'ope was now resolved to embrace the cluse of Ignatius and to denounce Photius. He addressed an encyclical letter to the three Patriarchs of the East, informing them that Ignatius had been illegally deposed, and that a most wicked man (homo
! This is proved by the Pope's holding his hand, traced his signature letter which they carried to Michael, on il paper on which Photius asterand it is useless for Lebedev (op. cit. wards wrote a declaration of abdica51) to contest it.
tion. The other sources which mention ? It may be noticed here that ac. this, are derived from l'it. Ign. ; Her: coriling to l'it. Iym. 241, some time genröther is wrong in supposing that after the Council, new attempts were the account in Gen. 100 is inde. made to extort an abdication from ly. pendent ; see Hirsch, 159. Photius, natius by ill-treatment.
however, seems to have made no use beaten, starved for two weeks, with of this document. The sufferings reno dress but a shirt, in the Imperial corded and probably exaggerated in mortuary chapel (Héroon) of the Holy the l'ila may be briefly referred to at Apostles, where lie was stretched upon the end of the Libellus lyn. (iv ĖTTS the sarcophagus of Constantine V., γαρ ούτω κολασθέντα ημέραις άσιτον, with heavy stones attached to his άυπνον, ακάθιστον διαμείναι εβίασαν), inkles. These tortures were inflicted but nothing is said of the signature. by Theodore Møros, Jolin Gorgonites,
Ep. 3. and Nikolaos Skutelops. When he + Till March 862, the date of the was perfectly exhausted, one of them, roplies of the Pope (Epp. 5 and 6).
scelestissimus) had occupied his church; declaring that the Roman see will never consent to this injustice; and ordering them, by his apostolical authority, to work for the expulsion of Photius and the restoration of Ignatius.? At the same time he indited epistles to the Emperor and to l'hotius, asserting with stronger emphasis than before the authority of Rome as head and mistress of the churches,' and declining to condemn Ignatius or to recognize Photius.
The ambassadors of the Pope, during their visit to Constantinople, had heard only one side. The authorities had taken care to prevent them from communicating with Ignatius or any of the Ignatian party, and they also attempted to hinder any one from repairing to Rome in the interests of the Ignatian cause. Theoguostos, however, who was an ardent partisin of the deposed Patriarch, succeeded in reaching Rome in disguise, and he carried with him a petition setting forth the history of the deposition of Ignatius and the sufferings which he endured, and imploring the Pope, who was humbly addressed as “the Patriarch of all the thrones," to take pity and arise as a powerful champion against injustice." · Ep. 4, 168.
aloud his sentence in the ambo of St. 2 The words in which he asserts Sophia. Soldiers surrounded his house that the laws and decrces of the on the eve of Whitsunday, May 25, Roman see must not be set aside by 862 ; but Iguatius escaped, disguiseci suliject churches, on the plea of as a porter, and wandered for somen; different customs, are strong: “Et months from island to island in the ideo consequens est ut quod ab huius Propontis, cluding the guerstdors who Serlis rectoribus plena auctoritato were set on his track. In August and sancitur, nullius consuetudinis praepe. September Constantinople was shaken diente ocasione, proprius tintum hoy terribile earthquakes fur forty days, sequenilo voluntates, remorcatur, sed and the calamity was escribiend boys firmius atque inconcusse teucatur.” superstition to the unjust treatment Eps 6, 17t.
of Ignatius. To calm the public, the 's He was an archimandrite of the Emjuror caused a declaration to be Roman Church, abibot of the nionas. made that Ignatius would be allowed tery of Pege, skeuophylax of St. to remain umnolested in his cloister. Sophia, and Exarch of the monasteries Ignatius revealed himself to Petronas, of Constantinople. See the title of the brother of Bardas, who gave him the Libellus lyr.
as a safe-conduct an enkolpion (prob. • The Libellus, stating tl:e case of ably a jewelled cross) which the Iguatius, was written by Thcognostos, Emperor wore on his breast. He then but in the name of Ignatius, with had an interview with Barilas and whom were associated lifteen metro. was dismissed to his monastery. See Lolitan bishops, and an “intinite l'ita Iyn. 241 899. The earthquake number" of priests, mouks, etc. les. referred to is probably the same as haps, as Hergenröther suggests (i. that described in Cont. Th. 196-197. 462), it was the knowledge of this It did great damage in the southdespatch to Ronie that prompted the western part of the city (Hexakionion). government to make another attempt The carthquake in Vita Ign. 249 to force Ignatius, this time by reading seems to be different.
It was probably the influence of the representations of Theognostos and other Igantians who had found their way to Rome, that moved Nicolas a year later (April A.D. 863), to hold a Synod in the Luterun.' Neither the Emperor nor the Patriarch had vouchsafed any answer to his letter, and as it was evident that they had no intention of yielding to his dictation, he punished the Church of Constantinople by the only means which luy in his power. The synod deprived Photius of his ecclesiastical status, and excommunicated him unless he immediately resigned the sce which he had usurped; it pronounced the same penalty upon all ecclesiastics who had been consecrated by Photius; and it restored Ignatius and all those bishops who had been deposed and exiled in his cause." A copy of the proceedings was sent to Constantinople.
It was impossible for Constantinople to ignore the formal condemnation pronounced by the Literan Synod, and Photius was prepared to assert the independence of his see, by dealing out to the Pope the same measure which the l'ope had dealt out to him.
In August 865, Nicholas received a letter from the Emperor assuring hiin that all his efforts in behalf of Ignatius were useless, and requiring him to withdraw his judgment, with a threat that, if he refused, the Emperor would march to Rome and destroy the city. The docuinent, which was evidently drafted under the direction of Photius, must have been concled in sufliciently provocative terms; but the threat was not seriously meant, and the writer did not expect thut the Pope would yield. The real point of the letter was the repudiation of the papal claim to supreme jurisdiction, as the. real point of the l'ope's long reply was the assertion of the privileges of the chair of St. Peter. The l'ope indeed makes what may be represented as a concession. He offers to revise his judgment at Rome, and demands that the two rivals shall appear personally before him, or if they cannot come, send plenipotentiaries. The concession was as nugatory as the Emperor's threat, and it assumed, in an aggravated form, the claims of the l'upacy as a supreme court of appeal."
' Cp. Hergenröther, i. 519.
Nicolaus, Ep. 7. The acts are not extant. This synoil condemned the faithless legate Zacharias, and must not be confounded with the Literan
synod of Nov. 864, which condemned his fellow, Rodoald.
3 The tenor of Michael's letter is only knowu from the reply of Nicolas, Ep. 8, who describes it as “tota blas.