Dvornik The Photian Schism 1948 PDF

THE
P H O T IA N SCHISM
History and Legend
By
FRANCIS DYORNIK
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, has been
for a thousand years denounced by the West
as an arch-heretic and arch-schismatic of the
Church and at the same time venerated by the
E ast as a saint, a scholar and a model Church
man. One of these opinions must be wrong;
the present book sets out to solve the m ystery
of so long-standing a divergence. Dr Dvornik
reviews the whole history, reconsiders all the
arguments, reconstitutes the facts, re-examines
all the witnesses, and comes to the startling
conclusion that, in the Photian case, the
Churchmen, Canonists, and historians of the
West were mistaken. The E ast was right;
Photius was indeed a great Churchman. I f
this is so, many new questions arise : How did
the Photian legend originate? Who was re
sponsible for this great miscarriage of justice?
What should now be the attitude towards the
Y H Ith Oecumenical Council, which condemned
Photius? The answers to these questions are
provided by the second part of Dr Dvornik’s
researches.
The whole book has involved the consulta
tion of Greek and Latin MSS. (some of them
hitherto unknown) in all the libraries of
Europe. As the findings were bound to upset
many cherished beliefs, the precaution was
taken in earlier stages of submitting them to
other experts. The importance of the findings
has been confirmed. The book was begun in
Prague ; and in 1938 the author was given leave
of absence from his university to finish the
work. It was completed at the British Museum.
T H E PHOTIAN SCHISM
HISTORY AND L E G E N D
BY
FRANCIS DVORNIK
D .D ., D. -es-L ettres (Sorbonne ), H on. D .L it. (.L ondon )
C orresponding F ellow o f the B ritish A cadem y
A ssociate o f the R o y a l A cadem y o f B elg iu m , H on. M em ber o f
the R o y a l A cadem y o f R um ania, M em b er o f the Cêch
A cadem y an d o f the S lavon ic In stitu te, P ro fesso r
in C harles IV U n iversity
CAMBRIDGE
AT T HE U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS
P rin ted in G reat B rita in a t the U n iversity P r es s , C am bridge
(B rook e C rutchley , U n iversity P rin ter )
an d p u b lish ed by the C am bridge U n iversity P ress
(C am bridge , B en tley H ouse , L ondon)
A gents f o r U.S.A ., Canada , cmi/ In d ia : M acm illan
TO THE M E M O R Y OF M Y T E A C H E R
CH AR LES DIEHL
—
CONTENTS
P reface p a g e xi
P A R T I. H I S T O R Y
Chap. I. P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s , R e l i g i o u s P r o b l e m s a n d
O pen in g C o n flict p. i
Introduction: Photius’ case— Political and religious parties in Byzantium—
Extremists and Moderates in Irene’s and Nicephorus’ reigns— Moderate
policy o f Methodius and the Studite Schism— W as Ignatius appointed or
elected?— When and w h y G regory Asbestas, leader o f the Moderates, was
condemned b y Ignatius— G regory’s appeal to Rom e and the H oly See’s
attitude— Extremist and Moderate intrigues.
Chap. II. I g n a t i u s ’ R e s i g n a t i o n a n d P h o t i u s 5 C a n o n i c a l
E lection p . 39
Nicetas’ testimony— Ignatius’ abdication confirmed b y the Extrem ists’
reports— Photius’ canonical election— Asbestas and Photius’ consecration—
Extremists’ revolt and its m otives— Photius’ reaction— Repercussions o f
these conflicts among the episcopacy and the monastic world.
Chap. III. T h e S y n o d o f 861 p . 70

Photius’ and Michael’s letters to Nicholas— Was the Pope in communion
with Photius’ envoys?— Negotiations between the legates, the Em peror and
the Patriarch before the synod— The Acts o f the synod and accounts by
Nicetas and Theognostos— D id Ignatius appeal to Rom e?— Legates’ attitude
during the synod.
Chap. IV . N i c h o l a s , P h o t i u s a n d B o r i s p . 91
Radoald and Zachary return to Rom e— Nicholas’ policy and letters to the
Emperor and the Patriarch— Theognostos and the Roman Synod o f 863—
Byzantine reaction in Bulgaria and its development in Rom e— Nicholas’
fatal reply— W as the breach permanent?— Reaction in Byzantium— B o ris’
volte-face; his influence on the growth o f the conflict— The Byzantine Synod
o f 867— D id Photius challenge the Roman primacy?
Chap. V. P h o t i u s 5 D o w n f a l l a n d t h e C o u n c i l o f 869-70
p . 132
Michael’s regime, Basil and the Extremists— D id Photius resign?— Basil’s
embassy to Rom e— Hadrian II’s reaction— The Council o f 869-70— The
Emperor and the legates’ uncompromising attitude— The Bulgarian incident
— Was Ignatius’ recognition b y the Pope conditional?
vii
C ONT E NT S
Chap. V L P h o t i u s ’ R eh a bilit a tio n and the S y n o d of

879-80 p . 159
Ignatius’ difficulties— Basil’s change o f policy and his reconciliation with the
Moderates and Photius— Ignatius and Photius on friendly terms— John V III,
Basil and Photius— Papal letters analysed— Pourparlers with the legates in
Byzantium— The ‘ Greek edition’ o f the pontifical letters— The first five
sessions o f the Council— -Authenticity o f the sixth and seventh sessions—
John V I I I ’s alleged letter on the Filioque— The legates and the primacy.
Chap. V I I . T heS eco n d S c h ism of P h o tius, A H i s t o r i c a l

My s t if ic a t io n p . 202
Photius’ letters to the Rom an bishops— John V III approves the Acts o f the
Council— Basis o f the compromise concerning Bulgaria— Anti-Photian
Collection and the legend o f Photius’ second condemnation b y John V III—-
Photius, Marinus I and Hadrian III— Stephen V and Byzantium— Stephen’s
letters on the Photian incident.
Chap. V III. P h o t i u s , L e o VI a n d the H ea lin g of the

E x t r e m i s t s ’ Schism p . 237
Photius acknowledged b y the Moderate Ignatians— Leo V i’s change o f policy
and Photius’ resignation— L eo , the ‘ Little C hurch’ and the Moderates— W as
there a schism under Form osus?— The ‘ Little Church’s ’ liquidation—
A reunion synod in 899?— Authorship o f the Anti-Photian Collection and
date o f composition o f the Vita Ignatii— The Extremists and the Moderates
in the tetragamy conflict.
P A R T II. LEGEND
Chap. I. T he P h o t i a n C a s e in L a t i n L i t e r a t u r e t i l l t h e
T welfth C entury p . 279
Contemporary repercussions— The Anselmo Dedicata— Tenth-century
writers— Unpublished canonical Collections o f the tenth century— His
torians o f the eleventh century— The Photian case in the ‘ Gregorians”
canonical Collections— The Latin Acts o f the Photian Council in the writings
o f Deusdedit and Ivo o f Chartres.
Chap. II. O e c u m e n i c i t y of the E ig h t h C o u n c il in

Med iev al W estern T raditio n p . 309
Number o f councils acknowledged b y the Gallic, Germanic, English and
Lombard Churches until the twelfth century— Rom e and the seven councils
— The Popes’ profession o f faith and the number o f councils— Eleventh-
century canonists and the Eighth Council— W as there any other edition o f
the Popes’ Professio fidei covering the eight councils?
viii
C O N T E NT S
Chap. III. W e s t e r n T r a d i t i o n f r o m t h e T w e l f t h to t h e
F ifteenth C entu ry p . 331
The Eighth Council in pre-Gratian law Collections, influenced b y Gregorian
canonists— Collections dependent on Deusdedit and Ivo — Gratian’s Decretum
and the Photian Legend— From Gratian to the fifteenth century: Canonists
— Theological writers and Historians.
Chap. IV. F ifteenth C en t u r y t ill the M odern P erio d

P · 354
The Eighth Council among opponents and supporters— Sixteenth-century
writers— The Centuriae-— Baronius’ Annals— Catholic and Protestant writers
o f the eighteenth century— Hergenröther and his school.
Chap. V. P h o t i u s and the E ig h th C o u n cil in the E a s t e r n

T r a d itio n t ill the T w elfth C en t u r y p . 383
Unpublished treatise on the Councils b y the Patriarch Euthym ios— Other
contemporaries— Photius’ canonization— Historians o f Constantine Por-
phyrogennetos’ school— Polemists o f the eleventh and twelfth centuries—
Michael o f Anchialos— Tw elfth-century chroniclers.
Chap. VI. F r o m the T h i r t e e n t h C e n t u r y to t h e M o d e r n

P erio d p . 403
Unionists o f the thirteenth century: Beccos, Metochita— -The Photian
Council in writings o f the thirteenth century— Calecas and the champions
o f the Catholic thesis— Anti-Latin polemists and theologians o f the four
teenth century: the Photian Council promoted to oecumenicity— Treatm ent
o f Photius and his Council b y supporters o f the Council o f Florence—
Unpublished Greek treatises on the Councils and opponents o f the Union
— Greek and Russian literature from the sixteenth to the nineteenth
century— Influence o f Baronius and Hergenröther on the Orientals.
C onclusion />. 432
Appendix I. New Edition o f the Liber Diurnus (eleventh century) and

the Number o f Councils listed as Oecumenical p . 435
Appendix II. Popes’ Profession o f Faith in Cod. Bibl. Vat. Lat. 7160
and the Profession o f Boniface V III p . 448
Appendix III. Unpublished anonymous Greek Treatises on the

Councils p · 452
IX
C ONT E NT S
L ist of M a n u s c r ip t s Q uoted P- 459

Greek Manuscripts P · 459
Latin Manuscripts p . 460
L ist of S ources p 0 462
B ibliography P· 474
Index p . 488
X
PREFACE
The personality o f the Patriarch Photius has attracted the attention o f
almost all Church historians ever since the Reformation, and their
verdict has in most cases been unfavourable. This traditional view was
confirmed by the researches o f J. Hergenrother in the second half o f
the nineteenth century, and it was generally agreed that his judgement
was based on sound historical evidence. When in 1895 the French
Jesuit A . Lapôtre ventured to propose a few exonerating circumstances
to mitigate the indictment, his voice failed to carry weight and his plea
was rejected by many as being too daring. However, the great advances
in Byzantine studies in the first decades o f the twentieth century tended
to modify this unfavourable opinion, though not to any considerable
extent. Even that great and critical Byzantinist, J. B. Bury, after making
a promising start towards a revision o f the conventional estimate o f the
Patriarch, was unable to dispose o f the formidable array o f arguments
advanced by the Western historians against him. The same may be said
about the French Church historian E. Amann, though he was on the
whole on the right way to a solution.
Ever since I began to study the many problems arising from the
chequered history o f the ninth century in East and West, especially the
lives and works o f the Slavonic apostles SS. Constantine-Cyril and
Methodius, I gradually realized that the history o f the unfortunate
Patriarch required to be rewritten and that the documents on which his
condemnation was based demanded thorough revision. As soon as I
had completed m y study o f the two Greek founders o f Slavonic letters
I proceeded to examine the Collection o f anti-Photian documents and
pamphlets. Being the work o f contemporary writers, and undoubtedly
authentic, they had been used as an incontrovertible dossier against
Photius. The first result o f m y researches was the discovery that the
sources on which the history o f the second schism was based were
valueless, and that whatever had been written about a second rupture
between Photius and Rome was not only inaccurate, but pure mystifica
tion (.Byiantion, vol. v m , 1933). This finding was confirmed to a certain
extent by V. Grumel, who, in a study published in the Revue des Sciences
Philosophiques et Thêologiques (vol. X II, 1933), came independently to a
similar conclusion.
But other problems remained unsolved, one o f them being the
oecumenicity o f the Ignatian synod (869-70) in Western medieval
XI
PREFACE
tradition. Moreover, it would have been impossible to reassess Photius’

character and career unless it were first made clear how the primitive
Photian tradition came to be forgotten in the West and obscured in the
East. This tradition was easily reconstructed when once the trust
worthiness o f the Photian Collection had been seriously challenged.
I accordingly began to trace in detail the development o f what may be
called the Photian Legend in the Middle Ages.
As the results o f my researches clashed with conventional opinion,
I made a point o f communicating them to the specialists in Byzantine
history at the last two international congresses o f Byzantine studies at
Sofia in 1934 and at Rome in 1936. In 1938 I summarized some o f my
researches in a lecture at the Royal Academy o f Brussels, and Professor
H. Grégoire, o f the University of Brussels, who had been kept informed
o f the progress o f m y work, did the same at the Academy o f Athens.
Furthermore, in order to afford experts and Church authorities every
opportunity to check m y arguments I published the main results o f
m y inquiry in various periodicals. The present work embodies those
studies, with the addition o f more evidence and the necessary historical
setting.
It had been my original intention to publish in a separate volume
some relevant documents, chiefly bearing on the Latin and Greek con
ciliar tradition; but present difficulties interfered with the project and
forced me to limit m yself to short quotations from the most important
manuscript sources. The same reasons prevented me from completing
m y researches in the manuscript departments of important European
libraries. I particularly regret that a prolonged stay in Rome, where
I intended to consult some specialists and complete my study o f Greek
and Latin manuscripts in the Vatican Library, as had been planned in
1939, was made impossible by political events. I trust, however, that
the evidence I was able to gather before 1939, incomplete as it is in
some details, is amply sufficient to substantiate my statements.
I am therefore well aware o f the deficiencies in the present work, but
the times have been hard on writers, and in order not to tax the reader’s
patience I have restricted m yself to such facts as I deemed essential.
I f the narrative be considered too long at times, historians who know
the difficulty o f eradicating century-old legends will recognize the
necessity o f elaborating certain points that may seem obvious to others.
This book was originally written in French, and my first intention
was to publish it in the Corpus Bruxellense, as was announced in
Byiantion (vol. x iv , 1939) by Professor H. Grégoire. He took the MS.
.. ο?
X ll
PREFACE
to Paris a week before the invasion o f Belgium and I brought it safely

to London, where it was rewritten in English.
The work was completed under trying circumstances, and I should
like to express my gratitude to all who helped me to bring m y researches
to a satisfactory conclusion. I am grateful to m y colleagues o f the
Charles IV University, who granted me special leave in June 1938 to
prosecute m y research work. When after the occupation o f m y country
I declined to return to my post, losing both salary and government
grant, I found hospitality at St George’s Cathedral House, then adminis
tered by my friend Father J. j. Farrell, with the kind permission o f His
Grace the Archbishop P. Am igo; and again in 1940, after the collapse
o f France.
The French Government also offered me in 1939, for the purpose
o f facilitating my research work, the post o f Charge des Recherches,
and the professors o f the Collège de France elected me, on the advice
o f Professor André Mazon and G. Millet, to the Schlumberger Lecture
ship for 1940. The Ecole des Hautes Etudes, on the suggestion o f
Charles Diehl and G. Millet, invited me to lecture on Early Christian
and Byzantine History and Literature.
In preparing the English text o f my work I was greatly assisted by
the Rev. A . Gille, who also kindly undertook the compilation o f the
index. I am indebted to the Syndics o f the Cambridge University Press,
who agreed to publish m y work in spite o f the difficulties that hamper
the publishing o f scholarly books in these days, and I have been happy
in the aid that I have received from Mr S. C. Roberts, who personally
undertook to revise the manuscript in the matter o f language and style.
In the course o f my researches I received encouragement and valuable
advice from several competent scholars, especially from Professor H.
Grégoire, from the Bollandists P. Peeters and the late H. Delehaye.
I am especially grateful to Professor Norman H. Baynes, who read the
manuscript and gave me invaluable advice on many matters. I was most
courteously treated in all the libraries where I worked, particularly in
the MSS. Department o f the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, at the
Vatican, in Brussels, Prague and in Vienna. I must specially thank the
Superintendents and Staff o f the Reading Room at the British Museum,
where the greater part o f this book was written.
I am dedicating this work to the memory o f m y illustrious teacher,
Professor Charles Diehl, who took a personal interest in the progress
o f my researches, encouraged me never to be deterred by the difficulty
o f finding and telling the whole historical truth, and gave invaluable
xiii
PREFACE
advice on many details. He accepted the dedication shortly before his

death. It is my tribute to the memory o f a great teacher, a distinguished
Byzantine scholar and a trusted friend, who towards the close o f his life
offered his students and admirers a noble example in bearing the greatest
misfortune that could befall a scholar— blindness— with Christian
fortitude and patience.
F. D V O R N I K
LONDON, VINCENT HOUSE
August 15, 1947
Part I. H istory
CH APTER I
PO L IT IC A L PA RTIES, R ELIG IO U S PRO BLEM S

AN D O PEN IN G C O N F L IC T
Introduction: Photius’ case— Political and religious parties in Byzantium—

Extremists and Moderates in Irene’s and Nicephorus’ reigns— Moderate policy of
Methodius and the Studite Schism— Was Ignatius appointed or elected?—When
and why Gregory Asbestas, leader of the Moderates, was condemned by Ignatius—
Gregory’s appeal to Rome and the Holy See’s attitude— Extremist and Moderate
intrigues.
F e w names in the history o f Christianity have inspired feelings so

conflicting as that o f the Greek Patriarch Photius. Saint and hero in
the eyes o f the Christian East, he is branded by the Christian West as
the man who unbolted the safeguards o f unity and let loose the dis
ruptive forces o f dissent and schism. Whilst the East invokes his name
as one that carries weight with God, the West still quotes it as the
symbol o f pride and lust for ecclesiastical domination; hailed by all
who ever claimed a larger share for nationalism in the life o f the Church
and a closer association between man and God, it is reprobated by others
as the badge o f disruption and an element destructive o f Christian
universality.
Photius is stated to have inspired Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon and
other famous reformers in launching their campaigns against the Papacy
and its authority; and yet, Orthodoxy disowned their main doctrines
for being at variance with the tradition o f the early Eastern Fathers,
and to these Photius was the last living witness. For centuries he has
stood as a sign o f contradiction, a symbol o f disunion, a challenge that
still keeps apart the Western and Eastern fragments o f Christendom.
But his influence and personality are not confined to the religious
field, for since the Renaissance philosophers and philologists have
venerated him as the genius who among others was instrumental in
transmitting to later generations through the Byzantine period classical
Greek and Hellenistic culture. A man o f his stature deserves a study
and the significance o f his memory to the living minds o f East and West
makes such a study all the more timely and urgent.
DP S I I
THE P H O T I A N S C HI S M. I. THE H I S T O R Y
The very discordance o f the contradictory estimates o f the character

and activities o f this enigmatic Greek would call for a revision o f the
judgement o f history for, despite centuries o f tradition, championship
and abuse, both views cannot be right, however sincere they claim to
be. It is then the historian’s duty to reopen the case, reduce the jarring
verdicts to their just proportions, confront the witnesses, and if there
has been miscarriage o f justice, to rehabilitate the defendant in the eyes
o f posterity.
But before proceeding with the case, it will be necessary to state it,
give a rough outline o f the background o f Photius’ life, and summarize
the judgements pronounced so far on his activities and character. Only
then can we call in the witnesses and examine their statements.
Photius5 name stands at the very centre o f the history o f the ninth
century, one o f the most brilliant periods in Byzantine records, when
Byzantium stood at the close o f a transformation inaugurated at the
beginning o f the eighth century by the Isaurian dynasty and charac
terized by the influx o f oriental ideas. O f this transformation, icono-
clasm was the most notorious symptom. The final restoration of ikon
worship, which took place in 843, embodied the vigorous reaction o f
the Greek spirit against the invasion o f novelties and the reaction
achieved its object: the two elements that had been at variance for over
a century, the Eastern and the Hellenic, at length brought together
into common action the two main and equally important factors o f
Byzantine civilization. From that moment onward, their harmonious
combination led to the happiest results : Byzantium knew a renaissance
that spread from the intellectual to the political arena, and national
sentiment sufficiently asserted itself to claim preponderance in Byzan
tium’s relations with other powers— the Mussulman and Latin worlds.
O f this intellectual renaissance, the central figure was incontestably
the Patriarch Photius. The extent o f his learning amazed his contem
poraries and commanded the respect o f his bitterest enemies. He was
the scion o f a noble Byzantine family o f ancient Greek stock and related
to the Macedonian dynasty. His father, who had suffered persecution for
his fidelity to the cult o f images, was held in great veneration among the
faithful. A favourite at the imperial court, Photius commanded, if not
the love, certainly the esteem o f many rival personalities— the Empress
Theodora, the Logothete Theoktistos, and the young Emperor’s
uncle Bardas; and it was his scholarly reputation that raised to such a
high standard the institute o f learning in Constantinople which was
2
P O L I T I C A L P A R T I E S AND R E L I G I O U S P R O B L E M S
equivalent to a University. His literary salon, where classical literature,

the Byzantines’ favourite study, supplied the most popular topics o f
debate, attracted everybody o f note in the Byzantine intellectual
world.
But Photius lived in too stormy a period to confine his activities to
the literary field. Years o f theological controversy had created an
explosive atmosphere and driven sensitive minds to the borders o f
religious fanaticism, while the persecutions o f the iconoclastic period
had bitten deep into the Church’s soul. Memories were still fresh; the
victors were still jubilant over the turn o f events in their favour and the
defeated iconoclasts bitter about their collapse and hoping against hope
for better days. Tw o Patriarchs had already been dealing with a situa
tion o f the utmost delicacy, St Methodius (843-7) and St Ignatius, both
remarkable men, who knew by experience what it meant to suffer for
one’s beliefs. St Methodius was not very successful in steering clear o f
the shallows; a new schism arose out o f the radical elements which
claimed the monks o f the monastery o f Studion as their leaders, and the
saintly Patriarch died without the satisfaction o f healing the rift. His
successor, the Patriarch Ignatius, whose personality appealed more to
the radical monks, succeeded in healing the schism, but not without
provoking a strong reaction among ideological opponents. Political
intrigues stirred up dissension between the party o f the Empress and
that o f her brother Bardas in league with the young Emperor Michael III
and brought the Patriarch with his followers into sharp conflict with
the government (858).
At this juncture, Photius, who at the time held the important office
o f President o f the Imperial Chancellery, was selected to succeed
Ignatius. Photius, following the example o f his uncle Tarasius (784-
806), who had similarly relinquished the same duties in the imperial
service to devote his energies to the government o f the Church, accepted
the appointment. This opened the chapter in Eastern Church history
which was to assume such disproportionate importance and is still read
by many as the blackest in the annals o f Christendom.
Photius’ patriarchal activities met with strong opposition and, his
enemies had the advantage o f painting him in such malevolent colours
that they left him with a name blackened for centuries. In the picture
painted by his enemies, he was unscrupulous and so covetous o f patri
archal honours that he conspired with the government o f Michael III
and Bardas to overthrow Theodora; he offered himself as a tool for the
riddance o f the Patriarch Ignatius, whose sole fault had been to castigate
3 1-2
Bardas for immoral conduct. When Ignatius refused to abdicate, Photius

seized his throne and let loose upon the unfortunate Ignatius and his
followers a merciless persecution.
Blinded (so it is alleged) by pride and lust for power, Photius tried to
obtain recognition from Nicholas I by misrepresenting the circumstances
o f his installation in Constantinople, but the Pope, duly informed by
Ignatius’ envoys o f the true state o f things, refused to recognize a
Patriarch who had raised himself to the dignity in total disregard o f
canonical precedent. Photius, without taking any notice o f the sentence,
summoned a synod o f the Eastern Church, deposed the Pope and created
the ‘ first great Schism’ . Not until the pious Emperor Basil I had mur
dered the iniquitous Emperor Michael III, whose reign was execrated
by the whole o f Byzantium, did Photius receive his punishment; then
he was dethroned and solemnly condemned by the Eighth Oecumenical
Council (869-70), that favourite source in the medieval canonical legis
lation o f the West. But Photius insinuated himself once more into the
Emperor’s favour and, after Ignatius’ death, reoccupied the patriarchal
throne; to make sure this time of papal approval, he deceived the Pope,
who was willing on certain conditions to show leniency, by falsifying his
letters and also those sent by the Pope to the Emperor and the Fathers
o f a Council summoned to examine his case. He bribed the legates sent
by the Pope and tampered with the Acts o f the Council. When John V III
learned that he had been hoodwinked by the astute Greek, he forthwith
excommunicated him. Hence arose the second schism, which was to
last till the end o f the ninth century and to cast its shadow over the
tenth; finally there came the great rupture o f 1054 between East and
West, the rift that has withstood all attempts at healing and has been
such a disaster to Christendom.
This was the kind o f picture which many o f the contemporary sources
drew o f Photius’ ecclesiastical career and it is the picture that has
generally been accepted as authentic in the West. So overwhelmingly
did the evidence produced by those witnesses strike the imagination
that even the easterners were impressed, and had it not been for the
tradition o f their Church which from the earliest beginning had venerated
the memory o f ‘ the saintly Patriarch’ and uncompromisingly disowned
the Eighth Council that had condemned him, they might have accepted
the conclusions which the Western Church historians drew from docu
ments whose authenticity seemed to be beyond dispute.
Such is the position which faces every student o f this fascinating and
intricate period o f Byzantine and ecclesiastical history. Amid facts and
4
valuations so perplexing, how is one to judge a man who is venerated

as a saint by some, while others class him among the reprobates? It
will thus be our task to unravel amongst those contradictory estimates
what can be established as historical truth and to find out whether a
legend did not grow round this great figure to mystify the Christian
world and belittle a prelate who deserved a better memory. T o this end,
we cannot rest content with an examination o f contemporary documents.
We must follow up the tradition which, right through the Middle Ages
down to modern times, has grown round the name o f Photius in West
and East; we must analyse the elements which in successive periods
helped to obscure the facts as revealed by contemporary writings and
to create the legend.
One problem directly concerns the history and legend o f Photius.
It is a serious matter that there should be a discrepancy in the computa
tion o f the first Oecumenical Councils which define the principles o f
the Christian faith, the Eastern Churches counting only seven Councils
where the West numbers eight. The explanation will be found, once
the Photian case has been settled, when we turn to a class o f documents
which historians have so far neglected, the Collections o f Western canon
law drawn up between the tenth and twelfth centuries, most o f which
are still unpublished.
The Photian case is not merely a matter o f Byzantine interest. It
concerns the history o f Christianity and o f the world, as the appraise
ment o f Photius and his work lies at the core o f the controversies that
separate the Eastern and the Western Churches. We must therefore
proceed warily and make sure o f each step before we can fix the responsi
bility o f circumstances and men concerned in the birth and growth o f
the Photian legend.
Anybody who takes the trouble to read the writings o f Photius5 chief
opponents, especially o f the abbot Theognostos, the archbishops
Stylianos and Metrophanes, the author o f the Vita Ignatii., believed to
be Nicetas o f Paphlagonia, and the remarks o f the anonymous author
o f the anti-Photian Collection, will be struck by the virulence o f their
tone, obviously inspired by hate, and unaccountable on the current
assumption o f purely religious fervour. Its political bias is only too
evident under its thin camouflage o f religious and moral considera
tions. These writings show all the characteristics o f politico-religious
pamphleteering and are the unmistakable product o f the existence in
Byzantium in Photius5 days o f two powerful hostile clans which were
5
competing for supreme control over Church and State.1 The existence
o f these two currents o f opinion and temperament can no longer be
denied. The whole o f Byzantium was towards the end o f the eighth
century split into two great parties, whose constant rivalry enlivened
their politics as well as their religion; each aspired to monopolize the
management o f the Church and the Empire.
This same antagonism was likewise a leading factor in the conflict
between Ignatius and Photius and provides the key to the inner meaning
o f the fateful clash within the Byzantine Church and o f the rupture
between Eastern and Western Christendom at the period. But if we
try to examine the original meaning o f this division in Byzantine society,
we are driven to the conclusion that the reason for its existence will not
be found at this particular stage. Not even the iconoclastic interval
could be selected as a possible starting-point o f this evolution, since
similar symptoms are discovered at earlier stages, when Byzantium was
rent by clashes between orthodox and heretics. Party spirit runs
through the whole skein o f Byzantine history like a thread which should
be followed up to the very dawn o f the Empire, if one wishes to get at
its true meaning and its many implications. It would steer us back to
some venerable institutions o f old Rome which were transferred to
Byzantium, where in a Hellenistic atmosphere impregnated by Christian
ideas they took shapes which citizens o f the Roman Republic would
never have recognized. We should then find that Byzantine partisanship
grew out o f the Old Roman Circus parties o f the Blues, the Greens,
the Reds and the Whites.
But such a study would lead us too far astray.2 The part played by
the Blues and the Greens in particular in Byzantine history from its
earliest years till the reign o f Heraclius is not yet fully known and many
problems still await a solution; yet one thing is certain, the religious
evolution o f Byzantium and o f the whole East is inseparably bound up
1 This fact has forcibly caught my attention ever since I started inquiring into
the history of the ninth century; and on one occasion I labelled the two rival
parties, strange as it may sound to some ears, as respectively Liberals or Moderates
on the one hand, Reactionaries, Radicals and Die-hards on the other. Cf. my
lecture ‘ De Sancto Cyrillo et Methodio in Luce Historiae Byzantinae’, read in 1927
at the Fifth Congress for Church Union {Acta V. Conventus Unionistici Velehra-
densis (Olomouc, 1927), pp. 149 seq.).
2 I have summed up all that is known of the Byzantine partisanship that grew
out of the Old Roman Circus parties in a short study, where the bibliography that
matters will also be found— ‘ The Circus Parties in Byzantium, their Evolution and
Suppression’, published in Byiantina-Metabyântina, Symposium in honour of
Prof. H. Grégoire and E. Honigmann (New York, 1946), vol. 1, pp. 119 -33.
6
with the rivalry between the foremost Circus parties o f the Greens and
the Blues. They grew to be a factor o f paramount importance in the
political and religious life o f the Empire.
The part they played in the theological discussions on the doctrine
o f the Blessed Trinity and on the nature o f the Divine Saviour finds its
explanation in the peculiar character o f Eastern Church organization
and mentality. Eastern Christianity was erected on a national basis/
which gave the average faithful active participation in the divine service
and Church life and facilities to give their opinion on even the subtlest
points o f theology. Popular organizations such as the Blues and the
Greens thus offered themselves as rallying centres for champions o f
doctrines true or false to help them in their respective activities.2 Be it
enough to observe here that in nearly every encounter they ranged
themselves on opposite sides as a matter o f course, the Greens mostly
favouring the heretical tenets and the Blues championing Orthodoxy.
This division was strongly marked in the Monophysite conflicts.^
It was Heraclius who put an end to activities that so often placed the
Empire in the greatest peril. But even after his administrative reforms.,
the two currents— one more liberal and moderate, the other more con
servative and reactionary— continued to run side by side. We can trace
them in the history o f the struggle for and against image worship. In
the policy o f the Emperors o f the Isaurian dynasty who favoured
iconoclasm and in the resistance offered by the orthodox there were 1234
1 Cf. my booklet, National Churches and the Church Universal (London, 1944),
pp. 5-18.
2 An interesting instance of Christian influence on the evolution of Byzantine
political institutions. It is paralleled by a similar influence on the Byzantine senate
which acquired more rights than it enjoyed in imperial Rome. This was due to the
growing prestige of the Oecumenical Councils, which had been modelled on the
Roman Senate. Cf. the author’s study, ‘ De Potestate Civili in Conciliis Oecumenicis,
Acta VI Congressus pro Unione Ecclesiarum ’, in Academia Velehradensis (Olomouc,
1930), vol. x · An English translation of the lecture appeared in the review The
Christian East (1932), vol. X IV , pp. 95-108. A masterly exposé of Byzantine political
institutions will be found in N. Baynes’ book, The Byzantine Empire (London,
1925), especially on pp. 5 sq., 114 sq. Cf. also J. B. Bury’s The Constitution o f the
Later Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1910).
3 See the short account of the parties’ attitude in religious matters in my study,
4Circus Parties in Byzantium’, loc. cit., and in G. Manojlovic’s study, re-edited with
additions and corrections in a French translation by H. Grégoire under the title
‘ Le Peuple de Constantinople’, in Bypantion (1936), vol. xi, pp. 655-65. A more
detailed study is found in Gerazim Yared’s ‘ Otzuivui sovremennikov o sv. Fotiye
Patr. Konst, v svyazi s istorieyu politicheskikh Partii v imperii’, Khristyanskoe
Chtenie (1872-3). This work has been overlooked by all those who have dealt with
the problem.
7
features that recalled the conflict between the Monophysites and the
champions o f the traditional creed o f the two natures in Christ.
Leaving aside the many problems1 that still remain unsolved, we
shall make it our task to show how, after the liquidation o f iconoclasm,
the old Byzantine spirit emerged again in another form, in the
struggle between the partisans o f ‘ oeconomia5, the liberal policy
o f compromise in matters not concerning the fundamentals o f the
faith, and the intransigent ultra-conservatives, who held that Church
prescriptions should be carried out in all circumstances and with the
utmost rigour.
This new antagonism flared up immediately after the restoration o f
image worship by the Empress Irene. Fully aware that too rigid an
application o f ecclesiastical rules would only exasperate the iconoclasts
returning to Orthodoxy and wreck the chances o f a restoration, she
selected and appointed to the patriarchal office Tarasius (784), a layman
and a Moderate, President o f the Imperial Chancellery, an expert in
public affairs and unrivalled in the art o f negotiating with recalcitrant
opponents.
The Moderates also won the day at the Council of Nicaea (787), which,
after defining image worship and condemning iconoclasm, allowed the
iconoclastic bishops who abjured their heresy to continue to exercise
their episcopal functions. Some intransigent monks, however, pro
tested against the concession and advocated stronger measures against
the former iconoclasts. No sooner was this trouble settled than another
cropped up under the leadership o f St Theodore o f the monastery o f
Studios, he and his followers alleging that the punishment meted out
by Tarasius to the simoniacal bishops was inadequate.2
These incidents only illustrate the new ferment that was stirring both 1*3
1 Some of these problems have been outlined by G. Ostrogorskii, Studien $ur

Geschichte des Byânt. Bilder Streites (Breslau, 1929), pp. 23 seq. Cf. also F. Dölger’s
review of Ostrogorskii’s book in Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen (1929), vol. 19 1, pp.
352—72 and J. B. Bury, A History o f the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene
(London, 1889), vol. 11, pp. 429 seq. For the history o f iconoclasm see E. J. Martin,
A History o f the Iconoclastic Controversy (London, 1932). I have summarized the
history of Byzantine civilization, of which iconoclasm was a consequence, and
o f the Hellenic reaction in my study,4Quomodo incrementum influxus Orientalis
in Imperio Byzantino s. V II—IX dissensionem inter Ecclesiam Romanam et
Orientalem promoverit’, Acta Conventus Pragensispro Studiis Orientalibus a. 1929
celebrati (Olomucii, 1930), pp. 159-72. There I emphasize the role of the European
provinces in the restoration of Orthodoxy and at the Council of 787.
3 For further details, consult J. Hergenröther, Photius (Regensburg, 1867),
vol. I, pp. 250 seq.
8
laity and clergy and throwing Byzantine society into rival camps— the
Extremists and the Moderates. The Extremists were generally to be
found among the monks, chiefly the reformed monks o f the monastery
o f Studion, and their spiritual clients, the devout, the traditionalists and
the ultra-conservatives, elements which in virtue o f the norms that will
prevail as long as there exist rich and poor, must necessarily prepon
derate among the leisured and bourgeois classes. The Moderates, on the
other hand, belonged to classes more in touch with the humdrum o f
daily life and were for this reason more inclined to compromise. They
also numbered many well-wishers among the secular clergy, who were
in closer contact with the world than cloistered monks, and among
higher clergy, who were conscious o f heavier responsibilities. Intel
lectual circles were all the more in sympathy with the latter tendency
as the Extremists persisted in their obstinate prejudices against all profane
knowledge. Finally, iconoclasts who had returned to Orthodoxy with
more or less sincerity, could not but support the Moderates in their
own interest.
Its framework thus recast, the Byzantine population found itself back
to the old politico-religious factions o f Greens and Blues ; and the way
questions o f ecclesiastical policy which roused the new party spirit were
being exploited by both sides for political purposes only deepened the
similarity. When in 790 Irene had to hand over the government to her
son Constantine V I, who had come o f age, the first thing he did was to
divorce Mary, whom his mother had forced on him as a wife, and to
wed the court lady Theodota. For fear the impetuous young Emperor
should turn iconoclast if pressed too hard, the Patriarch limited his
intervention to a protest against this violation o f a Church law, and
refrained from taking any ecclesiastical proceedings against abbot
Joseph, who had blessed the union.
The Extremists, led by abbot Plato and his nephew Theodore,
disagreed and insisted on a strict application o f ecclesiastical measures
against the imperial delinquent. But some o f them went further and
took action. When Constantine recalled his mother to share in the
government, the Logothete Stauracius, her trusted confidant, was the
first to realize the value o f the Extremists’ party for furthering Irene’s
ambition to rule alone. He was aware o f her popularity among the
traditionalists who first and foremost venerated in her the pious restorer
o f image worship. Constantine was hopelessly compromised in their
estimation as a result o f his divorce and second marriage. This left that
9
THE P H O T I A N S CHI S M. I. THE H I S T O R Y
party as the mainstay for Irene and Stauracius to count upon, for the
success o f their plot for removing Constantine from government.
Visionaries, always so plentiful among enthusiastic devotees, undertook
to lend the plan a religious consecration and declared in their ‘ pro
phecies’ that Irene, notwithstanding Constantine’s coming o f age,1 had
been elected by God to carry on the regency; and trusting in such
backing, she felt herself in a position to undermine her son’s influence
and hold the reins o f government alone. What greatly assisted the
Extremists in their venture was Constantine V i’s evident incapacity,
his peculiar treatment2 o f the Armeniae Theme, once so loyal to him
under Irene’s first regency, and his failure to rally the opposition party
to his defence. B y his mother’s orders, his eyes were gouged out (797)
in the very room in which she gave him birth, and Constantine V I sank
back into dark oblivion to meditate upon his past mistakes. The E x
tremists had won the day, but not for long.
A counter-plot by the patriots who considered that the Empire would
never be safe as long as a woman sat on the throne o f the Roman auto
crats ended in the proclamation o f Nicephorus as Emperor (October
802)3 and deprived the Extremists o f their political and religious
ascendancy in State affairs. They then relieved their disappointment by
heaping insults on the Patriarch Tarasius for the part he had played,
probably with a light heart, at the coronation ceremony o f the new
Emperor. After Tarasius’ death, they vainly tried to put forward their
own candidate for the office, Plato apparently proposing his nephew
Theodore ,4 but the Emperor was on the Moderate side and selected
Nicephorus, a lay monk and once President o f the Imperial Chancellery.
The Extremists treated the appointment as irregular, and lost all
restraint when the two Xicephori rehabilitated abbot Joseph, who
had been placed under discipline after the fall of Constantine VI.
The Emperor’s moderate policy, without ceasing to favour image
worship, did not display any particular fervour against iconoclasm. This
was enough to prompt some impatient zealots to use weapons other
than spiritual against a regime they judged to be mischievous. One
plot by the partisans o f Irene against Nicephorus immediately after his
1 Theophanes (Bonn), vol. 1, p. 719; (de Boor), vol. 1, p. 464.

2 Theophanes (Bonn), vol. 1, pp. 72 1-6 ; (de Boor), vol. 1, pp. 465-8.
3 For further details, consult J. B. Bury, A History o f the Eastern Roman Empire,
from the fa ll o f Irene to the accession o f Basil I (London, 1912), pp. 1—8.
4 For details, see my book, Les Slaves, Byiance et Rome au IXe siècle (Paris,
1926), pp. 125 seq.
TO
ascent to the throne is reported by two Syriac writers.1 This was

followed later by another plot in which, according to the chronicler
Theophanes,123 many ‘ saintly bishops and monks, including the syn-
kellos, the sakellarios and the chartophylax o f the great Church, all men
eminent and worthy o f every consideration’ , were implicated. Both
plots were evidently engineered by the Extremists, a curious illustration
of what lengths the fanatics o f this party were ready to go to in support
of their opinions.
The Extremists also had their share in blackening Nicephorus’ repu
tation by branding him as a hypocrite, a miscreant and a tyrant, and by
picturing his government as extremely disastrous for the Empire. In
such colours did Theophanes hand down Nicephorus’ testimonials to
posterity in his chronicle, and it was only recently that historical criticism
began retouching the Emperor’s portrait .3 Nicephorus was indeed a
capable administrator, an efficient financier and no mean statesman. He
was, it is true, no expert in military science, but his sad end was no
justification for the treatment he received at the hands o f our pious
Theophanes.4 I f it be remembered that this writer did not belong to the
die-hards o f the Extremist party ; that, as the son o f a civil servant who
was at least familiar with current affairs, he made no secret o f his friendly
feelings for the Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus, and that he did not
invariably approve the radicalism o f St Theodore o f the monastery o f
Studion ,5 one can easily imagine what others must have thought of
Nicephorus.
It is well to remember the treatment he received at the hands o f the
Extremists, as we shall find that a similar fate befell the Emperor
Michael III and his uncle Bardas who had so much to do with Photius’
elevation to the patriarchal throne. One should also bear in mind that
the Extremists’ tactics were anything but ideal for dealing with a heresy
1 Gregorii Abulpharagii Chronicon Syriacum (ed. Bruns and Kirsch; Leipzig,

1789), vol. π, p. 137; Michael Syrus, Chronicon (ed. ]. B. Chabot; Paris, 1905-6),
vol. in, pp. 12 seq.
2 Theophanes (Bonn), vol. 1, pp. 750 sq.; (de Boor), vol. 1, p. 483.
3 Cf. Bury, A History o f the Eastern Roman Empire. . ., pp. 8 seq.
4 Not all contemporaries agreed with Theophanes’ opinion on the unfortunate
Emperor. The monk Theosterikos, author of the Life of St Nicetas of Medikeion,
calls him ‘ very pious and a friend to poor and monks’, A.S. 3 April, t. 1, p. 261.
3 Theodore even classes him in one of his letters among the ‘ moechians’, P.G.
vol. 99, π, ep. 31, col. 1204. In one place he uses an even harsher word. Theophanes
(Bonn), vol. 1, p. 775 ; (de Boor), vol. 1, pp. 497-8. Cf. Bury, A History oj the
Eastern Roman Empire. . ., pp. 38, 18 1; Geizer, ‘ Das Verhältnis von Staat und
Kirche in Byzanz’, Ausgew. Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1907), p. i n .
II
such as iconoclasm. This is what happened. When Nicephorus perished

in the Bulgarian campaign and his son Stauracius was dying o f
wounds received in battle (8 n ), the Extremists had the satisfaction o f
finding in Michael I, Stauracius’ brother-in-law, an emperor after their
own hearts. The Studites were recalled from exile to take an active share
in the councils o f State, the unfortunate abbot Joseph was again sus
pended and the most drastic measures were enforced against the icono
clasts. But the monks’ inexperience only precipitated the military
disaster in Bulgaria and their radicalism provoked the iconoclastic
reaction under Leo V (813-20).
Common danger brought the two parties again together, when the
Patriarch Nicephorus and the abbot Theodore, the representatives o f
the clashing tendencies, made peace in exile. Nevertheless, the mistakes
committed by the Extremists in the reign o f Michael I so strengthened
the position o f the iconoclastic party that Byzantium had to wait
another thirty years for the restoration o f image worship. Neither
Michael II (820-9) nor Theophilus (829-42) was impressed by the
arguments o f the image worshippers. Their turn came under Theo
philus’ widow, the Empress Theodora.
The final restoration o f image worship by Theodora in 843 opened a

new phase in the growth o f the two parties and the split that had featured
the first restoration in the time o f Irene occurred again. The prestige
o f the die-hards o f the Extremist party, the monks, had risen con
siderably after the persecution they had suffered under the iconoclastic
emperors; but by the same token, the former iconoclasts o f a milder
type than their last Patriarch John the Grammarian, had swelled the
ranks o f the Moderates and the partisans o f ‘ oeconomia’ . Among them
were many scholars, or at least men o f culture, the product o f the reign
o f the last iconoclastic Emperor Theophilus, who with the aid o f John
the Grammarian and Leo the Philosopher had liberally encouraged
the cultivation o f sciences and letters.
The interest which the last iconoclastic emperors evinced in the
renaissance o f classical studies deserves emphasis, for it explains among
other things why the die-hards, the monks especially, professed to be
the determined foes o f such studies,1 which they considered pagan—
not merely as reviving the writings and doctrines o f the Greek pagan
1 About the monks’ opposition, often violent, to classical studies, see what I
wrote in my book, Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byyince^
Byzantino-Slavica, Supplementa (Prague, 1933), pp. 27-31.
12
P O L I T I C A L P A R T I E S A ND R E L I G I O U S P R O B L E M S
philosophers, but because they were patronized by the iconoclasts, who

in their eyes were little better than pagans. It also explains why they
so frankly detested the intellectuals o f the Moderate party, frequently
going so far as to suspect the orthodoxy o f their former allies in the
fight against iconoclasm.
B y her personal inclinations, the Empress Theodora felt drawn
towards the Extremists, though she was intelligent enough to see that
the interests o f the dynasty called for discretion. One is surprised to
learn from the accounts o f the chroniclers that she all but opposed the
official restoration o f image worship, and that none but the arguments
o f Theoktistos and o f his relative, Magister Sergius,1 finally succeeded
in convincing her. At first, the government o f her Minister Theoktistos
encouraged liberal views : the new Patriarch was selected, not from the
Extremists, though they had presented their own candidates— Athana
sius o f Saccudion, Naukratios o f the monastery o f Studion, archbishop
Katasambas o f Nicomedia and the metropolitan o f Cyzicus— but from
the partisans o f a more liberal policy.* This was Methodius, a Sicilian
monk, reputed not only for his zeal for image worship, but also for his
learning, his friendship with the Emperor Theophilus, as well as for his
liberal views. Theoktistos carried on his master’s programme in other
fields with equal vigour, and the present writer has elsewhere explained
his share in the reorganization o f higher education in Byzantium.123 His
was the nomination o f Leo the Philosopher and o f Photius as professors
at the University o f Constantinople;4 his, too, the promotion o f Photius
to the presidentship o f the Imperial Chancellery and the appointment
o f Constantine the Philosopher as University professor. These men
belonged to the circle o f intellectuals who formed the backbone o f the
Moderate party.
Anxious to preserve peace in the Church and to forestall the possi
bility o f a revival o f heresy, Methodius studiously avoided appointing
partisans o f Extremist views to any vacant see and chose the candidates
exclusively from among the partisans o f the Moderate party. And
recent experience justified his policy.
It was only to be expected that Methodius’ policy would provoke
criticism. The Extremists found it unjust to the men who had suffered
1 Consult with reference to this personality the important and discerning study
by H. Grégoire, ‘ Études sur le IXe siècle’ , Byântion (1933), vol. vm , pp. 517 seq.
2 See my book, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX e siècle, pp. 128 seq.
3 Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 39 seq.
4 If we may so designate the Constantinople High School.
*3
most for the faith and resented it as a compromise. Witness the story
told by Genesios1 and the Continuator o f Theophanes,2 who stated
that Methodius had been accused by his enemies o f indecent assault on
a woman, alleged to be the mother o f Metrophanes, the future arch
bishop o f Smyrna. And the story goes that Methodius gave an ocular
demonstration before an amazed crowd o f his innocence, or rather o f
his physical inability to commit such a crime.
The story has a strong legendary flavour, though there may be some
truth at the bottom o f it. The implication o f Metrophanes5 mother is
characteristic. Metrophanes, as will be seen later, was no admirer o f
Methodius and was subsequently to join the partisans o f Ignatius. This
raises the suspicion that the campaign against Methodius originated
from the circle that bred the enemies o f Photius. The anecdote also
shows that the Extremists did not shrink from vulgar calumny .3 This
for further reference.
The monastery o f Studion was another hot-bed o f rebellion against
Methodius. Since the time o f Plato and Theodore, the Studites had been
the foremost champions o f rigidity. T o fill vacancies and to stabilize
his Church policy, the Patriarch admitted to ordination candidates who
failed to satisfy all the requirements o f canon law, directly they gave
evidence o f their orthodoxy during the iconoclastic persecution, pro
vided they did not belong to the die-hard and rigorist wing. O f this
irregularity the Studites duly made capital, and posing as the champions
o f Church canons, they turned on the Patriarch and severely criticized
his procedure. The conflict ended in tragedy and landed the Byzantine
Church in a grave internal schism. Exasperated by this ceaseless and
malevolent bickering, St Methodius felt driven to excommunicate the
more radical elements o f the Extremist party— Studites, partisans and
all. 1 have on two different occasions recalled the facts o f this conflict.4
Methodius apparently had the whole-hearted backing o f the Olympian
monks, the hermits and the hesychasts, who were jealous o f their
1 (Bonn), pp. 83 seq. 2 (Bonn), pp. i57seq.
3 Cf. F. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien (Leipzig, 1876), p. 154; and J. B. Bury,
A History o f the Eastern Roman Empire. . ., p. 15 1.
4 Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX e siècle, pp. 128 seq.; Les Légendes de
Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 123 seq. Attention is called to a notice on this schism
which may be read in the anti-Photianist collection (Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 444): εάν
επι του άγιω τάτου Μεθοδίου, διά τό παραβηναι εν ιδιόχειρον, τινές καθηρέθησαν*
ου μόνον οϋτοι, αλλά και οι συλλειτουργήσαντες τούτου* ττόσω μάλλον οι νύν
επίορκοι ούχ άπαξ, αλλά πολλάκις, οϊ δε καθ’ εαυτών αύτοι και ψήφον επήνεγκαν,
άναθεματίσαντες εαυτούς, εΐ παραβαϊεν. This reference to the schism under
Methodius is characteristic and has escaped the historians’ attention.
14
reformed confrères o f the monastery o f Studion. The wording o f the

sentence o f excommunication may well warrant the inference that by
their opposition and by overstepping the rights accorded to humble
monks to criticize the regularly established hierarchy,1 the Studites
made themselves responsible for regrettable dissensions within the
Church. They had no doubt grounds for irritation: this was their second
rebuff since the restoration o f Orthodoxy, which they had so gallantly
defended, but it was important to underline the incident, were it but to
demonstrate to what lengths the over-zealous members o f the Extremist
party were ready to go.2
The quarrel must have lasted till the death o f Methodius, and it is
just possible that the Patriarch made the first move towards reconcilia
tion; at any rate, we find in the fragment o f his will quoted by John
Chilas at the end o f the thirteenth century^ one reference to the Studites,
when the Patriarch wrote : ‘ Receive to communion with honour those
willing to do penance, provided they disown with anathema their
father’s [St Theodore Studite’s] writings against the saintly Patriarchs
Tarasius and Nicephorus; those who with sincere hearts return to the
Church, fully reinstate them in the dignity o f the priestly order.’ These
words suggest that the Patriarch was only too anxious for a reconcilia
tion, but that it never took place, since he left instructions on the w ay to
deal with excommunicated and repentant monks. On the other hand,
the biographer o f St Methodius mentions the incident as though the
parties had come to terms before his hero’s death.4 According to this
account, Methodius would have granted pardon on his death-bed to those
who had offended him personally and have imposed penances on those
who had rebelled against patriarchal authority; but the reference is not
clear enough to invalidate the statement in the first document, though
1 St Methodius reminded the Studites of the place occupied in the Church by
the humble monk: ‘ Narratio de Beads Patriarchis Tarasio et Nicephoro’, P .G .
vol. 99, col. 1853.
2 Cf. Th. Uspenski, Ocherki po istorii Vii{. obraôvannosti (St Petersburg, 1892),
pp. 84seq.; von Dobschütz, ‘ Methodios und die Studiten’, in Bypant. Zeitschrift
(1909), vol. X V I I I. V. Grumel returned to the subject in ‘ La Politique Religieuse
du Patriarche St Méthode’, in Échos (TOrient (1935), vol. x x x iv , pp. 385-401,
where he makes it clear that Methodius agreed with the Studites on the attitude
adopted towards repentant iconoclasts, by admitting only those who had been
ordained by Tarasius and Nicephorus. I accept his conclusions all the more readily,
as they substantially confirm what I wrote in my two works already quoted,
concerning Methodius’ ‘ oeconomia’ policy.
3 Pitra, Ju ris Ecclesiastici Graecorum Historia et Monumenta (Rome, 1864-8),
vol. π, p. 362.
4 P .G . vol. 100, cols. 1257, 1260.
15
one can sympathize with the biographer’s desire to place his hero in the
best possible light and earn for him the goodwill o f monastic circles—
so particular and sensitive on this point— to which he probably belonged
himself. Again, he was writing at the time the incident was definitely
closed, when it was only to be expected that he should not wish to
insist on an occurrence which the admirers o f Methodius, and chiefly
the Studites, always a powerful element in the Church, were only too
glad to forget. One only regrets not to be able to collate this bio
grapher’s account with what a fellow-countryman o f Methodius,
Gregory Asbestas,1 wrote on this incident. The fact that the Life o f
Methodius by the bishop o f Syracuse was probably destroyed later by
the Ignatians would suggest that it contained information particularly
unpalatable to the enemies o f Methodius.
The incident we have just related was more momentous than it has been
till recently realized, for the Studite schism, whose rise and growth
remained so long unsuspected,12 was to cast its deep shadows over the
religious evolution o f the whole subsequent period. It is extremely
difficult to find a key to the vicissitudes through which the Byzantine
Church had to struggle after the death o f Methodius. The position,
anyhow, seems to have been critical. When some o f the monks passed
over to the schism, the government took alarm; and though it had
approved the deceased Patriarch’s religious tactics, it was none the less
taken by surprise at the Studites’ attitude. It had never occurred to the
government that the opposition would prove so obstinate, nor that the
Patriarch would put so much energy into the defence o f his authority.
The Empress Theodora, whose personal inclinations lay with the ex
tremist monks, must have felt particularly sorry, in view o f this pious
woman’s touching efforts with certain eminent members o f the party
to rehabilitate her husband’s memory.3 So anxious was she to prevent
the heroes o f her faith, whom she held in the highest esteem, from
condemning the memory o f one she had loved so dearly, that she did
not even shrink from a pious lie, when she asserted that her husband
1 According to a marginal note in the Vatican MS. (Leo Allatius, Diatriba de

Methodiis, P.G . vol. ioo, cols. 1233-4), Gregory wrote a Life of St Methodius.
This biography must have disappeared, since no copy of it has been found.
2 Hergenröther, Photius (Regensburg, 1867), vol. 1, pp. 354 seq., is very brief
and hazy on this point, though he admits some connection between these troubles
and the Photian imbroglio.
3 Cf. Bury, A History o f the Eastern Roman Empire. . ., p. 149; Dvornik, Les
S laves, Byiance et Rome au IX e siècle, p. 127.
16
had repented on his death-bed. I f Methodius showed a desire to settle

this business amicably, he probably did so to meet the Empress5 wishes
and it is not unthinkable that the monks, even after the incident, tried
their utmost to curry favour with Theodora, encouraged, no doubt, by
the gradual recasting o f the political groups in Byzantium. In the first
years o f the regency, Bardas, the Empress5 brother, had been com
pletely left out in the cold. Since, relegated to his villa, he cannot have
been content with the pleasures the countryside had to offer, it is from
this period o f inactivity that we should date his interest in learning. As
a reigning Empress5 brother and conscious o f his ability, it must have
galled him to be asked to yield his rightful place to Theoktistos, an
eunuch! As. Bardas made many friends among the intellectuals and
made no secret o f his progress in liberal circles, Theoktistos, suspecting
a possible rival, must have been only too glad to welcome the Extremists5
overtures, which, moreover, came from a quarter where the pious
Theodora— that second Irene— enjoyed enormous prestige.
The choice o f the new Patriarch gave the two parties a chance to
measure their strength, and the struggle seems to have been a bitter
one. Nicetas himself1 mentions several candidates who had been
eliminated for various reasons, and among them Genesios names two
sons o f the former iconoclastic Emperor Leo V , Basil and Gregory.2
Outstanding among them all was the archbishop o f Syracuse, Gregory
Asbestas, Methodius5 countryman and leader o f the partisans o f his
religious policy, o f whose activities under Methodius and after the
latter5s death we shall learn more presently.
Under the circumstances, one can understand that the government
had to intervene for fear a clash between the two opinions should, on
the pretext o f the new Patriarch’s appointment, make irreparable mis
chief in Church and State. Probably prompted by her Minister Theo
ktistos, the Empress decided on the choice o f a monk, Ignatius, the son
of the late Emperor Michael I. But how was the appointment made?
Did Theodora first summon a synod or did she dispense with the
canonical routine? There is no direct evidence for or against either
election or nomination, but contemporary sources may guide us to an
answer.
Nicetas, in mentioning the consent o f the episcopacy, insinuates that
the Empress played a leading part in Ignatius5 elevation ; 3 and it is
significant that he is silent about a canonical election in accordance with
1 Vita Ignatii, P.G . vol. 105, cols. 500 seq. 2 Genesios (Bonn), p. 99.
3 Vita Ignatii, P.G . vol. 105, col. 501.
DPS 17 2
Byzantine tradition, knowing full well that the attacks o f Ignatius’

opponents had fastened on this particular grievance.1 He also affirms
that Ignatius had been recommended to Theodora by St Joannikios,
the famous ascete o f Mount Olympus and a keen supporter o f Methodius.
There is no truth in this statement, since Joannikios died on 4 November
846,123after the Patriarch Methodius had visited him on 1 November o f
the same year ;3 so that no one at that moment could have foreseen
Methodius’ death, and Theodora could not possibly have given thought
to his successor’s appointment. Nicetas only meant to show by this
deliberate fabrication how groundless were the criticisms o f Ignatius’
adversaries about his alleged hostility to Methodius’ religious policy.
We learn nothing more definite from other sources.4 Everything
then points to the fact that in her anxiety to avoid aggravating existing
troubles, the Empress did without the usual procedure and omitted to
convoke the synod that should have selected the candidates for pre
sentation to government; and after consultation with a few influential
bishops, without any further ado, she appointed as Patriarch Ignatius.
The irregularity o f this procedure was later to be cast up against
Ignatius, but exceptional circumstances— a schism within the Byzantine
Church— may be enough to explain why Theodora deemed herself
justified in dispensing with a few formalities.
Ignatius’ accession to the patriarchal throne had all the semblance o f
a victory for the Extremists, but as he had not been involved directly in
the differences that set Methodius and the Studites by the ears, the
followers o f Methodius could not refuse him obedience. That is how
the whole episcopate agreed to the elevation, as was evidenced by the
readiness with which Gregory Asbestas and his friends paid their
homage at the Patriarch’s enthronement. But the new prelate’s behaviour
towards Gregory Asbestas also proves that Methodius’ successor was
in agreement with the Extremists’ game. According to Nicetas,5
Ignatius bluntly signified to Gregory that since his case had not been
cleared up, he (Ignatius) did not wish to see him at the ceremony.
Thereupon, the fiery Sicilian made a scene, flung down the candle he
1 See infra, p. 81. z A.S. Nov. t. 11, p. 318.

3 Loc. cit.; in the biography written by Sabas, p. 382; the one written by Peter,
p. 432.
4 The other writers are also very brief on the subject of Ignatius’ nomination and
wander off into vague generalities; for instance, the Contin. of Theophanes (Bonn),
p. 193; Pseudo-Simeon (Bonn), p. 657. Zonaras (Bonn), vol. 11, p. 403 (lib. xvi, 4),
however, attributes the appointment of Ignatius directly to Theodora.
3 Vita Ignatii, P.G . vol. 105, col. 512.
18
was holding and exclaimed that instead o f being blessed with a pastor,
the Church had been handed over to a wolf. He then swept out, fol
lowed by a number o f ecclesiastics, chief o f whom were Peter, bishop
o f Sardis, and Eulampius, bishop o f Apamea.
The incident was ominous. Nicetas himself, though he defends Ignatius,

acknowledges that his conduct raised many criticisms, and once for all
prevented Ignatius, had he so desired, acting as intermediary between
the two parties at loggerheads in Byzantium. Henceforth he would be
classed for good, with no alternative left but to follow die-hard tactics
and rely exclusively on the Extremists5 favour.
It is generally supposed that Ignatius took action against Gregory
immediately after the incident and this with energy, since his patriarchal
authority was at stake. He convoked, it is stated, a local synod, which
duly judged, excommunicated and suspended Gregory with all his
partisans. It is also imagined that the ground for this condemnation
was the complaint Ignatius made against Asbestas at the time o f his
consecration. Meanwhile Gregory appealed to Pope Leo IV . The H oly
See’s attitude has generally been regarded as somewhat strange, since
the case was left to drag on throughout the whole o f Ignatius’ first
patriarchate, only to be settled— so it is believed— by Leo’s successor,
Benedict III.
Let us now examine how far an opinion so generally accepted is exact.
Asbestas’ appeal to Rome, together with other circumstances, is known
to us from a letter addressed by Leo IV to the Patriarch and, according
to this document, Ignatius’ performance seemed to the Pope1 to have
been contrary to custom as observed by his predecessors on the throne
o f Constantinople, who in similar cases invariably first applied to Rome
for advice. B y convoking a synod and condemning the said bishops
without the approval o f the Church o f Rome, Ignatius had exceeded
his powers. Unfortunately, the letter bears no date. It was certainly
dispatched before 855, the year o f Leo’s death; but as Benedict III, his
successor, had to deal with the case, the letter must have been written
towards the end o f Leo’s pontificate. Jaffé dates it 853, and this calls
for a few remarks.
We owe it to the famous canonical Collection called Britannica, in
the possession o f the British Museum,12 that the extract from the letter in
1 Ph. Jaffé-P. Ewald, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Lipsiae, 1885-8), vol. 1,

no. 2629; M .G .H . Ep. v, p. 589.
2 On this Collection see pp. 296, 303 seq., 324 seq.
19 2-2
question has been preserved (Add. MS. no. 8873, ff. 162, 162 a). B y
mischance, the copyist has omitted to follow the chronological order.
He has also copied as mall fragment from another letter addressed by
Leo IV to Ignatius, in which the Pope refused to accept the pallium sent
by the Patriarch. The Church o f Rome, ‘ magistra et caput omnium
ecclesiarum5, cannot accept the pallium from another Church, since it is
hers to distribute it ‘ per totam Europam ad quod delegatum est5. The
refusal is courteous, the Pope apologizing twice, but the tone o f the
letter is none the less firm. Now Jaffé also dates this letter about 853.1
It may be questioned whether it bears any reference to Gregory
Asbestas5 case and whether it may be thus dated.
It rather looks at first sight as though this fragment had been extracted
from the Pope’s reply to the Patriarch’s synodical letter, since it used
to be on such occasions that mutual presents were sent. It should
therefore be dated 848 or 849, even 850. There exists but scant informa
tion on the dispatch o f synodical letters, which perhaps were not always
sent immediately after a Patriarch’s accession. P. Ewald2 also is o f
opinion that the letter relating to the pallium had been dispatched
previous to the letter concerning Gregory Asbestas, and he surmises
that the copyist contented himself with copying a few fragments from
the register o f the last five years o f Leo IV (850-5), a hypothesis
which seems well founded. If such be the case, the condemnation o f
Gregory Asbestas and his friends could not have taken place till some
time after Ignatius’ accession. Though 853 might be retained, 854
seems the likelier date; for one cannot admit such a protracted
interval between the appeal to Leo IV and the second move with
Benedict III.
It is clear from the foregoing that the writer o f the letter knew only
o f one synodical condemnation o f Gregory and his friends, though its
exact date cannot be given, since the letter in question bears no date.
Owing to the traffic difficulties between the two cities, we are left to
1 Regesta, no. 2647, MS. f. 170 a; M .G .H . Ep. v, p. 607.
2 ‘ Die Papstbriefe der Britischen Sammlung’, in Neues Archiv (1890), vol. v,
p. 396. Cf. the two letters, ibid. pp. 379, 392. We must take into account the traffic
difficulties between Rome and Constantinople (see pp. 139, 171). Ignatius became
Patriarch in June 847. As he had first to settle the S tudite Schism and as the dis
agreement with Asbestas had caused a stir in the ecclesiastical circles o f Byzantium,
it took some time for the situation to return to normal. Traffic between the two
cities being suspended from October till March, he could scarcely have sent a legate
to Rome before the spring or the summer of 848. Normally, the Pope would have
answered his letter only in 849. Any delay in the dispatch of legates by either the
Patriarch or the Pope would have deferred the papal reply till 850.
20
guess that the synod had taken place the year previous to the dispatch
o f the Pope’s letter in 852 or 853. It also follows that the charges
brought in 847 against Gregory must have been pretty feeble for his
condemnation to be held over for five years and one may reasonably
wonder if Ignatius was not somewhat rash in provoking the painful
scene at St Sophia on his enthronement day. But this incident had
nothing to do with Asbestas’ condemnation and the true motive must
be sought elsewhere.
Let us see now if the conclusions derived from Leo IV ’s letters find
confirmation in other sources that bear on Asbestas’ case. It is alleged
by Pseudo-Simeon1 that Asbestas committed a breach o f canon law by
consecrating the priest Zacharias to the bishopric o f Taormina. It
should, however, be remembered that this same priest, again according
to the same quotation from Pseudo-Simeon, had been sent to Rome by
his fellow-countryman Methodius and was the Patriarch’s trusted con
fidant. There would then have been no difficulty for Asbestas in
obtaining a dispensation in favour o f one whom the Patriarch
held in such high esteem. Pseudo-Simeon’s allegation is therefore
suspect. This same writer further pretends that the bishop o f Syracuse
had been suspended by Methodius on the ground o f this same ordina
tion, a statement which is patently false and puts the witness out o f court.
The most important document on the Greek side is the letter o f
Stylianos o f Neocaesarea to Stephen V. After stating that the Devil
had prompted Asbestas and his two companions to alienate the faithful
from Ignatius, Stylianos writes:
The Patriarch tried to save them from falling a prey to the unclean spirit
b y their severance from the Church o f God : he repeatedly summoned them
before a synod, treated them kindly, but could not save them ; and eventually
deposed and anathematized them. T h ey however sent messengers and letters
to the most holy Pope o f Rom e at that time, the blessed Leo, and asked him
for protection, as though they had been the victims o f injustice. The Pope
wrote to Ignatius, asking him to send a representative to the older Rom e so
that he might learn from him how matters stood with those schismatics.
W ithout unnecessary delay, the Patriarch sent the monk and confessor
Lazarus with letters, as he was well acquainted with the affair. Lazarus told
the Pope everything; and the Pope judged and condemned them as schis
matics as Ignatius had done. W hen the blessed Pope Leo died, they again
molested Benedict, the Pope o f Rom e, and his successor with the same
1 (Bonn), p. 671.
2T
complaints. But after careful examination, the most holy Benedict pro
nounced against them the same sentence as Ignatius.
Stylianos then goes on to state that the condemned schismatics used

the influence o f Photius— then a high functionary at court and also
a schismatic— on Bardas, the Emperor’s uncle, who resented the
Patriarch’s accusation o f incest. After charging the Patriarch Ignatius
with many crimes, they forcibly deprived him o f his throne. The
Emperor then expelled him and placed Photius on the patriarchal
throne. He was the schismatics’ candidate for the honour.
Stylianos’ statement only confirms my inference from the Pope’s
letter, i.e. that there was only one condemnation o f Asbestas and his
friends, and that this had nothing to do with the St Sophia incident.
Stylianos postulates a long interval between the incident and the actual
condemnation, when the Patriarch tried to make up for the bad im
pression the incident had caused and to treat Asbestas and his followers
with every kindness. This reveals a sympathetic side o f the Patriarch’s
character: he was certainly not as stubborn and as touchy about his
dignity as most historians have pictured him, but ready to acknowledge
his mistakes and to mend matters. We may further conclude from
Stylianos’ account that the true ground for the condemnation was the
Asbestas party’s systematic opposition to the Patriarch’s ecclesiastical
policy.
Nicetas in his ‘ biography’ o f Ignatius1 is not as accurate as Stylianos.
He attributes all Ignatius’ misfortunes to Asbestas, ‘ who is stated to
have been some time ago bishop o f Syracuse and to have been sum
moned to Byzantium over some accusations and to have already been
condemned by the Roman Church for acting uncanonically’ . He then
relates the notorious incident ‘ for which act committed at the beginning
[of his career], however justifiable, many have blamed the Patriarch’.
‘ Throughout the eleven years o f his first patriarchate, Ignatius was
unable, for all his kindness in word and deed, to appease his [Asbestas’]
malevolence. He used to call on influential people, reviling him
[Ignatius] everywhere and ridiculing him in sheer malice, refusing even
to call the holy man a Christian. This accursed o n e!’
Though silent about the date, Nicetas agrees that the synodical con
demnation did not happen immediately after Ignatius’ accession. He
also confirms Stylianos’ statement that Ignatius tried to pacify Asbestas
by kindness. But he is more explicit about the nature o f Asbestas’
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 232; P .G . vol. 105, col. 512.
22
anti-Ignatian bias: calling upon the aristocracy to ridicule and revile

Ignatius points to a deliberate campaign against his religious policy.
Our third informant is Anastasius the Librarian. He had his informa
tion from the Ignatians, when he was in Constantinople in 870. He first
states1 that the accession o f Ignatius provoked discontent among some
bishops, one o f whom was Gregory o f Syracuse, for the following
reason : 4Because he declared with due restraint and in accordance with
the canons that he could not receive them— owing to a judgement
pronounced on them over some well known and public transgression
in their priestly life— before this judgement were reversed. For this
reason and for their failure to make due satisfaction, they were justly
condemned later (postmodum) by himself and by a synod.5
The words, though lacking Stylianos5 precision, indicate at least that
the synodal condemnation by Ignatius took place after he had been
Patriarch for some time. Unlike Stylianos, Anastasius generalizes and
includes Gregory’s associates in the condemnation which, according to
him, had been pronounced before Ignatius’ patriarchate. This statement
is suspect, and the way Anastasius refers to the opposition o f G regory’s
party to Ignatius’ accession only intensifies our suspicion. We know
that Gregory and his friends accepted Ignatius, since they wêre present
at the ceremony o f his enthronement, and that it was Ignatius who
objected to the presence o f Gregory. This calls for caution and his
statement on a previous condemnation o f Gregory and his friends for
some unnamed transgression may be questioned. As he was not well
acquainted with the circumstances and had got his information from the
Ignatians, the words possibly convey his own reading o f their feelings.
A Roman mind, trained on juridical lines and unfamiliar with the motives
that stirred the partisanship o f the Greeks, could not have read the events
or sifted his information in any other w ay: the bishops must have been
guilty o f some serious breach o f canon law, for which they were con
demned by the Church authorities before Ignatius’ accession. But such
premises are worthless.
Further in his statement, Anastasius is more exact on the sort o f
trouble Gregory and his group were making. He blunders o f course in
selecting Photius as the main opponent, but that was the Roman way
of looking at it. The Ignatians’ hostility to Photius was not under
standable to a Roman, unless Photius was identified with Gregory and
his schismatic circle. As to the nature o f the opposition, Ignatius was
blamed for dishonouring St Methodius’ memory and on that ground
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 2, 3.
23
was called a parricide. As Anastasius emphatically denies the accusation,

since Ignatius paid due homage to his predecessor’s memory and cele
brated the anniversary o f his death, he can only mean that Ignatius was
criticized by Asbestas’ group for deviating from his predecessor’s con
ciliatory policy or the policy o f ‘ oeconomia’ . This was the old anta
gonism between the partisans o f rigorous measures in ecclesiastical
policy and the champions o f more conciliatory tactics, wherever the
essentials o f doctrine were not involved. It was the story all over again
o f the breach between Theodore o f the monastery o f Studion and the
Patriarch Nicephorus in the divorce and marriage affair o f Constan
tine VI and o f the clash between the Studites and Methodius which led
to the Studite schism. Under Ignatius, the rigorists took possession o f
the patriarcheion, but were crossed by the champions o f Methodius.
Foremost among these were Asbestas and his two friends. The result
was another schism ending in a synodical condemnation o f Asbestas
and his party, most probably in 853.
Since there is no evidence o f any serious canonical lapse (in this case
Ignatius was to pass sentence immediately after his installation at the
patriarcheion), we must assume that he merely objected to the policy
o f oeconomia as practised by Methodius and championed by Asbestas.
Already under Methodius, the rigorists must have fastened their criti
cisms on Gregory who as Methodius’ countryman (both were Sicilians)
had great influence on him. He probably had also had a hand in the
condemnation o f the Studites. They therefore naturally looked upon
him as their worst enemy and were responsible for the accusations
mentioned by Stylianos.
Ignatius knew all this. But the new Patriarch had not had time to
examine the Studite case and the accusations. He could not reconcile
the Studites to the Church till after his enthronement. Hence, to avoid
any appearance o f partiality, he ordered Asbestas, the man responsible
for the condemnation o f the Studites by Methodius, to keep away from
the ceremony o f enthronement. Asbestas o f course resented this as a
slight on the memory o f Methodius and as favouritism for the men he
had condemned. This would best explain the St Sophia incident.
We are also told that Gregory and his friends appealed from the synodical
condemnation to Pope Leo IV. This must have happened in 853, or
better, in 854. Let us now examine the attitude o f the Roman See.
Stylianos’ assertion that Leo, after hearing Ignatius’ envoy Lazarus,
confirmed the Patriarch’s sentence and that his successor Benedict did
24
the same, is flatly contradicted by Pope Nicholas I, who stated in his

letter to Michael I I I :1
But m y predecessors o f blessed memory Leo and Benedict refused in

accordance with the rules o f the A postolic See to listen to one party to the
prejudice o f the other, for it is not the mediator for one side only. That is
w h y his [G regory’s] deposition has in the meantime remained invalid for lack
o f sanction from the H oly See. A nd although the same G rego ry admitted
through the delegate o f his party called Zachary that the A postolic See had
in no w ay consented to his deposition, he never thanked.. . .
The statement is clear. Further in the letter, the same Pope adds that
if Gregory and his friends had committed against Ignatius, in the reigns
o f Leo IV and Benedict III, the same offence as they perpetrated by
deposing him and crowning Photius, and had thus taxed the patience
and clemency o f the Holy See, those two Pontiffs would to a certainty
have unhesitatingly condemned them.12*This can only mean that Nicholas
was quite aware that those two Pontiffs had condemned neither Gregory
nor his companions. Besides, according to the Liber Pontificalis,3
Lazarus did not reach Rome till after the death o f Leo IV which occurred
on 17 Ju ly 855. In that case, Leo could neither hear him nor consider
Ignatius’ sentence.
The letter sent to Ignatius, probably in 854, severely rebukes the
Patriarch for abusing his powers in condemning bishops without con
sulting the Holy See; and we must presume that it also contained an
invitation to send representatives to Rome to answer the charges made
by bishop Zachary, Asbestas’ envoy. The copyist o f the Britannica
quotes from the papal letter only the passage on the rights o f the Roman
See, but omits the Pope’s request for the dispatch o f a special envoy.
There is nothing in the letter to indicate any move on the part o f
Ignatius before the summons from the Papal Chancellery.4 It is difficult
to state with any precision when Lazarus arrived in Rome. It may have
been in the second half o f 855, or in 856. The Liber Pontificalis, it is
true, mentions Lazarus’ arrival at the end o f the sketch o f Benedict’s
life; but this is not conclusive, since the writer prefaces his account o f
1 M .G .H . Ep. V I, p. 500; cf. ibid. p. 527.

2 Ibid. pp. 501, 528; cf. also p. 5 11.
.3 Ed. L. Duchesne (Paris, 1886, 1892), vol. 11, pp. 147, 150.
4 The wording 4vos autem praedictorum, ut fertis, virorum’ does not imply
that the Pope is here hinting at a letter sent by the Patriarch. The meaning is: ‘ you,
however, who pretend to be the successor o f those men [Patriarchs of Constanti
nople] mentioned before.’
25
Lazarus’ visit with the non-committal ‘ huius [Benedicti] temporibus

Michael. . . imperator. . . m isit. . . ’ .
The letters sent in 865 and 866 by Nicholas I, the successor o f
Benedict III, to Michael III give us information about the answer to
Leo IV ’s request brought by Lazarus. It is to the effect that the Patriarch
sent to the Roman Pontiff the Acts o f the synod which condemned
Asbestas’ group, and from these Acts Nicholas learnt that the Patriarch
had not attended that synod.1 But Ignatius’ absence was quite in order.
The Gregorian party’s attacks being personal and aimed at the Patriarch’s
religious policy, he preferred to stay away to allow the bishops perfect
freedom to discuss him. It did the saintly man credit and was moreover
true to custom in Constantinople. We shall presently see that neither
did Photius attend the sessions o f the synod o f 861, which examined
Ignatius’ case.
According to the same document, the Acts were endorsed with a
letter from Theodora on behalf of the Emperor Michael III. It was the
imperial decree confirming the decision o f the synod. The Patriarch, in
his letter, requested the Pope to confirm by his authority the synod’s
sentence and his own.123 The document illustrates the procedure followed
whenever an appeal from the Patriarch’s decision was lodged in the
papal court. As Nicholas I states in his letter to Photius written in 866,
Zachary, when appealing in the name o f the bishops condemned by a
synodical and patriarchal sentence, quoted in his support the canon o f
Sardica which gave everyone such a right .3
How did Benedict III (855-8) deal with Gregory’s case? The writer
o f Benedict’s Vita in the Liber Pontificalis was deeply impressed by the
presents which Theodora sent to the Pope: and yet, the Pope did not
confirm Ignatius’ sentence. This we learn on the authority o f Nicholas’
letter to Michael III, written in 866 and quoted above; and it gives the
lie to Stylianos’ statement. The document relating to the case which
Nicholas I found in the Archives in Benedict’s file must have been so
favourable to Gregory and his friends as to prove embarrassing to
1 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 478: £Ecce enim scripta vestra missa ad antecessorem

nostrum, quae penes nos recondita servantur, quosdam partis Gregorii Syracusani
congregatis episcopis etiam absente fratre nostro Ignatio vos anathematizasse
testantur.’ 2 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 500.
3 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 537: ‘ Zacharius, qui se pretendebat episcopum, ex parte
Syracusani Gregorii et collegarum eius apostolicam sedem adiit eorum deposcens
renovari iudicium, hos se in appellatione canones [i.e. canon 3 of the Council o f
Sardica, Mansi, vol. in, col. 23] et eos, a quibus missus extiterat, fuisse secutus
aiebat.’
26
Nicholas, and he is obviously at pains to explain his predecessors5

attitude.1
The Acts o f the fourth session o f the Council o f 869-70 supply some
more detailed information on the intervention o f Pope Benedict III.Z
After the Fathers had listened to the Photianist bishops Zachary and
Theophilus, the Patrician Baanes, who was in the chair and directed the
debate, declared: ‘ We never called for Zachary’s case, for he admitted
yesterday that he had been ordered by Pope Benedict not to perform
any pontifical function until he appeared again and went to Rome, with
all those who had fallen away from the saintly Patriarch Ignatius, for
his trial: this he never did and he never went there.5 These words make
it clear that Benedict III never confirmed Ignatius5 verdict; he only
reminded Zachary that he and his friends should suspend their ministry
as long as judgement remained pending. The same is hinted at by Pope
Nicholas I in chapters 1, 11 and in o f the decrees o f the Roman synod
concerning the Photian case;3 so that the observation made by Bene
dict III was quite in order, for whoever is condemned in the first instance
is naturally expected to abstain from any functions whilst his case is
under consideration in a higher court. Zachary duly notified Gregory
Asbestas o f this injunction, as is evidenced in the ‘ Libellus5 written by
Theognostos and presented to Nicholas I.4
But the passage quoted above also shows that Benedict’s verdict was
not final. The Pope evidently was not satisfied with Ignatius’ reasons
for such a grave decision against bishops. But he did not annul the
Patriarch’s sentence, apparently waiting for further information. Both
parties were then summoned to appear again before his tribunal.
Benedict I l l ’s action has surprised many a historian.3 Being in
possession o f the Acts o f the synod and in a position to gather the
necessary information from the monk Lazarus, having moreover free
1 M .G .H . Ep. Vi, pp. 500, 501. 12 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 74.
3 M .G .H . Ep. VI, p. 519: ‘ A Gregorio, Syracusano dudum episcopo a synodo
damnato et ab apostolica sede vincto.’ P. 521: 4Gregorius. . . a decessore meo
sanctae memoriae papa Benedicto obligatus.’ And further down: 4A decessore vere
sanctae memoriae Benedicto papa obligatis hominibus.’ Cf. the circular letter to
the oriental bishops, ibid. pp. 557, 558, 559. 4 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 300.
3 Cardinal Hergenröther conjectures for instance (Photius, vol. 1, p. 361) that
the Holy See’s dilatory attitude to the Asbestas case only encouraged his partisans
to intensify their attacks on Ignatius and that as a result Theodora convoked the
synod which Ignatius did not attend. This second synod would have excommuni
cated Gregory’s schismatic party and sent the monk Lazarus to take the Acts to
Rome. This speculation is unwarranted. We have seen that there is evidence only
of one synod, that of 853, and that it was the only one to pass sentence on Asbestas.
27
THE PH ΟΤΙ AN S C HI S M. I. THE H I S T O R Y
access to the defendant’s file, since Zachary must have stayed in Rome
waiting for the arrival o f the Patriarch’s envoy, he considered it pre
mature to decide the case. Instead, he gave the instructions we know.
It is clear from the documents that there was no final verdict and that
the affair must have dragged on from 856 till 858, a long time in a matter
considered to be so urgent. Before trying to find out what happened
to cause the delay, let us first examine the Acts o f the synod o f 861
summoned to judge Ignatius, and where his attitude to Asbestas was
explained.
An extract from the Acts o f this synod has been preserved in the
famous canonical Collection o f Cardinal Deusdedit and the problems
raised by this Collection will be discussed presently.1 The story o f
G regory’s condemnation and o f the Pontiff’s intervention could have
been reconstructed in the light o f these Acts, but since their authenticity
has been questioned, we preferred first to examine the information
supplied by documents whose authenticity is undisputed. In any case,
the evidence o f the Acts is exactly identical with that o f other sources.
In these we find that in the course o f the first session the legates o f Pope
Nicholas I— Radoald, bishop o f Porto, and Zachary, bishop o f Agnani
-— addressed Ignatius in the following w ords:12 ‘ There is this against
1 See below, pp. 297-308.

2 W olf von Glanvell, Die Kanonensammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit (Paderborn,
1905), p. 604. Owing to its importance we give here the text in full, though its
Latin would have broken Cicero’s heart: ‘ Hoc malum tibi est, quia cum accusatoris
est Romae, scripsit tibi Benedictus Papa, ut responderes. Tu neque per te ipsum
neque per alium dignatus es respondere. Venimus ergo perscrutari causam tuam
juxta traditionem sanctorum patrum et canonum.. . . Cum irate reclamavit Romae
Zacharias episcopus et Benedictus papa misit tibi epistolam, ut imperator [imperando,
ut?] condicto mitteres apocrisiarios ad apostolicam sedem et rursum veniet idem
Zacharias episcopus cum aliis quibusdam, ut utriusque partis in conspectu papae
ventilaretur negotium; et hic quidem venit, tu vero nequaquam misisti. Ignatius
dixit: Et quo mense recepi epistolam papae? Responderunt: Nescimus. Ignatius
dixit: Julio mense recepi epistolam; post V IIII aut X dies eiectus sum et quando
habui mittere?. . . Nosti [loc. cit. pp. 607-8] quod tempore Benedicti papae venerunt
episcopi Romam reclamantes contra te multa et gravia et misit apostolicus epistolam
tibi, ut de parte tua mitteres aliquos, et non fecisti. Ignatius dixit: Quod videtis,
contigit mihi: ideo non potui mittere.. . .Dixit Ignatius: non iudicor, quia iudices
missi non estis a magno iudice papa Romano. Item non misit iste Lazarum Romanum
[Romam] ut dispositionem [depositionem?] quam injuste fecerat confirmaret? In
illo iudicem recepit Romanam ecclesiam et modo non recepit.. . . Quare non recipis
nos, cum miseris ad Benedictum papam requirens Romanum iudicium?. . .Ego
veni Romam et reclamavi apud sanctitatem papae, quod Ignatius sine electione
intravit in ecclesiam et ejecit episcopum Syracusanum et alios duos fecit pro eo.
Synodus dixit: Omnes novimus, quoniam sine causa eiecit episcopos istos Ignatius
et alios fecit in locis eorum.’
28
you, that as you were accused in Rome, Pope Benedict wrote to you
expecting an answer; yet you did not deign to reply either personally
or by proxy. So we have come to examine your case according to the
tradition o f the holy Fathers and the Canons.5 Later they said: 4As
bishop Zachary had lodged an indignant complaint at Rome, and Pope
Benedict sent you a letter requesting you to send at once your repre
sentatives to the Apostolic See, and as the same bishop Zachary with some
others again would come so that both parties should explain themselves
in the presence o f the Pope, he did come, but you sent nobody.’ Igna
tius: ‘ Which month did I receive the Pope’s letter?’ They answered:
‘ We do not know.’ Ignatius said: ‘ I received the letter in the month
o f Ju ly and I was expelled nine or ten days later: where was the time
to answer?’ During the third session the apocrisiaries declared: ‘ You
know that at the time o f Pope Benedict bishops came to Rome with
many and grave complaints against you and the Apostolic See sent you
a letter asking you to send your representatives and you did not com ply.’
Ignatius said: ‘ You see what happened to me; so, I could not send
them.’ The protospathar John then pointed out: ‘ Ignatius has said:
“ l a m not being judged, for you have not been sent as judges by the
great judge, the Pope o f R om e.” And yet, did he not send Lazarus to
Rome on a similar occasion to ask for confirmation o f a deposition
which he had unjustly ordered? He accepted the Roman Church as
the judge then, but does not do so n o w !’ Then the apocrisiaries:
‘ W hy do you not receive us, since you wrote to Pope Benedict asking
for a Roman judgement? ’ Lastly, bishop Zachary declared at the fourth
session: ‘ I went to Rome and complained to the Holy Father that
Ignatius had entered the Church without an election, ejected the Bishop
o f Syracuse and replaced him by two others.’ The synod said: ‘ We all
know that Ignatius deposed those bishops without any reason and put
others in their place.’
The comparison o f these documents is significant, since they all
complement each other. Whatever is said on the subject by the Acts
o f the synod o f 861, whose extracts have survived only in Latin in
the canonical Collection o f the eleventh century, is confirmed from
other sources. This is important, for the Acts supply on the Ignatian
case other details which we shall have occasion to examine. A ll one can
say at present is that these are important witnesses it seems difficult
to set aside.
One thing seems certain: invited by Benedict III to send representa
tives to Rome to explain matters, Ignatius did not comply. B y his own
29
declaration, he received a letter with the injunction in Ju ly 858, nine or

ten days before his expulsion from the patriarcheion. This letter must
have been sent from Rome in the early spring o f 858. Even assuming
that Lazarus arrived in Rome only in 856, it seems hardly possible
that the Pope should have waited till 858 to ask Ignatius for additional
information. Even if the Pope wished to put off the decision, the
aggrieved bishops were not likely to be so patient.
We read in the extract from the Acts that Zachary went to Rome.
This was first stated by the papal legates at the first session and repeated
by Ignatius5 accusers at the third r1 ‘ The apocrisiaries addressed Ignatius5
accusers: “ Some o f your men went to Rome to complain against
Ignatius.55 The accusers said : “ Yes, and at the time they were poor and
harassed men. But he, with his influence and power, why did he not
send [any]? You know how Zachary did go.555 Both apocrisiaries and
complainants here seemed to have in mind, not the first, but a second
journey o f Zachary to Rome. The extract is not clear, but the context
in both passages seems to suggest it.
But there is a passage in a letter o f Hadrian II, also written to Ignatius
in 869, stating that Ignatius failed to comply with the Pope’s request,
not in 858, before his ejection, but much earlier. The Pope writes:^
‘ Among the false charges made against you, your enemies have tried
to incriminate you, saying that, as though scorning Pope Benedict o f
venerable memory, you had contemptuously refused, like Dioscorus
mentioned above, to receive his letter.5 I f there is any substance in this
statement, it cannot refer to the letter which Ignatius received some
days before his fall. There was no necessity then for Ignatius5 enemies
to spread rumours o f a refusal to receive papal letters, since at that time
his position was already seriously undermined. But there was point in
the accusation, if made in 856 or in 857. It follows that Ignatius ignored
the Pope’s request then, and that only Zachary returned to Rome in 857.
But as the Pope could not pass sentence in the defendant’s absence, he
reiterated his request in the spring o f 858. T o this o f course Ignatius
could not reply, since he was expelled from his office. He was only
referring to this second letter in his defence at the synod, and wisely
ignored the first. His tactics were legally correct, since none could tell
how he would have dealt with the second letter, if given freedom o f
action. In any case, the Pope overlooked Ignatius’ disobedience to the
first summons and merely repeated his citation.
There is one difficulty. How are we to reconcile the statement con-
1 W. von Glanvell, loc. cit. p. 607. 2 M .G.H . Ep. v, p. 753.
30
tained in the Acts o f the synod o f 861 to the effect that Zachary went to
Rome for the second time, with the Patrician Baanes’ denial at the fourth
session o f the Council o f 869-70 that Zachary ever went to Rome ‘ for
his trial’ ? But the contradiction is only apparent. Baanes referred to
the actual trial and so far was right, as Zachary and his friends never
went to Rome for it. Whilst their case was pending before the court o f
appeal, they omitted, after Ignatius’ expulsion, to press for a decision
in Rome and contented themselves, as we shall see presently, with the
satisfaction which the synod o f 861 gave them. The undertaking they
had signed in Rome, as stated by the papal legates in the same passage,
that they would ‘ in all things follow the judgement o f the H oly Roman
Church’, did not trouble them.
One more detail that might explain Ignatius’ omission to send
explanations to Benedict III. According to a statement made by
Zachary at the synod o f 861, the aggrieved bishops, besides complaining
in their appeal to Rome o f their unfair deposition, also questioned the
legitimacy o f Ignatius’ office on the ground that instead o f being elected
by a local synod and confirmed by the Emperor, he had straightaway
been appointed Patriarch by the Empress Theodora, then the Regent,
in contravention o f local canonical custom. It appears that it was this
particular charge which the Pope wished especially to investigate, since
Lazarus, the Patriarch’s first envoy, could neither deny the fact nor give
any satisfactory explanation. One can understand the Patriarch’s dismay
and that o f his followers on learning that both his verdict and the legiti
macy o f his office had been taken exception to. Rome’s intention even
to consider such a charge must have looked to many Ignatians like
taking sides with the Patriarch’s enemies, and this at a time when, after
the elimination o f the Empress’s Minister Theoktistos, Theodora’s
power seemed to slip into the hands o f the Gregorian party. Little
wonder that Ignatius felt reluctant to submit to such an inquiry. This
frame o f mind would be more consistent with the attitude he adopted
at the synod o f 861, as we shall see in the next chapter.
The facts as explained allow us to draw a few conclusions. First o f
all, the incident under discussion was far more serious than has generally
been supposed, although the Holy See’s hesitation, and chiefly Pope
Benedict’s attitude, would lead one to think that the reasons for G regory’s
and the two bishops’ deposition were trivial and open to discussion.
It is also important to underline the fact that G regory’s co-defendants
appealed to Rome as to a higher court, on the strength, as explained,
o f the canons o f the Sardican synod. Let us also note that G regory’s
31
faction, for all its anti-papal reputation, actually chose to fight Ignatius
by spreading the rumour that he had refused to acknowledge the Pope’ s
letter. These facts cast a curious light on the mentality o f the Byzantines
in the ninth century and on their respect for the See o f Rome. To be
noted also is that Ignatius, at least at that time, was not sufficiently
aware o f the importance o f that See and its claims on the universal
Church, as was evidenced by his first official contact with the Pope.
Ignorance o f usage on similar occasions in presenting the Pope among
other things with a pallium and drawing on himself a categorical refusal
illustrates Ignatius’ simplicity, though the way he dealt with Asbestas’
appeal to Rome proves that he protected none the less jealously the
rights o f the Patriarchs o f the second Rome and did not like the Roman
See’s intervention in the affairs o f his patriarchate. Nevertheless, he
did not deny the rights o f that See, though it is also true to say that he
could not have done so without provoking his enemies’ legitimate
criticism for disregarding the canons o f Sardica.
So far, we have only considered the ecclesiastical aspect o f the conflict.

There is not much information to give us a glimpse o f what took place
behind the scenes. Gregory’s associates were apparently not very
numerous, for the synod o f 853 only prosecuted those who had been
loudest in their criticisms o f the Patriarch’s policy; but few as they were,
they raised many sympathies among the clergy and other quarters.
The intellectuals, who usually ranged themselves on the Moderate
side, were naturally partial to Gregory. Remember that Ignatius, as
even Anastasius the Librarian acknowledges in his preface to the Acts o f
the Eighth Council,1 treated profane learning with the utmost contempt,
sharing in this respect the feelings o f the die-hard monks and zealots in
painful contrast to the long line o f men o f learning who had sat on the
patriarchal throne o f Byzantium. The names o f the Patriarchs Tarasius,
Nicephorus, John the Grammarian and Methodius had set a high tradi
tion; and it was only human that the intellectuals should closely watch
the Patriarch’s doings and feel supercilious. But the radical elements
o f the liberal party did not stop there and went even so far as to sneer
publicly at the Patriarch’s ignorance in matters philosophical and
theological. Anastasius tells us in the preface quoted that Photius, then
professor at the University o f Constantinople, later, president o f the
Imperial Chancellery and future Patriarch, was one o f those who
ridiculed poor Ignatius. He is even supposed to have concocted a sham
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 6: ‘ Qui scilicet viros exterioris sapientiae repulisset/
32
heretical doctrine on the two souls, and explained to his intimate friend
Constantine the Philosopher, future apostle o f the Slavs, who upbraided
him for it, that he only wanted to see what the Patriarch, ignorant o f
syllogisms and contemptuous o f philosophy, was going to do about it,
were a heresy suddenly to burst at his feet.
This anecdote sounds suspect. Even Hergenröther1 refused to take
it literally, and attributed the heresy in question to some o f Photius’
students deliberately exaggerating certain o f their master’s sayings in
order to bait the unlettered Patriarch. But the Acts find nothing to say
about it. As the Eighth Council voted a canon— the tenth in the Greek
summary and the eleventh in the translation by Anastasius2— which
condemned a similar heresy, it must have been preached in Byzantium
by somebody, but its author was certainly not Photius, nor one o f his
students. The Fathers o f the Eighth Council, who collected whatever
they could lay hands upon in order to convict Photius, would certainly
not have overlooked a heresy propagated either by him or by one o f
his students. The condemnatory canon mentions neither, and Photius’
bitterest enemies, bishop Stylianos, Theognostos and Nicetas, knew
nothing about it. Only one single writer, Simeon Magister,3 fathers the
heresy on Photius, with this important difference between him and
Anastasius, that according to Simeon, Photius, as a Patriarch, openly
preached the said doctrine from the ambo o f St Sophia. But his story
betrays signs o f fantastic romancing and should be classed with the
mendacious fabrications scattered over Byzantium by Photius’ worst
enemies, bent on rousing the populace against him. It is not the only
fairy tale in Simeon’s collection. There is, besides him, the compiler o f
the anti-Photian Collection,4 to be discussed later, who also attributes
to Photius the doctrine o f the two souls, but we shall find that this
writer does not always deserve the credit he claims.
As regards Anastasius, he picked up his anecdote in Constantinople,
in ultra-Ignatian circles, which he frequented at the time. In his letter
to Gauderich o f Velletri,3 a letter intended to preface his translation o f
Constantine’s work on the recovery o f St Clement’s relics, he confesses
having had in Constantinople interviews with Metrophanes o f Smyrna,
one o f the most devoted partisans o f Ignatius and who happened to be
an exile in Cherson at the time o f the alleged recovery o f the relics;6
1 Photius, vol. in, pp. 444-6. 2 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 404, 166.
3 (Bonn), p. 673. 4 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 456. 3 M .G.H . Ep. vu, p. 437.
6 Consult on this subject my book, Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode,
pp. 190-7.
DPS 3
33
and it had been Anastasius5 intention to collect in the Byzantine capital

all the information he could about his friend Constantine. The Ignatians,
aware o f the Roman librarian’s interests and o f the prestige this young
Greek scholar commanded in Rome, naturally endeavoured to associate
the reputation o f such a notability with their own cause; but being
unable to present Anastasius with more forcible evidence o f Constan
tine’s friendliness to their cause, they forged the story o f a quarrel
between the two friends, a tale which Anastasius faithfully copied, but
most certainly did not gather from Constantine. The latter’s alleged
reply is too obviously inspired by the Ignatians’ hatred for Photius to
have come from Constantine’s own lips, for he was, on the Ignatians’
own showing, his best friend; for he attributes to Photius nothing less
than hatred for Ignatius and greed, i.e. the very character traits which
the Ignatians fastened on him to bolster up the belief that he desired at
all costs to take possession o f the patriarchal throne. Anastasius was
then no longer in a position to verify their statements, since Con
stantine had died in Rome in 869,1 perhaps even before Anastasius had
left for Byzantium. It is only right to add that Photius’ writings do not
permit one to suppose that he was the author o f the doctrine o f the
two souls: whatever he wrote on the existence o f the human soul was
perfectly orthodox,12 and the sceptical comments on this anecdote by
E. Amann are more than justified.3 From all this we may gather one
thing, that the intellectuals were in sympathy with Gregory’s party
and that its radical elements ridiculed Ignatius’ ignorance.
These people seem to have indulged in other exaggerations in their
campaign against Ignatius. Canon X V I o f the Eighth Council4 severely
forbids parodies o f the sacred liturgy, as organized by ‘ certain laymen
o f senatorial rank in the reign o f the late Em peror’ (Michael III).
Nicetas also mentions these parodies;3 and the Continuator o f Theo
phanes describes them very picturesquely, often in a manner scarcely
1 Cf. Laehr,£Briefe und Prologe des Bibi. Anastasius’, in Neues Archiv, vol. x l v ii ,
p. 429.
2 See for instance Photius’ homilies, Aristarchos, Φωτίου λόγοι και όμιλίαι
(Constantinople, 190°)? vol. ι, pp. 339 secN 35$ (hom. ΜΓ), p. 423 (hom. ME);
P .G . vol. 102, cols. 85 seq., 101, 156; Aristarchos, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 81, 130
(hom. ΜΘ). See also Photius’ sayings which Aristarchos takes for the Patriarch’s
lectures on philosophy, ibid. vol. 1, pp. 62, 63, 90-5, 110 - 13 , 218, 220.
3 E. Amann, ‘ Photius’, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. xii, col. 1560:
‘ Quant à l’histoire racontée par Anastase sur l’hérésie des deux âmes, ballon d’essai
lancé par Photius pour démontrer l’incapacité théologique d’Ignace, on aimerait à
en avoir de plus sérieux garants.’
4 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 169. 3 P ,G . vol. 105, col. 528.
34
dignified. According to him, their author was no less a man than

Michael III himself.1 But he should be read with caution, since his work
was intended to glorify Basil, founder o f the new dynasty and murderer
o f Michael III. All the writings issuing from the Constantine Porphyro-
gennetos circle were directed to the one object o f painting Michael III
in the most unfavourable colours so that his murder by Basil might
emerge as a just retribution by Providence and a meritorious deed.
Whatever therefore Theophanes’ Continuator has to say on the point
that interests us originates from a legend invented in Byzantium to the
detriment o f Michael III at the instigation o f the Ignatians and Basil’s
panegyrists.
But whilst refusing to take literally what the Ignatian writers tell us
about Michael in this matter, one can hardly deny the fact that Michael
was actually an active party to these travesties. The spathars, when
cross-questioned on the subject by the legates in the course o f the ninth
session o f the Council o f 869-70,2 definitely confessed that they had
been forced by the young Emperor to take part in these parodies. It is
surprising to note that after such a charge the legates should have let
off the late Emperor so lightly. Whether they wished to spare Basil’s
feelings, who in deference to his young friend probably attended this
kind o f entertainment, or whether Michael was only indirectly respon
sible for it, is not clear: in any case, the same passage o f the Acts seems
to prove that these spectacles were pointedly aimed at Ignatius and his
party and that directly Photius became Patriarch they stopped. The
legates failed to make Photius liable for these incidents, though not for
want o f trying.
And yet, the mere fact that Michael III should have been directly
mixed up with these incidents by writers o f a later period points to
another finding: the fellowship uniting young Michael and his uncle
Bardas with Gregory’s followers. Here we come up against the political
side o f the wrangle. We have seen already that the condemnation o f
Asbestas and his friends had been confirmed by Theodora, to whose
government Pope Nicholas attributed a leading initiative in convoking
the synod that indicted Gregory, so that by 853, the time when the
breach between Gregory and Ignatius occurred, people in Byzantium
had taken their stand and chosen their sides on the political platform.
Theodora and Theoktistos counted on the Extremists and supported
Ignatius to the utmost: Bardas with Michael relied on the Moderates;
whereas the attitude o f the Roman See in the clash between Ignatius
1 (Bonn), pp. 244-7. 2 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 153-5.
35 3-2
and the bishop o f Syracuse no doubt enhanced the Moderate party’s

prestige.
The political rivalry that smouldered between Theoktistos and Bardas
exploded in 856, the year o f the young Michael’s coming o f age. We
cannot but remember what happened under Irene, when her son attained
his majority. It would have been an easy matter for Bardas, by recalling
the past, to convince his young nephew o f Theoktistos’ ambition to
become a second Stauracius arid to eliminate the young Emperor from
government once for all. Theodora was no Irene ; but the idea o f handing
over the reins o f government to her son did not appeal to her and still
less to Theoktistos. Both knew perfectly well that the transfer would
lead to a complete change o f political orientation, for Bardas, the patron
o f the Moderates, was holding himself ready in the background.
A decision according to Byzantine usage was therefore imperative:
either the one or the other leader o f the rival forces had to disappear.
Theoktistos would not have hesitated, at a pinch, to get rid o f Bardas by
force, but Bardas happened to be more wide-awake and less scrupulous
than his rival; and so, at the beginning o f 856, with the complicity
o f Michael,1 he assassinated Theoktistos. Deprived o f his support,
Theodora found it impossible to hold her own against the Moderate
party and its leaders, Bardas and the young Emperor Michael. But the
Extremists refused to disarm, remaining hopeful so long as Theodora
succeeded in staying at the imperial palace. They therefore concentrated
all their venom on Bardas, the man to be removed at all cost. For the
purpose o f discrediting him in the eyes o f the public, rumours were set
going about his immoral conduct and his incest with his daughter-in-
law ;12 and taking advantage o f Ignatius’ honesty and zeal, the Extremists
planned to cause a breach between the highest religious authority and
the political powers. Given Byzantine mentality, the coup was astute
and well aimed; for, with Bardas and Michael disgraced in public estima
tion, it would have been an easy matter to undermine their influence
in the imperial palace and restore Theodora and her Extremists to
power.
Their machinations were partly successful: Ignatius allowed himself
to be won over and the congregation at St Sophia had the thrill o f
witnessing a sensational scene, when the Patriarch refused communion
to the man who then represented in Byzantium supreme political power.
1 For details, cf. Bury, A History o f the Eastern Roman Empire. . ., pp. 157 seq.
2 On these rumours and Ignatius’ line of conduct consult my book, Les Légendes
de Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 139 seq.
36
The new regime had little reputation left; but on the face o f it, Ignatius
seems to have carried his zeal too far. There is a simple and natural
explanation for Bardas’ affection for his daughter-in-law: after losing
a son he loved dearly, he transferred his paternal affection to the son’s
wife, who in her bereavement needed it. Such cases are fairly common.
All the chroniclers who mention the accusation, including Nicetas the
Paphlagonian, Ignatius’ 'biographer’, only refer to rumours current in
Byzantium and reported to the Patriarch;1 and they would have spoken
in different terms had there been any serious evidence o f Bardas’
immorality. St Tarasius, St Nicephorus and St Methodius would in
similar circumstances have acted with greater circumspection than did
St Ignatius. It is not here suggested that Ignatius was in any way
implicated in this political plot; for we are more and more convinced
that he was a saintly man and fully deserved the honours which the
two Churches have paid him on the altars for centuries; and the study
of contemporary documents only confirms this conviction. The fanatics
of the Extremist party merely took advantage o f his simplicity, his lack
of discretion and his inexperience in politico-religious matters, and that
was all there was to it.
To cut short all further intrigues and deprive his enemies once for
all o f all hope o f return to power with the assistance o f Theodora and
her daughters, Bardas decided to render his sister and his nieces harmless
by sending them to a convent. He acted, it must be admitted, with
great leniency, for Byzantium was used to worse scenes and a repeti
tion o f the tragedy that befell Constantine VI and his sons and cost
them their lives would not have perturbed its equanimity so very
deeply.
Ignatius was asked to bless the Empress’ veil, a request which to
Bardas’ way o f thinking was meant to give him the chance to prove his
innocence in the political plots o f the Extremist party. But this was
asking too much. It was not so much his religious temperament and
his rectitude that caused him to demur, but the fact that he owed the
Empress everything: she had selected him for the patriarchal dignity
and he meant to remain loyal. He refused. In his refusal the govern
ment found evidence o f the Patriarch’s complicity with the enemies o f
the new political regime and felt all the more irritated as the fanatics
exploited his attitude against Bardas, Michael and their partisans, and
1 Consult my book (loc. cit.), where I quote Bury’s judgement on Ignatius’

conduct. It is interesting to note that Yared’s conclusions (loc. cit., 1872, vol. 11,
pp. 556 seq.) on this incident were thus confirmed by Bury.
37
went so far as to organize a conspiracy. Simeon Magister/ unfavourable

as he was to Photius and openly in sympathy with Ignatius and Theo
dora, and the Continuator o f George the Monk2 both mention a mur
derous assault on Bardas. It was engineered by the imperial protostrator
and it appeared that the ex-Empress was implicated. It was, however,
discovered in time and the conspirators were beheaded in the Hippo
drome. Meanwhile the position grew more serious, as the failure o f
this first attempt did not entirely discourage or dishearten the opposi
tion. Gebeon, one o f the fanatics, tried his chances by asserting that
he was the Empress’ son; not unsuccessfully, for Theodora’s partisans
began to rally round him, when he was caught and cruelly done to
death. Ignatius, already under serious suspicion and closely watched
by the imperial police, made a slip : maybe out of pity, or because the
culprit’s pose as a monk brought him under the Patriarch’s jurisdiction,
he undertook the man’s defence. This only made suspicions worse and
Ignatius was arraigned for high treason and banished to the Isle o f
Terebinthos.3 This must have happened, according to his own state
ment before the synod, at the end o f Ju ly 857.
1 (Bonn), p. 658. 2 (Bonn), p. 823.
3 For details, cf. Bury, A History oj the Eastern Roman Empire. . ., pp. 188 seq.
Even the biographer of St Theodora states that the Empress numbered many
partisans among the senators, which may suggest that the conflict was rather of a
political nature (Vita S. Theodorae, ed. Regel, Analecta Byzantino-Russie a,
Petropoli, 1891, p. 15).
38
C H A P T E R II
IGNATIU S’ RESIGNATION AND PHOTIUS’

CANONICAL ELECTION
Nicetas’ testimony—-Ignatius’ abdication confirmed by the Extremists’ reports—-

Photius’ canonical election— Asbestas and Photius’ consecration—Extremists’ revolt
and its motives— Photius’ reaction— Repercussions of these conflicts among the
episcopacy and the monastic world.
B a r d a s and his partisans finding it impossible to leave on the

patriarchal throne a man who to all appearances was under the influence
o f an opposition party that made no secret o f its sympathies for the
fallen regime, the question arose o f ways and means for getting rid
of him: Was it to be straightforward deposition, which was in contra
vention o f canon law and therefore liable to aggravate the difficulty—
or resignation? The latter alternative carried the day.
Did Ignatius then actually resign? The documents we possess on
this issue contradict each other. The main Ignatian documents deny it
and this version has commanded general acceptance. But there are other
sources which support the view that Ignatius actually did resign. As
the issue is o f capital importance in the history o f Photius and his first
schism, it calls for a thorough examination.1
O f all the contemporary accounts o f the events that followed the
internment o f Ignatius on the Isle o f Terebinthos, only one so far has
been generally considered reliable, that by Nicetas the Paphlagonian,2
author o f a pamphlet commonly assumed to be the genuine biography
o f St Ignatius. That several Byzantine chroniclers such as the successors
of Theophanes and George the Monk depended for their information
on Nicetas’ so-called biography 3 only tended to establish his reliability.
After relating the events that preceded Ignatius’ internment, Nicetas
dwells on the repeated efforts made by the government to extract
Ignatius’ resignation: a deputation o f prelates is said to have approached
him and induced him to resign in view o f the difficulties o f the time.4
1 Cf. my study, ‘ Le Premier Schisme de Photios’, in Bulletin de VInstitut Archéol.
Bulgare (Sofia, 1935), vol. ix, pp. 312-25, which I summarize here with the
addition of some new evidence.
2 Vita Ignatii, P.G . vol. 105, cols. 505 seq.
3 See Part 11, ch. 5, pp. 391, 401 of this book, where I give the reasons why
these writers followed Nicetas’ account. 4 Loc. cit. col. 505.
39
On their request being refused, a second deputation o f bishops, rein

forced by a number o f patricians, senators and high functionaries o f the
Empire, went to Terebinthos. Exhortations, threats, nay, the use o f
force, if we are to credit Nicetas, proved all in vain. A lengthy descrip
tion o f the fatal effects which a government o f miscreants may have on
the destinies o f the Church, with the additional remark that Providence
permits such trials to test His own, is rather startling at this particular
place and suggests that the author intends by this digression to slur
over something unpleasant. He then passes immediately to the nomina
tion o f Photius, who, at the instigation o f Asbestas,1 was busy exerting
his energies against Ignatius to the length even of threatening his life.
T w o months after his appointment, the new Patriarch withdrew the
pledge he had given the bishops, who had acknowledged him only on
condition that Ignatius should be well treated.2 Photius then began
persecuting his predecessor and his predecessor’s partisans. Nicetas
tells o f Ignatius’ deportations, o f the renewed efforts to wring from him
an abdication and o f his excommunication by Photius. Then follows
the account o f the embassy charged with informing the Pope o f Igna
tius’ resignation, o f the convocation o f the Council o f 861 which stripped
Ignatius o f his patriarchal dignity on grounds o f an uncanonical
election,3 and lastly, o f renewed persecution. It was then that his
tormentors succeeded in forcing Ignatius to sign a scrap o f paper on
which Photius is supposed to have subsequently scribbled with his own
hand a forged confession o f the irregularity o f Ignatius’ election.
Such is the tale which has commanded general credit. But the affair
is not so simple. Nicetas’ account leaves open many gaps, and although
he seems to record the historical sequence o f events with some pre
cision, he omits to mention a number o f facts which he must have
known, but which did not tally with his preconceived notions.
One point is particularly striking: whilst on several occasions flatly
denying Ignatius’ resignation (his insistence suggests that at the time
o f his writing many people affirmed the reverse), Nicetas does not
pretend that the Emperor deposed Ignatius; he simply states that the
Emperor appointed Photius as the Patriarch. Yet, such a procedure was
not in keeping with tradition in a State, where in different circumstances,
juridical forms at least had been consistently observed. No action was
taken in the appointment o f a new Patriarch, until the see had first
been declared vacant: any other method might have implied that there
1 Loc. cit. col. 509. 2 Loc. cit. col. 513.
3 Loc. cit. col. 517.
40
I G N A T I U S ’ R E S I G N A T I O N AND P H O T I U S ’ E L EC T I ON
were two Patriarchs at the head o f the Church. And yet, Nicetas’
special pleading in favour o f Ignatius would have been much enhanced,
had the author been able to record an unjust deposition.1 His silence
seems fairly significant.
In order to get at the truth, which in Nicetas’ story can sometimes be
read between the lines, one should collate it with other accounts, some
o f them coming from Ignatian circles. Now we happen to possess the
evidence o f five valuable contemporary documents, two o f them, the
Acts o f the Eighth Council and the Life o f St Euthymios, being in a
class apart, and the three others— the statements o f bishop Stylianos o f
Neocaesarea, o f the monk Theognostos and o f Metrophanes, metro
politan o f Smyrna, all partisans o f Ignatius. T o these three Ignatian
records may be added what Anastasius the Librarian states about events
in Byzantium at the time o f Photius’ elevation to the patriarchal throne
and the account given by the anonymous author o f the anti-Photian
Collection.
The Acts o f the Council o f 869 are the first source to mention
Ignatius’ abdication. In the sixth session, Elias, representing the
Patriarch o f Jerusalem, said :2
. . . Inquiring into all the facts, we have ascertained that when Ignatius, the
saintly Patriarch, was in exile, he suffered violence and that a rumour was
falsely and unjustly spread o f his having resigned the throne o f Constanti
nople. T o this we must add, as the Church o f the Romans has repeatedly
maintained, that we do not believe that any resignation was ever tendered;
and if it was tendered, we cannot accept it, since it was w ron gly forced on him
by violence and against his will, as is easily perceived. This much is therefore
certain, that whoever lives in exile and under duress cannot be held to renounce
a throne as it ought to be renounced, for he did not expect to live; he expected
death at any moment and daily prepared to suffer, the worst.
The Greek summary o f the Acts is more laconic, though more explicit
than the translation by Anastasius: ‘ The deed o f abdication signed by
the Patriarch Ignatius in exile is null and void and must be considered
vitiated by the fact that it was forcibly extorted.. . . ’3
Other evidence comes from the same session o f the Council, namely,
the cross-examination o f the Photianist Eulampius by the Emperor
1 Carefully note that by insisting on the efforts made by the government to induce
Ignatius to resign, Nicetas implicitly denies the belief so generally accepted that
Ignatius’ internment in Terebinthos was equivalent to a deposition. Had a sèntence
o f deposition been passed, why those efforts on the part of the government to
compel the Patriarch to abdicate?
2 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 85. 3 ibid. col. 345.
41
B a sil:1 ‘ Eulampius: And yet, kind sir, the Lord Ignatius did resign.
The E m p e r o r . . . : Who deposed him? Eulampius: The Emperor
deposed him. The Emperor. . . : And where was he when he resigned?
Eulampius: Abroad, in his island. The Emperor. . . : No doubt, he
sent a messenger to the Emperor to inform him o f his intention to
resign.. . . Give us the name o f that messenger.5 But just when we
expect to hear particulars o f Ignatius5 resignation, the dialogue is cut
short by the Holy See’s legate Marinus refusing to listen any further
to people who have already been condemned by Rome. In the Greek
summary o f the Acts, this passage is also given in abbreviated form, but
in clearer t e r m s ‘ But meanwhile the lord Ignatius resigned. The
Emperor said: When he had been forcibly dethroned, sent into exile
and asked to resign in that state, how could his resignation be valid
and not extorted?5 It should be observed here that this official docu
ment directly contradicts the evidence o f Nicetas.
In another document, the Life o f St Euthymios, a contemporary
work, we read : 3
He [Ignatius] governed the Church for ten long years; but being per
sistently harassed b y the imperial rulers and openly and deliberately per
secuted, he at last gave up this hopeless struggle against men who suffered
from an incurable disease and breathed nothing but malevolence. He there
fore relinquished the patriarchal throne and the direction o f the Church, a
decision in which he yielded partly to his own preference and partly to
external pressure. A fter handing in to the Church his act o f resignation, he
withdrew to his monastery, being persuaded that this would be preferable.
The Governm ent’s evil dispositions being what they were, he elected to
devote him self to meditation and quiet commune with God rather than draw
disaster on him self and his flock. W hen the rumour spread that the archbishop
had been expelled from his ecclesiastical see against his will and that for this
reason people refused to enter into communion with the new Patriarch, the
holy father Nicholas himself, for fear o f entering into communion with the
same, left his monastery. A ll this happened under the new Patriarch, a shining
light o f orthodoxy and o f all the virtues, namely, the blessed Photius, who
as suggested b y his name, illuminated the whole world with the plenitude o f
his wisdom. From his infancy he had been consecrated to Christ and in
defence o f His icons had faced confiscation and exile. From the outset, he
was a true associate o f his father in all his struggles and virtuous practices.
1 Mansi, vol. x vi, col. 88. 2 Ibid. col. 349.
3 L. Petit, ‘ Vie et Office de St Euthyme le Jeune’, in Revue de VOrient Chrétien
(1903), vol. vin, pp. 178, 179. See my book, Les Légendes de Constantin et de
Méthode, pp. 143, 144.
42
Ig n a t iu s ’ r e s ig n a t io n an d p h o t iu s ’ e l e c t io n
Hence his life was made wonderful and his death agreeable to G od and con-
firmed b y miracles.
The Life o f Euthymios flatly contradicts Nicetas’ statement, but its

evidence has seldom been taken seriously. Hergenröther1 mentions the
extract from the sixth session o f the Acts o f the Council but attaches
no importance to it, and those who gave it some credit only understood
it in the light o f Nicetas’ story regarding Ignatius’ extorted signature
at the bottom o f the confession forged by Photius. As the Life o f
St Euthymios the Younger was published only in 1903, little use could
be made o f it and its statements could not be seriously collated with the
evidence o f Nicetas.
Let us now examine the evidence coming from other Ignatian wit
nesses. First o f all, it is surprising that Stylianos, in his letter to Pope
Stephen V,* Theognostos3 and Anastasius4 in their accounts, also
addressed to the Pope, were studiously silent on the events intervening
in Byzantium between the Patriarch Ignatius’ internment on the Island
o f Terebinthos and Photius’ election. And yet, both Stylianos and
Theognostos must have known that it had been Photius’ wish that his
accession to the patriarchal throne should have every semblance o f
legitimacy, since the Emperor alleged in the letter which endorsed
Photius’ synodical letter to the Pope that Ignatius had abdicated on
grounds o f old age and unsettled conditions. Logically, one would
have expected them all to concentrate their main attack on Photius by
making the Pope understand that both the Emperor and Photius were
simply shameless liars. It is therefore strange that all the accounts,
which were intended to inform Rome o f the actual state o f things,
should be so reticent about events preceding Photius’ accession.
Fortunately, another document, being that written by Metrophanes,
Metropolitan o f Smyrna, is more expressive. This document was not
meant for the Pope, but purported to send information to a high
Byzantine official, Manuel, Logothete o f the Course, about Photius’
downfall at the Council o f 869. Addressed to a Byzantine who knew
all about the happenings in Constantinople at the time, it is more
explicit and helps to fill the gaps we noted elsewhere. This is how the
Metropolitan describes the events:3
P hotius. . . like an adulterer, seized the throne o f Constantinople during

Ignatius’ lifetime. W ithout having been elected to the dignity b y the bishops’
1 Photius, vol. II, p. 102. 3 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 425-46.

3 Ibid. cols. 296-302. 4 Ibid. cols. 3 seq. 3 ibid. col. 416.
43
votes in accordance with law and usage, he was summarily installed b y the
Caesar. This is the reason w h y the bishops unanimously disowned him,
nominated their own three candidates and for a long time stood b y their
decision. Eventually, they were outwitted and all gave in, except five,
including myself. W hen we realized that all the bishops were corrupt, we
considered that w e should demand that he should sign an official declaration
in which he professed to be a son o f the Church in Christ and bound him self
to remain in communion with our very saintly Patriarch. W e preferred doing
this rather than disobey our Patriarch, who had expressed a desire that we
should elect as Patriarch one belonging to our Church in Christ. It was then
that he signed in our presence a declaration affirming his wish to regard
Ignatius as a Patriarch above suspicion and guiltless o f the charges made
against h im ;1 that he would never say a word against him nor allow anyone
else to do so. On those conditions we accepted Photius, though under
protest and pressure from those in authority. But he soon broke the word he
had signed and deposed Ignatius. Thereupon the whole body o f the bishops
o f Constantinople met and anathematized Photius, declaring him dethroned
b y the Father, the Son and the H oly Spirit. So unanimous were the bishops
at that moment that they turned the anathema against themselves, in case any
one o f them should ever acknowledge Photius. And as they went on holding
meetings for forty days in the church o f St Irene, he retaliated b y summoning,
with the assistance o f Bardas, a synod in the church o f the H oly Apostles and
again deposing and anathematizing Ignatius. It was then we personally
upbraided him for his crime, with the result that we were subjected to violence,
arrested without a warning and imprisoned for days in the evil-smelling jail
o f the Numeroi. Ignatius was imprisoned with us and put in irons; others
were locked up in the Pretorium prison. Then we were set free and banished,
the Patriarch to Mytilene, others elsewhere, whilst Photius sent to Old
Rom e four metropolitans o f his own party, to explain his case to his own
advantage and to Ignatius’ detriment. But the godly Pontiff, although there
was none present on our behalf to plead our cause— our enemies would not
allow it— summoned a council o f the W estern bishops, condemned Photius
on the strength o f his own letters and treated him like a layman.
Metrophanes then goes on to the dispatch o f the pontifical legates to

Constantinople.
This text is important, since it concerns events that followed Igna
tius’ internment and was addressed, not to the Pope, but to a local
official. It is the account by an eye-witness, obliged against his will to
tell the truth in exact proportion to the reader’s capacity to verify for
himself the information supplied. That truth is very simple and fairly
easy to reconstruct.
1 This is my translation o f the word άκαταιτίατος.
44
I G N A T I U S 5 R E S I G N A T I O N AND PHOTI US * E L E C T I O N
Ignatius was deported to the Isle o f Terebinthos for the simple

reason that the government suspected him o f being in league with the
Extremists who were bent on the overthrow o f the existing regime.
This suspicion, despite the lack o f unimpeachable evidence, seemed to
be well founded. The Patriarch's uncompromising attitude towards
Bardas and Michael had been cleverly exploited by the opponents o f
the regime to foment a revolt, which had gravely compromised him in
the eyes o f the government. This clash between the civil and ecclesiastical
powers having placed the Church o f Constantinople in a very precarious
position, Ignatius was pressed to resign on grounds o f old age and
public unrest; and among the bishops who made this attempt there were
not only prelates in sympathy with the Moderate party, but others, not
a few, who up to that time had supported Ignatius and made no secret
of countenancing the opinions o f the Extremist section. This much can
be read between the lines in Nicetas the Paphlagonian’s account,1 in
which the writer expresses indignation that among the delegation
there should be found bishops who once had sworn and confirmed in
writing that they would rather deny the Trinity than allow their legiti
mate pastor to be condemned by any other than a canonical sentence.
We may here observe that Nicetas slightly exaggerates. It does, how
ever, clearly emerge from his words that the Byzantine higher clergy
gradually came to acknowledge, almost unanimously, that in the cir
cumstances it would be advisable in the interests o f the Church for the
Patriarch to abdicate. It was the application o f the famous principle o f
'oeconom ia'. Faced with the insistence by bishops and high imperial
officials, among whom he noted many friends who certainly did not
credit the calumnies levelled against him, the Patriarch ended by giving
in and even went so far as to invite his most faithful partisans to elect
another Patriarch. They were the five bishops mentioned by Metro
phanes, including himself. They also finally acquiesced for fear o f
‘ disobeying our Patriarch, who had expressed a desire that we should
elect as Patriarch one belonging to our Church in Christ’ ? Since
Ignatius could not invite his own partisans to elect another Patriarch,
unless he had previously given his resignation, Metrophanes, an Igna-
tian, confirms the statement in Photianist sources relating to Ignatius’
resignation.12
1 P .G . vol. 105, col. 505.

2 This enigmatic passage puzzled me already at the time I wrote Les Légendes
de Constantin et de Méthode (see p. 140). Not satisfied with the solution proposed,
I have gone over the same ground again.
45
N ow let us test this conclusion in the light o f the statement by another

writer, an extreme Ignatian and the compiler o f the anti-Photianist
Collection. This contains all the documents against Photius and served
the extreme Ignatians as an armoury in their struggle against the
Photianists. After recording how many times the Photianists had dis
honoured their signatures and thereby fouled the cross which according
to usage preceded their names, the author proceeds :
T h ey did so for the first time, when the Caesar Bardas tried to dethrone
Ignatius, who to anticipate an ignominious expulsion decided to resign o f his
own free w ill.1 But the bishops agreed among themselves that if Bardas ever
tried to use force, they would rather die than tolerate such a thing. T h ey thus
prevented Ignatius carrying out his intention.* But when later Bardas forcibly
ejected him, the bishops made common cause with him [i.e. Bardas] and
thereby fell under the anathema they had decreed against themselves. Later
again, when Photius had forced his w ay in, the bishops asked him to pledge
his w ord in w riting and undertake always to honour Ignatius and do him
no harm. Photius then signed a document to that effect. But he violated his
pledge, ignom iniously summoned a synod and anathematized Ignatius, and in
duced some bishops who had supported Ignatius to join in the anathema: they
had defended him at the outset, but violating their crosses, turned against him.
It is obvious that this document goes even further than the witnesses
quoted previously, for it shows that Ignatius wished to resign at the
beginning, i.e. at the first clash with the new government. No sooner
had Bardas interned Ignatius at Terebinthos, than the latter’s followers,
probably realizing that things were beginning to look dangerous, went
back on their previous intentions and advised Ignatius to resign, taking
the precaution to ask Photius for guarantees. The account makes it
evident how misleading it was to interpret events exclusively in the
light o f Ignatius’ ‘ biography’ .
Another witness from the Ignatian camp, the monk Theognostos,
confirms the accuracy o f this interpretation. He is, as we have said,
silent about the events following Ignatius’ internment, but when he
describes in Ignatius’ name his trial by the synod o f 861, he makes a
slip and allows the truth to leak out. This is what he puts into Ignatius’
mouth .*33 *I
I asked leave to greet the legates Rhodoald and Zachary, and leave being
granted, I bowed to them and asked what they desired. T h ey answered: W e
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 441: εκών υποχωρήσαι εβούλετο.
z και ούτως επέσχον τής ορμής τον Ιγνάτιον.
3 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 297; P-G. vol. 105, cols. 857, 860.
46
I G N A T I U S ’ R E S I G N A T I O N AND P H O T I U S ’ E L E C T I O N
are the legates o f the Rom an Pope Nicholas I and we were sent to try your
case. I asked them again if they had not brought me any letter from His
Holiness. T h ey answered: N o, since they had not been sent to a Patriarch,
but to a man condemned b y a local synod. W e are ready, they said, to do
whatever the canonical decrees lay down. Then, said I, first dismiss the
adulterer. I f you cannot do that, you are no true judges. T h ey replied b y
pointing to the Em peror: He wants it so. Then those around the Em peror
turned to me and invited me, b y suasion and threats, to resign.1 But they
failed to convince me. Then they turned to the metropolitans, insulting and
incriminating them in many w ays, saying that surely2 they had already accepted
m y resignation.3 W h y then did they again claim me as their Patriarch? T o
this the metropolitans replied: A t that time,4 having to choose between two
evils— the Em peror’s anger and the people’s revolt— we chose the lesser.
T o-day, you who are near the Em peror, return the throne to the Patriarch and
leave us alone. Then the imperial officials began again to exhort me, insisting
on m y resigning o f m y own accord, so as to enable the adulterer to rule the
Church in perfect peace. A s I refused to be persuaded, they dispersed that day.
Theognostos’ words are sufficiently clear. This keen partisan o f

Ignatius unconsciously confirms what the Ignatians persisted in denying,
i.e. that Ignatius had spontaneously resigned and that his resignation
had been acknowledged to be valid even by his own supporters. Later,
yielding to a ‘ popular revolt’ , that is, to the pressure o f the radicals o f
their own party, they again proclaimed Ignatius their Patriarch. Govern
ment adherents then endeavoured to obtain from the latter a new spon
taneous declaration, confirming his abdication. Although Theognostos
asserts that this new pressure was put on during the synod o f 861, we
may surmise, all the more justifiably as we find it suggested by Nicetas,
that these attempts were made even before the synod o f 859.
This passage from Theognostos has been misinterpreted to this day,
the fault lying mainly with Raderus who edited the document. So
convinced was he that Ignatius had been unfairly deposed that he trans
lated the word apotaxis by ‘ depositio ’, which is o f course incorrect, and
all the more inexplicable as he had shortly before translated it by
‘ abdicatio ’ . Hergenröther accepted this translation3 and lent his weight
to another instance o f how prejudice can twist an argument.6
1 την άπόταξιν ε^ήτουν. 2 τάχα used ironically. 3 την άττόταξιν εμήν.

4 τότε. 3 Photius, vol. I, ρ. 424·
6 Theognostos seems to convey fairly clearly that there were then two parties
in Byzantium. He calls the members of the party in opposition to his own not only
οΐ περί τον βασιλέα, which might just as well refer to the imperial officials, but also
ot βασιλικοί. Reading between the lines, one can find confirmation in another
47
THE PH ΟΤΙ AN S CHI S M. I. THE H I S T O R Y
Having examined all the important accounts o f Ignatius’ attitude after

his internment, we may then conclude with confidence that Ignatius
was not deposed by force, but that he abdicated to forestall worse
complications. His abdication was made at the request o f the new
regime, it is true, but it was acknowledged as valid and canonical by all
the members o f the higher clergy gathered in Constantinople, including
Ignatius’ staunchest supporters. Ignatius himself invited his followers
to accept the situation and to proceed to elect the new Patriarch.
The foregoing records have given us a clear picture o f how the election
o f the new Patriarch came about. It remains to complete them with
information from elsewhere. From the evidence produced, we may
already infer that the government wanted a man whose loyalty was
above suspicion, and it betrayed an inclination to nominate one straight
away. It hinted at the name o f Photius as that o f the most likely can
didate. But the bishops, chiefly Ignatius’ partisans, insisted on the
observation o f canon law, i.e. on the bishops meeting synodically and
presenting three candidates o f their choice to the Emperor. Satisfaction
had to be given and the synod was summoned. But before the synod
could proceed with the election, it was called upon to settle another
matter. We must remember that at the time o f the synod meeting
Gregory Asbestas’ group was still under a ban. The position needed
rectifying, since the Moderates had after all had the best o f the fight and
Gregory was still the leader o f the party’s ecclesiastical members. The
position forcibly recalled that o f the Studites at the death o f the Patriarch
Methodius, though Asbestas and his friends could claim that the highest
court o f appeal, the See o f Rome, had not confirmed the Patriarch’s
verdict. Their suit was then pending. Ignatius gone, they were now in a
position to ask the synod, which represented the Church o f Constan
tinople during the vacancy o f the patriarchal See, to do the right thing by
annulling the sentence passed on them; and the synod felt all the more
disposed to give them that satisfaction, as it saw no other way o f restoring
peace within the Byzantine Church. The new government took a personal
interest in the affair and the synod rehabilitated Gregory and his friends.1
passage of Theognostos, that the whole episcopate had acknowledged Photius as

the rightful Patriarch ; in the character of Ignatius he writes (Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 300) :
‘ And even when he [Photius] had induced the metropolitan to rally to him, they
asked him for a document signed with his own hand concerning my person.’
1 These two facts may be inferred from the letter by Pope Nicholas I to Michael III,
M .G .H . Ep. V i, pp. 498-9: ‘ Porro si dicitis Gregorium ab imperio vestro et ab
antistitibus fuisse receptum, percontari libet. . . quibus hoc documentis, quibus
48
I GNA TI US * R E S I G N A T I O N AND PHOTI US* E L E C T I O N
It appears that the bishops deposed by Ignatius gave the Fathers o f

the synod, who represented the Church o f Constantinople, some sort
o f satisfaction before being definitely absolved. So much, at least,
emerges from the defence by Zachary o f Chalcedon, who spoke in the
course o f the sixth session o f the Council o f 869-70.1 Zachary refuted
the opponents’ charge that Photius had been ordained by deposed
bishops: ‘ For they were not deposed for actual misdeeds, but for their
attitude o f resistance to the Church. United again and disowning their
conduct, they show themselves worthy o f being received.’ This state
ment by the counsel for the defence must have been based on fact. It
seems probable, if not certain, that the synod must have asked Gregory
for some declaration to conciliate Ignatius’ partisans, whose votes were
indispensable for annulling Ignatius’ sentence. This rehabilitation had
been laid down as a necessary requisite by the victorious party prior to
the Patriarch’s election. We must remember that the Studites, who had
been excommunicated by Methodius, had been readmitted to the Church
by the Patriarch Ignatius and not by a synod, since the Empress Theo
dora had appointed Ignatius without the formality o f a synod. Michael III
and the Regent Bardas first meant to follow Theodora’s precedent, and
if the new Patriarch had been appointed by the Emperor in the same
informal way, Asbestas’ group would have been taken back into the
Church by the Patriarch just as the Studites had been. But as Michael
and Bardas acceded to the clergy’s demand for the customary procedure
and the holding o f a synod, Asbestas and his followers only stood to
gain by having their reconciliation confirmed by a synod attended by
both parties.
The synod then dealt with the new Patriarch’s election. With the two
camps face to face, the discussions, according to Metrophanes, were
heated. The Moderates probably had their own candidates in readiness,
with Asbestas presumably foremost among them, as the leader o f the
ecclesiastical wing. But his opposition to Ignatius had been too con
spicuous for his election to make for peace. The Ignatians had their
own candidates as a matter o f course.
For fear o f a schism, it was then agreed to eliminate all the bishops,
whether Ignatians or anti-Ignatians, and to look for a capable candidate
among the higher officials. This tradition had for a time proved popular
canonibus jubentibus agi rite potest.. . .Jam vero si dicitis: Non ego absolvi, sed
a pontificibus, ut solverentur, postulavi, e contra illi multo magis a vobis postulare
debuerunt, ut, si eum velletis absolvi, legitima ecclesiastici tenoris absolutio pro
veniret/ 1 Mansi, vol. xvi, coi. 87.
DP S 49 4
in Byzantium, when troubles were many, and the practice had been
resorted to with excellent results, as in the case o f Tarasius and Nice-
phorus. So the synod presented to the government, besides an Ignatian
and an anti-Ignatian, a neutral candidate, the protoasekretis Photius,
the very man whom the Emperor and Bardas had had in mind from the
beginning. The choice, besides giving the government some satisfac
tion, rallied all the bishops present, except five, o f whom Metrophanes,
and no doubt Stylianos, were the most refractory.
W hy did most o f the Ignatian bishops rally to Photius? First,
because he was a new man: though a sympathizer with the Moderate
party, he evidently was not numbered among its most outspoken
members. His orthodoxy was above suspicion, since he had been per
secuted by the iconoclasts; he was moreover related to Theodora,
whose government1 the Ignatian bishops still remembered, so that he
gave reasonable hopes o f not being too zealous in the service o f the new
regime. On the other hand, he was also related to Bardas, which was
a recommendation with the government. But it should be remembered
that Photius owed his promotion to Theoktistos, the Logothete, who
first appointed him professor at the University o f Constantinople, then
President o f the Imperial Chancellery; this was his best recommenda
tion to the Extremists *who favoured the regime o f Theoktistos and
Theodora.
We now come to Photius5 consecration. This matter is o f importance,

as Photius5 opponents particularly objected at a later stage o f the Photian
controversy to some features o f the ceremony.
The new Patriarch’s consecration was a hurried affair, for he received
all the degrees o f the priesthood within the space o f a week, a procedure
that was o f course against the rules o f canon law, but under such excep
tional circumstances the Byzantines considered themselves exempt from
habitual practice. Nor was it an isolated case in Byzantium. Had not
the consecrations o f the Patriarchs Paul III in 687, Tarasius in 784, and
Nicephorus in 806, all laymen at the time o f their elections, been con
ferred in total disregard o f canonical rules? B y a curious coincidence,
all these Patriarchs had, like Photius, occupied the position o f imperial
1 It would be more obvious still why Theodora’s partisans decided to acknow
ledge Photius, were Rosseikin’s hypothesis on the degree of relationship between
Photius and Theodora proved. Rosseikin, Pervoe Patriarshestvo Patriarkha Fotiya
(Sergiev Posad, 1915), pp. 32-3, asserts against Bury (‘ The Relationship of
Photius to the Empress Theodora’, in Engl. Hist. Rev. (1890), pp. 252-8) that
Theodora had given away her sister Irene in marriage to Photius’ brother Sergius.
ÎO
I G N A T I U S ’ R E S I G N A T I O N AND P H O T I U S 5 E L E C T I O N
protoasekretis or President o f the Imperial Chancellery. Then again,

negotiations before and at the time o f the synod seem to have lasted
longer than had been expected;1 Christmas was near, and for the litur
gical ceremonies to be celebrated with the usual solemnity the presence
o f the Patriarch was considered indispensable. When it is remembered
what an important place the liturgy held in Byzantine life and at court,
one may admit the plea for telescoping the new Patriarch’s consecration.
Protracted negotiations must have taken place about who should
consecrate the new Patriarch and eventually it was decided that bishops
o f both parties should share in the function. The Moderates delegated
their leader, Gregory Asbestas, in satisfaction for what he had suffered
at the hands o f Ignatius, and two other consecrators (a consecration
must be performed by three bishops)^ were selected from among those
bishops who did not belong to the party o f the bishop o f Syracuse. So
much can be gathered from the speech o f the synkellos Elias, who
represented the Patriarch o f Jerusalem at the sixth session o f the Eighth
Council:1*3 ‘ We should not condemn those bishops who are convicted
o f having consecrated Photius, as they were forced to do so under
imperial pressure.. .. But he alone who had been previously deposed
and anathematized both by the Patriarch Ignatius and by the Apostolic
Church o f Rome, Gregory o f Syracuse, is condemned and deposed.’
The context makes it clear that Elias was not thinking o f the election,
but o f the consecration o f Photius, and he would have altered his terms,
had the two other consecrators been friends o f the Syracusan, for
instance, Peter o f Sardes and Eulampius o f Apamea.4
1 As Nicetas (Vita Ignatii, Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 261, P .G . vol. 105, col. 541) states
that Ignatius was reinstated in his dignity by Basil I on 23 November, the same day
as he was expelled, it seems that this must stand for the date of Ignatius’ resignation.
This would be the only way of reconciling Ignatius’ declaration that he was expelled
at the end of July from the patriarcheion with Nicetas’ dating.
z See I. Habert, Ar chieraticon. Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Graecae (Paris, 1643),
pp. 80-4 : ‘ De numero pontificum qui Episcopum apud Graecos legitime ac rite
ordinaturi sint.’ 3 Mansi, vol. xvi, cois. 85-6.
4 Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 1, p. 380, was not unaware of this passage and his
scepticism regarding its importance seems unjustified. The Greek Acts (Mansi,
vol. xvi, col. 348), in summarizing Elias’ speech, are still more emphatic than the
Latin Acts. It is true that Zachary, bishop of Chalcedon, in pleading for Photius
at the same session, only mentions Gregory as Photius’ consecrator (ibid. col. 87).
According to the Greek Acts (ibid. col. 348), he even seems to insinuate that all the
consecrators belonged to Gregory’s party. Metrophanes, however, states in his
reply to the defence (ibid. col. 90): ‘ Promoventes eum et consecrantes violenter et
coacti ac inviti, atque sine proposito ac voluntate in illius et promotionem et con
secrationem ex imperatoris necessitate ac tyrannide impulsi sunt et secuti.’ Ciear,
4-2
ii
How then are we to reconcile the above with the tradition o f the
Byzantine Church giving the titulary o f Heraclea the exclusive right
o f consecrating and enthroning a new Patriarch?1 It is not necessary
to assume that the privilege was suspended in Photius’ case. First, we
do not know the names o f the two other consecrators and the titulary
o f Heraclea may have been one o f them. It is also possible that the two
functions o f consecration and enthronement were held separately and
that the latter was performed by the titulary o f Heraclea.2 Cases were
many in Byzantine Church history o f new patriarchs being transferred
from other sees to Constantinople and needing only enthronization by
the metropolitan o f Heraclea.3
The fact that bishops o f the Ignatian party took part in Photius’
consecration is generally omitted by the Ignatians, who at a later stage
mainly objected to Gregory Asbestas’ participation. T hey4even inferred
from it that as an intimate friend o f Gregory, Photius had been excom
municated with him by Ignatius. But since Gregory’s share in the con
secration was rather in the nature o f a concession to his party, it need
not have been evidence o f any friendship between the two men con
cerned. I f on the other hand Photius had been excommunicated for his
friendship with Gregory, what about Constantine-Cyril, venerated as
a saint by the two Churches, whom Anastasius called Photius’ ‘ amicus
fortissimus’ ? It is true that Photius later adopted Gregory’s eccle
siastical policy, but then Ignatius also adopted the ecclesiastical policy
o f the Studites who had been excommunicated by Methodius and no
harm was done. All one can say about Photius’ association with Asbestas
is that he was a favourite with the majority o f the intellectuals o f Con
stantinople who patronized the Moderate party and that Gregory was
the leader o f its ecclesiastical section.
The documents under discussion seem to suggest that the govern-
too, are the Greek Acts, which differentiate between Gregory and the other con
secrators (ibid. cols. 352, 353). The attestation of these two opponents of Photius
is significant.
1 On this right, cf. Nicephorus Gregoras (Bonn), vol. 1, pp. 164, 165, and
Codinus, De Officiis (Bonn), ch. x x , p. 104.
2 Cf. Yared, op. cit. (1872), vol. 11, p. 56, and Ivantsov-Platonov, S v. Patriarkh
Fotii (St Petersburg, 1892), p. 62 (notes).
3 For instance, Germanus, Metropolitan of Cyzicus (715), Constantine, of
Sylaeon (754), Anthony, o f Perge-Sylaeon (821).
4 Metrophanes, Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 415, 420. Cf. Nicetas, P .G . vol. 105, col.
512; Anastasius, Stylianos, Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 3, 428. Pope Nicholas I (M .G .H .
Ep. V i, p. 519, ch. i o f the synodal decision o f 863) was also impressed by the same
conclusion. Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 1, pp. 362 seq.
52
ment o f Michael and Bardas keenly wished to see the end o f all the
troubles caused by the party spirit in the ecclesiastical field : it insisted
on reconciliation and on the recognition o f the elected Patriarch by the
body o f the Byzantine episcopacy. The opponents o f Photius, as we
have seen, had eventually dwindled to five;1 and in compliance with
the government’s wishes, Photius was successful in securing their
recognition o f his patriarchal authority by signing a compromise on the
treatment o f Ignatius. Its details will be discussed presently. When
Photius had for the sake o f the Church’s peace signed the agreement,
each o f the five bishops received a copy o f the document.
Thus it seemed that Photius’ elevation to the patriarchal throne, after
the recent trying events, meant a return to peace and unity in the Church
o f Constantinople; and such was the conviction at the time which
Photius expressed in a letter to the Patriarch o f Antioch,12 in recalling
the grave danger o f schism that had threatened the Church : his election,
so he wrote, had brought back peace at last. The same impression seems
to have prevailed among the Byzantine public, who felt that peace had
been saved and that party wrangles would be a thing o f the past. Even
Nicetas states, though with a touch o f irony, that once consecrated,
Photius immediately announced to the people the restoration o f peace.3
This consummation was due to Ignatius’ wisdom in resigning and thus
sacrificing his personal interests to those o f the Church and to the new
Patriarch’s conciliatory spirit and readiness to make concessions.
Peace, unfortunately, was not to last. Tw o months after Photius’ advent

according to Nicetas,4 forty days according to Metrophanes,3 the fight
1 Their names were probably listed among Ignatius’ partisans by Nicholas I in

his letter dispatched to Michael on 28 September 865. The Pope enumerates the
bishops who were expected to come to Rome to plead Ignatius’ cause (Af.G.AT.
Ep. vi, p. 482): ‘ Antonius Cyzicus, Basilius Thessalonicae, Constantinus Larissae,
Theodorus Syracusanorum, Metrophanes Smyrnae, Paulus Ponti Heracliae.’
Stylianos of Neocaesarea was certainly one of them. We cannot therefore exactly
say who the five bishops referred to were.
2 J. Valetta, Photii Epistolae (London, 1864), vol. 1, pp. 145, 146.
3 P .G . vol. 105, col. 512. S. Aristarchos, Photii Orationes et Homiliae (Con
stantinople, 1900), vol. I, pp. 149-60, even wrote after his own method the homily
which Photius is supposed to have delivered on 25 December 858.
3 Loc. cit. col. 416. This is how to my way of thinking the words έτη ημέρας
τεσσαράκοντα should be interpreted. It is difficult to admit, as does Hergenröther,
Photius, vol. I, p. 382, that the synod lasted forty days. It is, however, possible that the
church of St Irene was staffed by an extremist clergy and that the Ignatians used it as
their headquarters during the forty days or two months preceding the final rupture.
Î3
between the two parties was resumed with greater virulence than ever.
As we have seen, Ignatian sources make Photius responsible for the
resumption o f the struggle by breaking his pledge to the Ignatian
bishops and letting loose another persecution against Ignatius and his
friends. Nicetas is particularly wrathful in his account o f this persecu
tion. To verify any such information coming from an anti-Photian
environment, we have only four letters addressed to Bardas by the
Patriarch at the outset o f his tenure1 and written in the throes o f excite
ment. There Photius makes the government directly responsible for
the excesses committed, intercedes on behalf o f some o f their victims,
the secretary Christodulos and the chartophylax Blasius, and even
threatens Bardas with his resignation, should this persecution persist.
Thus, again, the Ignatian and Photianist documents contradict each
other. T o get at the truth, we must find out the motives for a resumption
o f hostilities.
In this particular matter, we must take as a basis o f our inquiry
Metrophanes’ account, as it is more circumstantial than that o f Nicetas.
According to him, the new conflict was provoked by the Ignatians.
They gathered in the church o f St Irene, proclaimed Ignatius the legiti
mate Patriarch and forthwith excommunicated Photius. Since Metro
phanes and other Ignatian sources accused Photius o f breaking his
promises to the Ignatians, the sense o f the compromise signed at the
request o f the recalcitrant bishops should yield the principal motive o f
the rupture.
Metrophanes’ account gives us the main stipulations o f the com
promise : Photius was to regard 4Ignatius as a Patriarch above suspicion
and guiltless o f the charges made against him; he would never say a
word against him or allow anyone else to do so ’. Theognostos, imper
sonating Ignatius in his Libellus to Nicholas I quoted previously, makes
Ignatius say:2 'A n d even when he [Photius] had induced the metro
politans to rally to him, they asked him for a document signed with his
own hand concerning my person. In this document he asserted in
writing and under oath his determination to undertake nothing but
what I should approve, as though I were his own father.’ Nicetas3
completes the terms by stating that Photius undertook 'to leave to
Ignatius his patriarchal dignity, to do everything in accordance with
his wishes and not to place any obstacles in his w a y ’. The implication
then was that Ignatius had to be treated as the former Patriarch, living
1 P .G . vol. 102, cols. 617 seq. 3 p ,G . vol. 105, col. 513.
2 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 300.
54
I G N A T I U S ’ R E S I G N A T I O N AND P H O T I U S 5 EL E C T I ON
with full episcopal honours in honourable retirement and that all

accusations o f political intrigue should cease. Such appears to have been
the only possible meaning o f the terms that could have been acceptable
to Photius.
But Nicetas suggests that at least some Ignatians read into the terms
much more than they conveyed. ‘ T o do everything in accordance with
his wishes’ implied that the new Patriarch was in all things to follow
the line o f policy laid down by his predecessor who would thus virtually
remain in office. The new Patriarch would secure recognition only on
condition that he was one o f £our Church in Christ’ : these words which
Metrophanes put into the mouth o f Ignatius struck the exact note o f
the radical Ignatians’ feeling.
Such a reading Photius considered to be utterly inadmissible. The
crisis which ended in Ignatius’ resignation and Photius’ election was
therefore ultimately provoked by the Extremists. For the purpose o f
removing Michael III from the throne and reinstating Theodora, they
misused Ignatius’ prestige in the Church. To follow Ignatius’ policy
was, as they understood it, to follow their own policy. This was asking
too much. Photius, as the Patriarch, owed loyalty to the existing
government, the same ground on which Ignatius had refused to bless
Theodora’s and her daughter’s veils. Anastasius the Librarian, who
knew the circumstances o f the refusal, explained it in these terms:1
'T h e Patriarch refused, because the two Empresses had not yet freely
embraced that vocation, and chiefly because he had sworn never to
countenance any intrigue against them, an oath customary under every
Emperor or Empress.’ And if one may say so, what was sauce for Igna
tius was also sauce for Photius, who likewise had sworn allegiance to
the government that had confirmed his election.
It is easy to follow the steps that led to the conflict between the
Patriarch and the Extremists. When Photius forbade ecclesiastics to
meddle in politics and to take part in demonstrations hostile to the
regime, the radical Extremists at once denounced the measure as a
breach o f the compromise. Disappointed in their expectations and
seeing the chances o f Theodora’s return to power vanishing, they
reminded Photius o f his promise and o f the meaning they attributed
to it. T o their way o f thinking, Ignatius would automatically return as
their Patriarch, should the compromise which Photius had signed not
be observed. Were Photius ever to make it clear that Ignatius was no
longer the Patriarch, he would be instantly accused o f violating his
55
promise, and o f robbing Ignatius o f the honours due to him. Here the
Ignatians made good use o f the signed document o f which they had the
copies. Let him move another step, and they would break away from
him and transfer their allegiance to Ignatius as the one legitimate
Patriarch. This, as has already been said, did actually happen, when the
Extremists, assembled in the church o f St Irene, issued their manifesto.
It may be that the initiative came, not from the five bishops, but from
the more radical elements which disapproved o f their ecclesiastical
leaders’ acceptance o f the compromise, and were spoiling for a fight.
They would have found it only too easy to convince the bishops that
the pledge had been broken and that there was every legitimate reason
for a rupture. We shall see later that the Ignatians numbered in their
ranks fanatics who were more radical than Stylianos himself.
What was Photius’ reaction to this outburst? The sources at our
disposal do not agree, but according to Nicetas:1
Scarcely two months had elapsed since his ordination, when he broke his
pledge. He began b y imprisoning those o f the Church rulers who had been
friendly to Ignatius and whom he succeeded in getting hold of, and con
demned them to heavy penalties and sanctions; then he overwhelmed them
with promises o f presents and honours in return for the signed document,
trying b y every possible means to encompass Ignatius’ ruin. Baffled in this,
he suggested to the unscrupulous Bardas and through Bardas to the light
headed Michael to send agents to inquire into Ignatius’ activities, as though
he had been secretly conspiring against the Emperor. A cruel and brutal
band o f prefects and soldiers immediately left for Terebinthos to make
inquiries and to harass Ignatius’ friends with a variety o f vexations. W hen
at the end o f their search they had found no plausible pretext tor proceeding
against him, they took to methods o f open tyranny.
Ignatius was deported to the Isle o f Hiera and there locked up in a

stable; thence he was sent to Prometon, with only two servants to
help him, and subjected to ill treatment by Leo Lalacon, a Domestic o f
the Scholae. Again according to Nicetas, the purpose o f all these
molestations was to wring from him his abdication from the patriarchal
throne. Afterwards he was incarcerated in the Numeroi jail, to be
deported, in the first days o f August, to the Isle of Mitylene. His friends
and intimates were no better treated, and the chartophylax Blasius had
his tongue cut out. During Ignatius’ stay in Mitylene, Photius sum
moned a synod in the church o f the Twelve Apostles, where he had him
deposed and condemned.
1 P .G . vol. 105, col. 513.
56
Stylianos, in his letter to Pope Stephen V , is not as explicit as

Nicetas. After stating that the new Patriarch had rallied many followers
b y threats and bribes, he says:1
Besides this, he pledged his word in his own hand that he would not raise
any further objection to Ignatius or to the priests ordained b y him ; yet,
shortly after, he violated his own signature and summoned a synod, or rather
a meeting o f brigands, in the noble church o f the H oly Apostles, where this
adulterer deposed and anathematized the Patriarch Ignatius.
This is a very vague indictment; but Metrophanes, in the passage

quoted previously, is more definite. After a reference to the synod held
in the church o f St Irene, he says
Photius retaliated b y summoning, with the assistance o f Bardas, a synod

in the church o f the H oly Apostles, again deposing and anathematizing
Ignatius. It was then that we personally upbraided him for his crim e,. . . with
the result that we were subjected to violence, arrested without a warning and
imprisoned for days in the evil-sm elling jail o f the N u m eroi.. . .
Another Ignatian document, the so-called Synodicon Vetus, pub

lished by J. Pappe3 and giving, with an anti-Photian bias, an account
o f the synods that met in Constantinople in those days, describes
Photius’ reaction as follows :
Thus, when Photius had occupied the throne in contravention o f the h oly
and god ly canons, he gave him self no rest until he had provoked the E m
peror’s anger, inflicted untold miseries on Ignatius and finally relegated the
innocent man to Mytilene. He then summoned a conventicle [synedrion] o f
reprobates in the Church o f O ur Lad y in Blachernae and unjustly deposed
Ignatius, who was present at the synod. Those who refused to yield to his
evil suggestions [pravis nutibus] and to communicate with him, he subjected
to endless trials [infinitis malis affecit] and banished to places o f his own
choice.
A ll these documents agree in two particulars : they refer to a violent

persecution o f the Ignatian clergy and to a synod summoned by Photius
in answer to the meeting in the church o f St Irene; but whereas Nicetas
seems to place the convocation o f the Photian synod after the persecu
tion, probably in the month o f August when Ignatius was in Mytilene,
Metrophanes o f Smyrna seems to place it immediately after the meeting
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 428. 2 Ibid. col. 416.
3 In J. A. Fabricius and G. C. Harles, Bibliotheca Graeca (Hamburg, 1809),
vol. X I I , p . 417.
57
in St Irene’s. The Synodicon Vetus on the other hand, speaks o f a

synod that met in the church o f Our Lady in Blachernae. On this basis
we must reconstruct the facts. Reconstruction is important, since it is
the only means o f getting at the meaning behind the conflict and o f
weighing the Patriarch’s responsibility for the persecution which,
according to all accounts, followed those incidents.1
Fortunately, we are able to quote another interesting document which
throws some light on the events in Constantinople after the revolt o f
the Ignatians. Its author is not a contemporary, but his account carries
weight, since it expresses the Byzantine tradition and the opinion o f
those Byzantines who were not directly interested in the incidents and
were in a better position to pass judgement through the mellowing
perspective o f time. We find the account, not in a historical writing, but
in the work o f a Greek canonist o f the twelfth century, and for that
reason it failed to attract general attention. Zonaras, in explaining, and
commenting on, the canons voted by the ‘ first and second Synod o f
Constantinople’, the synods o f 859 and 861, writes as follow s:12 *
This synod is thus designated: the holy and great first and second synod
o f Constantinople assembled in the venerable church o f the H oly and most
glorious Apostles. Those who read this inscription may wonder w h y this
synod is called first and second. In this connection, we learn that it met in
the above-mentioned church o f the H oly Apostles [in 859], that a discussion
arose between the orthodox and their opponents and that when the orthodox
had clearly won their point, all that had been said had to be put in writing.
[W e further learn] that the heretics objected to the decisions being put on
record lest it should emphasize their defeat and their ejection from the com
munity o f the faithful, and that this was the reason w h y they fomented a
revolt, which ended in fighting and bloodshed. That is how the first assembly
suspended its deliberations and its meetings and how some time later [in 861]
another synod was summoned in the same church to discuss the same subjects,
and placed on record all the previous decisions on dogmatic matters. That is
the reason w h y this synod, though it was, in fact, one, received the name o f
‘ first and second’, the Fathers having met twice.
Zonaras thus confirms the report by Metrophanes o f Smyrna who,

as already stated, wrote it for the benefit o f one who knew the facts,
and so was not at liberty to distort them at will. From these reports
1 Anastasius the Librarian also mentions the incidents in his introduction to the
Acts of the Ignatian Council of 869-70, but his report is too short to supply any
new information (Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 4).
2 J. Zonaras, ‘ Commentaria in Canones.. . ’, P .G . vol. 137, cols. 1004 seq.
58
it appears that to put an end to agitation Photius countered the move

on the part o f the extremist clergy in a strictly canonical w ay by con
voking a synod in the church o f the Holy Apostles, where it was declared
that Ignatius, having resigned his see, was no longer Patriarch and that
the new nomination by the Extremists was null and void. In the event
of Ignatius accepting the nomination, he was declared to be ipso facto
deposed and excommunicated. Furthermore, in order to anticipate any
future disturbance, some canons were formulated to suppress abuses
that were to a great extent responsible for encouraging the turbulent
elements inside the Church. But to prevent the implementing o f the
synodical decisions, the opposition went to great lengths and by resort
to violence succeeded in wrecking every possible canonical settlement.
Metrophanes confirms Zonaras5reference to the uproar at the meeting :
‘ It was then that we personally upbraided him [Photius] for his crime
in stripping Ignatius o f his patriarchal dignity, with the result that we
were subjected to violence.. . . 5 He unwittingly discloses the fact that
the Ignatian clergy attended the synod summoned by the Patriarch in
the church o f the Holy Apostles; that it was therefore a genuine synod
convoked for the purposes o f putting an end to agitation and countering
the pronunciamento o f the church o f St Irene. The canonical character
o f the synod is also confirmed by Zonaras5 account o f the first meeting
of the ‘ first and second synod5.
Zonaras5 and Metrophanes5 statements therefore corroborate each
other. Metrophanes places his own arrest and imprisonment, and the
persecution o f his friends after his intervention, at the synod in the
church o f the Holy Apostles; and this again is confirmed by Zonaras
who speaks o f a rising o f the ‘ heretics5, one that ended in bloodshed,
to avert their defeat at the synod. But it is difficult to admit that this
rising was provoked by purely religious considerations; and since the
monks and the bishops who disagreed with Photius and with the deci
sions o f the synod did not carry swords, somebody else must have taken
advantage o f the incident to do some fishing on his own in troubled
waters. I f we remember the incidents that accompanied the change o f
regime in Byzantium after the dethronement o f Theodora, we shall
appreciate the implications o f Zonaras5 words and form a shrewd guess
at who saw his opportunity for the overthrow o f the new regime.
Apart from this, we must also admit that the new government was fully
entitled to take energetic measures for the maintenance o f public order
and it is evident that the accusations levelled by the Ignatians at Photius
which make him responsible for the heavy punishments inflicted on
59
some dangerous agitators among the Extremists completely miss the

mark. The Patriarch had no police under his orders and wielded no
executive power: the government alone could deal with such dis
turbances o f the peace.
The truth is that Photius did not see eye to eye with the government
in the severity with which it stamped out the revolt. In one o f his letters
addressed to Bardas, probably the first written after the outbreak, he
bitterly complained o f the government’s brutality in bringing the
offenders to book.1 There is a short passage in this letter hinting that
the true reason for the new rift among the Byzantine clergy was his
loyalty to the new regime and that the rebels had committed grave
offences against the existing laws. ‘ We should have much preferred5,
he writes to B ard as,£to find in you the man who punishes the offenders
rather than the author o f such outrages.5 The Patriarch further com
plains that half o f his jurisdiction is gone— a clear reference to the
refractory bishops5 meeting at St Irene’s— and adds, as a thinly veiled
threat o f resignation, that he would rather lose the whole o f it. On
another occasion, he pleads for the secretary Christodulos, probably
one o f the leaders o f the revolt, who claimed right o f sanctuary, and for
the chartophylax Blasius, who had had his tongue cut out.2
Even Nicetas, who naturally made Photius responsible for all the
repression, indirectly admits that the main reason for this new quarrel
was political— Photius5 refusal to turn against the new government; for
by his allegation that Photius had instigated Bardas to inquire into
Ignatius’ alleged conspiracy against the Emperor, Nicetas was clearly
reverting to the old political antagonism between Moderates and E x
tremists. But the government was not going to allow itself to be dictated
to by these hot-heads and having once discovered the true motive o f
the opposition, took, as was only to be expected, the necessary measures
to make an end o f it.3
1 P .G . vol. i d , col. 620.

2 On the nature of the ‘ glossotomia’, cf. Bury, A History o f the Later Roman
Empire from Arcadius to Irene, vol. π, p. 329. Attention should also be drawn to
the fact that the Byzantines never looked upon confinement and restriction of
movement as a severe punishment. Isolation and the contemplative life exercised
on them a special attraction inherited from oriental mentality. But they possessed
a detailed catalogue o f corporal punishments and mutilations which they knew how
to inflict with exceptional skill. See in this connection Zachariae von Lingenthal,
Geschichte des Griechischen-Römischen Rechtes (Berlin, 1892), 3rd ed. pp. xi, 331 seq.
3 Nicetas’ statement to the effect that the interpretation put on the compromise
signed by Photius served as the main pretext for the opposition party’s aggression is
also confirmed by Pseudo-Simeon, who, in his Chronicle (Bonn, p. 671), states that
60
I G N A T I U S 5 R E S I G N A T I O N AND P H O T I U S ’ E L E C T I O N
But Nicetas also tells us another thing: the very fact that not Ignatius,
but men who claimed to be his followers, were the first to be proceeded
against implies that the rupture could not be laid to the charge o f the
old Patriarch; and, moreover, the rigorous inquiry conducted by the
imperial police proved his innocence. This detail has its importance in
showing once more that Ignatius was not personally responsible and—
at least at the outbreak o f the dispute— had no thought o f resuming the
functions which he had handed over for the peace o f the Church, but
that once again the radical elements o f the Extremist party had taken
advantage o f his naivete and prestige to raise their banner against
Photius and the government he supported.
Nicetas5 account also affords a good illustration o f the w ay the govern
ment reacted: in order to prevent the fanatics seizing the person o f
Ignatius and making further capital o f his influence over the masses,
Bardas placed him under the special surveillance o f the police and had
him frequently transferred from place to place, so as to impede com
munications between him and the leaders o f the malcontents.
T o put a final stop to any further agitation, it would have been best
to obtain from Ignatius a formal attestation that he no longer considered
himself to be the Patriarch. Nicetas5 reference to Ignatius5 refusal to
abdicate shows that the government and Photius must have vainly
tried to secure it.
W hy did Ignatius not sign this declaration demanded from him,
when it would have so effectively contributed to the general appease
ment? Because the methods employed by Bardas were anything but
conducive to the results intended. Ignatius must have been particularly
sensitive to the ill treatment meted out to his friends. Probably, some
o f his trusted partisans may have eluded the watchfulness o f the police
and succeeded in communicating with him, to convince him that if the
government harassed his friends unreasonably, it would take advantage
o f his declaration to treat them even worse. Besides, Ignatius had only
to say that he had already made his abdication and deemed it unnecessary
to repeat it.
Lastly, Nicetas informs us that the agitation engineered by the
opponents o f the government and o f Photius lasted a long time.
According to him, Photius summoned his synod after Ignatius had been
banished to Mytilene, and this, according to the same author, happened
Photius, after fraudulently obtaining from the leader o f the opposition the copy
of the document in question, tore it up, saying: ‘ Neither you nor Ignatius do
I acknowledge as bishops.’
61
in August. In view o f what has been said previously, the Extremist

clergy refused obedience to Photius some forty days or two months
after Photius5 consecration, i.e. in February 859, and Photius5 synod
must have met at the end o f February or in March. The revolt mentioned
by Zonaras must have broken out in March, or, if we accept Zonaras5
suggestion that the deliberations o f the synod were considerably ad
vanced, perhaps a month later. Nicetas5 account o f the incidents is not
quite reliable, and this need not surprise anyone familiar with his
method, but there may be some truth in his statement that another
ecclesiastical meeting was held in Byzantium in August. Once the
revolt had been suppressed and the agitation put down, it is only natural
to suppose that Photius imposed ecclesiastical sanctions on the prelates
and clergy responsible for the trouble and that judgement was given at
a different meeting.
We are quite entitled to surmise that Nicetas omits all reference to
the convocation o f the synod at the church o f the Holy Apostles which
was to answer canonically the challenge o f the Extremists. It is more
than probable that this new synod was held, not in the church of the
Holy Apostles, but in Blachernae, as the Synodicon Vetus has it, and
that Ignatius was summoned in person before this synod, since the same
document states that Ignatius5 deposition was proclaimed in the former
Patriarch’s presence. A renewed declaration o f the decisions taken at
the council that met at the church o f the Holy Apostles being made
in Blachernae in the presence o f Ignatius would have been quite a
normal procedure. This second meeting was not as large as a synod and
took no new decisions ; hence it is not listed among the synods that met
at this period, and only the Synodicon Vetus and Nicetas have recalled
its existence. The canonical decisions taken at the synod which met in
the church o f the Holy Apostles in the spring o f 859 were, as we shall
see presently, reconsidered and made public only in 861.
Nicetas then adds that the synod anathematized Ignatius, but this is
probably an over-statement, as the synod had no sufficient grounds for
going to that length, if it is true, as his biographer testifies, that the
inquiry set up against Ignatius had produced no incriminating results.
Theognostos does not mention an anathema in his LibellusJ- but it
should be observed that neither the one nor the other dared affirm that
the sentence was confirmed by the synod o f 861, o f which more will
be said later. We must conclude then that Ignatius was simply
deposed at the synod held in Blachernae mentioned by the Synodicon
62
Vetus, or rather declared to have no right to the patriarchal See, in

spite o f his 'prom otion5 by the Extremists.
It is unfortunately impossible to obtain an adequate idea o f the impor

tance o f the revolt, the documents in our possession being in this respect
extremely vague. In any case, it does not seem that the Byzantine
episcopacy joined it in a body. Theognostos, in his Libellus written in
861, poses as the mouthpiece o f ten Metropolitans and fifteen bishops;
but Pope Nicholas, in his letter to Michael III already quoted, only
names six Metropolitans. It is hard to say whether the number quoted
by Theognostos is exact: as we have seen, Theognostos often exag
gerates and his information is not always so reliable as has been thought.
Is he exaggerating in this case?
What is certain is that shortly after the revolt, and probably after the
synod o f August 859, the opposition leaders, all members o f the higher
clergy, were replaced by safer prelates. But we happen to know very
few o f these leading Ignatians: Theodore o f Syracuse, who had to hand
over his see to Gregory Asbestas, Basil o f Chalcedon to Zachary,
Anthony o f Cyzicus to Amphilochus. Peter o f Miletus, once deposed
by Methodius, was moreover reinstated and appointed archbishop o f
Sardes in Lydia. The other changes mentioned by Hergenröther1 were
introduced only later. This, however, is not all. We know that at the
opening o f the first session o f the Council o f 869-70 the prelates who
had remained loyal to Ignatius numbered only twelve,12 a figure nearer
the one quoted by Theognostos; but not even this computation can be
considered accurate, as we must allow for the death o f some Ignatian
bishops, perhaps for the absence o f others due to illness. Aristarchos,
who collected all the information relative to the changes effected in the
Byzantine episcopacy during Photius5 first patriarchate,3 reached the
approximate figure o f thirty-five prelates deposed or replaced, though
these transfers cannot all be dated from the beginning o f the patriarchate
or otherwise accounted for with any certainty. Therefore, the figure
quoted by Theognostos should not be discarded a priori, though it may
be observed that it is not very impressive compared with the hundreds
o f prelates who submitted to Photius. After all, the rebels amounted to
but a small minority o f the Byzantine episcopacy.
It is readily admitted on the other hand that the monastic world all
1 Photius, vol. I, p. 403.

2 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 18; Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, p. 76.
3 Loc. cit. vol. I, pp. ly, ιδ, λξ.
63
but unanimously refused allegiance to the new Patriarch; unfortunately,

Ignatian sources, chiefly Theognostos, only refer vaguely to a ‘ multi
tude5 o f monks who remained loyal to Ignatius. What Hergenröther1
has written, and what I personally have said about this opposition,12
needs supplementing.
The monastery o f Studion seems to have been the most important
storm centre: its abbot Nicholas flatly refused to hold communion with
Photius and went into exile, though the fact that five abbots in succession
carried on after him the administration o f this important community
suggests that not all the Studites adopted the same attitude. The
Life o f St Evaristus contains an interesting report o f the reper
cussion the troubles we are studying had in the monastic world in
general and in the monastery o f Studion in particular. The author o f this
L ife 3 tells us w hy and how Nicholas left the monastery he had governed.
His extremely discreet account is worth reproducing in fu ll:4
. . . A certain change and misunderstanding had come over the Church, but
I would rather not give the reasons and circumstances. The result at all events
was that Nicholas, probably feeling the weight o f his charge and responsi
bilities, or perhaps considering it inconvenient to enter into communion with
the pastor, addressed to his disciples a spiritual and salutary exhortation to
show his hearers the road that leads to good spiritual pastures; and having
carefully and paternally advised them to violate none o f their promises to
G od, to live and show themselves w orthy o f the monastic state, and bravely
to endure earthly trials in view o f the consolation that awaits us, he left the
monastery, followed b y those who openly conformed their conduct to that
o f their pastor.. . . T h ey split up into many groups, just numerous enough
to make true the L ord ’s promise that He would be with those gathered in His
name (Matt, xviii. 20), and thus scattered to various places in various lands.. . .
Am ong the monks who left the monastery of Studion with Nicholas
we find Evaristus and Paphnucius. They were received by a certain
Samuel, a pious citizen, who offered them the hospitality o f his home.
Later, Evaristus was requested by abbot Nicholas, who had fallen ill,
to join him in Hexamilium, presumably in Cherson o f Thrace, and he
subsequently accompanied him to see the Emperor Michael III, ap
parently for another effort at reconciliation between the Studites, Photius
and the government. Initiated by government, this venture came to
1 Loc. cit. vol. I, pp. 392 seq.

2 Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 135—47.
3 C. Van de Vorst, ‘ La Vie de Saint Évariste, Higoumène à Constantinople’, in
Analecta Bollandiana (1923), vol. X L I , pp. 288-325. 4 Loc. cit. pp. 306-7.
64
nothing, owing, no doubt— though the biographer has nothing definite

to say about it— to Nicholas5 unyielding attitude. After the interview
with the Emperor, Nicholas betook himself to Samuel, and on hearing
where he was, the old Studites promptly flocked to the pious citizen’s
house and put their host to the trouble o f founding a new monastery
for their benefit, the Kokorobion. Such an influx o f monks soon
attracted the government’s attention: Nicholas was arrested, taken back
to the monastery o f Studion and there placed under the watchful care o f
some monks known to be loyal to the regime. The Kokorobion
monastery, however, continued to exist and to thrive under the direction
o f St Evaristus.
The anonymous biographer, part o f whose work is summarized
above, was not far from the events he described, since the only
surviving MS. o f his work dates from the tenth century and the author
treats o f his hero as o f a contemporary. This being so, his punctilious
discretion in speaking o f the quarrel that had arisen in the Church, in
which he refers neither to Photius nor to Ignatius by name, is somehow
curious. Though his hero was an Ignatian, no sign o f hatred for the new
Patriarch or Michael III escaped him. Now, according to him, the
monks wrho refused obedience to Photius were not persecuted in the
least; they found easy sanctuary with pious laymen, and even succeeded
in opening a monastery in Constantinople. Nicholas of the monastery
o f Studion alone was the object o f some governmental severity, though
the Emperor in person attempted to overcome his resistance. In short,
this evidence in no way corroborates the dark picture conjured up
elsewhere with vague hints at a dreadful persecution.
We know the names o f some other abbots who remained loyal to
Ignatius: Joseph, Euthymios, Nicetas o f Chrysopolis and Dositheus o f
Osion Dion, not to mention the famous Theognostos, abbot o f the
Monastery o f the Source (Pege). Although they were certainly not the
only abbots to refuse submission to Photius’ authority,1 the Ignatians’
1 The community of St Anne in Bithynia seems likewise to have remained faithful
to Ignatius, as we learn from a manuscript of the Meteora, No. 591 (Νίκου A. Bess,
Έκδοσις παλαιογραφικών και τεχνικών ερευνών εν ταΐς μόναις τών Μετεώρων κατά
τα ετη 1908 και 1909. Edited by the Athens Byzantine Society, 1910, pp. 24, 25,
69). The MS. contains the homilies of St Chrysostom on the Gospel of St Matthew.
According to a copyist’s note, it was written by the monk Eustathios in 8 6 1-2:
Έγραφε δε και έτελειώθη ή ιερά και σωτηριώδης αυτή βίβλος εν τώ ΣΤΟ (861- 2 ) ετη,
εν τη ένδεκάτη ένδικτίονι, εν τη μόνη της αγίας ’Άννης της διακειμένης άπό τών της
Βιθυνίας μερών εν τη ενορία της Κίου, επι της εξορίας του άγιωτάτου ιτατριάρχου
Ιγνατίου. Cf. Nicos A. Bees, ‘ Un manuscrit des Météoris de l’an 8 6 1-2 ’, in Revue
des Études Grecques (1913), t. X X V I , pp. 53-74.
DPS
65 5
THE PHO TI AN S C HI S M. I. THE H I S T O R Y
remarkable discretion on the subject is worth noting, as it was by no

means their habit to be reticent in emphasizing their Patriarch’s popu
larity. That is w hy it is difficult to take literally what Anastasius the
Librarian tells us o f the happenings at Mount Olympus in Asia Minor,
where the monks’ cells are stated to have been burned to the ground.1
Olympus lost none o f its importance in the second half o f the ninth
century and the beginning o f the tenth. Another hagiographical com
position written in the first years o f the tenth century and already quoted,
the Life o f St Euthymios, corrects to some extent the account by
Anastasius. It is stated there that on refusing to enter into communion
with Photius,12 Nicholas, the abbot o f the Pissidion, left his monastery:
which evidently proves that the majority o f the monks o f this important
community had acknowledged Photius as their legitimate Patriarch.
Euthymios also left after the abbot’s departure, but not for the reason
given by the hagiographer for Nicholas’ exit:
Fond o f peace and solitude, Euthym ios. . .saw there a good opportunity
to hasten to the mountains o f Athos. N ot having received so far the holy
habit o f a m onk. . .he was sad, disconsolate and broken-hearted, mainly
because his holy pastor John had gone to rest in the Lord, and also because
Nicholas had left the monastery. Distressed for all these reasons, he received
a divine inspiration telling him to go and see the ascetic Theodore and receive
at long last the habit from his hands; for Theodore also lived on the heights
o f Olym pus, shedding the light o f his virtues like a torch on all those who
dwelt around. T o him therefore he w ent. . . [and] he was considered w orthy
o f receiving the sacred and salutary monastic habit. The saint then. . . after
a stay o f fifteen long years at Mount Olym pus, left with the blessed and god ly
Theosteriktos for Athos. Soon after Theosteriktos left to settle once more
at Olym pus, where he invited St Euthym ios to join him in 863, this saint
being in search o f his old master, who also had a desire to settle in
A thos.3
A ll this only shows that the holy mountain continued to thrive in spite
o f religious conflicts ; that the monks were in no way disturbed in their
pious exercises and went about freely; lastly and not least, that contacts
between Olympus and Athos, the new centre o f Byzantine monas-
1 Mansi, vol. x vi, col. 5.

2 I made in this connection a mistranslation in my previous work Les Légendes
de Constantin et de Méthode, p. 144. Read ‘ pour ne pas entrer en communion (avec
Photius)’ instead o f ‘ pour rester en communion’. This is the Greek text: πολλών
δέ διά τούτο τής του νέου πατριάρχου κοινωνίας άποκλινάντων, καί ό ...
3 Loc. cit. pp. 182, 186.
66
ticism, seem to have been frequent and friendly. How then are we to
explain the anti-Photianist accounts o f the so-called persecution o f
monks?
The answer, it seems, is to be found in the canons o f the synod o f
861, known by the name o f 'first-second5.1 O f these seventeen canons,
the first seven deal with various problems raised at the time by Eastern
monasticism. The first forbids the transformation o f private houses into
monasteries without episcopal authorization; a house thus transformed
will no longer be considered as the founder’s property; he will lose the
right to rule the new institution, or to appoint anyone to this function.
The second canon forbids the consecration as a monk o f anyone who
refuses to place himself under the direction o f an abbot legitimately
established ; it will no longer be lawful to impose the monastic habit on
those who intend to go on living in their own private houses, without
a care for monastic discipline. The third canon reminds the abbot o f
his duties towards the monks under his care. The fourth is particularly
important; it censures those monks who leave their monasteries without
permission or take up residence in lay people’s houses: such a practice
was permissible in times o f heresy, says the canon, referring no doubt
to iconoclasm, but can no longer be tolerated at the present time, when
heresy has been uprooted; the bishop alone has the right to transfer
monks for reasons o f piety from one monastery to another. The fifth
canon insists on the necessity o f giving every candidate for the monastic
order the opportunity to break himself in to monastic duties for the
space o f three years. The sixth forbids the monks to own property;
they must dispose o f their goods before entering the monastery. The
seventh forbids bishops to found private monasteries and to endow them
with revenue from the mensa episcopalis.
All these canons were prompted by abuses that had been rife since
before the iconoclastic days. It is generally known that for economic
or other reasons the first iconoclastic emperors endeavoured to limit
the number o f monasteries; and that their decrees aimed at the sup
pression o f the practice, then prevailing among rich Byzantines, o f
converting their houses into monasteries, where they went on living as
they did before, and o f disposing o f their wealth in total disregard o f
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 536-48. Cf. on the evolution o f Byzantine monasticism
at this period Sokolov, Sostoyanie Monashestva v V p. Tserkvi s polov. I X do
nachala X I I I v. (Kazan, 1894) (especially pp. 60 seq. on Ignatian and Photian
monks). The study by W. Nissen, Die Regelung des Klosterwesens im Rhomäerreiche
bis ium Ende des 9. Jh ts (Hamburg, 1897) (Programm Nr 759 der Gelehrtenschule
des Johanneums), is written on more general lines.
6? 5-*
canonical prescriptions.1 These measures chiefly hit the well-to-do

classes and naturally were not welcomed by monks who lived on the
generosity o f the rich. Now it was chiefly to these regulations that the
iconoclastic emperors owed their reputation o f being persecutors o f the
monks. After the final restoration o f Orthodoxy, the monks recovered
all their former prestige; Irene and the pious Theodora patronized them
and their influence went on increasing under Ignatius5 patriarchate; but
the old abuses which the iconoclastic emperors had fought crept
stealthily back, as evidenced by the seven canons summarized above.
Such a situation was, however, fraught with danger. Iconoclasm
was not suppressed by Theodora till 843, and it would have been unwise
to afford the more or less sincere converts from iconoclasm new oppor
tunities for criticism or to panegyrize Constantine V for fighting such
abuses whilst the memory o f his military fame was still fresh. The
iconoclastic reaction under Leo V , Michael II and Theophilus served
as a grim reminder that too zealous a championship o f monasticism,,
such as was displayed by Michael I, could do Orthodoxy more harm
than good. The Patriarch Methodius had learnt his lesson and practised
moderation in his religious policy. Ignatius thought otherwise, but the
new government under Michael III and Bardas was alive to the risk o f
giving an easy rein to the Extremists. Photius also saw the danger and
was only too keen on removing all grounds for criticism. His first
endeavour was to restore order in the monastic world and the canons
discussed above, though some o f them had already been voted at the
synod o f 859, show the drift o f his policy and clarify the position in the
first decades after the suppression o f iconoclasm.
Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that Photius5 cautious
attitude should be so little appreciated by certain zealots and that the
radical monks should suspect another attack on monasticism. Hence
the agitation against Photius raised by some o f them and the stigma o f
persecution attached to his name. Wild statements by some o f his bit
terest enemies created the impression that the whole monastic world
had risen in arms against him and have since imposed upon the his
torians5 credulity.
This consideration throws light on the character and the passions o f
1 It is not true to say that the iconoclastic emperors were the sworn enemies of
monastic life, as it has been generally alleged. I, among others, have found
evidence of the existence of an iconoclastic monastery in Asia Minor, as shown in
the Life o f St Gregory Decapolites, which I published in my book, L a Vie de
St Grégoire le Décapolite et les Slaves Macédoniens au IXe siècle (Paris, 1926),
pp. 40 seq., 48 seq.
68
the two currents o f opinion prevailing in Byzantium and shows in

which quarters the new ecclesiastical and secular regime met with its
worst opposition. Next to the Extremist monks and a few bishops who
shared their opinions, came the wealthy zealots who looked askance at
the changes in the imperial palace and in the patriarcheion and their
attendant reforms. These had, in the opinion o f many o f them, an
iconoclastic flavour. Indeed, the iconoclastic emperors, chiefly Con
stantine V , had tried to bring about by authoritarian methods exactly
what Photius and his supporters were trying to achieve by canonical
means. The Moderates were as sincere in their orthodoxy as any, and
as keen on preventing a possible iconoclastic revival, but their efforts
were liable to be misunderstood.1
1 This chapter was nearing completion, when I came across V. Grumel’s study,
‘ La Genèse du Schisme Photien’, in Studi Bibamini e Neo-Ellenici (1939), vol. v
(Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini), pp. 177-85, but it failed
to make me alter a single word in the chapter. It is possible to take the wrong turn
in trying to shift the responsibility for the revolt from the retired Patriarch’s radical
supporters to Ignatius himself. One finds it difficult to understand this persistence
in presenting Ignatius as a headstrong monk, intractable and deaf to reasonable argu
ments. Nor was Ignatius ‘ un drôle de saint’. Contrary to what has been asserted,
and as we shall see in the course of this work, Ignatius did acknowledge Photius’
ordination, ordained though he had been by Asbestas. Again, Photius’ own
ordination by Asbestas was the condition laid down by the victorious party as a
compensation for the concessions made by Photius to the radical bishops.
69
C H A P T E R III
THE SYNO D O F 861
Photius’ and Michael’s letters to Nicholas—Was the Pope in communion with

Photius’ envoys?—Negotiations between the legates, the Emperor and the Patriarch
before the synod—The Acts of the synod and accounts by Nicetas and Theo-
gnostos—Did Ignatius appeal to Rome?—Legates’ attitude during the synod.
T h e assumption that iconoclasm came to an abrupt end in 843 and left

no traces was shown in the previous chapter to be at odds with the facts.
As we have seen, when Photius ascended the patriarchal throne the
heresy had not yet been completely liquidated. It is certainly surprising
to learn from a homily which Photius delivered at St Sophia in 8671
at the inauguration o f an ikon o f the Virgin, that the picture was one
o f the first to be restored in the Church since the official suppression
o f iconoclasm, though twenty-four years had elapsed since the restora
tion o f Orthodoxy. It therefore looks as though the authorities, for
fear o f provoking reactions among the penitent iconoclasts, acted with
some caution.
A ll this must be kept in mind in considering the Emperor Michael’s
initiative in 860. Taking advantage o f the dispatch o f the synodal letter
by the new Patriarch to Pope Nicholas I,* Michael III, after recalling
the latest events that had occurred in the Church o f Constantinople,
invited the Pope to send legates to Byzantium, where he was planning
to hold a Council, for a second elucidation o f the Catholic doctrine
concerning images.
Surprise has often been expressed that Photius should not have issued
his encyclical letter sooner;123 but it is only fair to remember that the
synod summoned to put an end to the Ignatians’ opposition only met
in August 859, i.e. eight months after Photius’ election. It was natural
that no apocrisiaries should be sent to Rome in the autumn o f the same
year, probably to save them a journey during an inconvenient season
and chiefly a winter stay in Rome. Communications between Italy and
Greece were also, so it seems, suspended from the end o f October till
1 (Aristarchos), loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 294 seq. Cf. my study ‘ Lettre à
M. H. Grégoire à propos de Michel III’ in Byântion (1935), vol. x, pp. 5-9.
2 P.G . vol. 102, cols. 585—93.
3 Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 1, p. 406.
70
THE S Y N O D OF 86l
spring.1 It would in any case have been considered preferable to send
them in the spring o f 860 so that the papal legates should start for
Constantinople at a time better suited for journeys o f that length. The
Byzantine delegates then reached Rome in summer and left again with
the legates at the end o f September, reaching Constantinople probably
before Christmas and completing a most difficult journey before the
bad season set in.
It has also been thought strange that Photius should have omitted
to mention in his letter the synod that was to be. summoned in Con
stantinople;2 but there was good justification for the omission. To
convoke and direct a General Council was, according to Byzantine law,
solely the Emperor’s concern, a privilege that had been his since the
time o f Constantine the Great: Patriarchs— even o f Rome— had no
business to meddle.3 Photius, once President o f the Imperial Chan
cellery, evidently knew and respected court usage and imperial privi
leges; hence he confined himself in his letter to Nicholas I4 to the
formulae in common use in synodal letters,3 mainly insisting on the
importance o f the episcopal dignity to which, in spite o f himself and all
but against his will, he had been raised after his predecessor’s resignation,
and adding his profession o f faith.
The letters were taken to Rome by a distinguished delegation, headed
by the Protospathar Arsaber, a relative o f the Emperor and o f Photius,
and including the metropolitan Methodius o f Gangra, the bishops
Samuel o f Colossus, Theophilus o f Amorion, and Zachary o f Taormina,
who, having represented Gregory Asbestas’ group in his appeal to
Rome, was familiar with the journey and with the Eternal City.
According to custom, the delegation took numerous presents, which
Anastasius the Librarian, author o f the Life o f Nicholas I, enumerates
with a certain relish in the Liber Pontificalis.6 The pallium was not
among them, a sign that Photius knew the Pope’s feelings better than
Ignatius.
1 Cf. J. Haller, Das Papsttum (Stuttgart, 1934), vol. 1, p. 500. Idem, Nikolaus 1.
und Pseudo-Isidor (Stuttgart, 1936), p. 30.
2 Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 1, p. 413.
3 I dealt with this problem in my study, De Potestate Civili in Conciliis
Oecumenicis, quoted on p. 7.
4 Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 1, pp. 40 7-11 (translation and analysis of the
letter).
5 Cf. synodal letter by the Patriarch Nicephorus to Leo III, P .G . vol. 100,
cols. 169-200. Also, the formulary published by I. Habert, Archieraticon. Liber
Pont. Eccl. Graecae (Paris, 1643), pp. 557-9.
6 Ed. L. Duchesne, loc. cit. vol. 11, p. 154.
71
As regards the Pope’s attitude towards the Emperor’s and the new
Patriarch’s envoys, Baronins1 and Hergenrötheff assert that, suspecting
something irregular in Photius’ elevation, Nicholas I refused to receive
them to communion with the Roman bishops; this rests on a declaration
made by the papal legate Marinus at the fourth session o f the Council
o f 869-70,3 and has generally found favour with historians.
Let us recall the fact that according to the minutes o f that session
the bishops Theophilus and Zachary stated that Nicholas I had received
them to communion when they were in Rome: ‘ We have said and we
repeat that we were received by Pope Nicholas as bishops, that we
co-celebrated with him and that we were treated as such.’ The Pope,
they said, had thereby acknowledged Photius as Patriarch. The Acts
suggest that the claim o f the two bishops was accepted by many people
and that the papal legates agreed to both being heard by the Council.
There they repeated their assertion on several occasions and even
offered to produce the witnesses— presumably the officials and servants
who had accompanied them to Rome— provided the Emperor promised
they would suffer no harm. Lastly they quoted the evidence o f
Marinus, one o f the papal legates, who had been present at their recep
tion, but the latter emphatically declared:
I was sub-deacon o f the Roman Church at that time, consecrated b y the

saintly Roman Pope Leo, and had ministered in the Roman Church from the
age o f twelve and when these men came to Rom e with Arsabir I was minis
tering in the Roman Church o f Mary, the Blessed Mother o f G od, called
‘ Praesepis’ . It was there that the very saintly pope Nicholas met them to
examine their Libellus and to tender the oath; and he did not receive them to
communion as bishops. I f they deny this, let them prove that he did receive
them to communion as bishops.4
One finds it difficult to admit that either Marinus or the two bishops
would have been daring enough to tell a bare-faced lie in the presence
o f the assembly; but the letter in which the Pope reserves to himself the
right to give a final decision on Ignatius’ case whenever his legates
should have concluded their inquiry, enables us to reconcile two asser
tions so obviously contradictory.
The Pope could not refuse to receive the ambassadors o f the Emperor
and o f the Patriarch without reasons grave enough to justify the affront;
and Marinus admits that Nicholas I had actually received them. Strictly
1 Annales Ecclesiastici, ad a. 859, n. 60. 2 Photius, vol. 1, p. 414.

3 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 53-74, 328-40. 4 Ibid. col. 58.
72
THE S Y N O D OF 86 l
speaking, and allowing for a generous dose o f mental reservation, he
could pretend that the Pope had not granted the delegates communion
with his bishops, since the validity o f their reception had been made
conditional on the Pope’s final decision, which was to be given after
the report o f the board o f inquiry and eventually did turn out to be
unfavourable to Photius. But he would have been splitting hairs, and
it seems inadmissible that a papal legate’s usual veracity should have
failed him to such an extent. But Anastasius, the translator o f the Acts,
fortunately comes to our rescue. This is what he writes about the
embassy in his Life o f Nicholas I preserved in the Liber Pontificalis:τ
In his [Nicholas’] days Michael, son o f the Em peror Theophilus, Em peror
o f the city o f Constantinople, sent for the love o f the Apostles gifts to the
Blessed Apostle Peter through the good offices o f the bishops called Methodius
the Metropolitan, bishop Samuel and two others who had been deposed
from their episcopal office, Zachary and another called Theophilus, together
with a lay imperial official called A rsavir, protospathar.. . . 2
Observe that here Anastasius discriminates between the two bishops

Methodius and Samuel and the two others who had been suspended,
Zachary and Theophilus. Zachary himself acknowledged, as pointed
out in the minutes o f the same session o f the Council, that he had been
suspended by Ignatius at the same time as Gregory Asbestas, and he
stated to the imperial commission that Pope Benedict III had ordered
him to abstain from the exercise o f ecclesiastical functions, as long as
his case awaited trial by the Holy See.3 It is clear, then, that the legate
Marinus, in his reply, referred only to Zachary and Theophilus, the only
partisans o f Photius then present before the Fathers o f the Council.
This clears the puzzle. Nicholas I must have officially received the
Byzantine delegation at the church o f St Mary Major, after the bishops
had taken the oath prescribed by the protocol o f the Roman Chancellery.
Rumours that had reached him concerning events in Constantinople4
did not authorize him to withhold the traditional honours, though they
prompted him to look into the facts more closely. He probably also
noticed that the cases o f Ignatius and o f the Asbestas group had not yet
been tried by the Holy See and that the decree o f the synod o f Con
stantinople o f 858 rehabilitating Gregory and his friends had, as far as
he was concerned, and in his own conception o f papal rights, the same
1 Ed. Duchesne, loc. cit. vol. 11, p. 154.
2 Follows the list of presents. 3 See p. 27.
4 The Pope refers to them in his letter to Michael III, M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 490.
Cf. p. 108.
73
legal value as Photius’ election, and no more. He therefore reminded

Theophilus and Zachary o f his predecessor Benedict I l l ’s injunction,
o f which he must have found a record in the archives, and consequently
refused the two bishops communion with the Western bishops. Thus
are explained and reconciled the two contradictory assertions, and we
may conclude that Nicholas received the Byzantine embassy with due
honour and admitted the four Eastern bishops— at least at the beginning
— to communion with the Roman clergy.
T o return then to Anastasius5 text after the enumeration o f the presents

brought to the Pope by the Byzantine ambassadors:
W hen they had presented the Pontiff with many other gifts, they at once
read out the ambassadorial message they had been ordered to deliver, namely,
that being made Em peror o f the Greeks, he [Michael III] asked through his
envoys that legates o f the Apostolic See be sent to Constantinople to deal
with the destroyers o f the sacred images. In reality, he only had in mind the
case o f the Patriarch Ignatius and o f Photius, the usurper o f the Church o f
Constantinople, with a jealous and cunning desire to have this holy man
Ignatius condemned b y a sentence o f the A postolic See, as he later succeeded
in doing and then to place the neophyte Photius at the head o f the Church.
Presently, the Supreme Pontiff, still ignorant o f the Em peror’s evil designs,
sent thither two bishops, Radoald and Zachary, ordering them to settle in
synod whatever the issue o f the sacred images should suggest and also
solemnly to inquire into the case o f the Patriarch Ignatius and o f Photius,
but only to inquire and then to report to him.
This text is really suggestive: Michael III had not asked the Pope for
a re-trial o f the cases o f Ignatius and Photius by the synod he intended
to summon: in the Emperor’s mind, the sole purpose o f that synod was
to define again the Catholic doctrine on images and once again to con
demn iconoclasm. It is therefore clear that both the Emperor and
Photius considered Ignatius’ case to have been definitely closed since
the synods (of the H oly Apostles and o f Blachernae) in 859.
Another contemporary document, coming from a quarter hostile to
Photius, confirms this conclusion— the Synodicon Vetus,1 whose author
writes: ‘ After all this, Photius sent to the Roman Pope Nicholas, o f
blessed memory, a delegation declaring that Ignatius had abdicated o f
his own free will and owing to his physical weakness, and urgently
requesting the dispatch o f legates for the purpose o f a final condemna
tion o f the iconoclastic heresy, yet all the time busy preparing underhand
1 J. A. Fabricius, B. D. J. Pappe, loc. cit. vol. xn, pp. 417, 418. Cf. p. 57.
74
the condemnation o f Ignatius.’ The texts o f Anastasius and the Synodicon
are not unrelated, which shows to what extent Anastasius, whilst staying
in Constantinople, had come under the influence o f the Ignatians: none
but the Ignatians ever alleged that the condemnation o f iconoclasm was
only a pretext for the convocation o f a Council and for the condemna
tion o f Ignatius. But, by their statements, they thus unwittingly bore
witness to the fact that the Byzantine embassy had not asked for a
re-trial o f the old Patriarch.
The replies by Nicholas I to the letters o f Michael III and Photius
throw light on the Pope’s feelings towards the imperial intentions. In
his letter to the Emperor,1 after commending Michael’s interest in the
Church, the Pope expresses surprise that Ignatius should have been
deposed by a synod £sine Romani consulto pontificis’. To him, the
trial o f Ignatius seemed unfair, the witnesses quoted in the imperial
letter being incompetent, their evidence unconvincing and Ignatius not
having pleaded guilty. As, moreover, a layman had been elected in
disregard o f canonical interdictions, Nicholas concluded by refusing to
acknowledge Photius’ nomination to the patriarchate before the results
o f the inquiry made by the legates in Constantinople should reach him.
The Pope then lays down the procedure o f the inquiry. The passage is
important enough for the interpretation o f the Acts o f the Council o f
861 to be reproduced in full:
In order that fairness be observed in all things, we wish, O merciful
Augustus, that Ignatius who, as you have informed me through your letters,
has spontaneously and o f his own free will relinquished the government o f
the above-mentioned See and has been deposed in the presence o f the General
Council o f the people b y Y o u r Highness, should appear before our legates
and the General Council in accordance with your imperial custom so that
they may inquire w h y he abandoned the flock entrusted to him and w h y he
made so little of, and treated with such contempt, the wishes o f our pre
decessors and holy Pontiffs, Leo IV and Benedict. F o r this purpose the
legates w ill make a careful inquiry into his deposidon and his censure, with
a view to discovering whether the canons have been observed or not; then,
when the matter has been reported to us, we shall direct b y our apostolic
authority what is to be done, so that your Church, daily shaken b y these
anxieties, may henceforth remain inviolate and unhurt.
The Pope then outlines the Catholic doctrine on images; requests

the Emperor to return to the Roman patriarchate the jurisdiction o f
Illyricum, the patrimonies o f Calabria and Sicily, and the right to
1 M .G .H . Ep. vi, pp. 433-9.
75
consecrate the bishops o f Syracuse, concluding with a recommendation

in favour o f the papal legates.
The Pope’s reply to Photius’ synodical letter is brief, firm in its tenor,
but friendly in tone. After expressing satisfaction at the new Patriarch’s
orthodox profession o f faith, the Pope nevertheless blames him for
having been ordained in contravention o f canonical rules forbidding
laymen’s hurried elevation to the episcopal dignity, adding, however,
that should his legates’ findings in Constantinople be favourable, he
4will embrace the Patriarch o f so eminent a city in brotherly lo ve’. The
reply, be it observed, makes no reference to Ignatius’ case.
We may therefore conclude from this correspondence that Ignatius’
re-trial was ordered, neither by Photius nor by the Emperor, but by the
Pope himself. Contrary to the wishes o f the Byzantines, who looked
upon the incident as closed, the Council and the legates were to examine
Ignatius’ conduct, the Pope reserving the final decision to himself
personally.
Constantinople had not expected such a solution. Unfortunately, as

we possess no information on the negotiations carried on before the
opening o f the Council between the legates and the ecclesiastical and
civil authorities o f Byzantium, we can only guess what was discussed
between them. We are also ill-documented on certain discussions at the
Council itself: for instance, we know absolutely nothing about the
meetings devoted to the dogmatic question. The conciliar decisions
about the monks, previously discussed,1 suggest that much o f the dis
cussion was devoted to the problem o f Byzantine monasticism, a
problem that had raised controversies at the outset o f iconoclasm and
o f which we still know very little.
As the Acts o f the Council o f 861 were destroyed by the Fathers o f
the Ignatian Council o f 869-70, we only possess a few summaries o f
the meetings that dealt with Ignatius. Nicetas, Theognostos, Anastasius
and Stylianos have left us minutes o f varying accuracy; but fortunately
we possess an extract2 from the Acts, based, as we shall show presently,
on the text brought to Constantinople by the papal legates Radoald
and Zachary, or more exactly, by the imperial ambassador Leo. This
extract having proved reliable on another occasion,3 we can try, without
neglecting other documents already mentioned, to reconstruct the facts
in the light o f this additional document.
1 See p. 67. 3 W olf von Glanvell, loc. cit. pp. 603-10.
3 See pp. 28 seq.
76
On their arrival in Constantinople, the legates insisted on the Pope’s
instructions being carried out to the very letter; and on seeing that the
Roman Pontiff wished to introduce something contrary to their plans
and the traditions o f their Church, the Emperor and Photius made some
opposition: in their view, as Ignatius had resigned in conformity with
canonical rules, and had been deposed by a synod to make it evident
to all that he had ceased being a Patriarch, and as his successor had been
elected in accordance with the laws o f the Byzantine Church, there
could be no question o f going back upon past decisions. And yet the
Pope’s request could not be disregarded; though no one had asked him
for a decision in the matter, his authority had to be respected, for fear
o f creating new difficulties at the very moment when it was hoped to
end them once for all. So, a compromise acceptable to both parties had
to be found.
At first the outlook was not promising. It is generally held that strong
pressure was brought to bear on the legates and that they were refused
all intercourse with Ignatius and his partisans. In support o f these
allegations, a passage is quoted from the letter o f Nicholas I to Photius,
dated 18 March 862.1 But this text does not specifically show that the
legates were prevented from communicating with the partisans o f the
fallen Patriarch; they were rather kept away from intercourse with the
Greeks in general.* Let it be stated at once that the legates’ reports,
after their return to Rome, need cautious handling, for when they had
lost all hope o f bringing the Pope round to their own views, they were
only too evidently in search o f good excuses in defence o f the attitude
they had adopted in Byzantium.
And yet, one cannot, with Theognostos,3 exactly blame them for
having accepted presents from Photius. Handed over by officials sent
to greet them at Rhoedestus on the way to Constantinople, these presents
1 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 4 51: ‘ De missis siquidem nostris, quos petitos in servitio
beati Petri principis apostolorum pro utilitate sanctae Constantinopolitanae ecclesiae
contra depositores imaginum vel alias necessitates ingruentes necnon et pro causa
solum modo depositionis saepefati viri Ignatii inquirenda illas in partes direximus,
silendum non est. Qui, cum iis, sicut dicunt, per centum dierum spatia omnium nisi
suorum alloquendi facultas fuisset denegata, ut apostolicae sedis missi non digne
suscepti sunt, neque, ut decuerat, retenti. Quod non pro alia gestum putamus re,
nisi ut inquirendi locum de depositione praefati viri non invenirent.. . . Quibus
secundum horum relationem longa exilia et diuturnas pediculorum comestiones, si
in tali intentione persisterent, quidam minantes quod illis a nobis injunctum fuit
clam vobis cum sequacibus vestris resistentibus perficere minime potuerunt.. . 5
2 It is, however, a fact that the Ignatians were prevented handing a memorial to
the legates. See p. 79.
77
THE P H O T IA N S C HI S M. I. THE H I S T O R Y
were not bribes, but were simply a matter o f diplomatic amenity. The
same custom may be observed in the reception in 869 o f the legates sent
by Hadrian II to condemn Photius. As reported by Anastasius,1 the
representatives o f Nicholas I were met at Thessalonica by a high
imperial official, then at Selymbria by Theognostos and the Proto-
spathar Sisinnius, who brought 4forty horses from the imperial stables
and all the silver cutlery from the imperial table’. The presents men
tioned by Theognostos and consisting o f clothes may be assumed to
be tokens o f the court’s anxiety to protect the legates against the rigours
o f the winter after a journey that had lasted longer than was expected.12
But even if there be nothing to prove the use of pressure to dissuade

the legates from re-trying Ignatius in accordance with the Pope’s
instructions, negotiations before the convocation o f the synod were,
we must admit, unconscionably long. The legates arrived in Byzantium
certainly before Christmas, but judging from the allocution delivered
at the third session, the synod was convoked only shortly before Easter.
The Emperor and the Patriarch eventually yielded to the Roman
legates’ request that the inquiry into Ignatius’ case should be placed
first on the Council’s agenda. The minutes o f the Acts3 will tell us that
they consented to the re-trial only on condition that the legates should
give judgement in Constantinople without first referring the case to
the Pope. They naturally argued that a final verdict would promote the
pacification o f the Church and was well worth a concession.
The Emperor personally presided at the first session, when Paul,
metropolitan o f Caesarea in Cappadocia, opened the debate: 'There is
no question o f going over Ignatius’ case again, since he was deposed
for flagrant offences’, said the bishop, but he added: ‘ In order, how
ever, to honour the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Father Nicholas
in the person o f his representatives, we are willing to allow a second
examination o f the problems that concern him.’ ‘ The sentence against
Ignatius’, said the spokesman o f the Byzantine Church, ‘ was passed by
a synod. As far as our Church is concerned, the case is therefore closed
and has not to be considered again. But to do homage to St Peter and
to the Holy Oecumenical Father Nicholas, we all agree to his case being
reconsidered and tried again.’
It appears that Ignatius, who had been taken to Constantinople,
1 Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne), vol. 11, p. 180.

2 J. Haller, Nikolaus I und Pseudo-1sidor, p. 23.
3 W olf von Glanvell, loc. cit. pp. 603-10.
78
tried to hand in a memorial at the opening o f the synod, for Theo
gnostos, in his Libellus, writes in the name o f Ignatius:1 ‘ We presented
to the bishops through the good offices o f the priest Laurentius and the
two Stephens, one o f whom was a sub-deacon and the other a layman,
a memorial in the form o f a letter, adjuring them to place it in the hands
o f your Holiness; but they did not do so.’ Now this passage has been
w rongly interpreted. It has been the fashion to infer that after the
Council o f 859 the fallen Patriarch tried to lodge with the Pope a com
plaint against Photius, the three persons named having sworn to transmit
the document but broken their oath. This interpretation, which is
accepted by Hergenröther,2 is completely mistaken and was prompted
b y the Latin translation o f Raderus— another instance o f his unrelia
bility. Theognostos5 account shows that the three persons concerned
discharged certain duties at the Council and were also responsible for
preparing the necessary documents for the trial. Ignatius, or rather,
some o f his partisans— perhaps Theognostos himself, as he is the only
one to mention the incident— tried to approach them and through their
intermediary to send to the bishops and the papal legates a memorial
o f the Ignatian party. Theognostos naturally presents the incident in
such a w ay as to create in the mind o f the Pope the impression that
Ignatius had appealed to the Holy See before the Council. Further on,
Theognostos writes in Ignatius5 name: ‘ When we were invited to
appear before a tribunal worthy o f Caiphas, we implored them to let
us be judged by Your Holiness, but none would listen to us.5 Had
Theognostos, after this outburst, omitted to mention the three persons
already identified, it would have been harder to detect his motive, but
he showed his hand too clearly.
It seems, indeed, evident from the context that Ignatius never made
any such declaration. Theognostos only interprets in that sense the
attempt to present a memorial to the legates and through them to the
bishops o f the synod and to the Pope. We repeat that the memorial,
on the face o f it, had been drawn up not by Ignatius, but by Theo
gnostos and his friends; and it failed to reach its destination— the
legates, the Fathers o f the Council and the Pope— because the
secretaries o f the synod, the priest Laurentius and the two Stephens,
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 296. This is the Greek text: αί δέ παρ’ ημών δοθεΐσαι toïç
επισκόποις êyypacpoi πίστεις, hyouv έτπστολαί, διά του πρεσβυτέρου Λαυρέντιου και
των δύο Στεφάνων, του τε υποδιακόνου και του λαϊκού, oüç και ενωρκώσαμεν
τοϊς χερσι της σης ayiÔTT|Toç αυτάς άποδοθήναι, άπρατοι μεμνήκασιν.
2 Photius, vol. I, ρ. 4 22·* ‘ dieselben die ihm ihr eidliches Versprechen, seine
frühere Klagschrift nach Rom zu bringen, gebrochen hatten/
79
refused to oblige Theognostos and his friends by acting as their

messengers.
I f we are to believe Theognostos and Nicetas,1 Ignatius would have
asked the Council in what apparel he was to appear before his judges:
in a monk’s garb, being condemned, or in pontificals, being merely
accused. The choice being left to him, Ignatius left the Posis palace,
where he had taken up his residence, to go to the church o f the Apostles,
where the Council was holding its sittings; he made the journey ‘ in
great pom p’, clad in pontificals and surrounded by an endless cortege
o f his partisans. On reaching the church o f St Gregory o f Nazianzus,
the procession was stopped by the Patrician John Coxes, who in the
Emperor’s name ordered Ignatius to present himself alone and in
monastic garb. The three secretaries o f the Council then angrily up
braided him for having put on ‘ the sacred stole’.
It is easy to surmise from this story what really happened. Quick to
seize their opportunity for a noisy anti-government display, the
Extremists made Ignatius don his patriarchal robes and mobilized all
available forces to escort the Patriarch to the Council. One can imagine
this cortege parading through the streets o f Constantinople and raising
a riot, but is it surprising that the imperial police should have stepped
in? Ignatius’ appearance in episcopal regalia might have been over
looked, but who would have tolerated such an exhibition and given the
Extremists the chance to use the occasion for making trouble among the
populace? In any case this incident proves what an important con
cession to the Pope Ignatius’ re-trial really was, in view o f its political
and religious implications.
The details just mentioned are not o f course reported in the extract
from the Acts already referred to ; nor does one find there any confirma
tion for Theognostos’ statements on the Emperor’s attitude towards
Ignatius before the Council. One can understand, however, that Michael
was not profuse in his praise for the old Patriarch’s behaviour, and
Theognostos makes it sufficiently clear that the unexpected Ignatian
demonstration had created a certain sensation in Byzantium by reason
o f its anti-government sting. The extract from the first session o f the
Council also lends colour to another statement by Theognostos to the
effect that Ignatius, after greeting the legates, demanded the return o f
his see, for we read that Ignatius, fully conscious o f his dignity, insisted
on his being the Patriarch, successor o f the Apostles St John and
St Andrew, implying thereby that Constantinople was an apostolic see
80
THE S Y N O D OF 86 l
on a level with Rome, and he worded his request to the legates in a
most resolute manner: ‘ I f you are genuine judges, you must return my
see. That is how you should judge.5
The minutes o f the first session summarize the main charges brought
against Ignatius, mainly his failure to reply to a request from Pope
Benedict III to send to Rome information concerning the Asbestas
case. Ignatius explained that he had been dethroned only a few
days after receipt o f the papal letter,1 and therefore had not had the
time to reply. This charge must have come from the legates, as it
was mainly their business to see that the Holy See’s authority was
respected.
The second charge was formulated by the Protospathar John : ‘ It is
a custom with us, as it is also with you, I believe, that after a Patriarch’s
death, the Emperor summons all the bishops, priests, abbots and deacons,
saying: Go and choose the successor God will suggest to you and bring
me your decision. They thereupon withdraw to deliberate. They then
announce to the Emperor the candidate they have elected and the
Emperor gives his consent to the consecration. That is how they receive
him.’ In other words, John raised the issue o f Ignatius’ elevation and
argued from the fact that he had not been elected by a synod, but simply
nominated by the Empress Theodora. T o this Ignatius replied: ‘ My
lord and father Tarasius himself was raised [to the throne] by a woman.’
The Emperor here interjected: ‘ You should not say that he was raised
by a woman, but that the lord Methodius and the lord Tarasius were
appointed under a woman’s rule’, the Emperor hereby confirming the
fact that the Patriarchs Methodius and Tarasius had been canonically
elected.
All this is omitted by the monk Theognostos, who instead inserts
the passage already quoted and dilates * on the renewed efforts by
imperial officials to induce Ignatius to abdicate again; there is nothing
to justify the repudiation o f this passage, since the mere omission o f the
incident from the Acts is not enough to invalidate it. A formal declara
tion by Ignatius would have simplified matters considerably, making
the re-trial claimed by Nicholas no longer necessary, and gracefully
extricating the Emperor and the Patriarch from an entanglement that
was both unpleasant and liable to impede the future development o f
the Byzantine Church. However that may be, Ignatius’ attitude made
it clear that he had gone back on his abdication and had therefore come
under the control o f the Extremists.
1 See p. 29. 2 P. 80.
DPS 81 6
The second session o f the Council received from Theognostos but

scant notice, the abbot being content to recall Ignatius’ refusal to
appear before the Council, to which he had again been summoned by
Laurentius and the two Stephens, members o f the Board. The ex-
Patriarch is alleged to have declared that he could not acknowledge as
judges men in collusion with the intruder Photius, who ate with him
and accepted his rich presents: ‘ I do not accept that sort o f judge.
I appeal to the Pope: to his judgement I will willingly submit.’
The minutes o f this second session, brief as they are, contain several
important particulars. Ignatius’ contumacy, for one thing, is confirmed.
After taking cognizance o f the fact at the opening o f the meeting, the
legates reassert their intention to revise Ignatius’ trial as representatives
o f the Pope and on the strength o f the decisions o f Sardica, which give
the bishop o f Rome the right to re-try any bishop. To this the bishop
o f Laodicea replied in the name o f the Byzantine Church: 4Our own
Church only rejoices at this; she neither opposes nor deplores it.’ He
then expressed regret that Ignatius should have scorned the legates’ two
invitations. Apocrisiaries proposed to send him a third summons, after
which, should he persist in his contumacy, proceedings would be taken
against him in accordance with canonical law. Amphilochus, bishop o f
Cyzicus, suggested that the third summons should be served that very
day, as had been done in the case o f Dioscorus at the Council o f Chal
cedon; but the legates expressed the wish to follow Roman, and not
Byzantine procedure. The summons was worded deferentially, but
firmly: it contained a protest against Ignatius’ request to see the legates
taking the preliminary oath: Ignatius forgets, they said, that he is
dealing with the representatives o f the Roman See. It appears that
certain bishops registered surprise at the courtesy shown by the legates
to the ex-Patriarch, whose pretensions must have been offensive to them ;
but the papal legates replied that they had indeed no intention o f trying
Ignatius for any offences that were merely personal, but for the trans
gressions he had committed against the Church. Their gentleness was
not relished by the Fathers, since the bishop of Laodicea declared:4Our
Church has different customs from yours; but our saintly Emperor
submits to your will.’ The apocrisiaries then cut short further criticism
by this emphatic declaration: 4We have no wish to*follow our own
customs in this trial, but the canonical authority and the constitution o f
the Roman Church.’ It would be superfluous to stress further the
importance o f this session as a witness to Byzantine feelings at that time
on the supremacy o f the See o f Rome. One can only regret that it has
82
been ignored to this day, shifted into the background by Theo-

gnostos’ doubtful account.
The third session, which was held after Easter, again saw the Emperor
in the chair, assisted by Bardas. After the first formalities o f the protocol
and notice having been given o f Ignatius’ refusal to appear, the ex-
Patriarch was introduced to the assembly, having come under police
escort by order o f the Emperor. Ignatius persisted in repudiating the
legates’ competence and opened the debate by a startling declaration:
‘ Ego non appellavi Romam, nec appello. Quid vultis judicare?’ He
then asked whether the legates had brought a pontifical letter addressed
to him, and the legates answered No. There followed an interesting and
lively skirmish. To a question by Ignatius asking who were the judges,
the legates replied: ‘ It is we and the Holy Synod who are the judges’,
and on his retorting: ‘ I f you had brought me a letter, I would have
acknowledged y o u ’, the Emperor intervened urging him to accept and
acknowledge the judges accredited by his Imperial Majesty and by the
whole Church. The Protospathar John then reminded Ignatius that his
refusal was at variance with his own attitude towards Benedict III, to
whom he had sent the monk Lazarus with a request to ratify the sentence
passed on Asbestas. But in vain did the legates, the Emperor and Bardas
insist: all their protestations that they willingly acknowledged the
legates as legitimate judges only drew from him ironical retorts on their
ability to bring about a change in his position.
The final sentence was passed at the fourth session. The case o f
Asbestas and his group came up first for settlement, and when Zachary,
the principal witness, had reviewed the facts again, the legates annulled
the judgement given by Ignatius. Next came the question o f the legi
timacy o f Ignatius’ elevation to patriarchal honours, and evidence was
called to prove that he had not been canonically elected. The legates,
on the strength o f St Sylvester’s prescription, insisted on the sworn
evidence o f seventy-two witnesses; and though the oriental Church was
usually content with ten even in the case o f a bishop’s trial,1 the synod
deferred to their wishes. But another difficulty arose. Most o f the
competent witnesses were either patricians or senators, and contrary to
usage in Byzantine law, the legates wished them to take the oath. Thus
the special consent was required o f Bardas, who in the Emperor’s name
authorized the high officials mentioned to take the oath; this Ignatius
himself was called upon to administer. The legates then ratified the
1 Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. I, p. 426, n. 38, on the different practices in
the two Churches.
83 6-2
THE P H O T I A N SCHISM. I. THE H I S T O R Y
sentence o f deposition and the sub-deacon Procopius divested the

ex-Patriarch o f the insignia o f his dignity.
Theognostos inserts between the two last sessions a passage o f which
no trace can be found in the Acts. According to his version, Ignatius,
harking back to the past, claimed that the text be read o f the decision
by Innocent, ordering that John Chrysostom, before being judged,
should be restored to his See; as also the fourth canon o f the Council
o f Sardica, forbidding the appointment o f a successor to a bishop on
whom sentence had been passed, but not yet ratified by Rome. Ignatius
is also alleged to have protested against the procedure o f his summons
before the Council and against the selection o f witnesses:
W ho are those people? W ho can believe them? W hat canon lays it down
that the Em peror should produce witnesses? And if I am not archbishop,
you yourself are not the Emperor, these are not bishops, and no more is the
adulterer [Photius], for you have all been created such b y m y hands and m y
unworthy prayers. Had the adulterer belonged to the Church, I would
w illingly have come to an understanding with him, but since he is an out
sider, how could I make him a pastor o f Christ’s sheep ? And there are many
things against it: first, the fact that he is numbered among the damned and
the excommunicated, a penalty imposed on them [Asbestas’ friends] not only
by me, but also b y the other Patriarchs, nay, even b y your own authority.
F or the unworthy Zachary notified to them that they had no power to exercise
any liturgical functions, to communicate or to ordain, until they were released
from the ban: but they did exactly the reverse. The second reason is that he
was a State official and a layman, being made a pastor before he was a sheep.
On top o f all this, he was ordained b y one who had been deposed and
excommunicated.
Theognostos then makes Ignatius repeat how Photius had broken

the promise he made to the bishops to respect him, and snatched the
signed document from their hands, adding that Ignatius was again
urged to resign and that the Metropolitan o f Ancyra, who took the
ex-Patriarch’s defence too energetically, was struck with a sword ‘ by
the barbarian’ .1 Other friends o f Ignatius were similarly ill-treated, so
1 Raderus (Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 299) translates the word βάρβαρος by ‘ nefario
ipso parricida’, meaning Photius. The translation is worse than inaccurate. But
Theognostos also runs riot in his statements; for instance, when in another place
he described the ill-treatment received by the Metropolitan of Cyzicus at the
meeting. The man who mishandled him must have been an official or a member of
the constabulary. Photius, of course, carried no sword and was only present at
the last session, if at all; yet it is none other than Photius whom Theognostos tries
to incriminate as the author of the ill-treatment he reports.
84
it is alleged, and after ten days Ignatius was at last tried and
condemned.
Is it really true that all this occurred at the last session but one? It is
hard to say. We are inclined to believe that Theognostos rather drama
tizes his own ideas about the trial, his own arguments and those o f his
friends on the Council’s methods o f procedure. But he forgets that his
first two arguments, had they ever been actually used, would have
received short shrift at the hands o f the Fathers; for Ignatius had not
observed the fourth canon o f the Sardica Council when he appointed
a successor to Gregory before his case had come up for trial in Rome.
As to Pope Innocent’s decision, the Fathers could have answered that
the cases o f Ignatius and o f John Chrysostom were not on all fours :
Ignatius had actually resigned and was not deposed until ecclesiastics
in revolt against his successor had recalled him to the patriarchal
throne again ; also because, being requested to put a stop to this
agitation, he declined to do so, thereby tacitly agreeing to his second
nomination.
The canonist who drew up the extract from the Acts o f the synod
would probably have been far too interested in that controversy not to
record it in his text, had it ever taken place.1 It looks therefore— to
repeat it once more— as though Theognostos had been summarizing
various incidents bearing on Ignatius’ case, but not strictly relevant to
the debates o f the Council.
Such seems to be the most probable reconstruction o f the principal
phases o f the Council o f 861 ; but it must be remembered that what was
said in the course o f the second period o f the debates on dogmatic and
disciplinary problems still remains a secret.
One point o f exceptional interest remains to be cleared up: did Ignatius,

after deposition by legates and Council, appeal to the Pope? Theo
gnostos affirms it, since it is in Ignatius’ own name that he addresses his
Libellus to the Pope; but we have seen how, in order to make us believe
that his hero had appealed to Rome immediately after the synods o f
859, he confused his own arguments; furthermore, the Acts o f the synod
emphatically contradict his statements, since the ex-Patriarch exclaimed
at the third session: ‘ Ego non appellavi Romam, nec appello.’ I f then
Theognostos intended to deceive us with that first appeal, who is going
to believe his allegations on a ‘ second’ appeal?
1 See pp. 303 seq.?324 seq. on the character and the purpose of the Collection that
has preserved this valuable document.
85
THE P H O. T IA N SCHI SM. I. THE H I S T O R Y
First, it should be made clear that Ignatius does not seem to have been
an expert at canon law. His fa u x pas at the beginning o f his tenure in
sending a pallium to the Pope already proves it; and his overt opposition
in Asbestas5 case to the fourth canon o f the Council o f Sardica confirms
it. We also note that he did not seem to take the appeal addressed to
Rome by Asbestas very seriously; that at the Council o f 861 he per
sistently refused to acknowledge the legates5 competence and addressed
them in terms bordering on arrogance; that he did not appear before
the Fathers till well after the third summons served on him by the
representatives o f Rome, and then, apparently, only because he was
compelled by the imperial police. And yet, there was no justification
for his refusal, even when he learned that the legates had received no
powers from the Pope to pass a final sentence, since both the inquiry
and the examination in the presence o f the Emperor and o f the Fathers
had been ordered by the Pope. This persistent disregard o f canonical
rules by the pious ascetic, and especially his attitude towards the legates,
do not seem to lend support to the theory o f an appeal to the Holy See.
Is it not then surprising that after refusing to appear before the
Council and to answer the legates5 cross-examination, Ignatius seems
tamely to have submitted to their verdict? Yet the extract from the
minutes o f the last session indicates that the witnesses took the oath
administered by him and that he offered no resistance when the sen
tence o f degradation1 was being carried out. Nor do we find the slightest
hint to justify the supposition that Ignatius appealed to the Pope from
the legates5 sentence. All this is, we must confess, not thoroughly
convincing, since we cannot refer to the Acts in full, but only to an
extract.
Fortunately, we can quote witnesses to belie Theognostos5 state
ments. First, Metrophanes, speaking o f the monk’s mediation with the
Pope in the Eternal City, credits him alone with the initiative: ‘ Then
the monk and archimandrite, Theognostos, driven by his zeal, disguised
himself as a layman and secretly left for Rome to inform the Holy
Father o f what had taken place in connection with Ignatius.52 Nicetas,123
Ignatius5 keenest champion, says nothing about Theognostos5 attempt
but attributes to Nicholas alone the responsibility for the legates5
condemnation.
1 Cf. the description of this scene in Nicetas Paphlago, P.G . vol. 105, col. 520.
2 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 429. Once more Raderus blunders in his translation: Ζήλω
κινηθείς = Tei indignitate commotus’. It shows that his zeal often clouded his
Greek. 3 Loc. cit. col. 525.
86
Now let us see how Ignatius reacted after his condemnation. According
to Nicetas,1 he was placed under very strict surveillance, but the account
o f the sufferings he is alleged to have endured at the hands o f his gaolers
is undoubtedly exaggerated. The same writer then states that the ex-
Patriarch signed a declaration acknowledging that he had not been
canonically elected and that he had set up ‘ a tyrannical regime’, two
confessions corresponding to the main charges against him at the
Council o f 861, i.e. his nomination by Theodora and his condemnation
o f the Asbestas group. According to Nicetas’ report, Ignatius was
handed a blank sheet o f paper and Theodore, one o f the gaolers, took
hold o f the old man’s hand and scrawled the sign o f the cross, Photius
subsequently writing out the declaration. But what truth is there in
this tale? Is Nicetas merely trying to disguise the fact, so unpalatable
to extremist Ignatians, o f the ex-Patriarch’s final submission to the
Council’s decision, in consideration of which Ignatius was allowed to
live at the Posis palace, once his mother’s property? Later, Nicetas
tells us that Photius suggested to the Emperor to have Ignatius sum
moned to the church o f the Apostles, there to listen to the public reading
o f his own declaration and to be anathematized. It was even proposed
to blind him and to cut off one o f his hands; his residence, so it is stated,
was surrounded on Whit Sunday by a cordon o f police, and Ignatius,
seeing his life threatened, fled disguised as a servant and accompanied
by his disciple Cyprian. This is just another story to be taken with
caution, for the ‘ hagiographer’ is certainly not saying everything.
Considering the Ignatian radicals’ obstinacy in refusing to accept the
ex-Patriarch’s spontaneous submission and in accusing Photius o f
forgery, would it not rather have occurred to the authorities to make
Ignatius repeat his declaration before the Fathers o f the Council?
Fearing lest it should foil all their plans, the anti-Photianists perhaps
advised Ignatius to fly and escape from the threat o f losing his eyes.
The fugitive hid in the Isles o f Propontis until the August earthquake
shook his shelter,12 a shock that mollified the authorities towards Igna
tius: alarmed by the divine punishment which their cruel persecution
had called down on their heads, they decreed— according to Nicetas—
that Ignatius could now return to Constantinople in peace, without any
1 Loc. cit. cols. 521-5.

2 It was at that time that Ignatius consecrated an altar on one ol the islands
(Nicetas, P.G . vol. 105, cols. 529 seq.). According to Nicetas, the altar was decon
secrated by Photius’ envoy to signify that Ignatius had lost all jurisdiction by
deposition and had acted ultra vires.
87
further fear o f retaliation. The ex-Patriarch then left his hiding place
and presented himself to the patrician Petronas, who took him to Bardas.
‘ Deeply affected by the man’s virtue/ says Nicetas, ‘ Bardas let him
return to his monastery, a free and innocent man.’ 1
Does Ignatius’ panegyrist not bear out the fact that Bardas and the
government were convinced in the end o f Ignatius’ innocence in his
over-zealous partisans’ recent intrigues? Would they not have acted
differently, if the ex-Patriarch had legally appealed to Rome? Would
his withdrawal to a monastery not have spelled danger? And would
Bardas have been so lenient, if Ignatius had persisted in his opposition?
All these questions, in my view, can only be answered in the negative,
all the probabilities converging on the one conclusion, that Ignatius
finally submitted to his fate and did not appeal to Rome.12
There only remains to explain, and form an estimate on, the legates’
conduct in the proceedings o f the Council. It seems absolutely certain
that by passing sentence on Ignatius in the Pope’s name they exceeded
the limits o f their powers, since the Pope, as we have seen, had in so
many words reserved the right to himself. On the other hand, the
criticism often raised that they overstepped their mandate by summoning
Ignatius before the Council is unjustifiable, since the inquiry by the
Fathers had been ordered by Nicholas I. The Emperor Michael, in his
reply to the Pope, also corroborates the fact that the legates were quite
conscious o f exceeding the limits set to their activities by Nicholas, as
it was with the greatest reluctance that they were induced to go beyond
their warrant.3
Photius’ enemies have pretended that violence and corruption account
for the result; but why should the Byzantine government have resorted
1 Nicetas, P.G . vol. 105, col. 525. At one place in his ‘ biography’ of Ignatius
Nicetas reveals the true culprit in all the persecutions against Ignatius, namely, Bardas,
not Photius. In relating a dream Bardas had before dying, he represents St Peter
inviting Ignatius to point out the man responsible for all his misfortunes and the
ex-Patriarch singled out Bardas (ibid. col. 536). Here Nicetas unwittingly tells the
truth and by the same token shows that all the unpleasant measures taken against
Ignatius had politics as their inspiration.
2 This is confirmed by Nicetas’ report that Bardas examined, and found no truth
in, the statement made by the impostor Eustratius to the effect that he had received
from Ignatius a letter addressed by him to the Pope who had refused to receive it,
whilst sending a friendly letter to Photius. Nicetas (P .G . vol. 105, cols. 528 seq.)
pretended that the two letters had been forged by Photius; yet he admitted that
Bardas looked into the allegation and found no truth in it.
3 M .G .H . Ep. V i, p. 514 (letter from Nicholas to Michael, 13 November 866).
88
to force, when it was its obvious wish to bring the legates round to its
own designs by persuasion? As to the reproach o f corruption, one
needs to be cautious : Radoald and Zachary were very capable bishops,
whom the Pope used to honour with particularly delicate missions; and
to think that the Pontiff numbered among his trusted agents men
accessible to venality would be casting an unwarranted slur on the
Roman clergy and on the pontifical court o f that period. Even when
he came to disapprove his legates5 conduct, Nicholas never went so far
as to accuse them o f being open to arguments so alien to morality.
Motives for their attitude should be looked for elsewhere.
The legates were intelligent enough to realize that conditions in
Byzantium were somewhat different from what was thought in Rom e;
that the anti-Photianist opposition was not so formidable and that its
members were not as harmless and innocent as they claimed to be. They
could not but be aware o f the immense significance o f a Patriarch o f
Constantinople being condemned and deposed by the representatives
o f the Holy See. Whatever we may think o f their statesmanship, one
thing is certain : Radoald and Zachary were excellent canonists,1 and
knew enough about the religious policy o f Nicholas I to anticipate that
the negotiations, o f which they were the instruments, would meet their
master’s deepest desire, and that the Pope, who had succeeded in
imposing his authority on the Western bishops and had stifled the dreams
o f independence o f the Frankish Church, the most powerful Church in
the West, would appraise their initiative at its true value. They also
knew that the Pope never liked to leave important decisions to his
representatives, and that in the particular instance o f Ignatius he had
jealously reserved the verdict to himself. This was why they withstood
so long the request o f the Emperor, who consented to the resumption
o f the Council meetings only on condition that the issue should be
definitely settled on the spot. Their reluctance displeased him; and they
knew it; and they were made to understand that if they refused to yield
he would drop all idea o f a Council, in which case Nicholas would have
lost his chance o f having a say in Ignatius’ case. Faced with this alter
native, which seemed to them fundamental, they decided to go ahead,
expert canonists as they were, and to exchange the humble part o f
inquirers for the role o f judges. Thanks to them, the Church o f Con
stantinople fully and freely, one may say for the first time, acknow
ledged the Roman Pontiff’s right to try a Byzantine Patriarch. Tw o
1 Cf. E. Pereis, Papst Nikolaus I und Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Berlin, 1920),
pp. 209 seq.
89
THE PH ΟΤΙ AN SCHISM. I. THE H I S T O R Y
other instances o f this exercise o f supremacy can be found back in the

sixth century,1 although the circumstances were entirely different: Pope
Agapet’s intervention against the Patriarch Anthimius (535) was
prompted not by disciplinary, but by dogmatic motives, the defendant
having lent his support to the Emperor Zeno’s Henotikon; while the
liquidation by Pope Hormisdas o f Acacius’ schism (519) centred mainly
on a doctrinal issue. In the case o f Ignatius and the Council o f 861, the
issue was purely disciplinary, in no way touching on doctrine, and the
Byzantine Church, by allowing Ignatius to be tried by the Pope’s
representatives, granted to the See o f Rome more than a mere right o f
appeal, since, as we have seen, the ex-Patriarch had lodged no appeal
with the Holy See.
Such an achievement was worth a few concessions, and Radoald and
Zachary made them in the hope that the Pope would be only too thankful
for it. Obviously, Nicholas’ letter to the Emperor could not be read
at the Council meeting in its original form and it was modified, the
passage relating to the reservation o f the final verdict being suppressed.
A similar incident had occurred at the Seventh Council: having been
sent to Constantinople by Hadrian I merely to inquire into the necessity
for, and the convocation procedure of, an oecumenical council (the
decision o f summoning or not summoning it having been reserved to
the Pope),2 the legates eventually decided to take part, as papal repre
sentatives, in the Council summoned by Irene, and as the Pope’s letters
could not be read as they stood to the Fathers, their terms were altered
to suit the occasion, without any results unpleasant to the legates. In
the light o f this precedent, coupled with the fact that Radoald and
Zachary brought to the Pope the submission o f the Byzantine Church
to his judgement, the legates’ ‘ perversion’ should be much less o f an
unpardonable sin.3
1 Cf. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums (Tübingen, 1933), vol. π, pp. 153 seq.,
221 seq. J. Haller, Das Papsttum (Stuttgart, 1934), vol. i, pp. 232 seq., 245 seq.
2 See the letter from Hadrian I to Constantine and Irene, in Baronius, Annales
Ecclesiastici, a. 785, para. 37. Jaffé-Ewald, nos. 2448, 2449. Cf. J. Haller, Das
Papsttum, pp. 5 seq.
3 Cf. J. Haller, Nikolaus I und Pseudo-Isidor (Stuttgart, 1936), pp. 27 seq.
90
C HA P T E R IV
NICHOLAS, PH O TIUS AND BORIS
Radoald and Zachary return to Rome— Nicholas’ policy and letters to the Emperor
and the Patriarch-—Theognostos and the Roman Synod of 863— Byzantine reaction
in Bulgaria and its development in Rome— Nicholas’ fatal reply— Was the breach
permanent?— Reaction in Byzantium— Boris’ volte-face; his influence on the
growth of the conflict— The Byzantine Synod of 867— Did Photius challenge the
Roman primacy?
O n reaching Rome, the legates explained to the Pope the reasons why
they had taken it upon themselves to exceed their mandate, and the
Pope could not but see the important advantage the H oly See had
secured over the most powerful patriarchate in the East. Everything
points to the fact that, at least on principle, he approved all that the
legates had done in Constantinople. This is proved by the w ay he dealt
with them; for Radoald o f Porto was actually entrusted towards the
end o f November 862 with an important mission to the Frankish court.1
The Pope would certainly not have sent Radoald on this new embassy,
had he not been pleased with his last mission to Constantinople. As for
Zachary, he quietly and honourably resumed his duties at the pontifical
court.
In one particular matter, however, the mission o f Radoald and
Zachary had failed completely. The Pope had commissioned them to
claim the return o f the patrimonies o f Sicily and Calabria and o f
Illyricum to the direct jurisdiction o f the Roman See. In this the legates
were unable to give the Pope any satisfaction, nor did the proposals
seem to have come up for discussion at the Council. None the less, the
fact that the Byzantine Church and the Emperor had accepted the papal
legates’ verdict suggested that the prestige o f the See o f Rome was very
considerable in Byzantium. Was there then no hope that the Byzantines
would ever yield on this particular point? But the Pope still possessed,
should the need ever arise, a powerful weapon at his disposal. I f it was
true that the Patriarch Ignatius had been tried and condemned by the
legates in the Pope’s name, it was no less true that the new Patriarch
had not yet been officially acknowledged by the See o f Rome as the
legitimate successor.
1 M .G .H . Ep. Vi, pp. 268-70. The letter is dated 23 November 862.
?!
The letter sent to the Pope by Photius after the Council seemed to
raise and encourage such hopes, for it was couched in very deferential
terms, as though Photius had been aware that the Pope had not yet
fully entered into communion with him. Hence the efforts in his letter
to meet all the objections which the Pope had previously raised against
the legitimacy o f his elevation. After repeating what he had said in his
previous letter, he insisted that he had been forced to accept a dignity
which in no w ay appealed to him; he also tried to justify his rapid
promotion from the laity to the patriarchate, since the Church o f Con
stantinople, he said, had not accepted the canon o f Sardica quoted by
the Pope in his letter to Michael III,1 prohibiting such rapid rise o f
laymen to ecclesiastical dignities.12 But to meet the Pope’s wishes,
Photius had a canon voted by the Fathers o f the last synod putting an
end in the Church o f Constantinople to a practice at variance with
Roman usage; he went on to quote several instances to the Pope o f
the canonical prescriptions being disregarded and ended by requesting
him not to listen to calumnies from people reaching Rome from Con
stantinople without any letters o f recommendation from the eccle
siastical authorities.3
The contents o f this letter seemed to the Pope to be encouraging, for
1 M .G .H . Ep. V i, pp. 435 s e q .

2 Hergenröther, Photius, vol. I, pp. 445, 541 holds that this assertion by Photius
is ‘ eine offenbare Lüge’. Rosseikin, Pervoe Patriarshestvo Patriarkha Fotiya,
pp. 156 seq. tries to reconcile the Pope’s and the Patriarch’s contradictory state
ments. But the matter seems quite simple. Photius was justified in saying that the
Church of Constantinople had not accepted the Pope’s decretals quoted in Nicholas’
letter to Michael ; and as to the canons of Sardica, Photius never pretended that his
Church did not know them. All he implied was the tenth canon, quoted by the
Pope, which, although contained in the canonical Collections with the other canons
of Sardica (cf. V. Beneshevich, ‘ Joannis Scholastici Synagoga L titulorum’, in Ahh.
bayr. Akad., Phil.-Hist. K l., 1937, p. 48), had not been carried into practice by
the Church of Constantinople, as evidenced by the appointments of Tarasius and
Nicephorus. It was to remedy this defect that Photius had had a special canon
voted. Cf. on this point ]. Langen, Geschichte der Römischen Kirche (Bonn, 1893),
vol. in, p. 19: ‘ Es ist nicht auffallend, das Nikolaus dem Konzil von Sardica eine
solche Bedeutung einräumt, da man im Abendlande seine Kanones mit denen des
nicänischen bald verbunden hatte, und es oft genug für oekumenisch erklärte.
Thatsächlich aber war es nur ein abendländisches Generalkonzil gewesen, und seine
Kanones im Orient nicht recipiert. Die Decretalen der Päpste waren aber im Orient
nur zum Theil bekannt, und galten nur insoweit, als ihr Inhalt sich an den
anerkannten Glaubensquellen, Schrift, Tradition und oekumenische Koncilien
bewährte. Die römische und orientalische Anschauung trafen hier gleich hart auf
einander.’
3 P .G . vol. 102, cols. 593-617. See the analysis of this letter in Hergenröther,
Photius, vol. I, p p . 439-60 and in Rosseikin, loc. cit. p p . 15 1- 7 1.
92
N I C HO L A S , P HO T I U S AND BORI S
he saw clearly that the new Patriarch was very keen on recognition by
the See o f Rome as the legitimate incumbent. This was important,
making it worth his while to look about for a counterpoise equivalent
in the scales o f pontifical politics to the Patriarch’s desire, and there was
no better test than the return o f Illyricum to the direct jurisdiction o f
the Holy See. There was in Photius’ letter a passage which seemed to
justify the attempt.1 There the Patriarch stated that he would have been
only too willing to meet the Pope’s demands, had the Emperor not
vetoed some o f the concessions, so that the Patriarch and the legates
had to give way for fear o f worse risks. In these words Photius
evidently hinted at the Pope’s demand that Illyricum should become
Roman again, and the Pope naturally concluded that the Patriarch had
on principle no objection to the request.
The Pope immediately proceeded to action. Leo, the imperial am

bassador, had reached Rome after the legates; he was armed with
a letter from the Emperor and with the Acts o f the Council and
was charged to supply the Pope with full information. But as pour
parlers with the imperial ambassador dragged on, it gradually dawned
on the Pope that an important concession such as he was scheming
could hardly be extracted from the Emperor; all that the Pope’s
tenacity achieved was to make Leo miss the last boat to Constantin
ople and to force him to spend the winter in Rome, but without
making the slightest impression on his firm determination to obey his
master’s instructions. No arrangement that could please Nicholas was
in sight.
Anyone familiar with Nicholas’ ecclesiastical policy will understand
why the Pope was so anxious to reach a satisfactory solution o f his
problem. The stake was first o f all a young and vigorous nation which
occupied a part o f ancient Illyricum— the Bulgarians.12 They were still
pagans, but their conversion to Christianity was only a matter o f time.
Had Nicholas’ plans succeeded, the papacy would have registered a
twofold success: first it would have secured, through the medium o f
the Bulgarians, won over to Roman Christianity and occupying, so to
speak, the very threshold o f Constantinople, an indirect influence over
the Byzantine Church; and second, the Roman missionaries would then
have been in a favourable position to elbow out o f those countries the
1 P.G . vol. 102, col. 613.

2 For further details, see my study on Illyricum in my book, Les Légendes de
Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 248-83.
93
Frankish missionaries, whose activities extended to the whole periphery

o f the Frankish Empire as far as Croatia and Bulgaria to the south and
Pannonia, Moravia and Bohemia to the east and north-east. For it was
not in the interest o f the papacy, as conceived by Nicholas, that the
Frankish Church should grow too powerful and extend its direct
influence over these new nations. Such was the reason, as I have
explained in a previous work, w hy Nicholas was so keenly interested
in the young nations that sprang up round the Frankish Empire, and this
policy, which inspired the acts o f the pontificate o f this great Pope,
will help us to understand better Nicholas5 dealings with Photius and
his rival Ignatius.
The firmness with which the imperial ambassador Leo met the Pope’s
overtures in this matter should, however, have made Nicholas realize
that he was treading on dangerous ground. It was not only the Franks
and the papacy, but the Byzantines as well who had their hearts set on
Bulgaria, with this difference, that whereas the Bulgarian problem was
for the Franks and for Rome only a matter of prestige, it was for the
Byzantines a matter o f life and death, for Byzantium could not possibly
permit another power, whether political or cultural, to settle at its very
doors.
His failure with Leo did not damp Nicholas’ hopes, and he tried his
counterpoise theory in the expectation that the desire o f Photius to
obtain the Pope’s acknowledgement would be keen enough to justify
the cost. The ambassador left with two letters, dated 18 March 862,
addressed to the Emperor and to Photius, both containing the Pope’s
refusal to acquiesce in the new conditions in Byzantium, and pleading
the Roman primacy, which obliged him to ensure the observation o f
canonical laws throughout the Church. In both letters Nicholas
refutes the arguments o f the Emperor and Photius in support
o f a layman’s promotion to ecclesiastical dignities even in cases o f
urgent necessity and protests against the reading o f his letters to
the Fathers in a bowdlerized version. In his letter to Photius, the
Pope complains that his legates had not been treated with courtesy
and insists repeatedly that they had no right to pass sentence on
Ignatius.
The tone o f his letter to Michael is very courteous, as though the
Pope were trying to give the Emperor the impression that he had no
wish to sever relations with him; but Nicholas makes it clearer in his
letter to Photius that his verdict should not be considered as final. After
expressing doubts concerning the truth o f Photius’ statement that he
94
NI C HO L A S , PHOTXUS AND BORI S
had felt no inclination to accept the patriarchal dignity,1 the Pope

proceeds :
We do not number Ignatius among the deposed, and as long as we are
not in a position to ascertain, in all truth, his offence and his guilt, we refuse
to pass sentence of condemnation ; for we must beware lest an innocent man
be condemned on false pretences. As the Roman Church maintains him in
his dignity, if no accusation against him is substantiated, so also she refuses
to admit you to patriarchal honours, as you have come by them in reckless
defiance of the traditions of the Fathers ; nor will she consent to your retaining
your priestly functions unless and until the Patriarch Ignatius be justly
condemned.
Now it is easy to read between the lines o f this letter that the Pope
left open the possibility o f his confirming the sentence passed on
Ignatius by his legates, since all he maintains is that the evidence pro
duced in support o f the condemnation did not seem to him adequate.
He does not, o f course, mention the price Byzantium would have to
pay for a new revision o f this sorry business; but Leo had stayed in
Rome long enough to fathom the secrets o f Nicholas’ policy; and he
had opportunities enough, during those long winter months, o f sounding
the Pope’s canonists and officials to acquaint his imperial master and
Photius with what lay behind an apparently definite refusal. And in
order to lend his words more weight and a more menacing significance,
Nicholas at the same time announced his decision to the Patriarchs o f
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.2
But if the Pope imagined that these dignitaries would ever be able
to influence Michael and Photius and induce them to yield to the See
o f Rome, he made a great mistake. Those poor oriental Patriarchs were
far too dependent on imperial good will and bounty ever to indulge in
1 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 450. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. I, p. 441 goes too far in
casting doubts on the sincerity of the Patriarch’s statement that he had accepted
the patriarchate against his will: he calls it ‘ die alte Lüge’. And yet, it is one of the
most moving passages in the letter (P .G . vol. 102, col. 597). Scholars who have
a love for learning and know how to be absorbed in its deepest secrets, will read
with emotion what the old professor of the Byzantine ‘ University’ has to say about
his studies and his students. They alone will understand the feelings o f regret and
bitterness Photius experienced, when harking back to those peaceful years of study
which he had to give up for ever. Instead of an idyllic life, devoted to study and
teaching, he finds himself swallowed up in public life and dragged into political
party conflicts for which he professed nothing but contempt. Did Hergenröther
never experience the feelings of a scholar wrested from his studies by occupations
that have nothing to offer in common with scholarship ?
2 M .G .H . Ep. vi, pp. 440-2.
95
activities that might inconvenience their more fortunate and more

powerful confrère o f the Imperial C ity; and if the Pope entrusted those
letters to Leo’s diplomatic bag he gave evidence o f greater naivete still.
It is not likely that the successor o f St Peter’s refusal to acknowledge
Ignatius’ successor ever reached those Eastern Patriarchs’ ears.
In vain did Nicholas await a reply to his demand: Michael and Photius
remained dumb, which, to put it frankly, was the only possible thing
for them to do. Unable to pay the price the Pope expected for a new
revision o f the Photian and Ignatian cases, their most discreet policy
was to wait till the Pope changed his mind rather than start a quarrel
which would have gravely compromised the good relations between the
two Churches.
But the Pope kept on hoping that his letters would produce the
desired effect on the Byzantines, whilst the legates Radoald and Zachary
continued to enjoy his favours. Radoald received, on his mission to the
Frankish court, new instructions from the Pope as late as the month o f
April, 863: but the imperial embassy did not make its appearance.
Instead o f the ambassadors, other people came to Rome, namely, the
so-called champions o f Ignatius, the principal mischief-makers in all the
troubles that had divided the Byzantine Church. The most prominent
among them were the abbot Theognostos and his followers, all trying
to draw the Pope to their side. Though none o f them had letters o f
recommendation from the Patriarch o f Constantinople, Nicholas gladly
welcomed all these refugees, listening to their complaints and their
views on the position. Theognostos came forward as Ignatius’ spokes
man, though I have already said that the ex-Patriarch had not appealed
to the Pope and had given no one a mandate to act in his name; but
being one o f the Ignatian leaders, Theognostos considered himself
entitled to do so.
It is hard to say when Theognostos arrived in Rom e; only one thing
is certain: it was after the ambassador Leo’s departure. It would be
interesting to know whether it was in the course o f the year 862 or at
the beginning o f 863, but notwithstanding the vigilance o f the imperial
police, he certainly did his utmost to be in Rome at the earliest possible
date.
I f Theognostos arrived in Rome in 862, it is important to observe
that he failed to induce the Pope to adopt his point o f view, for it must
in that case have taken him a full year to decide on the resolute step in
96
N I C HO L A S , P HOT I US A ND BORI S
favour o f Ignatius, which he actually took, as we know, at the Roman

synod o f 863.
The exact date o f this meeting is not given in the Pope’s letter about
the synod.1 As it is said there that after first meeting in the church o f
St Peter the assembly transferred its sittings to the church o f the
Saviour, ‘ propter frigidiorem locum ’, it has been assumed that the
synod took place in the spring o f that year, Baronius and Hergenröther
dating it in the month o f April. Yet the text seems rather to indicate
that the venue o f the meeting was altered on account, not o f the cold,
but o f the heat. Hence ]. Haller* is right in dating the convocation o f
the synod in the month o f August, a time o f the year when the heat in
Rome is wellnigh intolerable.
The timing is important, for it proves that Nicholas waited till the last
possible moment for the arrival o f an embassy from Constantinople
armed with full powers to negotiate the Photius affair and the restitu
tion o f Illyricum to the Roman See. Balked in his expectations, he then
made up his mind to intensify the pressure, and the month o f August
was the most appropriate for the move. Assuming that sea communica
tions between Italy and Byzantium would be practically suspended by
the end o f October, there was no likelihood o f an imperial embassy
arriving at such a late date in Rom e: the envoys would have had little
time for their negotiations and a winter stay in Rome was not particularly
attractive. No embassy would be sent from Byzantium at that time o f
the year to find itself marooned in Rome till the reopening o f sea traffic,
i.e. till the month o f March o f the following year. On the other hand,
if the Pope wished to dispatch the decision o f the synod to Constanti
nople, he had little time to waste to enable his messengers to set out
before the bad season started.
O f what took place at this synod we are well informed by the letter
Nicholas sent on 13 November 866 to the the Eastern Patriarchs.3 First
were read the Acts o f the Byzantine Council o f 861 together with the
letters o f Michael and Photius. Then the legates’ procedure in Con
stantinople was examined. Zachary, questioned by the synod, confessed
that he had exceeded his powers by holding communion with Photius
1 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 517: 4Tunc convocato multarum provinciarum Occiden
talium regionum sanctissimorum episcoporum coetu et collecta sancta synodo in
ecclesia Dei, in qua beatus Petrus apostolorum princeps redolet et virtutibus emicat,
deinde propter frigidiorem locum in ecclesia Salvatoris, quae ab auctore appellatur
Constantiniana’ (Church of the Lateran).
2 Loc. cit. pp. 32 seq.
3 M .G .H . Ep. V i, chiefly pp. 517-23.
DPS 97 7
and deposing Ignatius ; and for his pains was deprived o f his episcopal
dignity and excommunicated. The synod then voted six canons. The
first declared that Photius, having been ordained by a bishop who was
ctied5 by the Holy See on account o f his misdeeds against Ignatius, was
stripped o f all ecclesiastical dignity. He was also blamed for trying to
bribe the papal legates. The second canon declared Gregory Asbestas
to be deposed and excommunicated; and the clergy ordained by Photius
were disqualified from all ecclesiastical functions (canon III). Canon IV
restored in very solemn terms the patriarchal dignity to Ignatius.
Bishops and clergy who had been victimized for their loyalty to Ignatius
were to be immediately reinstated in their honours and functions
(canon V ). The last canon ratified the condemnation o f John the Gram
marian, the last leader o f iconoclasm and its sectaries.
I f we now compare these new decisions issued by Nicholas with the
contents o f his letters to Michael, Photius and the Eastern Patriarchs in
862, we note, indeed, an immense ‘ progress5 in the Pope’s mental
attitude towards Photius ; and it is also easy to guess who was responsible
for this ‘ progress’ : none, o f course, but Theognostos and his friends:
and the Pope himself confessed as much, when he mentioned in the
same letters the rumours brought to Rome by people coming from
Constantinople.1
Let us specify the points in which Theognostos influenced the Pope.
First in importance was Gregory Asbestas’ association with the Photian
affair. Until then Nicholas had known little about him, or at any rate
attached little importance to his case, since he mentions him nowhere.
The legates’ decision annulling the condemnation o f Gregory and his
group had not been, up to that date, particularly questioned by the
Pope, the only objection he raised being against the sentence on Ignatius
and Photius. Yet, at the Roman synod, Asbestas’ case held the floor,
no doubt as a result o f the intervention o f Theognostos and his friends.
A careful scrutiny o f the Acts o f the Roman synod discloses first o f
all the fact that the relations between Photius and the Asbestas group
supplied the main grievances against Photius, who was blamed, for
instance, for having communicated with ‘ schismatics ’, i.e. with Asbestas’
friends, even before his ordination, a detail o f which the Pope had been
completely unaware before Theognostos’ arrival in Rome. Photius was
1 Loc. cit. p. 517: ‘ Sed procedente tempore murmur multorum ab illis partibus
Romam venientium, quin immo persecutiones a fautoribus Photii commotas
fugientium, sensim eosdem coepit episcopos muneribus fuisse corruptos diffamare
et, quod communicassent Photio et deposuissent Ignatium, divulgare.’
98
also indicted for having been ordained by a deposed bishop and for
having sentenced Ignatius with the assistance o f deposed and anathema
tized bishops— again Asbestas’ group— and o f bishops ‘ without a see5,
this last designation implying, no doubt, that the Pope— again at the
instigation o f Theognostos— did not acknowledge the promotions
among the clergy made by Photius. Until the synod, the Pope had ap
parently no knowledge o f any promise made by Photius to some Ignatiafi
bishops or o f his dealings with the outgoing Patriarch; yet, in the first
canon o f the Roman synod, the violation o f this promise was listed among
the main crimes laid at the ‘ intruder’s ’ door. The Pope also gave credence
to Theognostos’ account o f the ‘ persecutions’ against the Ignatians.
The fact that for the very first time he blamed his legates for having
communicated with Photius1 could only be due to reports carried by
the Ignatian refugees to Rome, informing the Pope o f particulars he
did not know before, or rather, to which he had attached no importance.
For the first time, too, the Pope honoured Photius with the ‘ uncom
plimentary designations’ so dear to the Ignatians: the new Patriarch is
now called a ‘ rapax et scelestus adulter’, ‘ adulter et pervasor’ (canon I
o f the synod), ‘ neophytus et Constantinopolitanae sedis invasor’
(canon III), and ‘ adulter, prevaricator, pervasor’ (canon IV ), titles one
can find on nearly every page o f Ignatius’ L ife , as written by Nicetas-
David, and o f the anti-Photianist Collection, o f which mention will
be made later.
W hy, then, did Nicholas lend so much credit to the reports o f
Theognostos and his like? For we must remember that the Pope could
easily control their statements by consulting either the Acts o f the synod
o f 861, or the archives o f his predecessors Leo IV and Benedict III
(both Popes rather unfavourable to Ignatius), containing the documents
o f the Asbestas case and o f his trial under Ignatius, or the letters o f the
Emperor and Photius; yet the Pope so disregarded these documents
that he even indirectly accused the Emperor o f telling lies. The Emperor
had stated in his correspondence that Ignatius had resigned, and the
R.oman synod emphatically states in its fourth canon: ‘ Qui primo
quidem imperiali violentia ac terrore trono privatus est.’ Nicholas even
preferred to disown his own legates who until then had been his trusted
agents. How is such extraordinary conduct to be explained?
We must remember what has been previously said about Nicholas’
1 Loc. cit. p. 515: ‘ Denique et cum Photio adultero, ecclesiae invasore atque
neophyto, quod sibi multipliciter prohibitum fuerat, inter sacrosancta mysteria
communicaverunt. ’
7-2
99
policy: it did not take Theognostos and his associates long in Rome to
discover the Pope’s dominant thoughts and the motives o f his quarrel
with the Emperor. Theognostos found the target to aim at and
proceeded with methodical cunning. He first gave Nicholas a complete
assurance o f the Ignatians’ profound attachment to the Roman See:
for did not their leader Ignatius appeal to the Pope’s judgement imme
diately after the synod o f 859?— a statement it was difficult for the
Romans to verify, since Photianist evidence, the only one at their dis
posal, said nothing about it. So, w hy not believe it? Again, one thing
seemed certain: Ignatius had commissioned Theognostos to appeal to
Rome after his condemnation in 861 : Theognostos said so; his Libellus
containing the appeal was written in the ex-Pa'triarch’s name and the
document was replete with expressions o f extreme deference to Rome.
How was the Pope to verify the pious monk’s statement?
There was also a sentimental side to the affair: the round o f sufferings
endured by Ignatius, after the vivid, picturesque and passionate account
by his faithful supporters, must have moved to tears a Pope o f Nicholas’
temperament, a saintly man who had ever been the champion o f the
rights, not only o f the Church, but o f all the oppressed ; who had under
taken the energetic defence o f Theutberga, the repudiated wife o f
Lothar II, one o f the finest gestures to the credit o f a successor
o f St Peter. Nicholas always loved to step into the breach in defence o f
bishops against powerful Metropolitans, as was the case with Rothad
o f Soissons and Wulfad o f Bourges. Nothing fired his sense o f justice
and touched his heart so much as the report that somebody was being
unjustly treated;1 and here the evidence of unjust persecution was
glaring in the very city o f Rome, where Theognostos and his co-sufferers
had taken refuge from ‘ imperial fu ry ’ ; such pious and virtuous folk, too,
who edified all the Romans with their fervent practices. One can well
imagine with what zeal they played up to the crowd, conscious that
there was no better way to the heart o f the pious Pontiff and his faithful
and naïve flock. And the obstinate silence of the Emperor and Photius
bore out the version given by Theognostos o f events in Byzantium.
There remained still another consideration which, more than any
other, must have confirmed Nicholas in his last decision. For all their
protestations o f submission to Rome, the Emperor and Photius refused
the request that seemed to Nicholas so fair, the return o f Illyricum to
the Roman jurisdiction. But after all, the Patriarch’s position in Byzan-
1 Cf. Perds’ opinion on Nicholas (loc. cit. p. 178): ‘ Ein moralischer Untergrund
ist in den Motiven seines Handelns gar nicht zu verkennen.. . . ’
IOO
N I C HO L A S , P HO T I US AND BORI S
tium did not seem so strong as it looked, judging from the legates’
account. Theognostos airily spoke o f innumerable crowds o f pious
monks and bishops, who refused to accept Photius as their legitimate
Patriarch. Photius had, therefore, come up against an opposition, which
in Theognostos5 opinion was very serious and seemed to have a more
decided lean to Rome than Photius had. Then w hy not back it up, all
the more so as justice demanded it?
Again, there were good prospects that, once restored to his see by
the Pope, Ignatius would show himself more grateful to the papacy
than his rival, and in this respect Theognostos had no doubt given the
Pope more definite assurances, calculated to dispose o f his lingering
hesitation.
O f this we find corroboration in a letter from Pope John V III to
Boris-Michael, written at the end o f 874 or at the beginning o f 875,
where the Pope exhorts the Khagan to throw up his obedience to the
Byzantine Patriarch and make his submission to the Roman See. This
is what he says about Ignatius:1
F or it was on this condition that Ignatius was acquitted b y our predecessors,
that if he undertook anything against apostolic rights in connection with
Bulgaria, which not even Photius ever dared to attempt, he would, despite
his acquittal, remain under the sentence o f his previous condemnation.
Therefore, either he stands acquitted, if he respects the rights o f the Apostolic
See on the Bulgarian question, or, if he does not, he falls back under the
previous ban.
This passage surprised M. P. Kehr, who published it, but the only
possible explanation is that the words reflect the negotiations between
Nicholas and Theognostos before Ignatius5 reinstatement.
Another circumstance deserves our attention: whereas the Pope
paints his legates5 doings in Constantinople in the darkest colours, one
is surprised to find that the punishment meted out to Zachary o f Anagni
did not fit the 'misdeeds5 deplored by the Pope. Zachary, it is true, was
deposed and dispossessed o f his diocese, but the Pope gave him as a
reward the disposal o f the rich and important monastery o f St Gregory
the Great.^ Nor was his diocese handed to another titular. After his
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 294 seq.: ‘ Sub ea enim conditione Ignatius a nostris
predecessoribus solutus est, ut, si per Bulgariam, quod neque Photius ille tempta
verat, aliquid contra jura apostolica temptavisset, sub pristinae damnationis suae
sententia nichilominus permaneret. Aut ergo in Bulgariam contra institutionem
sedis apostolicae nil temptans vere solutus est, aut, si temptaverit, pristinis utique
laqueis inretitus est.’ Cf. chapter vi, pp. 159 seq.
2 Joannis Diaconi Vita Gregorii M. iv, ch. 93, P .L . vol. 75, coi. 236.
IO I
rehabilitation,1 Zachary quietly resumed his office and his title, as

though there had been a private understanding between him and the
Pope. Besides, Zachary had honestly told the truth, when he confessed
to the synod that he had exceeded his powers in Constantinople?
Radoald did not fare as well as Zachary, for he refused to appear
before the Pope and must have been condemned for contumacy by a
synod held in Rome on i November 864, as reported in a letter from
the Pope to the Western Patriarchs and bishops? Radoald was threatened
with anathema, should he ever attempt to make contact with Photius.
It seems then that, according to the Pope’s account, Radoald had
refused to fall in with the new trend o f pontifical policy towards the
oriental Church, and maintained that his own way with Photius in
Constantinople had been justified and that the Pope was wrong in
altering his attitude.
That is how we believe Nicholas5 abrupt volte-face with regard to
Photius may be explained, the Illyricum problem and Theognostos5
plausible reports operating as the main levers. But even this decision
by the Pope, despite its severity, was not to be the last word ; his verdict
was reversible, if only the defendants would yield to reason and give
the Pope satisfaction on matters on which he felt so keenly.1234
But in this respect the Pope was mistaken. As he was waiting for the
Emperor’s reply and preparing his attack on the Patriarch, things went
on in Byzantium very much as before : the die-hard Ignatians’ opposi
tion was broken and paralysed; the Emperor’s power was steadily
expanding, and Byzantium, under the rule o f its young Emperor and
o f the remarkable statesman Bardas, had recovered its pristine influence.
B y 860-1 the Empire’s political and religious prestige had penetrated
as far as the Khazars, and by 862-3 to the Moravians? Yet the ambas
sador Leo’s report and Nicholas’ letter revealed to Bardas and Michael
the danger that threatened the Empire from Bulgarian quarters, and
this report, together with Nicholas’ claims, accelerated the encirclement
1 See p. 202.
2 Cf. the passage in the Pope’s letter, M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 517.
3 Loc. cit. pp. 561, 562. Cf. Haller, loc. cit. p. 29.
4 Cf. what J. Haller says on this matter, loc. cit. pp. 31 seq. He explains the
relations between Byzantium and Rome at that time with remarkable insight
and clearness, though he unwarrantably underestimates Theognostos’ share in the
change of pontifical politics.
3 For further details, cf. my book, Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode,
pp. 148-209, 226-31.
102
manœuvre which Byzantium had been planning round Bulgaria, It was

then that the embassy sent by Rastislav (862), the Moravian prince,
proposing an alliance against the Bulgarians, came in the nick o f time.
A t the very moment when the Pope signed the Acts o f the Roman synod,
Byzantine ambassadors and missionaries, Constantine and Methodius,
were presenting their credentials to Rastislav in his fortress on the banks
o f the Morava; and when, towards the middle o f 864, the Pope was
wishing King Louis the German every success in his campaign against
Rastislav with promises o f prayers for the conversion o f Bulgaria,
which he hoped to be imminent,1 the Bulgarians’ fate had already been
sealed. In the spring o f the same year, the Byzantines, in concert with their
Moravian allies, had unexpectedly invaded Bulgarian territory, whilst
their fleet made a demonstration on the Bulgarian coast. Boris promptly
capitulated, threw up all his schemes for an alliance with the Franks and
promised to accept baptism. The Pope’s prayers were therefore realized;
but alas, it was not the Frank and Roman missionaries, but the Greeks,
who had been chosen as God’s instruments.
We do not know when the Pope heard for the first time o f the disaster
that upset all his plans and knocked the bottom out o f his Illyrican
schemes, and it is difficult to say whether he clung to his hopes, after
realizing the facts. We should have known more about this, if we
possessed the letter which the Pope addressed in the summer o f 865 to
Michael III, but which never reached him. Nicholas mentions this letter
in his reply to one from the Emperor, which he did not receive till the
end o f the summer in 865. It was written, he says, with all the love a
father can have for his son,2 and all the courtesy a Pope must have for
an Emperor. It is a pity that the original here summarized was not
preserved by the Pontifical Chancellery, but the mere fact that the Pope
wished to write to Michael even before he had received his reply proves
at least that the Pope was waiting and hoping for an answer from
Constantinople, long overdue, until the summer o f 865. The Photian
incident was therefore not considered definitely closed, as far as he was
concerned, notwithstanding the new Patriarch’s condemnation by the
Roman synod.
Michael’ s reply, so eagerly awaited, was brought by the Protospathar
Michael towards the end o f the summer o f 865, at the time when the
Bulgarian incident seemed to be closed for good and Boris had received
baptism. It may be that the Emperor had watched and chosen his
1 Letter to Solomon, bishop of Constance, M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 293.
2 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 454.
103
moment, but his reply to the Pope has unfortunately been lost, though
its main lines can be restored from Nicholas5 answer.
The Emperor must have written in the tone o f one who was sure o f
his advantage. He first blames the Pope for failing to appreciate at its
true value the concession he and the Byzantine Church had made to the
Roman See by allowing Ignatius to be tried by his legates. No instance
o f such concession1 had ever been heard o f since the Sixth Oecumenical
Council. Then the Emperor protests against the Pope’s request for a
revision o f Ignatius’ trial. He had never asked the Pope to send his
legates to try Ignatius, whose case had been settled by a local synod o f
the Byzantine Church long before the legates arrived and could not be
reconsidered.2 As the incident did not touch on orthodox doctrine^
and was a purely disciplinary affair, which the Byzantine Church could
perfectly well settle for itself, it was no concern o f the Roman See.
What the Emperor did ask for was the dispatch o f legates for a second
condemnation o f iconoclasm, knowing that iconoclastic ideas were also
spreading in the W est: but not even for this was the presence o f the
Roman legates essential, since that heresy had already been condemned
by the Council o f Nicaea.4 But the Emperor knew the man who had
supplied the Pope with such one-sided information and incited him
against Photius, i.e. none other than Theognostos and the other refugee
monks in Rome, where they also intrigued against his Imperial Majesty.
The Pope should repatriate these culprits to Constantinople, and should
he refuse to comply with this demand, the Emperor would feel obliged
to use more forcible methods to help him to change his mind.5
Judging from some bitter remarks made by the Pope,6 the letter
apparently was written in an arrogant tone, though Nicholas seems to
have exaggerated and been too sensitive on certain points. He took
1 Loc. cit. p. 457.
2 Loc. cit. p. 460: ‘ Ceterum dicitis non ideo ad nos misisse vos, ut secundum
iudicium Ignatius sustineret.. . . Dicentes vero, quod synodice fuerit condem
natus.. . . 5 P. 476: ‘ . . .noluisse vos, ut a missis nostris Ignatius iudicaretur, eo
quod fuerit iam iudicatus et condemnatus.’
3 Loc. cit. p. 469 : ‘ Sed dicitis fortasse non fuisse in causa Ignatii sedem aposto-
licam convocare necesse, quia non hunc ullus hereseos error involverat.
4 Loc. cit. p. 472: ‘ Quod autem scripsistis vos idcirco quosdam nostrorum
adesse voluisse, quoniam dicebamur cum expugnatoribus sacrarum imaginum con
certare. . . . Quamvis dixeritis non nostri eguisse vos ad expugnandos hereticos pro
eo, quod iam fuerit huiusmodi heresis in Nicea secundo convocata synodo. . .
subversa.5
3 Loc. cit. p. 479.
6 For instance, loc. cit. p. 454: ‘ epistola. . . quae tota blasphemia, tota erat iniuriis
plena5; p. 455: ‘ . . .vos ab iniuriis scribentes5, etc.
104
offence at the Emperor calling Rome an ‘ old tow n5, when Michael
seems to have used the epithet ‘ The old R om e5 to distinguish Rome
from Byzantium ‘ The new R om e5.1 The Pope, however, had good
reason to protest against the Emperor calling Latin a barbarian and
Scythic language.2 This is the first time that we see Greek patriotism
at odds with Roman and Latin nationalism.
It used to be said that Michael’s reply had been written by Photius,3
but there is nothing to prove it, nor does Nicholas seem to have thought
so; and some statements by the Pope into which a hint at Photius was
read are not convincing.4 All these fancies are based on the notion,
still prevalent, o f the Royal and Imperial Chancelleries o f the Latin
Middle Ages, when all the work o f composition and editing o f docu
ments was done by bishops and clergy. But what was true o f the Latin
West is not applicable to the Byzantine Empire. Byzantium had no
need for bishops to compose its imperial letters, for the Empire boasted
an excellent bureaucratic tradition. Functionaries were laymen, learned
and well versed in whatever was expected from efficient State officials.3
Photius had certainly trained his subordinates well at the time he was
directing the Imperial Chancellery and he had, no doubt, a worthy
successor to take over his functions.
The Pope was dangerously ill when he received this letter from
Michael III, and not in a fit state to word the reply himself.6 The lengthy
answer which the imperial ambassador was handed at the last minute
at Ostia, just before the departure o f his boat for Constantinople, and
dated 28 September, must have been drawn up by the president o f the
Pontifical Chancellery, Anastasius the Librarian, the Pope contenting
himself with giving him the general outline.7 The letter was destined
to be one o f the most important documents in the evolution o f the
papacy. From the eleventh century onward, it has been exploited to
1 Loc. cit. p. 474: ‘ Urbs, quam vos quidem inveteratam, sed Honorius pius
imperator aeternam vocat.. . .ή πρεσβυτέρα, ή νεοοτέρα ‘Ρώμη.
s Loc. cit. p. 459: ‘ In tantam vero furoris habundantiam prorupistis, ut linguae
Latinae iniuriam irrogaretis, hanc in epistola vestra barbaram et Scythicam appel
lantes.
3 Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 1, p. 553.
4 For instance, M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 473 : ‘ non enim nos ex pio corde vel ore vestro
tam profana tamque perversa processisse putavimus.
5 Cf. A. Andreades, ‘ Le recrutement des fonctionnaires et les Universités dans
l’Empire Byzantin’, in Mélanges de Droit dédiés à M . G. Cornil (Paris, 1926),
pp. 17-40. F. Dvornik, Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 25-33, 39“ 45 ·
6 Loc. cit. p. 474. 7 Cf. Perels, loc. cit. p. 307.
IOÎ
the utmost by the canonists o f the Gregorian and post-Gregorian

periods. Not only did the great canonists o f the time, like Anselm o f
Lucca, Deusdedit and Ivo o f Chartres, bolster up their doctrine on the
Roman papacy with extracts from this letter, but it is also quoted in
all the other canonical collections o f minor rank which are more or less
dependent on the larger Collections mentioned before.1 Gratian, the
leading canonist o f the Middle Ages, copied twenty-four extracts from
the letter in his Decretum.
Such extensive quotation has greatly contributed to Nicholas’ popu
larity among the theorists o f pontifical jurisprudence. But it is often
imagined that Nicholas made a striking innovation by formulating in
his letter theories which had not been current in the Church or at the
pontifical Curia.12 This is an exaggeration. Perels3 has demonstrated
that Nicholas, in defining the Popes’ supreme power, often quotes the
words o f Pope Gelasius I without mentioning his name; and he also
made his own the theories o f Leo I. Nor should one exaggerate the
influence o f Pseudo-Isidore’s Collection on the evolution o f Nicholas’
ideology, though this Collection was, apparently, already known in
Rome under Leo IV or Benedict III.4
This is not the place to analyse all the ideas o f pontifical primacy 5
contained in this letter. All one can do is to point out items o f special
importance in the later development o f the relations between Nicholas I
and Byzantium.
In the first part o f his letter Nicholas refutes Michael’s statements
concerning Ignatius’ condemnation. The Emperor, in the Pope’s
1 See E. Perels’ excellent study, ‘ Die Briefe Papst Nikolaus I. Die kanonische
Überlieferung’, in Neues Archiv (1914), vol. x x x ix , pp. 45-153. Cf. what is said
on pp. 292 seq.
2 Cf. A. Hauck, Der Gedanke der päpstlichen Weltherrschaft bis au f Bonifa{ V I II
(Leipzig, 1904), pp. 14 seq. H. Böhmer, ‘ Nikolaus I,’ Realenzyklopädie für prot.
Theologie (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1904), p. 69: ‘ Nikolaus hat die mittelalterliche Papstidee
geschaffen.. . . ’ But this honour rather belongs to Gelasius I.
3 Papst Nikolaus /, pp. 153 seq., 170 seq. Cf. J. Haller, loc. cit. p. 77. Remember
Leo IV ’s refusal o f the pallium sent to him by Ignatius as a present.
4 Cf. A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1900), vol. Ii, p. 542.
3 See specialized studies by A. Thiel, De Nicolao I papa commentationes duae
historico-canonicae (Brunsbergae, 1859). F. Rocquain, La Papauté au Moyen Age
(Paris, 1881), pp. 1-74. J. Roy, ‘ Principes du pape Nicolas I sur les rapports des
deux puissances’, in Études d 'Histoire du M .A . dédiées à G. Monod (Paris, 1896),
pp. 95-105. A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, pp. 533 seq. H. Lämmer,
Papst Nikolaus I und die byzantinische Staatskirche (Berlin, 1857). A. Greinacher, Die
Anschauung des Papstes Nikolaus I über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche (Berlin,
ϊ 9°9). (Abhandlungen zur mittelalterlichen und neueren Geschichte, vol. x.)
106
opinion, failed to respect the privileges o f the See o f Rome and spoke
o f St Peter’s successor in a most outrageous manner. Since the Sixth
Council until recent days, most o f the Byzantine Emperors had been
heretics.1 The Greeks were in the habit o f tampering with pontifical
documents, for they did so at the Council o f 787 and again in 861. It is
outrageous for an Emperor to order a Pope to send his legates to a
Council. Not even Michael, though he claimed the right, dared to
exercise it; on the contrary, he invited the Pope to send his legates to
the Council, as is easily judged from the letter he sent to the Pope at
the time. It was really regrettable that Michael should not have imitated
his predecessors’ deference.2 Then, why did he claim the title o f Roman
Emperor, if Latin, the Romans’ tongue, was no better to him than a
barbarian language?
With regard to Ignatius’ condemnation by a synod o f Constanti
nople, the Emperor must admit that until then no Patriarch had ever
been deposed or condemned without the consent o f the Roman See.
It is absurd to contend that the synod o f 861 which ratified the con
demnation had the same number o f Fathers as the great Council o f
Nicaea : Ignatius’ condemnation was, none the less, unfair. The Emperor
had no right to convoke that Council and stand by, whilst a pious
Patriarch was being disgraced; such a Patriarch could not be tried by
his own subordinates, or by schismatics and laymen, but only by a
higher court, i.e. by the Pope. Besides, without his consent, no Council
is valid.
In the second part o f his letter, the Pope defines with firmness, clarity
and precision the traditional and inalienable rights o f the H oly See.3
These rights, he says, were given by Christ Himself to St Peter, who
handed them down to his successors. Rome alone can boast o f having
seen living and dying within its walls St Peter and St Paul, founders o f
its glory. After Rome, Alexandria and Antioch had the closest contact
with the two Apostles, whereas Constantinople had to import some
relics (o f St Andrew, Luke and Tim othy in 3 56) to give itself a semblance
of apostolic tradition.4
These privileges give the Pope power ‘ super omnem terram, id est,
super omnem ecclesiam’, therefore even the right o f watching over the
Church o f Constantinople; and that is w hy the Pope took an interest
1 Loc. cit. pp. 456, 457. z Loc. cit. pp. 457-9.

3 Cf. chiefly the impressive passage, loc. cit. pp. 474 seq.: ‘ praesertim cum
ecclesiae Romanae privilegia. . .ecclesiam D ei’ ; p. 484: ‘ non itaque inimicitiae. . .
nequaquam permittunt.’ 4 Loc. cit. p. 475.
107
THE PH ΟΤΙ AN SCHISM. I. THE H I S T O R Y
in Ignatius5 case, reserved its decision to his own judgement and never
gave his legates leave to pass sentence on the Patriarch.
As regards Theognostos and his associates, the Pope refuses to send
them back to Constantinople, since they only tell the truth, and their
reports are borne out by other monks coming from the East. The Pope
has the right to summon any cleric to his court in Rom e.1
A t the end o f his letter, the Pope states that he wishes nevertheless
to offer a concession to the Emperor and declares his readiness to revise
the case o f Ignatius and Photius, but only in Rom e: the two rivals must
appear before the Pope or at least send their representatives to him. He
even specifies which Ignatian bishops he wishes to see in Rome to plead
their Patriarch’s case before his court. The Emperor must send his
representatives too. A ll this, he insists, is a great concession. The H oly
See’s verdict can be altered by none but the Pope himself, but Nicholas
assures the Emperor that he wants to be an equitable judge,12 and only
refuses to reconsider the condemnation o f Asbestas and his party.
It must be confessed that the conclusion o f this letter comes as a
shock, for the firmness o f Nicholas’ tone throughout his letter on the
privileges o f his See and the violence o f his language addressed to the
Greeks and even to the Emperor lead one to expect a different solution
to Ignatius’ case. The Pope was apparently seriously disposed to recon
sider his verdict against Photius and to leave open the possibility o f his
rehabilitation; but to help the Ignatians to become reconciled to the
fact, he suggests to the Emperor between the lines that he should make
up his mind and sacrifice Asbestas and his confederates: their being
held responsible for all the trouble would open an avenue to a com
promise between the two parties.
Whatever motives led the Pope to such a proposal, it does not seem
that he was still nursing hopes o f recovering Bulgaria.3 Realist as he
was, he could not but see that all his hopes for the return o f eastern
Illyricum had vanished, directly Byzantium had laid its hands on the
Bulgarians; but o f course, when he dispatched his letter, Nicholas could
not anticipate what was to happen in Bulgaria some months later.
It is not here that we shall discover the motive o f Nicholas’ decision.
The vigour o f the Emperor’s reply brought home to Nicholas that he
1 Loc. cit. p. 478: 'Ju s habemus non solum monachos, verum etiam quoslibet
clericos de quacumque diocesi. . . ad nos convocare.’
2 Loc. cit. pp. 480-4.
3 That is what J. Haller says, loc. cit. pp. 79 seq., though he is not so well
inspired here as in his reading of the first phase in the conflict.
108
had gone too far: after losing Illyricum, he was now busy wasting the
finest achievement Radoald and Zachary had brought from Constan
tinople— the recognition by the Byzantine Church o f the Roman
supremacy, a loss he realized to be more serious and deplorable than
the first. One can trace Nicholas’ fear and w orry in the terms, often
violent, or at least unconventional, which he uses in addressing the
Byzantine Emperor. It is then that he feverishly casts about for props
to his argumentation in support o f the inalienable rights o f the Papacy
over the whole Church and in justification o f his previous refusal to
acknowledge Photius without any further ado. As long as these rights
and privileges are admitted, a revision o f the sentence passed may be
expected on the strength o f those very same privileges.1
Notwithstanding its lofty and confident tone, Nicholas’ letter marks
therefore a regression in pontifical politics, though the retreat is heavily
screened by an imposing mass o f arguments in support o f Rom e’s
privileges and by fresh attacks on imperial pretensions:^ but it is a
retreat for all that. This letter therefore did not convey a threat or
a warning o f a complete rupture between Rome and Byzantium; far
from it: the Pope took it to be the first step towards an honourable and
peaceful liquidation o f the whole dispute.
It is difficult to say what effect it produced in Byzantium. The Byzan

tines’ first impression must have been that the Pope was spoiling his
own case. B y allowing his legates to sit in judgement over an Eastern
Patriarch, the Byzantine Church was offering him an unique concession
that did full justice to his claims. But the Pope overlooked this, and
instead o f taking advantage o f such an admission, went hunting for
arguments in support o f his primacy in Western documents which
to Easterners must have sounded strange, if not suspicious. Asbestas
and his followers, who themselves had appealed to the Pope against the
verdict o f their own Patriarch, were ready to go to any length in their
recognition o f the Pope’s privilege: yet, here was the Pope deciding
1 Loc. cit. p. 481: ‘ Ergo de iudicio Romani praesulis non retractando, quia nec
mos exigit, quod diximus comprobato, non negamus eiusdem sedis sententiam
posse in melius commutari, cum aut sibi subreptum aliquid fuerit aut ipsa pro con
sideratione aetatum vel temporum seu gravium necessitatum dispensatorie quiddam
ordinare decreverit, quoniam et egregium apostolum Paulum quaedam fecisse
dispensatorie legimus, quae postea reprobasse dinoscitur.’
2 It would be interesting to know what was formulated in this letter by the Pope,
and what by Anastasius. Not without good reason does the Pope (loc. cit. p. 474)
complain that he was so ill that he was unable even to attend to the composition of
this letter. Cf. J. Haller, loc. cit. p. 76.
10 9
against them by claiming against Photius the same rights as his pre
decessors had claimed against Ignatius. For they had not forgotten
what Leo IV had written to Ignatius,1 when the Pope took him severely
to task for condemning Asbestas without the Roman See’s consent, in
violation o f previous observance.
Another bone o f contention must have been the Pope’s assertion
that no synod could be summoned without the Pope’s consent, and
worse still, that Councils were no concern o f the Emperor’s. Nicholas
simply ignored the Byzantine ‘ doctrine’ on Councils as it had evolved
in the East since the days o f Constantine the Great. For indeed all the
first oecumenical Councils had been convoked by the Emperors; they
presided at the meetings and it was their exclusive right to do so. It was
actually their practice to order bishops and patriarchs to attend the
Councils, their representatives being present at all discussions, even those
o f a disciplinary character; but they had no right to vote, this being
strictly reserved to the bishops, though they afterwards confirmed the
decisions and made them legal throughout the empire.2
Nicholas’ views on the Councils, as explained in his letter, repre
sented in fact the last stage in the development o f the conciliar theory
in the West. Yet, even in Byzantium, a slow approach towards the
curtailment o f imperial power in the Councils was in progress, and the
Seventh Oecumenical Council held its meetings under the chairmanship,
not o f the Emperor or his lay representative, but o f Tarasius. Even the
Council o f 879-80 did not have the Emperor, but Photius in the chair,
the Patriarch on similar occasions exercising the functions o f the Em-
1 The following is the text o f the letter (M .G .H . Ep. v, p. 589): 'E x quo
unigenitus Dei filius sanctam in se fundavit ecclesiam caputque universorum
apostolicis institucionibus sacerdotum perfecit, cuiuscumque contradictionis liti
giique contentio vestrae oriebatur vel accidebat ecclesiae, Romano vestri predeces-
sores pontifici ingenti eam studio procacique celeritate innotescere procurabant;
et postmodum eius roborati consensu lucifluo consilio cuncta, quae necessitas
provocabat, beatifico moderamine peragebant. Vos autem, predictorum ut fertis
virorum [successores], sine conscientia nostra congregatis episcopis depositionem
perpetrastis, quod absentibus nostris legatis vel litteris nullo debuistis explere
modo.. . . ’ Cf. also Leo’s second letter to Ignatius about the pallium (loc. cit.
p. 607). Though some of the Pope’s claims as formulated in his letter to Michael
were already familiar to the Byzantines and had proved acceptable, others raised
criticism at the court and the patriarcheion, for instance, the claim to judge all major
cases in first and second instance. This seemed an unprecedented innovation to the
Byzantines, however willing they were to admit the principle of appeal to the Pope’s
supreme court even in disciplinary matters.
2 For further details see my study, De Potestate Civili in Conciliis Oecumenicis. . . ,
already quoted.
no
N I C HO L A S , P HO T I US A ND BORI S
peror, a fact that was significant for its liability to prejudice the Emperor’s
rights in the future development o f the conciliar notion in Byzantium.
Now, this evolution was far more rapid in Rom e; it was facilitated
by the fact o f the Emperor’s residing elsewhere, and the road lay open
to a rapid advance towards the complete elimination o f all lay influence
in ecclesiastical assemblies. Further, it should be emphasized that
Nicholas now laid down this principle for the first time in precise and
unmistakable terms. Given the position in Byzantium, one can under
stand that his theory o f Councils must have sounded too advanced for
Michael’ s taste, as he could not help seeing there a serious limitation
o f his imperial powers.
Lastly, the Pope’s views on the patriarchates o f Alexandria and
Antioch must have been particularly offensive to the Byzantines: he
places Byzantium fourth after the patriarchates o f Rome, Alexandria
and Antioch, an allocation that seems to have been popular at the
Roman Curia in those days. Even in his letter to Boris-Michael, prince
o f Bulgaria,1 the Pope bluntly stated that the Patriarch o f Constanti
nople had in reality no right to call himself a Patriarch, since his see
was not o f apostolic origin. Perhaps Photius admitted that after all the
Pope was right in denying the apostolic origin o f Constantinople, as
his historical knowledge must have been deeper than that o f his con
temporaries ; but in his days the belief was generally current and popular
in Byzantium. We have heard Ignatius himself proudly boasting before
the papal legates that he occupied the see o f St Andrew the Apostle.2
But w hy stress this claim in a letter purporting to inaugurate the resump
tion o f negotiations between Byzantium and Rome?
There is in the Pope’s letter a hint that the Emperor had formulated
in his missive the Byzantine definition o f the Roman Primacy as known
to the Byzantines o f the ninth century. The passage makes one regret
the loss o f the Emperor Michael’s letter and it is a pity that the Pope
neglected to report the Emperor’s words with accuracy. These are the
Pope’s w o rd s:3 ‘ Sed dicitis fortasse non fuisse in causa Ignatii sedem
apostolicam convocare necesse, quia non hunc ullus hereseos error
involverat.’ Does the Emperor here admit the necessity for the Pope’s
1 See p. 1 14.
2 Cf. F. Dölger about this legend in his recent study, ‘ Rom in der Gedanken
welt der Byzantiner’, in Zeitschrift fü r Kirchengeschichte (1937), vol. L V I, pp. 1—42.
It seems safe to say that, as demonstrated by the Ignatian case, the legend was not
mainly invented and spread by Photius, as this learned author seems to think.
I shall shortly have occasion to return to these problems.
3 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 469.Il
Ill
co-operation in all matters o f doctrinal definition, though defending at

the same time the Byzantine Church’s right to settle its own internal
problems o f ecclesiastical discipline alone, without recourse to the Holy
See?1 Again, observe that the Byzantine Church, whilst jealously safe
guarding its right to settle its own domestic affairs, admitted never
theless the right o f appeal to the Roman court, as was proved to the
hilt in Asbestas5 case and in the Acts o f the synod o f 861. I note only
facts, leaving on one side the question whether this notion o f the
primacy is correct or not.
Despite all this, even this letter would have failed to provoke in
Byzantium any move particularly unpleasant to Rome, had events not
abruptly taken a new turn: and the deus ex machina which brought
about this sudden change was no other than the Prince of the Bulgarians,
recently converted to Christianity. It is not often in history that one
sees a barbarian, barely converted, wield such an influence on the fate
o f the Church.
But the Khagan Boris-Michael is an interesting figure. He seems to
have been deeply impressed by the liturgy o f his baptism, a ceremony
conducted by the Patriarch himself, and he would have loved to grace
his court with the same liturgical splendour. The one to impress him
most was the Patriarch himself and he found it difficult to admit that
he would ever be a genuine Christian prince, unless he also had his own
Patriarch. Application for one to the Byzantines was refused as a matter
o f course, Photius sending him instead a long and beautiful letter to
explain how a Christian prince should behave in his private and public
life.2 O f course, Photius would not hear o f a Bulgarian Patriarch; but
the desire was very characteristic o f Boris, though it would be difficult
to say how much o f it was due to sheer naivete, and how much to states
manlike instinct. A t any rate, it was in the best interest o f the young
Bulgarian State to remain independent o f Byzantium, even in religious
matters, as long as possible.
Then it was that the Khagan remembered what the Frankish priests
had promised him, when they preached on his territory, and their
preaching certainly did not remain unproductive. There was, besides,
1 The word ‘ fortasse’ no doubt means that the Pope is not quoting the Emperor’s
words literally. In the preceding sentences, he enumerates the Patriarchs who were
deposed with the Pope’s collaboration, but all of them were heretics. The Pope
may also have intended to forestall an objection which the Emperor might make.
In any case, Nicholas seems to have caught the correct drift of the Emperor’s
thoughts and words. 2 P .G . vol. 102, cols. 665 seq.
11 2
N I C HO L A S , P HO T I U S A ND BORI S
a Frankophile party at the Khagan’s court, as he had fostered the closest

relations with the Franks, and this party worked against the Greek
missionaries. It prevailed in the end, and the Khagan made up his mind
to try his luck with the Franks again, addressing not only Louis the
German, but also Nicholas I.
The Bulgarian embassy, headed by Peter, a relation o f the Khagan’s,
John and Martin,1 reached Rome in August 86 6 .2 It appears that all
that Boris asked the Pope for was a Patriarch;3 but he also addressed
to him a considerable number o f questions and asked advice on matters
o f exceptional importance. He did not apply to the Pope for mis
sionaries, as he expected them from Louis the German.
Nicholas was elated at the good news, never expecting such a sudden
turn in what he had given up as hopeless. Rome spoke o f a miracle,
and one can understand the feeling, remembering how keen Nicholas
had been on the recovery o f Illyricum.
The Pope decided to make the utmost o f the godsend. The new
Bulgarian Church must be founded by Rome and be directly under
Roman jurisdiction, without the intermediary o f the Frankish Church:
so he decided to send to Boris two bishops— Paul o f Populonia and
Formosus o f Porto— with missionaries ‘ ad praedicandam gentem illam ’,
as the Liber Pontificalis has it. He also took trouble over a detailed and
careful reply to all the questions.
We know what vogue these answers had among the medieval
canonists, who loved to quote them under the heading ‘ Nicolai responsa
ad consulta Bulgarorum5. The letter is, indeed, a masterpiece o f pastoral
wisdom and one o f the finest documents o f the history o f the Papacy.
I cannot analyse it here in detail : all I can do is to point out certain
particulars showing what care the Pope took to immunize the new
Church against Greek influence.
He insists, for instance, on the first place in the Church being occupied
by the Roman See, Constantinople being shifted back to the fourth
1 M .G .H . Ep. V II , p. 154 (letter of 8 June 879 from John V III to Michael).
2 Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne), vol. II, p. 164: ‘ Tunc ad hunc apostolicum
et vere praesulem orthodoxum legatos suos mense augusto, indictione X IIII,
destinavit, donaque non parva tam sanctis locis quam eidem summo pontifici con
tulit, suggerens eius apostolatui quid se facere salubrius oporteret, vel quid erga
reliquum Vulgaricum adhuc baptismo sacro carentem populum, ut fidei sacramenta
perficeret, agi deberet. Quod beatissimus audiens papa, magna repletus laeticia,
laudes Christo reddidit amplas et cum omni sibi divinitus commissa ecclesia
gratulans, infinita preconia Deo nostro qui novissimis his temporibus tantum fecit
miraculum devota mente, supplici quoque voce resolvit.’
3 Ch. 72 of Nicholas’ reply. M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 592.
DPS
IT3 8
THE P H O T I A N SCHI SM. I. THE H I S T O R Y
place (chapter 92), as has already been stated. A number o f Greek

customs are condemned.1 When the Bulgarians asked for a code o f
civil law, it seems that the Pope, instead o f the Justinian code, sent them
the Collection o f Lombard laws.^
The papal embassy was received in Bulgaria with extreme satisfaction ;
and Boris was delighted every time the Pope’s gracious letter was read
out to him. A ll his doubts were cleared and all the problems he had
raised were solved : he was pleased that his Bulgars— men and women—
could go on wearing breeches, without the fear o f committing a mortal
sin; he could henceforth take his bath on Wednesdays and Fridays and
go to communion wearing his belt. But why could he not dispense with
the horse’s tail, which served his army as a banner, since the Pope
promised him victory over all his enemies, if his Boyars would hoist the
cross as an ensign? Though, after all, he might as well do without a
Patriarch, if it came to that, and be content with an archbishop, since
the Pope had told him that it came more or less to the same thing. He
was especially pleased to hear that the Patriarch o f Constantinople, who
had impressed him so deeply, was only a sham Patriarch, not in the
same class as the Patriarchs o f Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.
There was among these replies one which was certainly not welcomed
b y the Boyars, who would have liked to keep their old practice and
continue to live each with several wives; but unfortunately, the Pope
severely reprobated this custom (chapter 51), proving in this no more
lenient than Photius. It was aggravating, but one could not get every
thing; and there was still hope that the missionaries would not show
themselves too difficult in this respect.
Making the most o f the good impression they had made on Boris and
acting in the spirit o f the instructions they carried with them from the
Pope, the legates prevailed on the Khagan to dismiss the Frankish
missionaries on their arrival, with bishop Ermenrich o f Passau at their
head.3 And yet, Louis the German had prepared this mission so care
fully, to the extent even o f soliciting his brother Charles for assistance
in sending sacred vessels for the use o f the missionaries.
Hearing what had happened, the Emperor Louis II asked the Pope
to let him have the presents which Boris had made to the Pope, including
1 Ch. 6 concerns bathing on "Wednesdays and Fridays; ch. 54, prayers with
hands crossed over the chest; ch. 55, communion; ch. 57, eunuchs; ch. 77, sortes
biblicae ; ch. 94, the chrism.
z M. Conrat, ‘ Römisches Recht bei Papst Nikolaus I ’, in Neues Archiv, vol.
x x x v i, pp. 724 seq. Cf. Pereis, loc. cit. p. 162.
3 Annales Bertiniani, M .G .H . Ss. vol. 1, p. 474.
the armour which the Khagan had worn the day he crushed the pagan
rebellion: a strange request, but Louis II probably assumed that by
receiving Latin Christianity Bulgaria would henceforth be part o f the
Western Empire o f which he was the sovereign; and not to disappoint
him, the Pope sent him some o f the presents.1
So everything was going well. Boris was so pleased with the new
missionaries that, pulling his hair, he took a solemn oath ever to remain
the faithful servant o f St Peter,123and Nicholas5 hopes seemed at last to
be realized.
This unexpected success encouraged the Pope once more to try his
luck in Byzantium. The Emperor’s reply had not yet reached him, and
the Bulgarian checkmate having provided the Pope with a new weapon,
Nicholas decided to increase the pressure. T o the legates to be sent to
Boris he added bishop Donatus, the priest Leo and the deacon Marinus,
who were to accompany them to the Khagan’s court and cross over to
Byzantium via Bulgaria, carrying letters to Michael III, Photius, Bardas,
the Empress Theodora, the Emperor’s wife, Eudocia, some senators
and the clergy o f Constantinople. Their presence in Bulgaria certainly
enhanced the prestige o f the papal embassy; they stayed there for some
time and set out for Byzantium in the spring o f 86y .3
The letter addressed to Michael4 was couched in a much calmer tone
than the letter sent in 865 ; and though the Pope mostly repeated what
he had said previously, his treatment was more consistent and sys
tematic. After recalling the story o f the Photius case, the Pope mainly
protests against the expedient o f tampering with the letter carried by
the legates to the Council o f 861 and refuses to ratify the condemnation
o f Ignatius, who could be judged by none but a higher court, i.e. by the
Pope. The same holds for Gregory Asbestas. The synod was not com
petent to annul the sentence passed by Ignatius, which could only be
1 Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne), vol. 11, p. 167; Annales Bertiniani, loc. cit.;
J. Haller, Nikolaus I und Pseudo-Isidor, p. 81.
2 Cf. Anastasius, Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 11 ; cf. also my book, Les Légendes de
Constantin et de Méthode, p. 281.
3 It is not necessary to suppose with J. Haller (loc. cit. p. 84) that the Bulgarian
embassy had left Rome long before the legates bound for Byzantium. The fact that
Byzantium knew about the happenings in Bulgaria at the moment the legates had
reached the frontier proves nothing. The Byzantines may have heard of them, if
the legates tarried for some time at the Khagan’s court. In his letter o f 23 October
867, addressed to Hincmar (M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 603), the Pope clearly states that
the two embassies had left Rome at the same time.
4 M .G .H . Ep. vi, pp. 488-512. Cf. the analysis given by Hergenröther, Photius,
v o l . I, p p . 618 seq.
I X5
8-2
THE P H O T I A N SCHI SM. I. THE H I S T O R Y
done either by the Patriarch or by the Pope. Photius must first make
up for the damage he has done. B y ordaining him, Asbestas could only
give him a share in his own condemnation; but Ignatius must be
reinstated by the Emperor, who therein should follow his predecessors5
example; else, the Pope will summon a Western Council and have the
calumniating letter the Emperor had sent him condemned.
However, the Pope concludes by repeating that he is always ready
to grant the Emperor the concession offered in his last letter; for
Ignatius5 trial can still be revised, the Pope even refusing to justify
every one o f Ignatius5 acts. I f he has offended, he deserves blame. This
time, to forestall any fraud, the Pope has entrusted his legates with
copies o f all his previous letters.
The letter is firm and resolute in tone, but much less violent than that
o f 865, and suggests that the Pope had more to do with this letter than
on the previous occasion.
Nicholas5 letter, therefore, leaves a door open to prospects o f mutual
understanding. His other letters, besides being mostly a repetition o f
the reasoning developed in the letter to Michael, yet let the readers
guess that what the Pope really wished from his heart was not so much
a revision o f the trial as the downfall, pure and simple, o f Photius. For
instance, in his letter to Photius,1 the Pope no longer mentions any
concession; he merely summons the ‘ intruder5 to give place to Ignatius,
or forfeit his right to absolution till his death.
The letters designed for the bishops2 often repeat word for word
what the Pope said in his letter to Michael, but they also are silent on
the concession. All the other letters3 betray the Pope’s secret wish for
Photius5 downfall. Their peremptory tone is no doubt stiffened by his
recent success in Bulgaria, whereas the legates have naturally received
detailed instructions to work in Byzantium for the ‘ intruder’s 5 over
throw.
But they were on the alert in Byzantium and the legates could scarcely
be under any illusion about the difficulty o f their mission. When the
papal envoys presented themselves at the frontier o f the Empire, they
were received by an official called Theodore. The reception could not
have been warm, and even the Bulgars who had escorted the legates to
the frontier got a taste o f the Byzantines5 anger.4 Theodore must have
1 M .G .H . Ep. vi, pp. 533-40. 2 Loc. cit. pp. 512 seq., 553 seq.
4 Liber Pontificalis, vol. π, p. 165. Cf. Nicholas’ letter to Hincmar, M .G .H .
Ep. vi, p. 603.
I16
questioned the legates on the purpose o f their mission and noticed their
heavy dossier o f letters addressed to important people. It all looked
suspicious and a special messenger was dispatched to Byzantium to ask
for further instructions, whilst the legates were left waiting forty days
for the reply. They do not seem to have carried away pleasant memories
o f this adventure.1
In Constantinople, people must have been quite aware o f what was

going on in Bulgaria well before the messenger’s arrival. The news o f
Boris’ defection created consternation at the imperial palace and at the
patriarcheion, for there was no disguising the fact that it meant a serious
political setback. Boris must have quickly recovered from his defeat
in 864 to rush back so soon to his former allies, the Franks. It was,
moreover, difficult to counter Boris’ move with a military demon
stration, as in 864, the Khagan having taken good care to provide
for his security on the Byzantine border and to have his Boyars at their
posts guarding the roads and the defiles. And the moment for his change
o f front had been well chosen : whilst he was carrying out his plans, the
Byzantine army was away on an expedition to Crete,^ and Caesar Bardas,
the principal designer o f the encirclement policy o f 864, had been assas
sinated by his rival Basil on 21 April. The authorities had their hands
full for the moment, and the season did not favour expeditions.
Yet such things could hardly be tolerated: if war was out o f the
question and diplomacy had lost its efficacy, there remained some
expedients o f a religious nature that could be tried. The Greek mission
aries who had been asked to leave Bulgaria, had made complaints
about certain ‘ suspicious’ doctrines which their Frankish rivals were
disseminating over Bulgaria. The Franks, for instance, allowed the
Bulgars to take milk and cheese in Lent. This was dreadful! And they
were all but Manichaeans, since they forbade priests to marry, those
heretics affecting a particular aversion from marriage. Then the Franks
limited priestly powers by holding that confirmation could not be
administered to children by ordinary priests, the function being strictly
reserved to bishops. What was more serious still, the Franks taught that
the Holy Ghost proceeded not from the Father only, but also from the
1 It is not impossible that Pope Stephen V, speaking in his letter to Basil (see p.221)
of Marinus’ imprisonment whilst on a papal mission, is really referring to this
frontier incident, though the Pope makes Basil responsible for the imprisonment,
a confusion on the part of the Pope that cannot be ruled out.
2 Cf. H. Grégoire, ‘ Études sur le IXe siècle’, in Byiantion (1933), vol. vm ,
pp. 524 seq. on this expedition.
Son: this was rank heresy, and such abominations deserved condemna
tion by a synod.
The synod was duly summoned,1 but whether before or immediately
after the arrival o f the messenger conveying the news that the legates
stood waiting at the frontier is not known. One thing is certain, that
the messenger had time to take back to the legates the decisions o f this
synod, very severely condemning all these ‘ false’ doctrines. The legates
were invited to sign them and to acknowledge Photius as the legitimate
Patriarch,^ being permitted on no other conditions to prosecute their
journey. Unable, o f course, to accept them, the legates had no choice
but to withdraw to Bulgarian territory with all the letters they had
brought from Rome, none of which reached its addressee. Thus vanished
the Pope’s last hopes o f undermining Photius’ position in Byzantium
through his embassy.
The Byzantines had prepared their plans with great care. Had the
legates signed the synodal decrees and acknowledged Photius, they
would automatically have wrecked the Latin mission to Bulgaria; or
should this manœuvre fail, there was always the possibility o f trying
the effect o f the condemnation on Boris and awaiting the result. That
this attempt was actually made3 we learn from the Pope’s letter to
Hincmar: an imperial letter, signed by Michael and his new associate
Basil, informed the Khagan o f the condemnation. But Boris was still
under the spell which Nicholas’ letter had woven round his primitive
soul: no, the Latins could not be so wicked. Moreover, he had by his
side the bishop o f Porto, who certainly was as good a psychologist as
the Greek missionaries, and doubts that might have been raised in
Boris’ mind were soon laid. The Khagan even handed over the letter
to the legates about to return to Rome, happy to be thus o f service to
the Pope. The legates also happened to pick up in Bulgaria some
pamphlets which the Greek missionaries had tried before their expulsion
to disseminate among some half-civilized Boyars.4 The Pope carefully
1 This is an obvious inference from Photius’ encyclical letter to the Eastern
Patriarchs (P .G . vol. 102, col. 732).
2 The fact is confirmed in Nicholas’ letter to Hincmar, M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 604:
‘ a missis nostris contra omnem regulam et praeter omnem consuetudinem libellum
fidei, si se ab illis recipere vellent, exigere moliebantur, in quo tam ista capitula quam
ea tenentes anathematizarent, necnon et epistolas canonicas ab his ei, quem suum
oeconomicon patriarcham appellant, dandas improbe requirebant.’ Hergenröther,
Photius, vol. i, pp. 641, 656 seq.
3 Loc. cit. p. 603.
4 That is how I understand the Pope’s words (loc. cit. p. 603): ‘ accipientibus
. . . nobis et perscrutantibus eandem cum aliis scriptis epistolam.. . ’
I18
scrutinized these documents and felt hurt. They blamed the Latins
for offering on Easter Sunday, with the Eucharist, a lamb which they
placed on the altar after the Jewish fashion; also, for their priests5
habit o f shaving, for making chrism with water and for raising
deacons to the episcopacy without first conferring on them the
priesthood.
One could afford to smile at these childish accusations and rivalries,
if the consequences o f such wrangles had not been so disastrous to the
whole o f Christendom. All these details may seem to us petty and
insignificant to-day, but they should be read in the setting o f the two-
documents— Photius5 encyclical letter to the Eastern bishops and
Nicholas5 letter to Hincmar. The irate and violent tone o f the Patriarch’s
letter reveals the soreness o f the wound the Pope had inflicted on the
Byzantines5 national pride: to their way o f thinking, vital interests o f
the Empire were involved in the question, and no compromise was
possible. So severely hurt and threatened did they feel that they lost
their heads and were ready to make every attempt to recover lost
ground.
The Pope was no less alarmed: it seems as if he had never realized
before how vital to the Byzantines the Bulgarian problem was, and never
understood the Greek reaction to his success in Bulgaria. But he really
did take fright, fearing a rupture between Rome and Byzantium that
was more than dangerous, one that might easily shift to dogmatic issues.
This is w hy he gave such a cry o f alarm in his letters and tried to mobilize
all the spiritual forces in his Church before the great blow that he
feared should fall.
The threatened repercussion from Constantinople was stupendous, but

Nicholas apparently never heard what Photius was really planning
against him. There is in his letter to Hincmar a reference to a message
which the Byzantines had sent to the Patriarchs o f Alexandria and
Jerusalem,1 but as the Pope stated its object to be Photius5 recognition
by the Eastern Patriarchs, he could not have meant Photius5 famous
encyclical, though he must have heard some vague rumours on what
Photius was plotting.
This notorious encyclical announced the convocation o f a synod o f
the Oriental Church for no other object than to put increased pressure
on Boris: as the decisions o f a local Council had failed to produce the
desired effect, perhaps those o f a General Council would have a better
1 Loc. cit. p. 608.
TI9
chance, the more so as the Council was also to condemn Nicholas’ line
o f conduct.
In this document Photius stated that the Council would first proceed
to condemn the ‘ false’ doctrines o f the Frankish missionaries; and as
regards Nicholas’ policy, he pointed out that he had received a number
o f letters from Western bishops complaining about the Pope. The
Italian bishops even sent him a synodal letter requesting him to defend
them against Nicholas’ tyranny: and many monks coming from Rome
(Photius names the monks Basil, Zosimus and Metrophanes) con
firmed the complaints and implored the Patriarch to intervene in the
interests o f the Church. Lastly, the third object o f the Council was to
be (again according to the encyclical) the solemn recognition o f the
second Council o f Nicaea as an Oecumenical Council.
It is quite possible that Photius did receive letters taking exception
to Nicholas’ rule, and was no doubt the recipient o f protests from the
archbishops o f Cologne and Trier, two prelates who were the foremost
critics o f the Pope’s ‘ tyrannical’ regime.1 There was also between
Byzantium and the Greek monasteries o f Rome a fairly close contact,
as I have shown in another w o r k ;12 and the Greek monks o f those
houses may very well have kept the Patriarch posted on all that hap
pened in the West, particularly in Rome. Photius appears also to have
been in touch with another dangerous opponent o f Nicholas, John,
archbishop o f Ravenna, for we possess a letter sent to John by Photius,
after his reinstatement on the patriarchal throne, either at the end o f 878
or at the beginning o f 879. It is a peculiar document,3 which reads as
though the Ravenna titular had raised hopes that Photius’ campaign
against the person o f Pope Nicholas might find some support in the
W est; but when Photius decided to strike, John failed to back him up
as expected, and his hesitation may have had a good deal to do with
Photius’ downfall after Basil had come to power.
As, with regard to Radoald, it was stated that the Pope himself was
afraid to see this prelate’s open contact with Photius after his condemna
tion, we are inclined to believe that Photius’ information on the dis
content over Nicholas’ severity was based on fact.
The Council met in Constantinople in the summer o f 867, but little
1 Cf. Bury, A History o f the Eastern Roman Empire, p. 201.

3 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ss. Patris Photii. . . epistolae X L V (Petropoli,
ï 896), p. 6. Cf. V. Grumel, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarchat de Constantinople,
vol. π (Istanbul, 1936), p. 102.
120
N I C HO L A S , P HO T I US A ND BORI S
o f what occurred there has reached us, the meagre information we

happen to possess coming exclusively from anti-Photianist sources.1
Only the following facts can be inferred with certainty: the Council
really did take place, though some Ignatians tried to deny its occur
rence; many Fathers took part in it; Pope Nicholas was judged and
condemned; lastly, Louis II was acclaimed Emperor at the closing
meeting o f the Council, in the presence and with the consent o f
Michael III and Basil.*
Did their acclamation imply that the Fathers had charged Louis II
with the execution o f the sentence passed on Nicholas, and was the
recognition o f his imperial title a reward for the services expected o f
him? It is difficult to prove that any negotiations to this effect had been
carried on between the two courts before the meeting o f the Council.
It is not impossible, as a certain contact could be made unofficially,
though we know absolutely nothing about an exchange o f embassies
between the two Empires. They had, indeed, common interests in
Southern Italy and the Mediterranean. The Byzantines could not help
seeing that relations between the Pope and Louis had not always been
cordial and the Byzantine court possibly had under consideration a pact
with Louis, promising him military aid against the Arabs on condition
that he should carry out the decisions o f the Council o f Constantinople
and depose Nicholas. But these are mere conjectures, except for a
strong presumption in their favour, since Basil, after Michael's
assassination, carried on his friendly policy with Louis II. More would
have been known about the negotiations, had we been in possession
o f the letter from Photius to Louis5 wife, Engelberta, and the letter
from Michael to Louis, which the metropolitan o f Chalcedon, Zachary,
had been asked to transmit.123*
One thing seems certain, that Photius tried to enlist Western aid,
the services o f Louis II and o f part o f the episcopacy against Nicholas.
Now, putting on one side all other considerations and concentrating
on this simple fact, I ask: can it be seriously admitted that the Patriarch,
1 Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne), vol. n, pp. 178 seq.; Anastasius the Librarian
(Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 5); the Acts of the Eighth Council (Mansi, vol. xvi, sessions
vu, vin, ix ); Metrophanes of Smyrna (ibid. col. 417); Nicetas-David, Vita Ignatii
(.P .G . vol. 105, col. 537); the Roman synod of Hadrian II (Mansi, vol. xvi, cols.
125, 128). Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 1, pp. 649 seq.; Ivantsov-Platonov,
Sv. Patriarkh Fotti, pp. 108 seq.; Bury, loc. cit. pp. 201 seq.
2 Nicetas, loc. cit., col. 537. Metrophanes, loc. cit., col. 417.
3 Cf. what J. Haller says (Nikolaus I und Pseudo-1sidor, pp. 94 seq.) about the
relations between Nicholas and Louis II about the year 867.
I2I
wishing as he did to secure the assistance o f the Latin episcopacy,

expected to enlist its support by attacking the whole Western Church
and the venerable customs to which those bishops and the Emperor
were loyally attached? No, fairness and consistency drive us to
the conclusion that the Council o f 867 was not aimed at the Western
Church as such. The anathemas and condemnations hurled by the
Eastern Fathers against some Western customs were only directed
against the Roman missionaries o f Bulgaria for the purpose o f im
pressing Boris and his Boyars; in fact, Photius5 encyclical, I insist, only
mentioned the 'so-called5 bishops preaching in Bulgaria.
These condemnations were meant to be the Eastern Church’s reply
to the attacks the Latin missionaries in Bulgaria permitted themselves
upon some century-old customs o f the Orientals, attacks and counter
attacks being both understandable in a country where two rival rites
were practised side by side. But it is worth repeating that the Byzantine
Government needed a conciliar decree to make any impression on
Boris.1
Besides, Photius had no reason whatsoever for falling out with
Nicholas over the Filioque, to take only one instance. In 860 he had,
in his enthronement letter to the Pope, professed his faith in the pro
cession o f the Holy Ghost from the Father only,12 and the Pope, instead
o f rebuking him for his profession, declared in his letter o f 18 March
862 3 that the faith o f Photius was perfectly orthodox. Photius could
then suppose, or at least pretend, that in this respect the Pope did not
essentially differ from the Greeks. We shall presently see that Photius
took another declaration o f the same kind, that o f John V III, very
seriously,4 and that in Byzantium the origin o f that doctrine was often
attributed to Formosus, bishop o f Porto, o f all men, the leader o f the
Latin mission to Bulgaria .3
It should also be observed that such accounts o f the Council as have
come down to us nowhere mention any condemnation o f the Western
Church on the ground o f any false doctrine she might have been teaching
1 Cf. Rosseikin, loc. cit. pp. 424 seq.

2 P.G. vol. 102, col. 589: ουτω γάρ και τής χρονικής έννοιας όμοτίμως ή Τριάς
ύπεριδρυθήσεται, και τής αυτής ουσίας τω ΤΤατρί, έξ ούττερ ό μέν άρρεύστως και
άρρήτως γεγέννηται, τό δή εκπεττόρευται, θεολογικώς υμνολογηθήσεται.
3 M .G .H . Ερ. vi, ρ. 44° : 'Unde directionis vestrae sumptis apicibus laetificati
sumus, quia vos catholicum in eis cognovimus. Nam ibi prudentiae vestrae utili
tatem intelleximus ideoque multas gratias Deo omnipotenti retulimus, quia vestrum
scire de catholico fonte manare experti sumus/
4 See p. 196. 3 See pp. 253, 456 (late treatises on schism).
122
and that the Fathers o f the Eighth Council reproved this synod for
nothing but the condemnation o f Nicholas.
The opinion that the Council o f 867 meant a declaration o f war
between the two Churches and a rupture between the Latins and the
Greeks is due to Pope Nicholas’ letter to Hincmar, for it was he who
attached to the Bulgarian incident the significance attributed to it since.
It was only natural that the Pontiff should be looking for allies against
Photius and that he should try to incense against him the Frankish
episcopate more than any other, for there was real danger threatening
from that quarter. The Byzantines were certainly aware o f the fact that
the Roman missionaries had ousted those o f the Franks from
Bulgaria, a circumstance that may have induced Byzantines and Franks
to join hands in their opposition to Nicholas. T o forestall such a danger,
the Pope had to gain the confidence o f the Franks, chiefly Hincmar, by
asserting that the interest o f the whole Church was at stake: hence
Nicholas generalizes the accusations made by Photius against the
Bulgarian missionaries, giving the impression that they had been made
against the whole Latin Church, and therefore against the Franks as
well.
At bottom Nicholas was right, for the customs spread by the Latin
missionaries in Bulgaria were customs dear to the Latins which the
Franks, who were exceptionally keen on singing the Filioque in their
creed, also understood. Flattered at having been singled out by the
Pope to mobilize the Frankish Church, Hincmar did his utmost, and the
writings, composed at his suggestion,1 against the Greek denunciations,
substantially helped in spreading the opinion throughout the West that
Photius had indicted the whole Latin Church. Incidentally, the Pope,
at the moment o f writing to Hincmar, could have no knowledge o f the
Council summoned by Photius.
It is generally assumed, too, that the Council o f 867 was up in arms, not
only against the Pope personally, but rather against the very notion o f
the Roman primacy: Photius is alleged to have proclaimed the downfall
o f Rome from the government o f the Universal Church and to have
behaved generally as though he were the supreme head o f the Church.
1 See p. 280. J. Haller, loc. cit. p. 93, disagrees with Perels, loc. cit. p. 167, by
minimizing the Pope’s appeal: ‘ Eher könnte man darin, dass weder von den
lothringischen noch von den westfränkischen Bischöfen eine Gesammterklärung
entsprechend der von Worms erfolgte, ein Zeichen von Unlust sehen, die durch
den angesammelten Verdruss über die Regierungs weise des Papstes leicht zu
erklären wäre.’
123
There is in Nicholas’ letter to Hincmar a passage which seems to confirm

the assumption:1
N o wonder that they should pretend such things, since they even maintain
and boast that when the Emperors moved from the Roman city to C on
stantinople, the prim acy o f the Rom an See was also transferred to the Church
o f Constantinople and that the privileges o f the Rom an Church changed
hands together with the royal honours, so much so that the usurper o f that
same Church Photius calls him self in his writings archbishop and universal
patriarch.
It does not seem that the words can bear this interpretation. First o f
all, when writing this letter on 23 October 867, the Pope knew nothing
yet about the Council referred to : the synod must have terminated its
sittings towards the end o f August o f the same year, for we learn that
after the assassination o f Michael III on 24 September 867 the ambas
sadors, headed by Zachary o f Chalcedon, taking the Acts o f the synod
to Louis II, were overtaken by a messenger from Basil and called back.
They cannot have been far from the capital, since they had left Con
stantinople in the first days o f September, after the closing o f the
Council. It was not till about 24 September that the Council’s decisions
could be dispatched to Bulgaria; but at that moment the papal legates
were already back in Rome, having left Bulgaria long before the con
vocation o f the said Council. As a matter o f fact, Hincmar’s envoys,
who reached Rome in the month o f August, found the Pope appalled
by the news just received about the stand taken by the Greeks.^ It is
therefore evident that the Pope could not, in the document under
consideration, refer to the Council o f 867.
Nor can it be that Nicholas quoted the passage from one o f Michael’s
or Photius’ letters addressed to him, for I have studied the Pope’s
replies to these letters without discovering a single reference to any
1 M .G .H . Ep. V i, p. 605 : ‘ Sed quid mirum, si haec isti praetendunt, cum etiam
glorientur atque perhibeant, quando de Romana urbe imperatores Constantinopolim
sunt translati, tunc et primatum Romanae sedis ad Constantinopolitanam ecclesiam
transmigrasse et cum dignitatibus regiis etiam ecclesiae Romanae privilegia translata
fuisse, ita ut eiusdem invasor ecclesiae Photius etiam ipse se in scriptis suis arch-
episcopum atque universalem patriarcham appellet.’ Cf. Hergenröther, Photius,
vol. i, pp. 656 seq.
2 Hincmari Annales, a. 867, M .G .H . Ss. vol. 1, p. 475: ‘ Hincmari clerici mense
Augusto Romam venientes, Nicolaum papam iam valde infirmatum et in conten
tione quam contra orientales episcopos habebat, magnopere laborantem invenerunt;
qua propter usque ad mensem Octobrium ibidem sunt immorati. Nicolaus. . .et
alteram epistolam ei [Hincmari] misit innotescens... Graecorum imperatores, sed
et orientales episcopos, calumniari sanctam Romanam ecclesiam.. . . ’
124
such statement by either Photius or Michael, though Nicholas never

left one Greek stricture unanswered.
The fact is that Nicholas only interprets in this sense the title o f
oecumenical Patriarch which Photius, Ignatius and all their predecessors
had claimed ever since John the Faster. Nicholas could only refer to
canon 28 o f the Council o f Chalcedon, and the interpretation o f this
canon which the Pope fathers on the Greeks seems somewhat far-fetched,
since before Nicholas no Greek had ever read into it such a radical
meaning.
Yet I would not presume to accuse Nicholas o f having gone too
fa r1 and o f consciously intending to throw oil on the fire, for it is quite
possible that the Greek missionaries in Bulgaria had actually defended
that theory to prove to the Bulgarians that the see o f Constantinople
was superior to that o f Rome, and it is certain that discussions about
the pre-eminence o f those two sees were at that time in full swing in
Bulgaria. After all, Nicholas himself had belittled the importance o f
the see o f Constantinople in the Church, by placing its Patriarch after
those o f Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, contrary to common usage as
agreed to by the Roman Church : which only shows that both the rival
parties in Bulgaria were apt to exaggerate.
Cardinal Hergenröther,2 however, is inclined to think that Photius
actually did proclaim such a doctrine, and attributes to him, though not
without some hesitation, a writing against the primacy, which was
published by Beveridge3 among the canonical letters o f Alexios Aris-
tenos. One reads there that the Romans could not base their pretensions
to the primacy on the fact that St Peter lived and died in Rom e: Jeru
salem, too, had at its head a great apostle, the ‘ brother5 o f the Lord;
Peter, before settling in Rome, had been bishop o f Antioch and the
Apostle Andrew had founded Constantinople.
Then again, the rock on which Our Lord had built His Church
(Matt. xvi. 18) was not the person o f the Apostle Peter, but his faith.4
1 As A. Pichler seems to have done in Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung
(München, 1864), vol. i, p. 186. On the other hand, Pichler is right here as against
Hergenröther, loc. cit. vol. 1, p. 656.
2 Loc. c it. vol. I, p p . 662 s e q .; vol. h i , p p . 170 s e q .
3 Synodicon, loc. cit. t. II, at the end of the first part; G. Rhalles and M. Potles,
Σύνταγμα των ιερών κανόνων (Athens, 1854)? t. V , pp. 409 seq.
4 Photius, Ad Amphilochium, q. 194, P.G . vol. 10 1, col. 933 interprets the
passage in a similar sense: διό και μισθόν τω Πέτρω της ορθής ομολογίας, τάς τε
κλεΐς τής Βασιλείας ενεχείρισε, και ετπ τή αυτού ομολογία έστηρίχθαι την Εκκλησίαν.
He is, however, not so emphatic and prejudiced as the author of the treatise. Any
how, Nicholas I could not take offence at Photius’ interpretation of Matt. xvi. 18,
125
The Roman primacy is o f pagan origin, having been founded by

Aurelianus; and no Council ever confirmed the primacy as claimed by
the Popes: the Synod o f Sardica cannot be appealed to in support o f
the primacy. The Popes often, though unsuccessfully, rose against other
bishops, whereas the Byzantine Patriarchs frequently deposed their
predecessors.
Hergenröther1 enumerates the following reasons for ascribing this
treatise to Photius: two manuscripts o f the Vatican Library call Photius
the author o f the treatise (Cod. V at..829 and 115 0 ); the ideas expressed
in the treatise are those o f Photius; even the style and some expressions
recall the Patriarch’s writings, in particular, his Synagogai.
None o f these reasons is valid. That two late manuscripts should
attribute the treatise to Photius proves nothing, since other manuscripts
do not make such ascription. Nothing was easier than to append to an
anonymous treatise the name o f Photius at a time when it was associated
with anti-Latin polemics more than any other. The same happened
to the treatise against the Franks, which certainly was not by
Photius.
Hergenröther admits himself that the leading ideas o f this treatise
were familiar to the Greek mentality o f the twelfth century. Then why
not place it in that period? It was not till after 1054, chiefly during the
Crusades o f the twelfth century, that animosity between R.ome and
Byzantium rose to sufficient heat for such arguments to have originated
in Byzantium.2
since he himself had explained the words in the same way, as appears from his
letter of 18 March 862 to the Eastern bishops (M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 447): ‘ When
Our Lord and Redeemer had given to Bl. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, the power
to bind and to loose in heaven and on earth and to close the gates of the heavenly
kingdom, He deigned to erect His Holy Church on the solidity of the faith
[supra soliditatem fidei suam sanctam dignatus est stabilire Ecclesiam], according
to His authentic words, as He said: Verily, I say unto thee, thou art Peter.. . . ’
A similar reading is found in the prayer of the Roman Mass on the Vigil of SS. Peter
and Paul: ‘ Praesta quaesumus omnipotens Deus ut nullis nos permittas perturba
tionibus concuti, quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti.. . . ’
1 Loc. cit. vol. in, p. 171.
2 By comparing, for instance, the meaning given by the author of the treatise
to Matt. xvi. 18 with that given by Photius, one can see how fast animosity against
everything Roman had grown by the time the treatise was published. A new edition
of the treatise has since been issued by M. Gordillo (‘ Photius et Primatus Romanus’)
in Orientalia Christiana Periodica (1940), vol. vi, pp. 5-39. Additional details will
be found there on the controversy concerning Photius’ authorship of the treatise.
M. Gordillo produces decisive evidence against Hergenröther’s assumption and
attributes the treatise to an anonymous writer belonging to the first decades of the
thirteenth century.
126
There remains to prove that the ideas expressed in the treatise tally
with those o f Photius : but there is not a trace o f them to be found in
any o f the Patriarch’s writings. Nicholas’ references to Greek attacks
against the primacy are far too vague, as already stated, to justify the
inference that Michael or Photius put forward such ideas as square with
those o f the treatise; and had Hergenröther known about the Acts o f
the Council o f 861, he would perhaps have been less emphatic in his
conjecture. The notions set forth in these Acts are poles apart from those
advocated in the treatise, making it difficult to presume such cprogress ’
among the Byzantines o f the period, particularly in Photius, within
such a short span o f time, unless one be determined to make him a
spineless character, always ready to deceive the public and tell lies
according to the needs o f the moment— an assumption that would be
anything but fair.1
What then are we to think o f Photius’ letter to the Khagan? In
enumerating the Patriarchs who had attended the seven general councils,
Photius every time lists the Patriarch o f Constantinople first, before
even the Patriarch o f R om e:12 does this not suggest that Photius
assumed the superiority o f the see o f Constantinople over all the other
patriarchal sees? N o; the bearing o f this passage should not be exag
gerated, for at this place Photius underlines the greatness and importance
o f the see o f Constantinople only to impress Boris. The Byzantines
knew perfectly well that Boris was always leaning towards Rome and
the Franks. Making too much o f the Roman patriarchate would only
have jeopardized Photius’ own work in Bulgaria, and the scrupulous,
naïve and cunning Khagan might have thought it preferable to get his
missionaries from a bishop who was superior to the Patriarch o f Con
stantinople.3 It is well to remember that Nicholas followed exactly the
same tactics in Bulgaria towards his rival in Constantinople.
1 Cf. Th. Kurganov,4K izsledovaniyu o Pair. Fotiye ’ (Khrist. Chtenie, 1895), 1 . 1,

p. 198. He finds it, however, strange that the treatise in question should place the
Council of Nicaea under Sylvester and Julius, as Photius did in his letter to Michael-
Boris. But this coincidence proves nothing and cannot be quoted in support o f
the authorship of the treatise by Photius. Such attributions seem to have been
common in Byzantium in the ninth century. Even the Synodicon Vetus, published
by Fabricius-Harles (loc. cit. vol. xii, p. 370) and representing Ignatian opinion,
makes the same assertion. An anonymous treatise on the Councils, preserved in
the Paris-Graec. 3041, fols. 13 1, 132, said the same as Photius not only about the
First Council, but also about the Fifth.
2 P .G . vol. 102, cols. 632 seq.
3 In his letter to Ashod, King of Armenia, Photius, speaking of the Council of
Chalcedon, places the See of Rome at the head o f the list. A. Finck, ‘ Esnik
127
Attention should also be called to the allocution by Pope Hadrian II

to the thirty bishops o f the Roman synod o f 869, after reading the report
by his experts, charged with the examination o f the Acts o f the Council
o f 867. This is what he said about this Council:1
A fter that, Photius raised his face to heaven, but his tongue came down to
earth as he opened his evil-sm elling mouth against divine providence which
m iraculously set up the prim acy o f the Blessed Peter, Prince o f the Apostles
and against the Apostolic See o f the key-bearer o f the same heavenly kingdom ,
whilst he poured out the poison o f his viperish tongue against the highest
dignity and power on earth. In other words, not fearing to slander the life
o f m y blessed predecessor Pope Nicholas, nor sparing us who are his un
w orthy servant, not to say follower, and thinking he could curse both o f us
and heap blasphemies on us as far as lay in his power, he tried to trump up
charges undoubtedly false and pile up incredible pythonic dreams and argu
ments. Y et, you all certainly know what our father was like, how great and
how eminent, as you remember the qualities o f his character and the triumphs
o f his virtues.
The first portion o f this extract suggests that Photius had actually re
probated the Roman primacy as such and his choice o f terms points that
way, but when the Pope proceeds to substantiate his assertion, he finds
no argument to produce but Photius5 criticisms o f the life and actions
o f Nicholas: Vitam scilicet decessoris mei beatae recordationis papae
N icolai lacessere nullo modo metuens. . ., after which Hadrian lavishes
high praise on Nicholas5 activities in answer to Michael and Photius.
Gjandschezian, Der Brief des Photios an Aschot und dessen Antwort’, in Zeit
schrift fü r armenische Philologie (1904), vol. ii, p. 2: ‘ Denn Rom ehrt zuerst so das
vierte Konzil, wie die drei Konzilien, die diesem vorgegangen sind. Mit solcher
gleichen Verehrung nimmt auch der grosse [Patriarchen] Stuhl von Alexandrien
und der Stuhl von Jerusalem [es] an und tragen keine Feindschaft wegen dieses
heiligen Konzils. So auch die Konzilien, die diesem d. h. dem vierten gefolgt sind,
[nämlich] das fünfte, sechste und siebente.’ See the Armenian text in Palestinskii
Sbornik (1892), vol. xi (Papadopoulos-Kerameus), pp. 210 seq.
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 123: ‘ Post haec vero posuit Photius in coelum os suum,
et lingua eius transiit super terram, dum videlicet contra divinam ordinationem,
coelitus in beati Petri principis apostolorum primatu dispositam, putridi gurgitis
guttur aperuit, ac adversus eiusdem regni caelestis clavigeri apostolicam sedem, et
praecipuam et summam dignitatem et potestatem, linguam suam more serpentis
exacuit; vitam scilicet decessoris mei beatae recordationis papae Nicolai lacessere
nullo modo metuens, nec nobis, qui eius vix digni famuli, ut non dicam sequaces,
exstitimus, parcere utcumque consentiens, sed utrosque maledictis impetere,
quantum in se fuit, et blasphemis inficere verbis existimans, falsitatis praestigia
fingere conatus; et nescio quae Pythonica est somnia vel argumenta, compilando
procul dubio, commentatus. Et certe quis ille pater noster, vel quantus aut qualis
exstiterit, omnes, qui morum eius insignia, vel virtutum trophaea recolitis, plenius
agnovistis.. . . ’
128
It is evident, then, that the Pope found in the Acts o f the Council o f
867 nothing but personal criticisms o f Nicholas and his doings: but this
is not the same as denying the Roman primacy as such any more than
criticizing the conduct o f Alexander V I— if we may draw the com
parison without prejudice to the saintly memory o f a great Pope o f the
stature o f Nicholas— could ever be regarded as taking exception to the
Roman primacy.
Photius’ manner in criticizing certain acts o f Nicholas was perhaps
unconventional and offensive; but then, it is also difficult, it must be
confessed, to draw a hard and fast line between the Pope’s person and
the high position he occupies in the Church. One can understand why
Hadrian was shocked by Photius’ outburst; nevertheless, the distinction
between the two notions still holds good.
To summarize what has been said about the whole incident, one
can maintain that the significance o f the Photian encyclical and o f
the synod o f 867 has too often been overrated by both historians and
theologians; in this they merely followed Baronius,1 who was the first
to stretch Photius’ words to an attack on the Western Church and on
the rights o f the bishop o f Rome in the Church.
Contrary to what we are made to believe, Photius spoke o f the Pope,

until the Council o f 867, as little as possible. I have already pointed
out his efforts to obtain Nicholas’ recognition and his deliberate silence
after Nicholas’ reiterated refusal. It must be admitted that till 867
Photius’ attitude was perfectly dignified. Nor is it true to state that
Photius had been planning his attack on the Pope ever since 864 and
had sent his agents to Italy to gather materials for the Council that was
to proclaim Nicholas’ downfall. Hergenröther* could produce no
evidence for this assertion. Knowing the reasons for Nicholas’ refusal;
knowing that his enemies’ intrigues had done their work in Rom e;
unable to oblige the Pope with what was expected in exchange for his
recognition or to agree with his point o f view, Photius remained content
with keeping an obstinate but respectful silence from 861 till 867.
This was the only attitude he could adopt without prejudicing his
own rights and the peace o f Christendom. The information that reached
him from time to time from Western countries bore out his conviction
that silence and time would be the best means o f breaking down
Nicholas’ opposition. Photius had no difficulty in discovering that
1 Annales Ecclesiastici. . . , an. 867, chs. L X V II seq. Cf. Norden, Das Papsttum
und Byiani (Berlin, 1903), p. 9. 2 Loc. cit. pp. 551 seq.
DPS 129 9
Nicholas had his antagonists among his own subordinates; and the
prelates concerned volunteered the information, knowing well that the
Patriarch o f Constantinople also came in for some o f Nicholas’ resent
ment: Radoald, who in 864 had made common cause with Günther and
Theotgand, had certainly informed the bishops o f what had taken place
in Constantinople in 861 and demonstrated to them that his own point
o f view with regard to Photius was right whereas Nicholas’ policy was
a blunder. Photius was, moreover, the only man who could have
openly withstood Nicholas, without fear for his own safety.
And yet, Photius was not spoiling for a fight o f this sort; nor would
he have moved a finger even in 867, had the Bulgar incident not com
pletely altered the position. His letter to John o f Ravenna suggests
that the last overtures made to him from the West had come that very
year: it was this appeal and the Roman offensive in Bulgaria that had
such a decisive effect on his change o f attitude. Photius, however,
exaggerated the importance and the extent o f the opposition to Nicholas
in the West just as much as Nicholas overrated the prestige his See
commanded in the East.
These considerations may explain Photius’ conduct, though no
reasons are adequate to excuse his last move, which proved so disas
trous. B y daring to pass judgement on a Pope, Photius committed a
deed till then unheard o f in history, one that endangered the unity o f
Christendom, for which there could be neither excuse nor justification.
Rightly or wrongly, his action set a precedent invoked or imitated by
all those who later were to break the unity of the Church.
Photius’ desperate move was moreover premature, inconsiderate and
thoughtless; he was wrong in abandoning his attitude o f patient pro
crastination, when Providence was busy settling things for the best.
Nicholas died on 13 November, without hearing o f the sentence passed
on him by the Orientals. A letter from Anastasius the Librarian to Ado
o f Vienna, written on 14 December 867,1 tells us that dissatisfaction
with Nicholas’ policy was at the time widespread in Rom e; and Ana
stasius, his chief collaborator, feared for the future o f the great Pope’s
work. The opinions o f his successor Hadrian II not being known yet,
Anastasius expressed his anxiety lest the new Pope should side with
his predecessor’s enemies and reverse his whole policy.2
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 400 seq.
2 For further details cf. Lapôtre, ‘ Hadrien II et les Fausses Decretales’, in Revue
des Questions historiques (1880), vol. xxvii, pp. 377-431, chiefly pp. 383—402. Also,
for signs of apprehension cf. the Liber Pontificalis, vol. η, pp. 173 seq. Cf. Langen,
Geschichte d. Rom. Kirche, pp. 117 seq. J. Haller, loc. cit. pp. 95 seq.
130
N I C HO L A S , P HOT I US AND BORI S
But a change seemed to be preparing even in the Papacy’s oriental

policy. Zachary o f Anagni, who for his feelings towards Photius had
fallen foul o f Nicholas, returned to favour under Hadrian and, together
with some other bishops who had been dismissed by Nicholas, received
holy communion from the Pope’s hands on the very day o f Hadrian’s
consecration.1 The Greek monks who were refugees in Rome seemed
to scent danger and ceased to come to the meal which Nicholas had
daily provided for them at the Lateran. As they fought shy o f Hadrian,
the Pope deemed it advisable to make the first step to ease the tension
and offered them a banquet on 20 February 868,12 when he gave the
refugees tokens o f exceptional friendship, condescending even to eat
with them and pour out the wine with his own hands. In his toast, he
gave them the assurance that they had nothing to fear from him and
that he had no intention o f introducing any radical changes into his
predecessor’s oriental policy. Theognostos must have breathed again,
as anxious concern for his work had given him more than one bad night
in Rome. His urgent and oft-repeated pleas to Hadrian3 had therefore
borne some fruit, though he did not have it all his own way.
It goes without saying that nothing at that moment was known of
the changes in Byzantium and the Council o f 867. On reading these
reports, one gathers the clear impression that one move from Photius
for an amicable settlement o f this business would at that moment have
produced the best impression and might have altered the whole course
o f pontifical policy.
1 Liber Pontificalis, vol. Π, p. 175.

2 Ibid., p. 176: £A cuius videlicet sanctissimi Hadriani papae collegio cum per
dies aliquot quidam Graecorum et aliarum gentium servorum Dei per id tempus
Romae morantium se clanculo suspendissent, sexta feria Septuagesime idem
summus antistes secundum consuetudinem refectionis gratia solito pluris
numeri convocavit. Quorum omnium manibus per semet humiliter aquam fudit,
cibos apposuit, pocula ministravit et, quod nullum pontificum ante se fecisse
noverat. . .cum illis discubuit.’ Cf. my book Les Légendes de Constantin et de
Méthode, p. 289.
3 Hadrian mentions this in his letter to Ignatius {M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 749).
C HA P T E R V
P H O T I U S ’ D O W N F A L L A N D T H E C O U N C IL OF
869-70
Michael’s regime, Basil and the Extremists— Did Photius resign?— Basil’s embassy
to Rome— Hadrian II’s reaction— The Council of 869-70— The Emperor and the
legates’ uncompromising attitude— The Bulgarian incident— Was Ignatius’ recog
nition by the Pope conditional?
I t was impossible for such a move on the part o f Photius to be made,

for when Hadrian took possession o f the Lateran patriarcheion it was
two months since Photius had vacated the patriarcheion o f St Sophia.
Basil had murdered Michael III on 24 September 867,1 and the new
Emperor decided to turn to Rome and to make a complete reversal o f
his predecessor’s religious policy. Photius had to yield place to Ignatius.
What were the reasons for this coup d'état} And why did the Emperor
alter the Empire’s policy towards Rome so radically? How did this
change o f front bring about at the same time Photius’ downfall?
Ignatian sources and histories o f Constantine Porphyrogennetos’ school
paint the regime o f Michael III in the very darkest colours in contrast
to Basil as the one man who saved the Empire from disaster. In their
version, Michael’s murder was hailed with a sigh o f relief and Photius’
downfall as a well-deserved punishment administered by Providence
and welcomed by the whole Church o f Constantinople. This point o f
view has until quite recently prevailed among the majority o f historians.
And yet, recent discoveries on the reign of Michael III prove that
the traditional view o f his reign and the regime o f Bardas was wrong.
T o judge only from some stories told by the Continuator o f Theophanes
and the Pseudo-Simeon, the Emperor and his uncle must have found
sympathetic support, especially among the lower and the middle classes.
Michael loved to move among ordinary people to such an extent that
those two writers were deeply shocked by his contempt for imperial
propriety.z For instance, the Emperor thought nothing o f holding
children o f the poor over the baptismal font, o f visiting them in their
miserable hovels ; 3 and he loved sports and games at the Hippodrome,123
1 For details, cf. Bury, loc. cit. pp. 177 seq.

2 Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), pp. 199 seq.; Pseudo-Simeon (Bonn), pp. 660 seq.
3 Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), pp. 172—3. Cf. Manasses, versus 5066, p. 216.
132
F A L L OF P HO T I U S A ND THE C O U N C I L OF 8 69-70
always so popular in Byzantium.1 The anonymous author o f the Patria

Constantinopoleos tells a beautiful story2 about Michael giving justice to
a poor woman against the powerful official Nicephorus, and it was not
the only edifying story circulating at the time in the poor quarters o f
Byzantium. The jaundiced descriptions by writers hostile to his memory
reveal the very characteristics that must have made Michael popular
among the masses. Compare their portraiture o f Michael III with
that found in a homily delivered in 867 in St Sophia by Photius : 3
A great Emperor, victorious and brave; a wise administrator; popular;
knowing how to address the people and to put his wealth to good use;
full o f piety and care for the churches; a real ‘ father o f the country’ .
This picture, so different from the caricatures left by the panegyrists
o f the dynasty founded by his murderer, Basil I, certainly comes nearer
the truth, as recent discoveries have amply shown.
As H. Grégoire4 has been able to prove, Michael was a gifted
statesman whose reign reached the high-water mark o f Byzantine military
1 Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), p. 198; Pseudo-Simeon (Bonn), p. 681. It should, how

ever, be observed that the imperial Hippodrome of S. Mammas used to be closed to
the public during the races in which Michael III took an active part. None but high
State officials were invited (cf. Bury, loc. cit. p. 162). Therefore annalists exaggerate
in saying that Michael thereby lowered imperial dignity.
2 Th. Preger, Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitarum (Teubner, Leipzig,
1907), vol. η (Patria Constantinopoleos, vol. m, p. 27), pp. 233 seq. Theophanes’
Continuator (Bonn), p.208 and Cedrenus (Bonn), p. 1056, state that Bardas liked to
dispense justice in the Hippodrome. Cf. A. Vogt, Basile 1er (Paris, 1908), p. 34.
It is matter of common knowledge to every student of Byzantine history that
George Cedrenus, who lived at the end of the eleventh and the beginning of the
twelfth century, did not produce an original work but copied, for the period 8 1 1 -
1057, the work of Skylitzes, who lived in the second half of the eleventh century
and wrote a chronicle extending from the reign of Michael I to that o f Nicephorus
Botaneiates (811-1079). Skylitzes’ work was, however, never published and has
so far been known only through Cedrenus’ transcription. To simplify matters, I
have preferred to quote this historical source as Cedrenus’ work. Cf. Krumbacher,
Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur (München, 1897), pp. 365-9.
3 S. Aristarchos, Photii Orat. et Hom. vol. 11, pp. 3 14 -17 . Cf. my note, ‘ Lettre
à M. H. Grégoire à propos de Michel I I I . . . ’, in Byântion (1935), vol. x, pp. 6-8.
4 H. Grégoire, ‘ Inscriptions historiques Byzantines’, in Byzantion (1927-8),
vol. IV, pp. 437-48 (‘ Ancyre et les Arabes sous Michel l’Ivrogne’, idem, ‘ Michel III
et Basile le Macédonien dans l’Inscription d’Ancyre’, ibid. (1929-30), vol. v, pp.
327-40; idem, ‘ Études sur le IXe siècle’, ibid. (1933), vol. vm , pp. 515-50).
Cf. my Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 85—112 , on the Arab mission.
Cf. also M. N. Adontz, ‘ L ’Age et l’ Origine de l’Empereur Basile T , in Byzantion
( r 933), v °h vm , PP* 475—51:3; (1934)? vol. ix, pp. 223-60; idem, ‘ La Portée his
torique de l’ Oraison funèbre de Basile T , ibid. vol. vm , pp. 5 0 1-13 . The old thesis
is defended in A. Vogt’s study, ‘ La Jeunesse de Léon VI Le Sage’, in Revue
Historique (1934), vol. C L X X i v , pp. 389—428.
133
power against the Arabs: by defeating them in 863, he and his gallant
uncle Bardas substantially enhanced the prestige o f Byzantium. Little
wonder then that Michael stood high in public veneration and long did
his name live in popular ‘ tragedies’ . Even Michael’s morals have
benefited by the findings. He was no paragon o f virtue, it is true. He
loved drink and good cheer; he was jovial and had a weakness for coarse
jokes. But he was not drunk every day and if in his younger days he
permitted himself in the company o f his boon companions some
irreverent travesties o f the liturgy, he was not for that reason either
cynical or impious. He founded two churches, both dedicated to Our
Lady,1 and richly endowed the church o f St Sophia. The Continuator
o f Theophanes, no friend o f Michael’ s, enumerates the rich presents the
Emperor made to the principal churches o f Constantinople and makes
no secret o f his admiration for the splendour o f the gifts.123 Photius in
a homily praised the Emperor’s lavish generosity and expressed the hope
to see more such marks o f imperial favour lavished on the great church.3
Even Michael’s attitude towards his mother Theodora was not as
heartless as we have been made to believe. Her dethronement, as we
have seen, was dictated by political interests. She was not sent to a
convent immediately after her fall : not until after the fruitless endeavour
by supporters o f the old regime to overthrow Bardas did her brother
and her son decide to resort to this expedient. She must have been
subsequently set free again, for in 863 she took her share in the triumph
o f her son and o f Bardas, when the populace that day hailed ‘ the
emperor together with the august empresses who share the purple’ .4
Pope Nicholas knew that Theodora held an important position at the
court, for in 866 he wrote to her as to one who might wield a salutary
influence on Michael, and Theognostos had certainly kept the Pope
informed about the circumstances at the Byzantine court. As he left
Byzantium probably at the beginning o f 862, Theodora’s reinstatement
should be dated from 861, the year when the intrigues o f the Ignatians
and o f Theodora’s old supporters were definitely foiled.
Henceforth Michael and his mother must have been on friendly
1 The των οδηγών and the καραβίτξιν. See Patria Constantinopoleos, vol. Ill,
p. 277; (ed. Th. Preger), loc. cit. vol. 11, p. 233. Bardas founded the church of
S. Demetrius (ibid. p. 295). Cf. G. Yared, loc. cit. (1872), vol. 11, pp. 561-4.
2 Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), pp. 210 seq.
3 S. Aristarchos, Φωτίου λόγοι και όμιλίαι (Constantinople, 1900), vol. Il, pp. 294,
300 seq. Cf. my ‘ Lettre à M. H. Grégoire. . p. 5.
4 Const. Porph., De Ceremoniis (Bonn), vol. 1, p. 333: συν ταϊς τιμίαις αυγούσ-
ταις έν τή πορφύρα. Cf. Bury, loc. cit. pp. 169, 284.
!34
F A L L OF P HO T I US AND THE C O U N C I L OF 8 69-70
terms, for we learn from the same sources as those which refer to
Michael’s murder1 that Theodora had invited her son to a dinner on
25 September 867 and that Michael sent his protovestiarios Rentakios
out to hunt to provide his mother with venison for the banquet. After
learning o f her son’s tragic death, Theodora went with her daughters
to view the body and bathe it in her tears, a touching demonstration
clearly attesting that Michael had after all not been such an undutiful
son to his mother.
Chroniclers’ gossip on the marriage à trois between Michael, Basil
and Eudocia was given the lie in the funeral oration which Leo V I
delivered in memory o f his father Basil.2 So none need be shocked at
the fact that Photius gave his support to Michael. Corruption at the
Byzantine court was not so bad as some would have it; 3 and besides,
if Photius is to be blamed for having been associated from his youth
in the life o f the Byzantine court, it should be remembered that the
Patriarch Tarasius, for instance, should share in the same censure; but
this did not prevent the Church from honouring him with canonization.
Even the most judicious scholars admit to-day that Michael III was not
the Triste sire’ who richly deserved the title o f 'D runkard’ bestowed
on him by posterity.4 As I have stated already, there was in Michael’s
case the same blackening o f character as in that o f the Emperor Nice-
phorus, and in both instances the defamation came from the same
quarter— the Extremists. There is, therefore, no justification whatever
for pretending that dissatisfaction with Michael’s regime was widespread
and that Basil’s ascent to the throne was hailed with a sense o f relief.
Far from this being the case, Michael’s murder alienated several classes
o f the Byzantine population.
What then were the reasons for Basil’s coup d 'état? The main and
possibly the only reason was extremely commonplace: Basil’s insensate
desire to become Emperor. The same ambition that had led him to
commit the previous murder, that o f Bardas, this time prompted him
to assassinate his greatest benefactor and friend Michael, his only excuse
being the fear lest Michael, who was beginning to suspect a rival, should
steal a march upon him.
1 Pseudo-Simeon (Bonn), pp. 684 seq.; Georg. Cont. (Bonn), pp. 836 seq.
2 A. Vogt, I. Hausherr, ‘ L ’ Oraison funèbre de Basile U, in Orientalia Christiana
(Rome, 1932), vol. x x v i; Adontz, ‘ La Portée historique de l’ Oraison funèbre de
Basile I ’, in Byiantion (1933), vol. vm , pp. 50 1-13.
3 For instance, Hergenröther, loc. cit. vol. 1, pp. 336 seq.
4 Cf. F. Dölger, Zeitschrift (1936), vol. x x x v i, on the subject of my
‘ Lettre à M. H. G régoire.. in Byiantion, vol. x, pp. 5-9.
135
For all these reasons, it is only too evident that Basil, once Emperor,
could no longer count on the support o f the party that had stood behind
Bardas and Michael, and was forcibly driven to turn to the party which
in Michael’s reign formed the opposition— the Extremists; and the
favours o f this party were his, on condition that he should adopt its
religious policy. Basil had no choice but to close the bargain. Photius’
downfall and Ignatius’ reinstatement thereupon followed as a matter o f
course, for it was only among the Extremists that Basil could find
people ready to condone, or if need be to countenance, his crime.
But Basil’s leaning to the Extremists was o f older date. As Caesar
Bardas had been the Moderates’ principal mainstay, his murder not
only made Basil a favourite with the Extremists, as was only to be
expected, but greatly facilitated matters for him; for after the Caesar’s
assassination, in which the Emperor had played a regrettable part,
Bardas’ friends lost interest in the Emperor, who had not the same com
manding personality as his uncle Bardas, and the Moderates’ position
deteriorated. From that moment the Extremists must have been on the
alert. Basil probably also made contact with their leaders before carrying
out his scheme, and though the blow must have been struck sooner
than anticipated, the revolution seems to have been carefully planned.1
This brings us once more to the eternal rivalry between the two political
parties, mutually jealous and ever greedy o f supremacy in Church and
State.
It only remains to examine the circumstances o f Photius’ dethrone

ment. Here we are faced with two different versions: the one handed
down by the Continuator o f George the Monk2 presents Photius as in
direct and irreconcilable opposition to Basil, going so far even as to
refuse Basil holy communion and to call him a robber and a parricide.
The other version is embodied in the account by Anastasius and reads:
‘ Basilius Photio sacro ministerio post depositionem irregulariter abutenti
throno Constantinopolitano cedere persuadet.’3
Which o f these two versions comes nearer the truth? At a first
glance, one would be inclined to adopt the Continuator’s version, which
1 Adontz, ‘ L ’Age et l’ Origine de l’Empereur Basile T , in Byântion (1934),
vol. ix, p. 232 is of the same opinion. Basil also initiated into his plot two bodies
of military under the command of his two accomplices, his brother Marianus and
Artavasdes.
2 (Bonn), p. 841. Also, cf. Leo Gram. (Bonn), pp. 254 seq.; Pseudo-Simeon
(Bonn), pp. 688 seq.
136
F A L L OF P HO T I US AND THE C O U N C I L OF 8 6 9 -7 O
Hergenröther1 naturally discards for reasons that are not valid; for he
finds it strange that a man who approved Bardas’ murder could in less
than no time turn virtuous enough to protest against Michael’s murder.
And yet, Photius’ reply to the imperial account o f what had taken place
in the course o f the expedition to Crete12 could not justify the conclusion
that Photius approved the murder o f Bardas. Naturally enough, he
accepts the official explanation supplied by the Emperor, or rather by
Basil, to the effect that Bardas had been plotting against the Emperor;
but in his letter to Michael one can find more than one sentence indicative
o f the Patriarch’s true feelings. What he regretted most was that Bardas
had been killed without being given time to repent.3 Equally sincere
was his request, repeated in a second letter, urging Michael to return
to Constantinople soon, there being serious fear o f trouble from the
loyal partisans o f Bardas.
But plausible as such a line o f argument is, we cannot give this version
unreserved credit. In the first place, it recalls too much the story o f
Ignatius’ refusal to give holy communion to Bardas, as though one o f
Photius’ admirers had concocted the parallel story in order that his
hero should not be outdone by Ignatius. Then again, why should Basil
have courted the affront and risked his prestige among the population o f
the city, when there was no need for it? He must have known Photius’
feelings and could not but expect a rebuff ; and he was cunning enough
to realize that any overtures to Photius would have lost him the good
will o f the Extremists, whose support he had to solicit above all things.
For all these reasons Anastasius’ version seems preferable; it
is brief and truthful. It was the obvious thing for Basil to do— to
invite Photius to resign— since he had to reinstate on the patriarchal
throne Ignatius, the very candidate o f the political party with whose
assistance he intended to govern. The procedure was also canonical and
true to Byzantine tradition: Photius’ resignation was sent in soon after
the coup d'etat, probably the day after,4 and Ignatius’ installation took
place only on 3 November, the anniversary o f his first enthronement.
1 Photius, vol. in, pp. 13 seq. Cf. vol. 11, pp. 588 seq.
z P.G . vol. 102, cols. 717 seq.
3 Cf. Bury, loc. cit. pp. 172 seq., and Rosseykin, loc. cit. pp. 341-4.
4 The crowning of Basil by Photius mentioned in the Patriarch’s letter to the
Emperor {P.G . vol. 102, col. 765) did not take place after Michael’s murder. Photius
merely recalls the ceremony as it was narrated by the Continuator of George the
Monk (Bonn, p. 832) and which took place when Michael proclaimed Basil co-
Emperor. Basil, after Michael’s murder, did not have himself crowned again, but
simply went on ruling alone.
137
After ascending the throne, Basil found himself in a somewhat delicate

position: as he had announced a change o f policy, he had to try to
be on good terms with Rom e; but, on the other hand, he had badly
committed himself in the eyes o f the Romans by attending with Michael
the Council that had indicted Nicholas, the same Pope, so it was then
believed in Constantinople, who was still in occupation o f the See o f
Rome. Under the circumstances, one can understand that Basil should
try to doctor whatever might in this respect have placed him in an
unfavourable light: so he hurriedly recalled the ambassadors, who were
on their way to Italy, carrying the Acts o f that Council to Louis I I ;
ordered, as soon as he was in power, a search to be made in the Patriarch’s
palace,1 and confiscated the copy o f the Acts found among the Patriarch’s
papers, a document it was wise to secure before it could be used against
him.
Similar motives may have prompted Basil to inform the Pope at the
earliest possible date o f the recent change in Byzantium and to despatch
the spathar Euthymios to Rome with a letter. As the envoy did not
arrive till the beginning o f the summer o f 868, the Pope’s reply to this
letter being dated August o f the same year, Euthymios cannot have left
Byzantium till the spring o f 868, at the opening o f sea traffic. Basil,,
however, summarized the facts in his second letter to the Pope; it is
preserved in the Acts o f the Eighth Council.2
When Theognostos got to know o f its contents, he had every reason
to rejoice, for the very terms used by the Emperor made it evident that
the Extremists had gained the upper hand in Byzantium. Theognostos
could hardly have expected such a sudden and complete turn, and all
those in Rome who had trembled for the future o f Nicholas’ work
breathed a sigh o f relief. The news brought to Rome by Euthymios
created the same sensation as Boris’ embassy in 866: the ‘ N icholases’
had scored; the great Pope’s Oriental policy had been marvellously
justified by the Byzantines themselves. And there was none left in
Rome to criticize it. Whatever, then, Nicholas had said or written about
Photius must be absolutely true, since here was the Emperor himself to
confirm it. None in Rome, o f course, knew anything about the conflict
between the two political currents, and Theognostos was not going to
enlighten the Romans in the matter; so the sudden change was soon
explained à la romaine and the whole o f Nicholas’ work benefited by
the explanation. This circumstance probably stiffened Hadrian’s deter-
1 Nicetas, Vita Ignatii, P .G . vol. 105, col. 540,
138
F A L L OF P HO T I U S A ND THE C O U N C I L OF 8 6 9 -7 O
mination to pursue in all things and as far as possible his predecessor’s

policy,1 thus leaving Anastasius henceforth to sleep more peacefully.
The émigré Theognostos in one day rose to celebrity for the important
services he would be able to render in Byzantium in the interests o f the
Papacy.
The Pope immediately made a call on his services and sent Theo
gnostos to Constantinople with the ambassador. They carried two
letters.* The missive to Basil expressed the Pope’s deep satisfaction on
hearing that the Emperor had decided to carry out Nicholas’ verdict in
the two cases o f Ignatius and Photius ; also, his hope that Basil would
bring the incident to a satisfactory conclusion; and ended by warmly
recommending Theognostos. This recommendation is couched in
warmer terms still in the letter to Ignatius, who is asked to send
Theognostos back to Rome with the apocrisiaries. But the Pope is.
surprised that the Patriarch should not have notified his advent to the
throne sooner. However, he will never diverge from what Nicholas o f
blessed memory has decided against Photius and in favour o f Ignatius..
Euthymios and Theognostos, who should have reached Constanti
nople before winter, apparently were not there by 1 1 December, the
day the Emperor sent a second letter to the Pope, telling him o f his fears
concerning his first ambassador, and wondering if his letter had reached
the Pope, as the writer had been waiting in vain for a reply. The
letter does not, however, indicate the year o f its dispatch, though
it was later given the date o f 1 1 December 867.3 But this date is in no
way admissible, for, even if Basil had sent Euthymios to Rome by the end
o f September 867, there was no reason for him to be surprised at not
getting an answer before 1 1 December o f the same year. I f the date
1 1 December must be kept, then it should belong to 868, not 867.
But there is one objection against this assumption. I f sea traffic
between Byzantium and Rome was closed in winter, the date indicated
in the letter must be a mistake, unless it be assumed that the Emperor
deliberately exposed his ambassadors, owing to the importance o f their
mission, to the dangers o f a sea journey in winter. Some particulars
seem to point that way. In his reply to this second embassy, Hadrian
dwells with emphasis on the dangers which the ambassadors had had
1 Lapôtre, ‘ Hadrien II et les Fausses Decretales’, in Revue des Questions his
toriques (1880), t. X X V I I , pp. 383 seq.
2 M .G .H . Ep. V i, pp. 747-50.
3 Last, by F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden (München, 1924), vol. i, p. 58.
The author omits to mention the letter committed by the Emperor to the care o f
Euthymios.
139
THE P H O T I A N SCHISM. L THE H I S T O R Y
to face, dangers as bad as those St Paul ran on his travels.1 These words
are only intelligible, if the journey was undertaken in winter. Even the
ship that carried Photius’ delegates was wrecked, and Peter, bishop o f
Sardes, drowned.2 The sources relating the incident pointedly mention
that the ship Peter had chosen was brand-new, a sign that special pre
cautions had been taken to minimize the risk the ambassadors were to
run on their sea-crossing. All this is easily explained, if the journey
took place at the season particularly dangerous for navigation, i.e. in
winter. It also appears that the delegation travelled overland to the
Adriatic coast to mitigate the danger; and the ship mentioned was
wrecked, according to Nicetas, in the Dalmatian Bay.
On the other hand, it would seem most unlikely that the voyage
should have lasted from December 867 till December 868. Moreover,
the delegation did not include Theognostos, who went to Constanti
nople with Basil’s envoy Euthymios, a sure indication that the abbot
was not yet in Rome when the Emperor dictated his letter. That was
i i December 868. Be it also remembered that the Pope had asked
Ignatius to include Theognostos among the envoys.
I f our surmise is correct, the imperial embassy reached Rome towards
the end o f winter in 869, perhaps at the end o f February or the beginning
o f March. The composition o f the embassy clearly revealed the Em
peror’s intentions: not only did he send his spathar Basil, but also a
representative o f Ignatius— John o f Silaeon— and one o f Photius—
Peter o f Sardes ; in other words, Basil completely accepted the terms o f
Nicholas, as laid down in his last letter to Michael, and remitted the
whole case to the Pope’s court in Rome. He did not omit to point out
in his letter that he had carried out the Pope’s wish expressed on the
same occasion and had restored Ignatius to his throne. The fate o f the
Photian bishops is left entirely to the Pope’s discretion: all that was
asked for was magnanimity in the verdict,3 which a special pontifical
delegation should communicate to the Church o f Constantinople. In
asking for the Pope’s decision in the Photian bishops’ case, Ignatius
specially recommends to his clemency Paul, archbishop o f Caesarea in
Cappadocia, a repentant Photianist.
1 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 758: ‘ Qui tanta, postquam illinc profecti sunt, offendicula,
ut didicimus, pertulerunt, ut nullum properantes pene periculorum, quae Paulus in
epistolis suis dinumerat, evasisse videantur. Quapropter dignis sunt vicissitudinibus
a tua pietate remunerandi, qui pro ecclesia Christi proque iniunctae sibi a majestate
tua legationis consummatione tot ac talia subire promptissime consenserunt.’
2 Mansi, vol. xvi, coi. 7; Liber Pontificalis, vol. 11, p. 178; Nicetas, Vita Ignatii,
P .G . vol. 105, coi. 544. 3 Mansi, vol. xvi, cois. 46, 47.
14 0
F A L L OF P HO T I US AND THE C O U N C I L OF 8 6 9 -7 O
The Liber Pontificalis1 gives us a detailed account o f the reception given

to the Greek embassy in the church o f St Mary Major, where the
ambassadors presented the Acts o f the Council o f 867 with expressions
o f horror at their contents and characteristically Greek gesticulations,
the spathar Basil roundly accusing Photius o f having forged the Em
peror’s signature at the foot o f the Acts: Michael signed in a fit o f
drunkenness. The ambassadors were unable to ascertain whether
Euthymios and Theognostos had reached Constantinople and it was
feared that disaster had overtaken them. The Romans must have been
surprised to learn that the ambassadors knew nothing about their fate.
It was thus not until early spring in 869 that details o f the Eastern
synod o f 867 reached Rome, when fortunately the outgoing Patriarch’s
daring deed had lost its sting, since Constantinople had on its own
initiative disowned and condemned it. One could therefore afford to
be shocked in perfect comfort.
The Pope had the Acts examined by a commission o f experts, but
the imperial ambassadors urged Hadrian to expedite the examination
and his own decision.* There was good reason for haste, as Basil was
growing impatient at the pace o f the negotiations, which had dragged
on for eighteen months. Preparations for the Council in Constantinople
had started before the ambassadors embarked for Rome and the dele
gates o f the Patriarchates o f Jerusalem and Antioch were waiting
impatiently for the arrival o f the Roman delegates.123
The synod at last took place in the first days o f June,4 as the Pope’s
letters, which the apocrisiaries had to take to Constantinople, bear the
date 10 June 869. Bishop Peter, the counsel for the Photian party’s
defence, having perished on his way, there was no one to plead for the
defendants, and though the Pope repeatedly urged the monk Methodius,
the only survivor o f Peter’s party, to undertake Photius’ defence, the
monk, whether he felt unable to undertake the task, or because he knew
the verdict to be a foregone conclusion, declined to do so. Then the
Pope decided to continue the proceedings and to pronounce judgement
without giving the defendants a hearing.
1 Loc. cit. vol. π, pp. 178 seq.

2 Stated by the Pope in his letter to Basil, M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 758. In the same
letter Hadrian explains the delay by the number of important items of business he
had to settle before the convocation o f the synod.
3 Cf. their declaration at the first session of the Eighth Council (Mansi, vol. xvi,
col. 25). The Roman legates failing to arrive, they wished to leave.
4 Cf. Jaffé-Ewald, Regesta, p. 370.. Lapôtre, ‘ Hadrien II et les Fausses Dé
crétales loc. cit. p. 384.
The Acts o f the Roman synod are to be found in the Acts o f the
Eighth Council, as they were read during the seventh session.1 The
allocution which the Pope addressed to the assembly bears out what
has been said about Hadrian’s irresolution in following his predecessor’s
policy in every detail, as the Pope made desperate efforts to make the
Nicholaites, whose confidence had received an extra fillip from the new
turn in Ignatius’ case, forgive and forget his fumbling in the first days
o f his reign, by lavishing lengthy praise on Nicholas’ achievements and
charging Photius with having, by his challenge to Nicholas, personally
challenged him (Hadrian), since Nicholas’ policy was equally his.12
The Pope’s allocution shows that Hadrian had completely veered
round to the point o f view o f Theognostos and his associates, then still
in Rome, in Ignatius’ case. The Fathers’ opinion was expressed by
Gauderich o f Velletri, whose proposals were adopted and improved
upon by the Pope and read out by his spokesman, the deacon Marinus.
Formosus then assured the Pope that the synod agreed to everything
he would judge it necessary to decide. In the third allocution, which
was read by the deacon Peter, Hadrian very severely took Photius to
task for daring to judge a Pope: ‘ Romanum pontificem de omnium
ecclesiarum praesulibus judicasse legimus, de eo vero quemquam judi
casse non legimus.’ When the synod had endorsed the condemnation
and interceded for those bishops who had been misled by Photius, the
Pope passed sentence:
Photius’ conventicle must be put on a par with the Ephesus act o f
brigandage; his decrees are valueless; his Acts, as well as all the docu
ments written by him and the Emperor Michael against the Church o f
Rome, must be burned; even the councils summoned by Photius
against Ignatius are condemned. The third canon renewed in the most
virulent terms the anathemas hurled by Nicholas against Photius; and
should the ‘ intruding’ Patriarch repent he will be admitted to lay
communion only. The fourth canon was aimed at the signatories o f the
conventicle o f 867, who were promised lay communion if they repented.
Lastly, the fifth canon threatened with excommunication all those who
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 12 2 -3 1, 372—80.

2 Cf. the passage quoted on p. 128. That is how I explain the Pope’s words.
Ch. J. Hefele (Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, ιν, i, p. 47 1 ) and Hergenröther
(loc. cit. vol. π, p. 37) offer opinions on this passage that are unacceptable; for how
could Photius have possibly spread rumours to the effect that Hadrian’s opinions
differed from his predecessor’s? Photius could not know of Hadrian’s election till
the end of December 868, after the arrival of Euthymios and Theognostos; and
who else could have reported such rumours to the Pope?
142
F A L L OF P HOT I US AND THE C O U N C I L OF 8 6 9 -7 O
should refuse to hand over the condemned writings. The synod was
brought to an end with a solemn bonfire, when the Acts o f the Council
o f 867, brought by the imperial ambassadors, were burned in front o f
the church o f St Peter, where the synod had met, and the volumes
burned so fiercely under pouring rain that all the onlookers pronounced
it a miracle.1
In his letter to Ignatius, which the legates were to convey to Con
stantinople with copies o f all the letters written by Nicholas on the
Photian incident, the Pope, among other things, communicated the
sentence passed against the defendants. Photius, Gregory o f Syracuse
and those who had been consecrated by the ex-Patriarch are deposed,
with the sole exception o f Paul o f Caesarea; the clergy ordained by
Ignatius, who subsequently followed Photius, may obtain pardon, if
they sign the 'Libellus satisfactionis’ which the legates will present to
them; absolution for the signatories o f the Acts o f the Council o f 867
is reserved to the Holy See; Ignatius is also called upon to justify himself
against his enemies’ accusation that he refused to receive the letter o f
Benedict III, by having the pontifical decrees signed by all the members
o f the Council shortly to be summoned in Constantinople; the Acts o f
the Roman synod are to be kept in the patriarchal archives.
In his letter to Basil, Hadrian repeats his decisions, with special
emphasis on the fact that, owing to the Emperor’s intervention, he had
exercised special clemency in his judgement; the Emperor is requested
to summon a great council to carry out the Pontiff’s sentence under
the presidentship o f his legates; the Acts o f Photius’ conventicle must
be solemnly burned there; lastly, the Emperor is asked to send back to
Rome the Greek monks who with Photius had intrigued against Pope
Nicholas in Constantinople; and the Pope concludes by recommending
his legates, bishops Donatus and Stephen and Deacon Marinus, to
Basil’s favour.
In comparing the contents o f the letters from Basil and Ignatius to
Hadrian with the decisions o f the synod o f St Peter’s, and the Pope’s
answers to those letters, one notes that the Pope had gone far beyond
the Emperor’s intentions. Basil had naturally wished to comply with
Nicholas’ desire to reserve to himself the final verdict in the case, in the
presence o f the two parties in Rome, believing that this was the best
way to curry favour with Rome and to screen his murder behind the
authority o f the supreme See. He needed the support o f this high moral
patronage to strengthen his regime in Byzantium. But it was not in his
1Liber Pontificalis, v o l . II, p. 179.
143
THE PH Ο TI AN SCHISM. I. THE H I S T O R Y
best interest to exasperate the Photianists by excessive severity and

stiffen their opposition to the new conditions. Being clever enough to
see that the ecclesiastical wing o f the moderate or liberal party, which
had identified itself with the Photian loyalists, was a power to conjure
with, he only sought the Pope’s assistance in bringing about an
honourable liquidation o f the whole business, the very reason why he
so urgently insisted with the Pope on the exercise o f clemency towards
the Photianists. His ambassador must have been instructed in the same
sense, for he actually tried to obtain a mitigation o f the sentence against
Ignatius’ enemies.
In this respect, the Emperor’s attempt proved a failure, and the Pope
in no way made things easier for him. His sentence was stiff and far too
severe. Evidently, the Pope failed to understand Basil’s wishes in the
matter; he only saw things in the light in which Nicholas had seen them,
and took advantage o f the Photian case to convince the Nicholaites,
always ready to criticize some o f his first acts, that he really was a
faithful follower o f his great predecessor.
On learning o f Hadrian’s decision, Basil must have regretted his
ignorance o f the change in the See o f Rome at the moment he dictated
his letters. I f Euthymios had arrived from Rome sooner, if Basil had
known o f Nicholas’ death, he would very probably have dealt with the
new Pope differently, and as Hadrian was not so deeply committed in
the case, he would have found it easier to induce the Pope to make
concessions.
The discrepancy between Basil’s intentions and the Pope’s decisions
came for the first time to the surface at the legates’ audience at court.
In his speech on that occasion, the Emperor wished the legates every
success in their mission for the restoration o f peace and unity in the
Church o f Constantinople in the spirit o f Nicholas’ decrees; and the
legates replied that such indeed was their mission. They insisted, how
ever, that they could admit no one to the synod, unless he first signed
the ‘ Libellus’ which they had brought from Rome and which had been
drawn up after a formulary preserved in the Vatican archives. Amazed
at this declaration, the Emperor and the Patriarch replied : Quia novum
hoc et inauditum de libello proferendo asseritis, necesse est ut tenoris illius
form am videamus}
The ‘ Libellus’ in question was a formula neither new nor unknown
in the East, having been drawn up after Pope Hormisdas’ Regula Fid el?
1 Liber Pontificalis, vol. π, pp. 180, 181.
2 Mansi, vol. vm , cols. 407, 408.
14 4
F A L L OF P HOT I US AND THE C O U N C I L OF 8 6 9 -7 O
a document which the Eastern bishops had been asked to sign on their
abjuration o f Aeacius’ schism; only, it had been slightly enlarged by
Hadrian’s Chancellery, who, for the anathemas hurled at the heretics
mentioned in the Regula, had substituted a long and vehement con
demnation o f Photius and his adherents, with, naturally, additional
emphasis on the primacy o f the Roman See.
Thus the 'Libellus’, though its contents were not particularly objec
tionable, was not a document likely to be very welcome to the Byzan
tines. However, Basil accepted it; but what angered him was the w ay
the 'Lib ellus’ was forced on them and made a sine qua non condition
for admission to the Council.
Under the circumstances, there was in fact no reason left for con
voking a council, since judgement had already been passed. This did
not square with the intentions o f Basil, who would have liked the
Council to try the case anew and the legates to give their verdict in the
name o f the Council and o f the Pope. He had a feeling that the legates’
procedure would only complicate matters and upset all his plans.
The Council opened on 5 October with fairly disheartening prospects.

This time, the legates would hear o f no compromise between their
instructions and the Emperor’s real intentions: the Pope’s orders were
to be carried out literally. But the legates must have been painfully
surprised at the meagre attendance at the first session o f only twelve
bishops, prelates who had always remained faithful to Ignatius, a clear
indication that Rome had been labouring under a misconception o f the
numerical and moral importance o f the Ignatian party; and had the true
position among the Byzantine clergy after 861 been better known,
Rome would have modified her proceedings against the Photianists.
The man really responsible for the misunderstanding was none other
than Theognostos with his Extremist monks, then refugees in Rome.
Difficulties grew worse. The reading o f the 'Libellus’ at the first
session, when the number o f prelates consenting to sign the document
was anything but imposing, seems to have created something o f a
sensation among the audience.1 At the second session, only ten more
bishops z came forward to sign ; and at the third session, the metropolitans
Theodoulos o f Ancyra and Nicephorus o f Nicaea, though seemingly not
unfavourable to Ignatius, refused to sign, arguing that they had vowed
never to sign any documents o f that nature, because such signatures had
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 30: ‘ Et post completionem libelli silentio fac to, surgens
Bahanes. . .dixit.. . . ’ 2 Ibid. col. 41.
DP S 145 IO
THE P H O T ! A N SCHISM. I. THE H I S T O R Y
been so badly abused o f late.1 At the fourth session, thirty-six bishops

came forward, with the addition o f only one at each o f the following
sessions. At the ninth session, the number rose to sixty-six, and at the
last to 103, no great achievement after all. Even Anastasius, the trans
lator o f the Acts, registered surprise.2 There was no explaining away
the fact by arguing that the prelates only dribbled in after the invitation
to come, for we know that Basil had been long in preparing the Council
and had certainly taken every precaution to secure an attendance. Nor
should we forget that nearly two years had elapsed since Ignatius’
reinstatement, leaving his supporters plenty o f time to prepare the
Council and to canvass for friends among the Photian clergy. They had
apparently not been very successful in that quarter.
The true reasons for the failure can be read between the lines o f
Anastasius’ report. They were the strength o f the Photian party, the
bishops’ loyalty, and the wooden rigidity o f the procedure in Council.
For one thing, the clergy ordained by Photius had nothing to gain by
transferring their allegiance to Ignatius, as all they were promised was
lay communion, and those ordained by Methodius and Ignatius, who
returned to the new Patriarch, were given long and fairly humiliating
penances. One has but to imagine oneself in their place: they knew
much more about the whole business than the apostolic delegates and
the Roman See; they knew all its details, all the intrigues o f the opposi
tion party as well as the true motives behind the hatred it heaped on
their leader; and they deeply resented the fact that the Roman See and
its representatives, completely ignoring issues that had nothing to do
with religion and ecclesiastical discipline, had straight away condemned
their master and themselves, without even giving them a hearing. Under
the circumstances, the See o f Rome only stood to lose part o f a prestige
which they and their master had willingly acknowledged.
The legates were not aware o f the dreadful dilemma into which they
were driving the consciences o f the majority o f the Byzantine clergy,
and in fear o f the fate o f Zachary and Radoald and wishing to carry out
the Pope’s orders literally, they refrained from a closer examination o f
the case. Obviously, things were far too complicated for anyone who
had not followed them at close quarters and lived in the thick o f them.
In Rome, numerous facts, apparently beyond dispute, besides Basil’s
own approval, seemed to warrant and vindicate the sentence that had
been pronounced, but what Roman o f those days could have been
familiar with all the intricacies o f the case?
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 45. 3 Ibid. col. 190.
146
FALL O F P H O T I U S A N D T H E C O U N C I L O F 8 6 9 -7 O
Even the Ignatians attending the Council seemed to be aware o f this

and took exception to the legates5 procedure; for they must have felt
the solidity o f their opponents5 position, and so realized that the clear-cut
and categorical sentence passed by Rome in their favour could only
recoil on their own position in the eyes o f the Byzantine public. They
were after all given nothing to do in the Council, since the issue had
been decided in advance in Rome and all they were asked to do was to
sign the decree, a treatment humiliating for the Byzantines, which could
and did make people say that Constantinople had been enslaved by
Rome. One can just imagine the lively commentaries on the first seven
conciliar sessions o f the month o f October that set all the presbyteries
agog in those long winter evenings. The ‘ Libellus5 signed by the
Ignatian bishops was evidence enough. It also makes one understand
how at the end o f the Council some prelates approached the Patriarch
and the Emperor to represent to them that the ‘ Libellus5 would survive
as a standing token o f the Byzantine Church’s subjection to Rome, and
w hy the Emperor attempted to seize the signed copies locked up in the
legates5 safe. Anastasius congratulated himself on inducing the Emperor
to have the said documents, after being stolen by the legates5 servants
on Basil’s own orders— so Anastasius avers— restored to them.1
Basil saw, o f course, the difficulties in which Ignatius and his party had
been placed, and, although unable to act in. opposition to the Pope,
whose judgement he had asked and obtained, he tried at least to minimize
the deplorable impression such a peremptory prejudgement had produced
in Byzantium. Attentive reading o f the Acts o f the Council reveals that
Basil had planned more than one unpleasant surprise for the legates.
A t the first session, Baanes, a high official, who presided over the
conciliar debates, first called upon the legates, to their utter amazement,
to present their credentials to the assembly. Here is their reply: ‘ So far
we have never come upon the practice at General Councils for repre
sentatives o f older Rome to be asked by anybody for their credentials.5
(‘ Hoc nos usque nunc non invenimus in universali synodo factum, ut
vicarii senioris Romae a quolibet perpendantur, utrum talem existima
tionem habeant.5) Not until they had been assured that no offence
against the honour o f the Roman See had been intended did the legates
cool down— a precaution to avoid a repetition o f the story o f Zachary
and Radoald! A t the same session, Baanes asked the Pope’s representa
tives w hy Photius had been condemned without being given a hearing,2
1 Loc. cit. col. 29. 2 Loc. cit. col. 34.
Μ? 10-2
THE P H O T IA N SCHISM . I. T H E H I S T O R Y
whereupon the legates felt themselves obliged to give a lengthy answer

and summarize the story o f the embassies sent to Rome by Michael and
Photius. Even representatives o f the Eastern sees had to be called to
order on the same issue.
Basil’s intentions are not difficult to detect behind this procedure:
the Emperor wished to give the assembly at least a semblance o f an
impartial court and expected the Pope’s sentence to be pronounced
again, after a minute examination. Having no wish to exasperate the
Photianists, he persistently emphasized his readiness to find a com
promise acceptable to all, as was made clear in the inaugural address
which he sent to the Fathers and had read out by the secretary Theodore.
The same was repeated in other addresses, for instance, at the sixth and
seventh sessions.1 At the fourth session, Baanes gave expression to the
Emperor’s wish in almost brutal terms: The Emperor will not sign the
Acts, if Photius and his associates are refused a hearing.2
Hence it was that the Emperor ignored the Pope’s order to have the
Council presided over by his legates, a privilege the Emperor, as in
other oecumenical councils, reserved to himself or to his representative,
the Patrician Baanes, and forced the legates to accept. At the fourth
session, the legates were asked to re-examine the case o f the Photian
bishops Theophilus and Zachary, a particularly unpalatable request, as
the bishops soon confounded the legates by producing Marinus’ evidence
to the effect that the Pope had held communion with them in 86o .3 The
Emperor also imposed on the legates the obligation o f giving Photius
and all the bishops who supported him a hearing (fifth, sixth and seventh
sessions). Among all those who attended, the fourth session created a
most awkward impression.
The legates, o f course, upheld their own point o f view as best they
could, seizing every opportunity to insist that they had not come to
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 18, 19, chiefly 93: ‘ Unum solum nobis desiderium, et ad
praefatos iudices, postquam illos vidimus supplicatio fuit, ne quemquam permit
terent deperire, vel ab ecclesia Dei quemquam si fieri potest projici. . .quos non
proprie tantum, sed et communiter hodie, omnibus videntibus, deprecamur, manum
iis qui compassione opus habent porrigere, et unam ecclesiam celebrantium
festivitatem perficere.’ Cf. also cois. 99, 100.
2 Loc. cit. coi. 5 5 : ‘ Si vultis ergo a nobis. . . in fine sanctae et universalis huius
synodi exigere proprias subscriptiones per me indignum servum sanctorum
imperatorum nostrorum, cuncti fratres mei et compatricii dicunt sanctissimo
domino nostro patriarchae et sanctissimis vicariis. . .nisi audierimus et ab ipso
Photio in conspectu nostro stante, et ab episcopis eius. . . ut in conspectu ob
struantur ora ipsorum ex canonicis et synodicis praeceptionibus, non scribet manus
nostra litteram in synodo ista.5 Cf. Vogt, Basile 1er (Paris, 1908), pp. 22 seq.
3 Cf. Mansi, vol. xvi, cois. 77, 88, 97, 98, 100. See pp. 72 seq.
148
listen to the arguments o f the ex-Patriarch and his associates, but to

pronounce the sentence passed in advance in Rome by Nicholas and
Hadrian.1 Their words were plain and always the same: Do you
acknowledge Rom e’s judgement? Will you sign the ‘ Libellus’, yes or
no? They interrupted Baanes and even Basil, as they cross-questioned
Eulampius. At the seventh session, when the iconoclast Crithinos came
up for trial, the legates asked, not for the reading o f the decisions o f the
Seventh Council against the iconoclasts, but only for Nicholas’ decree
on images.
As matters stood, the Emperor’s efforts were doomed to failure.
Photius had, to the legates’ exasperation, kept an unbroken and dignified
silence. Zachary tried to plead for Photius and his cause at the sixth
session, and Metrophanes replied, but when Zachary rose to answer
Metrophanes, the legates cut him short : A truce to words and to procrasti
nation! Submit, or else you will be committed to eternal fire and flames.*
After that, it need surprise no one that at the seventh session Photius
and Asbestas should have urged the legates to do penance.3 From their
point o f view, the legates’ procedure was nothing but an exhibition of
partiality and unfairness. The Photian bishops, who were quick in
detecting the incompatibility between the Emperor’s and the legates’
standpoints, summed up the debates o f the seventh session in these
words: ‘ Quid volumus dicere? Si dixerimus justitias nostras, non
fient.’ B y interrupting during the debate between these bishops and
Baanes, the legates only provided their words with the corroboration
they needed. They stopped the debate and ordered the reading o f the
whole dossier containing the sentence against Photius and its confirma
tion by Nicholas and Hadrian. In their opinion, the incident was closed,
and there was no going back on the judgement. And that is how the
trial o f Photius and his followers was concluded. On his refusal to sign
his own condemnation, Photius was, on a proposal by the legates,
excommunicated.4
1 Photius hit off the legates’ state of mind in his letter to Theodosius (P .G .
vol. 102, col. 893). There he quotes the legates as saying: ημείς ούτε κρίνειν
συνήλθομεν, ούτε κρίνομεν υμάς* ήδη yàp κατεκρίναμεν* και δέον στέργειν την
κατάκρισιν__ This letter, the letter that precedes it in the Hergenröther-Migne
edition and is addressed to the same person, Photius’ letter to Michael the Proto-
spathar and two letters to Michael of Mytilene, give a good idea of what Photius
thought of the council summoned against him (loc. cit., cols. 889-92, 948, 860).
2 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 87-92. 3 Loc. cit. col. 98.
4 Nicetas (loc. cit. col. 545) states that the bishops signed with pens dipped into
Our Lord’s Blood. This anecdote seemed ‘ too tall’ even to Hergenröther, loc. cit.
vol. π, p. 109.
I49
THE P H O T IA N SCH ISM . I. T H E H I S T O R Y
The legates’ intransigence in the literal execution o f their mandate

was equally conspicuous at the ninth session, when the officials guilty
o f deposing Ignatius at the Council o f 861 came up for trial.1 As only
thirteen out o f seventy-two State functionaries concerned answered the
summons, the legates insisted that the other officials should also be put
on trial, when Baanes interposed with the request that Ignatius should
be given power to absolve them, whenever they should apply for
absolution. The protocol o f this session made it abundantly clear that
the government had no wish to go to extremes, for fear o f exasperating
the State service and o f swelling the ranks o f the opposition. It should
be added that Ignatius understood and promptly rallied to the proposal.
Strangely enough, the legates even failed to carry their point with
the Fathers in a matter that interested them most. As they tried to gain
their point in every detail o f the decisions o f Nicholas and Hadrian, the
Fathers just yielded to their claims as far as these tallied with their own
point o f view, but they refused to vote for a canon designed to stress
those two Popes’ ideas on the primacy. There is, in the speeches, a
startling repetition o f the doctrine on the pentarchy, i.e. the five
Patriarchs’ rule over the Universal C hurchy and the definitions voted
by the assembly show a certain tendency to place the five Patriarchs on
the same footing, or at least to hold them as equally important.3 Even
canon X X I, which condemned Photius’ indictment o f Nicholas, was
certainly not worded after the legates’ wishes, for the Fathers contrived
to insert after the Pope’s name the names o f the other Patriarchs, which
undoubtedly emasculated the canon for the purposes o f the Holy See..
The insertion is not so alarming as it looks at first sight, but it has its
importance.4
1 Loc. cit. cols. 150 seq.
3 Cf. the discourse by Elias of Jerusalem, Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 82, 341, of Metro
phanes of Smyrna, ibid. cols. 82, 344; of Basil, ibid. cols. 86-9, 95, 356· of Baanes,
ibid. cols. 99, 360, 140, 14 1; also, what Hergenröther (loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 132-49)
says on this doctrine from a theological point of view. We may also quote, for
instance, Baanes* declaration made at the eighth session (loc. cit. col. 140), which
sounds very characteristic: 'Posuit Deus ecclesiam suam in quinque patriarchiis,,
et definivit in evangeliis suis, ut numquam aliquando penitus decidat, eo quod
capita ecclesiae sint: etenim illud quod Christus: Et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversus eam. . . hoc demonstrat. . . . 9
3 Chiefly canon X V II. Cf. also canons X V III, X IX , X X . Vide Hergenröther,,
loc. cit. vol. i i , p . 139.
4 A similar tendency is shown in the writings of the Greek summarist of the
Acts, who also belonged to the Ignatians’ extreme wing. In summing up the
Libellus, he omits whatever in the original Latin is too glaringly in favour of the
Roman primacy; also, the scriptural argument (Matt. xvi. 16 -17 ) in favour of the
same (Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 316). Cf. Hergenröther, loc. cit. vol. % pp. 64-8 on other
What is the explanation o f such undisguised resistance? One might

be tempted to say that in putting such stress on the orders received from
Rome and in opposing on principle any new investigation o f the trial,
the legates had given offence to the Fathers, who instinctively retaliated
by taking exception to the Roman thesis for its being presented, to their
way o f thinking, in a manner too blunt for their consumption.1 One
feels somewhat embarrassed in comparing the results secured in Con
stantinople by Radoald and Zachary in 861 with those registered by the
legates in 869-70, for the declarations by the Fathers o f the Council o f
861 are far more pro-Roman than those made in the Ignatian Council.
It only goes to prove that, with a spirit o f conciliation and a better
regard for the feelings o f the Byzantine Church, it was possible to obtain
far more from the Greeks than by peremptorily laying down the law.z
A t the very moment when the legates saw success within their grasp,
another defeat awaited them, for a Bulgarian embassy reached Con
stantinople in February, just in time to attend the last session o f the
abbreviations less pertinent to our subject; also, what he says about the two versions
of the canons that were voted (pp. 68 seq.). I shall presently, pp. 271 seq., discuss
the author of the summary.
1 Animosity against the West was so bitter in Byzantium that even Louis II’s
embassy had to bear the brunt of it, and the ambassadors feared for their own safety.
Cf. on this matter M .G .H . Ss. vol. hi , p. 526.
2 Hergenröther, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 47-63, dwells at length on Photius’ recogni
tion by the Eastern Patriarchs and on their representatives at the Ignatian Council.
Those representing the patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem may
have been armed with the full necessary powers. As to their assertion that their
respective Churches had never recognized Photius, that is another question alto
gether. The letters of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Theodosius, and of the Patriarch
of Alexandria, Michael, say nothing about Photius (Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 25-7,
145-7), these Patriarchs being unaware of what had happened in Constantinople.
How then could they possibly have refused Photius their recognition? As the latter
had been in correspondence with the titular of the See of Antioch, Eustathios
(P .G . vol. 102, cols. 821-3), and had sent his enthronement letter to all the Patriarchs,
there was no reason why they should have refused to acknowledge him; and as
their living depended on the Byzantine Emperors’ favour, such a refusal was not
within their power. The same motive influenced the representatives of Jerusalem
and Antioch at the synod of 869 and prompted them to say what they knew would
please Basil. Moreover, when they realized the true position, they drew up the
letter (Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 30-3) anent the incident, which condemned Photius,
in Constantinople. With regard to the representatives of the same patriarchates,
who attended the Council of 867 and were tried during the eighth session of the
Ignatian Council, one gathers the impression that this Council was not dealing
with the same persons as were in Constantinople in 867. What the imperialists had
to say about this council should be treated with caution, as it was in Basil’s interest
not to make too much of what happened at this synod. It was as easy for Michael
to provide himself with representatives of those patriarchates in 867 as it was for Basil
in 869. Neither Michael nor Photius had therefore any real need to resort to fraud.
Council1 in its official capacity. Its arrival on such an occasion was

the crowning achievement o f Byzantine diplomacy in Bulgaria, for the
ambassadors had come to ask the Council for a decision upon which
patriarchate their country belonged to. We know that Boris was a very
scrupulous man— at least in certain matters— who loved to make a show
o f his anxiety to keep clear o f every possible ecclesiastical transgres
sion. This step, however, was taken not only to relieve the conscience
o f a good Christian, but because Boris was angry with Rome for
refusing to pander to his fads and give him an archbishop o f his own
choice.2
A passage in the Liber Pontificalis,3 where we find a detailed account
o f the incident, may also hint at some family difficulties which worried
Boris at the time and were possibly due to his son Vladimir. In fact,
when Boris handed over the government to Vladimir and retired,
Vladimir inaugurated a pagan revival and had to be replaced by Simeon.
It is possible, even likely, that Boris was afraid o f Byzantium taking
advantage o f his son’s ambition, to overthrow him. At any rate, the
Byzantines missed no opportunity to sever Boris from Rome. Here
again, one realizes how thoughtless was Photius’ move against Nicholas,
after the latter had ousted the Greeks from Bulgaria; it was a time when
not everything was lost, and Photius had but to watch his chance and
let the imperial agents do their work. It is also possible that Boris’
move had been planned by Photius and Michael in good time and that
the decisions o f the Council o f 867 against the Latin missionaries had,
after all, made some impression on the scrupulous and astute Khagan.
The Byzantines knew how to strike while the iron was hot: a con
ference was immediately summoned, in which the representatives o f
all the patriarchates, including the Bulgarian envoys, took part under
the chairmanship o f the Emperor, to discuss this important item o f
business. Anastasius4 has recorded this meeting in detail, though he
had not been invited to attend it, a slight for which he never forgave
2 Cf. my book, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX e siècle, pp. 193 seq.
3 P. 185 : ‘ Vulgarorum rex expectationum moras diutius ferre non valens, quanta
esse quam a Graecorum imperatore, quoniam natorum thororum [suorum?]
occasione alterna regna sibi alternatim rapere machinabantur abductus, eundem
Petrum quem a Roma sine desiderii sui effectu sero reciperat, cum aliis e latere suo
Constantinopolim. . .emisit.. . . ’ The passage is very faulty. Cf. L. Duchesne,
ibid. p. 190: ‘ The biographer apparently meant that this prince, impatient of all
these delays, threatened with a family feud, deemed it inadvisable to make an enemy
o f the Greek Emperor, by resisting his demands/
4 Liber Pontificalis, vol. Ii, pp. 182-5; Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 10 -13 .
152
Basil. The legates vehemently protested against the procedure, arguing

that the Council had been closed and that they had no mandate to discuss
such matters. To their great chagrin, they were not invited to the
discussions; the issue had to be decided at one sitting and the repre
sentatives o f the Eastern Patriarchs were to arbitrate in the matter.
The enormity o f it did not escape the legates. They had seen in the
course o f the Council how subservient to the imperial will those same
representatives had always been, and they were glad at the time, as it
served their own interests; but in this case, they had a good idea o f what
those legates would decide under the circumstances. Basil had set his
trap with care. But what irritated the legates more than anything was
that the Greeks and the Orientals should presume to pontificate in a
business that concerned only the Holy See, against the very principles
which Hadrian had formulated and which they were commissioned to
uphold in Constantinople. No wonder they exclaimed with some heat:
‘ The Holy Apostolic See has not chosen you to sit in judgement
over it, because you are its subjects, nor has it commissioned us, since
the whole Church is under its sole jurisdiction.5
In vain did they protest: the Oriental legates decided that Bulgaria
belonged to the Byzantine patriarchate.1 It was then that the Roman
representatives produced a letter from Pope Hadrian, in which he
forbade Ignatius to attempt anything in Bulgaria against Rome.
Ignatius did not even trouble to read it.123
On this letter the Liber Pontificalis is intensely interesting. The
document has been lost; and as in the other letters, which the legates
had brought to Constantinople, there is no reference to the Bulgarian
1 The decision was not as unfair to Rome as the legates pretended. Canonically,
the Byzantine claim was legitimate, since Bulgaria included only a small portion
o f Macedonia which had been under Roman jurisdiction, and included a great part
of Thrace which had always been under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.
2 Liber Pontificalis, vol. η, p. 184: ‘ ...teq u e reum, patriarcham Ignatium,
auctoritate sanctorum apostolorum principum, coram Deo suisque angelis omni-
busque presentibus contestamur, ut secundum hanc epistolam sanctissimi restitutoris
tui domini Hadriani summi pontificis, quam tibi ecce offerimus, industria tua ab
omni Vulgariae ordinatione immune nullum tuorum illuc mittendo custodias; ne
sancta sedes apostolica, quae tibi tua restituit, per te sua perdere videatur. Quin
potius si, quod non credimus, iustam te habere querimoniam estimas, sanctae
Romanae ecclesiae restitutrici tuae solemniter suggerere non omittas. Tunc patriarcha
Ignatius apostolicam epistolam suscipiens, licet magnopere monitus eam legere
distulisse respondit: Absit a me ut ego his praesentibus contra decorem sedis
apostolicae implicer, qui nec ita iuveniliter ago ut mihi subripi valeat, nec ita seniliter
deliro, ut quod in aliis reprehendere debeo ipse admittam. Hoc fine locutio ista
finita est/
153
affair, it must be supposed that the Pope had written another letter in
which he forbade Ignatius to trespass on Bulgaria, and which the legates
were not to produce, unless the interests o f the Roman See in Bulgaria
should be in peril.
The Liber Pontificalis also gives in the same place some interesting
particulars on the way the Latin missionaries were ousted from Bulgaria.
Boris took things very seriously, and only wished piously to carry out
the decisions o f a very holy oecumenical council; he thereupon invited
the Latin priests to quit his territory. And yet, Boris had been exceedingly
generous to Grimoald, the leader o f the Roman mission, for Anastasius,
the writer o f this portion o f the Liber Pontificalis, saw the bishop arrive
in Rome. ‘ Romam ditissimus remeavit’, he writes about him with ill-
disguised envy and regret, never having had such good fortune himself.
His feelings happened to be shared by other confederates o f his, so
much so that Grimoald was suspected o f having been too lenient to Boris.
Possibly, the bishop o f Bomarzo, seeing that his mission was a complete
failure as far as Rome was concerned, chose at least to make a profit out
o f it for his personal benefit. It would o f course have been absurd to
pose as a hero, and to be unceremoniously pushed over the frontier by
the Bulgarian police.
Grimoald may have arrived in Rome before the legates, who had
been captured by the Narentine pirates and set free only in December
870 ; and Anastasius, who must have been in Rome at the beginning o f
the summer o f the same year,1 may have seen them arrive. The Pope
duly protested against the violation o f his rights in a letter written in
November 871, and asked the Emperor to order Ignatius to recall from
Bulgaria the bishops he had sent there.2
But this letter to the Emperor appears to have been preceded by
another addressed to Ignatius, for we find in the anti-Photian Collection,
as an addition to the Greek summary o f the Acts o f the Eighth Council,
a fragment o f a letter from Hadrian to the Patriarch .3 In this fragment,
the Pope refers to a letter from Ignatius: ‘ You wrote to u s’, he writes,
‘ that our priests were ignominiously and shamefully expelled from
Bulgarian territory and how even the bishops were dismissed in dis
grace. . . . ’ All this, the Pope continues, happened without the Roman
See being consulted.
I f you object that we ourselves had previously forbidden priests o f the
diocese o f Constantinople to celebrate the liturgy in the above-mentioned
1 Cf. my book, Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, p. 269.
2 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 760. 3 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 4 13; M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 762.
154
territory, we are not going to deny it; for they were in communion with
Photius and were priests o f his ordination. These we forbade to exercise any
priestly functions and still do so, not only on Bulgarian territory, but
throughout the Church. Know ing this, you should not have interfered in
Bulgaria.
The Pope then adds that, on information, Ignatius committed other

breaches o f ecclesiastical law; for instance, he raised some laymen to
the diaconate without the canonical intervals, a thing forbidden even
by the last Council, as it was by such transgressions that Photius had
set out on the road o f injustice.
This letter is all that remains o f the correspondence exchanged
between the Pope and the Patriarch after the Council on Bulgaria. On
hearing from Grimoald, Anastasius and the legates what had happened
in Bulgaria and Constantinople, Hadrian must have addressed a letter
to Ignatius, severely rebuking him for what he had done, to which
Ignatius replied that not he but the Emperor was responsible. Besides,,
Rome had done the same by expelling Greek priests from Bulgaria.
The fragment above mentioned is an extract from the letter by Hadrian
in reply to Ignatius.
We are thus able also to explain why the Pope wrote to the Emperor
on this matter so late. The letter to Basil previously mentioned was
meant to put pressure on Ignatius, but proved to be a failure, for the
Emperor was evidently keener than the Patriarch on the Greek priests
staying in Bulgaria.
To return now to the letter which the legates handed to the Patriarch
after the representatives o f the Eastern Patriarchs had voted against the
Roman interests in Bulgaria, we must examine whether our explanation
was exact. This is important, because if we are right, Ignatius’ recogni
tion by Hadrian was conditional on his behaviour in Bulgaria. Luckily
some letters written by Hadrian’s successor, John V III, give us more
detailed information.
Among the remnants o f John V III’s register preserved by the Britan
nica we find an extract from a letter o f John to Boris, which was dis
patched between December 872 and May 87311
I f Greek perfidy does not refrain from trespassing on your territory, which
naturally belongs to our diocese, as ancient documents testify, know that w e
shall once more punish the Patriarch Ignatius, who recovered his throne b y
1 M.G.H. Ep. vu, p. 277.
155
our favour, with anathema and deposition for temerity and defiance. A s
regards the Greek bishops and priests who are there, we shall not only
depose, but excommunicate them, as most o f them are said to be o f Photius’
ordination, his associates and follow ers.. . .
In a letter, dated about the same period, to Domagoï, a Croat prince,

John V III writes that Ignatius had already been several times excom
municated owing to his encroachments on Bulgaria:1
W e remind you how , acting through the person o f Ignatius, the perfidious
Greeks did not fear to take possession o f the country o f the Bulgarians, who
belong to our jurisdiction and are now again under our authority. Repeatedly
excommunicated, Ignatius not only did not desist, but even sent there some
schismatic with the title o f archbishop.
More important for our investigation is the letter dispatched by

John V III to Michael-Boris towards the end o f 874 or at the beginning
o f 875, in which, after reminding Michael that the Church o f Rome was
founded by Christ on the rock o f Peter and that therefore the decisions
o f that Church were the decisions o f the Founder, the Pope exclaim s:2
Ignatius was absolved by our predecessors on this condition that should he ever
violate apostolic rights in connection with Bulgaria, which not even Photius ever
attempted to do, he would despite his acquittal remain under sentence o f his
previous condemnation none the less. Therefore, he either stands acquitted if
he respects the rights o f the A postolic See, or if he does not, he falls back
under the previous ban.
The implication o f this letter is that Pope Hadrian had acknowledged

Ignatius as the legitimate Patriarch on condition that he should under
take nothing contrary to Roman interests in Bulgaria; that, should he
be daring enough to do so, he would be severed from communion with
Rome, and therefore be excommunicated. In no other sense could
these words o f John V III be explained. We therefore have here indis
putable evidence that the Bulgarian issue played a leading part in all
dealings with Photius by Nicholas, since his successor makes his recog
nition o f Ignatius conditional on the latter’s attitude towards Roman
interests in Bulgaria. This condition was laid down in the letter which
the legates handed to Ignatius at the time o f the conference that met
after the Ignatian Council to settle Bulgaria’s fate; and the legates were
1 M.G.H. Ep. vu, p. 278. 2 Ibid. p. 294.
156
not to produce the letter except in the urgent case o f Roman interests
being actually at stake.
This helps us to explain the enigmatic passage in the Pope’s letter to
Domagoï, referring to Ignatius as having been repeatedly excommuni
cated as a result o f these offences. I f Ignatius’ recognition by Hadrian
had been made to depend on his attitude towards Bulgaria, and if the
Patriarch had been threatened with excommunication if ever he dared
to trespass on Roman rights in Bulgaria, then John could treat Ignatius
as excommunicated, as soon as it became clear that Ignatius had failed
to observe the condition.1
Yet, on the other hand, because John V III did not wish to close the
door upon a possible settlement, he put off passing public sentence on
Ignatius as long as there remained the least hope o f the Patriarch
acknowledging his fault. He must therefore have twice appealed to
him before the last summons, the only one attested by a papal letter.
It is worded in very resolute terms : Ignatius will be excommunicated,
if he does not recall the Greek priests from Bulgaria within thirty days.12
In another letter to the Greek clergy o f the same country, the Pope
confirmed the sentence o f excommunication once pronounced against
them by Hadrian.3 But should the bishops and priests not quit Bul
garian territory within a month, they would all be suspended and
excommunicated.
The sorry experience which Hadrian’s successor, John V III, had with
1 Regarding the identity of the bishop consecrated by Ignatius for Bulgaria,

consult the penetrating study by H. Grégoire, ‘ Une Inscription datée au Nom
du Roi Boris-Michel de Bulgarie’, in Byântion (1939), vol. xiv, pp. 227-34, in
which he published an important inscription of Cerven (near Roustchouk) which
he discovered in the Sofia Museum. The inscription is of 5 October 870. Itmentions
not only Boris-Michael, by giving him the Byzantinized title του ευκλειους και
φίλοχρίστου αρχοντος, but also a bishop of Bulgaria, Nicholas, probably the
first bishop of that country. Unfortunately, we know nothing definite about the
number of bishops sent to Bulgaria by Ignatius.
2 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 62, 63: ‘ secundo iam sedis apostolicae litteris probaris
admonitus et per missos eius contestatoriis conventus hortatibus.. . . Unde merito
post primam et secundam comminitionem a nostrae te debueramus communionis
contubernio sequestrare. . .sed quia sedis apostolicae moderatione utentes spiritu
lenitatis. . . ecce tertio canonice per missos et syllabas commonemus et hortamur
et protestamur.’ Among the extracts from the register of John VIII is found a
fragment of a letter from John VIII to the Emperor (ibid. p. 296), in which the
Pope complains of Ignatius’ encroachment in Bulgaria, and states that he had
summoned Ignatius to Rome to justify himself against the charges. This letter has
been lost. It all shows that not all the correspondence between John V III and
Ignatius has come down to us.
3 Ibid. pp. 66 seq.
157
THE P H O T IA N SCHISM. I. T H E H I S T O R Y
Ignatius completed the failure o f the pontifical mission to Constanti

nople in 869-70. They scored a victory, it is true, but only a Pyrrhic
victory. They were able to present the Pope with the 'L ib e lli’ signed
b y a hundred or more bishops; it had cost them and Anastasius much
trouble to preserve these, and whatever else they carried with them had
been seized by the Narentine pirates; but they escaped with their lives
and their belated and inglorious entry into Rome faithfully symbolized
the advantage they claimed to have secured in Constantinople.
158
C H A P T E R VI
P H O T I U S ’ R E H A B I L I T A T I O N A N D T H E S Y N O D OF
879-80
Ignatius’ difficulties— Basil’s change of policy and his reconciliation with the
Moderates and Photius— Ignatius and Photius on friendly terms— John V III, Basil
and Photius— Papal letters analysed— Pourparlers with the legates in Byzantium—
The ‘ Greek edition’ of the pontifical letters— The first five sessions of the
Council— Authenticity of the sixth and seventh sessions— John V III’s alleged
letter on the Filioque— The legates and the primacy.
B u t this was not all by any means. The judgement against Photius
and the clergy, so solemnly delivered by the legates and the Council,
could not be upheld for very long. The Ignatian Council had in no
way eased the tension in Byzantium, for the Photian clergy remained
loyal to their leader and left Ignatius to face the very difficult problem
o f providing for the spiritual needs o f the faithful. Difficulties must
have been so overwhelming, that the Emperor considered it necessary
once again to apply to the Pope for a certain mitigation o f the sentence
passed on the Photian clergy. In a letter, dispatched towards the middle
o f 871 and transmitted by Theognostos,1 Basil asked the Pope in
Ignatius’ name for a dispensation in favour o f the chartophylax Paul
and bishop Theodore, whose services were particularly valuable. Later
he again applied for more lenient treatment in favour o f the many
Readers ordained by Photius and his bishops, a similar request being
addressed to the Pope by Ignatius.
The choice o f Theognostos for this embassy made it evident enough
that both the Emperor and the Patriarch were keen on a more satis
factory solution o f the whole business; but though Theognostos did
everything in his power— Hadrian himself vouched for i t 2— to induce
the Pope to come to terms, Hadrian, in a letter dated 10 November 871,
refused to go back on Nicholas’ decisions and his own. It is safe to say
that Ignatius’ attitude in the Bulgarian imbroglio had something to do
with the Pope’s point-blank refusal, but nothing is heard again o f a
second attempt on the part o f the Emperor and the Patriarch. We
unfortunately possess no definite information on the w ay the Gordian
knot was cut in Byzantium, but a compromise was apparently reached,
though not on the lines o f the Ignatian Council’s decisions.
1 Mansi, vol. x vi, cols. 203, 204. 2 M.G.H. Ep. vi, p. 761.
159
THE P H OT IA N SCH ISM . I. T H E H I S T O R Y
In fact, Hadrian soon expressed surprise that Ignatius should fail to

observe the prescriptions o f his own Council by abruptly raising laymen
to ecclesiastical honours;1 which only shows that Ignatius was merely
trying his utmost to find a sufficient number o f ecclesiastics to meet the
needs o f public worship ; he was, in fact, very much in the position in
which Methodius once found himself and getting out o f it as best he
could.
But John V III had worse to lay to Ignatius5 charge. In a letter to
Boris, written between December 872 and May 873,2 John V III alleges
that the Greek clergy sent to Bulgaria by Ignatius were most o f them,
as rumour had it, o f the Photian ordination, a startling statement for
the Pope to make, as we know that these clergy had been suspended by
the decisions o f Nicholas, Hadrian and the Ignatian Council. Was the
Pope’s information correct?
It seems, on the face o f it, very unlikely; but a letter from Photius,
probably written in the first days o f his exile, shows that a certain
collaboration between the Photian clergy and Ignatius in the Bulgarian
incident had really taken place. Addressing his loyal friend, the monk
Arsenius,3 Photius expresses satisfaction that the young Bulgars who
desired to join monastic life had been confided to his care. Be it noted
incidentally that Ignatius admitted the validity o f Photius5 ordinations,
since he asked the Pope for dispensations in favour o f some priests
who had been ordained by the ex-Patriarch.
In this connection, it is significant that Ignatius did not share the
radical opinions o f Photius5 bitterest enemies, who treated the Patriarch
as a layman and considered his ordinations as null and void : in this case,
it would not have been impossible for Ignatius to let a portion o f that
clergy work in Bulgaria. Bulgarian needs were urgent, and where was
Ignatius to find priests in sufficient numbers to meet all the require
ments? As the Bulgarian mission was o f the utmost importance to both
Church and State, it was the Photian clergy’s duty to support Ignatius
in this particular work. Nor should we forget that the very first Greek
missionaries to work in Bulgaria actually were priests ordained by
Photius, and pastoral wisdom prompted the use in this enterprise o f
men who knew the work and were acquainted with the Bulgars.4
1 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 762. 2 See pp. 155 seq.
3 P.G . vol. 102, cols. 904, 905.
4 John VIII, in his letter addressed to Basil in 874 or 875 (M .G .H . Ep. vu,
p. 296), also blames Patriarch Ignatius for transgressions other than that of sending
Greek clergy to Bulgaria. Maybe he is referring to his negligence in carrying out
the decisions of the Ignatian Council in the matter of the Photian clergy.
160
PHO TIU S’ R E H A B IL IT A T IO N AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 -8 0
I f all this information proves correct, we find here new evidence o f

the pontifical legates’ failure at the Ignatian Council and o f the
miscarriage o f Pope Hadrian’s Oriental policy. The Pope’s, and chiefly
the legates’ wooden methods in Constantinople exasperated not only
the Emperor but even the Patriarch and the more reasonable o f his
friends.
We can now examine how the last traces o f the legates’ ‘ achievement’
were obliterated and how Photius was reconciled with Basil and Igna
tius. The successive stages o f this development can easily be followed
in the exile’s correspondence. Photius had been fairly harshly treated,
at least in the first days o f his banishment, for in his letter to the Em
peror he details a long catalogue o f sufferings he underwent in his
retreat. But what he felt most was the loss o f his library.1 In another
letter to Arsenius, Photius bitterly complains that there is no longer
any justice in this world.2 But, he goes on, Arsenius must not despair,
despite the trials that beset them, for it is Providence who sends us
sufferings.3 The letter is exceptionally touching for its beautiful thoughts
on suffering and trust in Providence, Photius concluding by urging
his correspondent frequently to invoke the Blessed Virgin, who under
stands their tragedy, is full o f compassion and will know how to relieve
their burden. The letters to the exiled bishops also contain an eloquent
passage on suffering.4
Some other letters by the ex-Patriarch throw light on some o f the
material difficulties that worried the deposed bishops, and Photius
recounts them in his letter to the spathar Nicetas. Left without any
resources, the bishops had to borrow money from usurers, live on their
friends’ bounty, and for the rest submit to extreme want. Photius
recommends to his correspondent the metropolitans o f Cyzicus and
Laodicea, whose needs were particularly urgent;3 John o f Heraclea,
Euschemon o f Caesarea, George o f Nicomedia and Michael o f Mytilene
were also the objects o f exceptionally harsh treatment;6 and the Patrician
John is requested to help a friend o f Photius whose life is in danger.?
1 P.G . vol. 102, cols. 765-72. 2 Loc. cit. col. 901.
3 Loc. cit. cols. 897-900.
4 Loc. cit. cols. 764, 765. Cf. ‘ Ad Amphilochium’, qu. 172, P.G . vol. 10 1, cols.
869-73, a fine passage on Providence and suffering.
3 Loc. cit. cols. 981, 984. 6 Loc. cit. cols. 821, 836, 860, 861.
7 Loc. cit. col. 961. Cf. what Hergenröther, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 207-28, 241-58,
has to say about the correspondence of Photius in exile. Even he has to confess
that pages of exceptional beauty and words from the heart are to be found in this
correspondence.
DPS 16 1 II
Photius’ correspondence shows that the ex-Patriarch had kept

a host o f friends among the higher officials, who had succeeded in
keeping in office under the new government, the danger o f 'apostasy’
in these circles naturally being greater, as material considerations
tempted many functionaries to join the party actually in power. In
several letters, Photius endeavours to stimulate the loyalty o f his lay
friends.1
The clergy, with few exceptions, remained loyal to Photius, which
made it appropriate to speak o f two Churches within the Empire, as
in some places the Photian bishops had remained at their posts. In his
letter to the monk Arsenius, Photius speaks o f a schism within the
Church ; 2 and to the exiled bishops, o f ‘ his Church’.3 Gregory Asbestas
is urged to go on organizing the Church ; he must ordain new ministers
for the altar, open new churches and administer the sacraments;4
Photius continues to rule his Church, answers questions put by his
followers and distributes advice. The monks, taithful to Photius, con
tinue to recognize him as Patriarch and ask for counsel. The Metropolitan
Zachary o f Antioch in Pisidia asks Photius how to carry out the decrees
regarding the length o f the novitiate and Photius in reply mentions
persecution as sufficient ground for relaxing some prescriptions: the
bishop must follow his conscience.3
One realizes how the position must have embarrassed the Emperor:
it was not what he had intended. The Roman See’s assistance which he
had deemed indispensable to prop up his regime had not come up to
expectation, since the legates had refused every compromise. It also
appears that Basil did not get such a warm reception from the army,
which remembered the victories won over the Arabs by Bardas and
Michael too well to idolize their murderer. This would explain Basil’s
negotiations with the Emir o f Syria and the encomiums lavished on
the pacific regime inaugurated by Basil in the propaganda writings
on the new reign. Not being quite sure o f the bulk o f the army, Basil
could not afford to run any risks in military adventures.
The complete failure o f the pacification o f the Byzantine Church
seriously aggravated the position, and the radicalism o f the die-hards
1 Cf. letters to the stratege of Hellas, the Patrician Michael, the Logothete Leo,
the spathar John, who all had prevaricated, and to the lawyer Constantine (loc. cit.
cols. 944, 949, 941, 933, 935, 945, 960, 961).
3 Loc. cit. cols. 757 seq. 4 Loc. cjt. cols. 832, 833.
3 Loc. cit. cols. 841-5. Cf. Hergenröther, loc. cit. pp. 207 seq. on the organiza
tion of the Photian Church.
PHO TIUS’ R E H A B IL IT A T IO N AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 -8 0
o f the reactionary party must have seemed ill-advised and dangerous,

whereas the Photian clergy’s steadfastness revealed the Moderate party’s
enormous strength.
It was going to be extremely difficult to govern, if this party per
sisted in its opposition. But Photius had from the first adopted an
extremely shrewd policy, when he and his bishops seized every
opportunity to pledge their loyalty to the Emperor, making it
difficult for Basil to deal severely with the bulk o f a clergy that was
friendly to the dynasty and would never dream o f overthrowing the
new regime. In this the Moderates were wise not to imitate the
tactics o f their rivals, when they were turned out o f office by Bardas
and Michael.
The manœuvre was to be completely successful. In reply to Photius’
letter, written in exile, Basil ameliorated the ex-Patriarch’s treatment,
as attested by a second letter from Photius to the Emperor.1 The con
cession was exploited by Basil’s agents who jumped to the conclusion
that Photius was ready to come to a compromise with the opposite
party, no doubt to its benefit, as appears from a letter from Photius to
Gregory, deacon and chartophylax o f Amasia,12 for he mentions there
idle rumours o f peace shortly to bring together the two parties, and
calculated to deceive and mislead the simple and the righteous. In
another letter, addressed to Leo and Gaton, imperial asekretis, Photius
also states that the rumours about Basil’s total change o f feelings
towards him are premature and unfounded.3 But Photius was not going
to act in a hurry, and the spathar and drungary Helias is urged to be
very cautious in his efforts in favour o f Photius;4 the same advice is
given to Theodore o f Laodicea.3 Photius, indeed, knew the position
and the Emperor’s character too well: confident o f final victory,
conscious o f his rights and knowing that time was on his side, he was in
no need to hurry; and that is why he denounced in his letter to his
bishops6 the man who put it about that the ex-Patriarch had forgotten
past happenings and was only anxious for reconciliation.? This talk,
which at the time was all over Byzantium, at any rate pointed in the
direction o f Basil’s efforts from the first to discover a compromise.
Photius’ calculation proved correct, and reconciliation with Basil
1 P,G . vol. 102, col. 772. 2 Loc. cit. cols. 872, 873.
3 Loc. cit. col. 968. Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, p. 249.
3 Loc. cit. cols. 845. Cf. letter to the bishops in exile, cols. 741 seq.
6 Loc. cit. cols. 741 seq. 7 Loc. cit. cols. 744 seq.
163 11-2
could not be far off. We have no accurate information on the date o f

the suspension o f hostilities, which in any case could not be later than
873. The Emperor received Hadrian’s reply in the negative to the request
made at the beginning o f 872, and this letter must have been instru
mental in Basil’s ‘ conversion’ . In the spring o f 871 Basil sent to Louis I I 1
the notorious letter in which he forbade him the use o f the imperial
title, which, if it did not imply a complete break with the West, meant
at least that the Emperor thought himself strong enough to do without
its friendship. Hadrian’s refusal completed the severance, the main
reason w hy the Emperor had to deal gently with the Pope having
vanished. Henceforth, i.e. after 872, it became more imperative for
Basil to find his allies among the Moderates, since, unlike the Extremists,
they had lost none o f their power. Photius’ recall from exile was the
first step in this direction.
We are, o f course, not going to look for the true reasons o f Basil’s
change o f feelings for Photius in the gossip o f Nicetas, the so-called
biographer o f Ignatius, or that o f Simeon Magister.2 A learned study
by an Armenian scholar^ has thrown light on Basil’s famous genealogy,
Photius’ alleged forgery, to which he owed the recovery o f the Em
peror’s favour. But the story seems to be a replica of a similar ‘ discovery ’
made for the benefit o f the Emperor Theophilus and designed to explain
the origin o f Theophilus’ regard for the future restorer o f image-worship,
the Patriarch Methodius. Photius was naturally interested in the history
o f Basil’s family, since he himself, like Basil, had Armenian blood in
his veins: Photius’ mother, Irene, was in fact Arsaber’s (Arsavir)4
sister. But the forging o f the fabulous genealogy o f Basil by Photius
had nothing to do with this reconciliation. The real reason was different.
Basil, no longer in need o f pandering to the Extremists in deference to
Rome, and disappointed at the meagre results o f his policy in favour
o f that party, altered his line o f action, and transferred his friendship
to the Moderate side, whose ideology, if we may use the word, appealed
more to him than that o f the Extremists. Photius then became his
intimate friend; Basil entrusted to him the education o f his children and
gave him an apartment in the imperial palace. Photius must also have
1 See bibliography in F. Dölger’s Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, vol. I, no. 487.

Cf. also W. Henze, ‘ Über den Brief Kaiser Ludwigs II an Kaiser Basilius I ’, in
Neues Archiv (1910), vol. x x x v , pp. 661-76.
2 P .G . vol. 105, cols. 565 seq.; (Bonn), pp. 689 seq.
3 M. N. Adontz, ‘ L ’Age et l’ Origine de l’Empereur Basile T , in Byiantion,
vol. ix , pp. 232-59.
4 Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), p. 175.
164
PH O TIU S’ R E H A B IL IT A T IO N AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 -8 0
resumed his lectures at the Magnaura University, for it was there that
the Emperor had reserved his rooms.1
Photius’ peace with the Emperor must have raised heartburnings
among some o f his followers, for we find a reference to this in the
ex-Patriarch’s correspondence with the monk Nicephorus, when Photius
announced to him a certain improvement in his condition and invited
his correspondent to come and see him. As Nicephorus hesitated and
expressed misgivings about the change, Photius sent him a long letter
to assure him that his feelings had not altered, and only after this
explanation did Nicephorus understand.123
Other friends o f the ex-Patriarch urged Photius not to rest content
with the compromise offered by the Emperor, but to take advantage
o f his change o f mind to overthrow Ignatius. This Photius mentioned
in his speech at the second session o f the Council o f 879-80,3 and there
was justification for the statement. It was only to be expected that the
radical wing o f the Moderate party should find the compromise unsatis
factory: they demanded complete vindication; but Photius was too
intelligent to tempt fortune. He knew how to pause after a first suc
cessful round for fear o f risking the game by any extravagant claims;
he knew that the interests o f the Empire and the Church stood more
to gain by a reconciliation between the two parties than by open
hostilities. It is also likely that the Emperor gave the Moderates to
understand that he looked upon Photius as the legitimate successor of
Ignatius in the event o f the latter’s death.
In the same speech, Photius stated that the Emperor had decided on
this step by himself and o f his own accord, a statement that disposed
o f all the stories in circulation in Byzantium on the motives o f Basil’s
change o f mind, though a slight exaggeration on the part o f Photius,
stressing Basil’s contribution to his own reinstatement, may be admitted.
But it is only right to observe that Photius could not have made such
an assertion to an audience that must have known the true position, if
he had been unable to substantiate it. Time and the State’s altered
circumstances had been on Photius’ side. Nor did the Moderates remain
idle; and they certainly knew how to turn the Extremists’ failure to
their own profit.
1 Theoph. Cont. (Vita Basilii) (Bonn), pp. 276, 277. We recall a similar case
with Leo the Philosopher, who after his dismissal from the see of Thessalonica
was appointed to lecture at this High School.
2 See letters of Photius, P .G . vol. 102, cols. 905-17.
3 Mansi, vol. xvn, col. 424.
165
THE PH O T IA N SCHISM. I. T H E H I S T O R Y
An echo o f this change o f front can be found in the correspondence

between Photius and Baanes, an official who, it will be remembered,
had made himself prominent at the Ignatian Council. In a letter
addressed to him in the first days o f the prelate’s exile,1 Photius com
plained that Baanes had refused leave for medical attendance in his
recent illness. Baanes may have been carrying out instructions too
literally; but directly he became aware o f the changing mood at court
in favour of Photius, he sent him a letter to assure him o f his secret
friendship, somewhat reminiscent o f the feelings o f Joseph o f Arimathea
for Our Lord. Conscious o f his stock being high at the Imperial
Exchange, Photius in reply* advised Baanes to display his friendship
in open daylight, as Joseph did after Our Lord’s death. Baanes’
adaptability afforded a suggestive illustration o f the mentality o f Byzan
tine officials, who switched their sympathies and antipathies as the wind
blew from the imperial palace. It also explains why Emperors could
afford to alter their political programmes without fear o f boycott from
the imperial bureaucracy.
Photius had the same experience. Abrupt as the change in his favour
had been, to the surprise even o f the Extremists’ leaders, they could
hardly blame the Emperor, since Ignatius was still installed in the
patriarcheion. Basil’s variation was therefore put down to Photius’'
intrigues. The stories about the fabulous genealogy invented by Photius,
the intervention o f Theodore Santabarenos and the sprinkling o f the
imperial bed with water specially treated to act on the Emperor’s
feelings, were concocted only after the event, as explanations o f the
startling change.
Did the exiled bishops benefit by it? It is difficult to say how far
Basil meant to go. It certainly did not suit his plans to provoke any
violent reaction among the Extremists, who had backed him in the first
critical days o f his reign— a reaction that was a dead certainty, had Basil
ventured too far in his condescension to Photius and his party. For
these reasons, all the proceedings taken against the bishops by the
Ignatian Council could not have been cancelled by the Emperor at that
particular moment. Photius also stated in the speech already quoted
that he had laid down as a condition for consenting to his reinstatement
on the patriarchal throne after Ignatius’ death that all the exiled bishops
should be recalled and reinstated in their functions. Therefore, not all
the bishops were set free at the same time as Photius, though their
conditions must have been bettered.
1 P.G . vol. 102, cols. 952, 953. 3 Loc. cit. col. 949»
166
PHO TIUS5 R E H A B IL IT A T IO N AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 -8 0
As regards the number o f exiles, it is hard to state anything definite;

but the Emperor had apparently only selected the more zealous and
dangerous o f Photius5 supporters for banishment,1 the others being
merely deposed; though, wherever the Moderate party was felt to be
too influential, the Photian bishops seem to have been maintained in
their functions. None dared to touch them.
Peace with Basil did not necessarily imply peace with Ignatius, although
Photius emphatically stated on the same occasion that he made friends
with his rival after his return to the imperial palace. These were his
words :
A s long as Blessed Ignatius was alive— and we call him Blessed, having
made friends with him in his lifetime, a friendship G od preserve me from
ever denying— as long as he was alive, we say, we refused at all cost to take
possession o f his throne, though many urged us, or tried to force us, to do so.
There were other things more important than this— the captivity, the per
secution, the banishment o f our brothers and fellow-ministers. However,
we refused to resume possession [o f the see], as all here present well k n o w .. . .
Instead, we tried every avenue to the restoration and growth o f peace. W e
both fell on our knees, asked each other’s pardon and forgave each other for
any mutual offence we might have given. Later, when he fell ill and asked
to see us, we visited him, not once or twice, but frequently, doing everything
we could to relieve his suffering ; and if words could convey any consolation,
this consolation we have given him too. Thus did he gather sufficient con
viction o f our good intentions to recommend to our special care his most
intimate friends, that we should take responsibility for their safety and security.
None o f his friends will ever blame him for lack o f devotion .. . .
Ignatian sources flatly deny the fact o f the two rivals5 reconciliation.
Nicetas12 asserts that Photius, once back in the Emperor's favour,
unceasingly and secretly worked against Ignatius with the assistance o f
Theodore Santabarenos, and tried every move to recover his see.
Photius also, according to Nicetas, approached Ignatius to claim rein
statement in his episcopal functions; but the Patriarch, in obedience to
canonical prescriptions, refused to hear o f it; for whoever had been
condemned by a synod cannot be rehabilitated but by another synod
o f a higher authority. Disregarding, however, all canonical laws,
Photius comported himself like a bishop and a Patriarch, setting up
1 S. Aristarchos, loc. cit. vol. 1, p. ξα', enumerates twenty-four Photian bishops

replaced by Ignatian bishops after Photius’ dismissal.
2 P.G . vol. 105, cols. 568, 569.
167
THE PH O TIA N SCHISM. I. T H E H I S T O R Y
exarchs and presiding at ordinations. He did everything he could to

harm the Church and hurt the Patriarch; gained the confidence o f the
Emperor and o f the court and, driven by his mad ambition, forced an
entry into the church o f St Sophia three days after Ignatius’ death to
get possession o f the patriarchal throne; then he turned against the
friends and intimates o f Ignatius, sending them into exile and to prison.
Stylianos1 also records that Photius, once restored to Basil’s favour
by Theodore Santabarenos’ incantations, ordained priests in Ignatius’
lifetime. Once, he even invaded the church o f St Sophia, accompanied
by friends and soldiers, whilst the sacred mysteries were being cele
brated, and the priests busy officiating fled before concluding the service.
Photius and Santabarenos, with the Emperor’s support, went on in
triguing against Ignatius. Stylianos so describes Ignatius’ death as to
give the impression that it was the result o f these intrigues; after which
Photius took possession o f the patriarchal throne and promoted Santa
barenos over the heads o f the other bishops.
To turn now to the third source— the compiler o f the anti-Photian
Collection—-let us hear what he has to say about the relations between
the two prelates : 3
Some people would have it that Photius expressed regrets to Ignatius for
what he had done to him and that the latter replied: G od forgive you for
what you have done to me: but what you have committed against the
Church, G od will not forgive you, unless you stop injuring her and cease
to exercise the priestly functions. A s for me, I will write to the Patriarchs,
and if they absolve you from your ban, I, too, will dispense you.
But Photius himself, with the Emperor’s complicity, prevented Ignatius

writing to the Patriarchs, knowing well that it was impossible for him
to be absolved and allowed to carry out his priestly functions. Since
then, he never ceased raising enmities against the Patriarch. Even when
installed in the Magnaura o f the palace, he conducted ordinations, and
severely punished or banished any who dared to protest. He also
prevailed on the Emperor to forbid his magistrates to proceed with
Ignatius’ burial, if he should meet with a miserable death, as a result o f
these intrigues. Three days after the end, Photius entered the church
with noisy display; and as the priests, who were busy celebrating the
sacred mysteries, saw him, they fled, leaving the sacred vessels standing.
What is one to think o f these different and contradictory accounts?
The Ignatian reports themselves give one to understand that pourparlers
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 429, 432, 433. 2 Ibid. cols. 452, 453.
16 8
PHOTIUS’ REH ABILITATIO N AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 -8 0
in view o f a reconciliation did take place between Photius and Ignatius,

but that possibly Ignatius first wished to comply with the decisions o f
the Council o f 869-70 and actually intended to apply for dispensation
in favour o f Photius. But to such a procedure Photius could not agree,
since he looked upon the decisions o f that Council as utterly unjust
and valueless. Here the Emperor may have intervened and concurred
with Photius. So much o f the report from Ignatian sources may thus
correspond to fact. Photius may also have taken possession o f his see
three days after Ignatius’ death, and the priests who at that moment
stopped their liturgical service were Ignatians belonging to the extreme
wing o f this party. But it should be noted that Stylianos’ account
differs from the versions o f Nicetas and o f the compiler o f the anti-
Photian Collection: Stylianos, by asserting that this ‘ irruption’ into the
church was made by Photius in Ignatius’ lifetime, gives evidence o f
being less conscientious in the presentation o f facts than the other
Ignatian writers.
As regards the actual fact o f reconciliation, there is not the least room
for doubt. Photius’ own evidence is borne out by another contemporary
witness, one who might in a way be called neutral— the Emperor Leo VI,
son and successor o f Basil. In his funeral oration on his father, and in
summarizing the story o f the schism and the part played by Basil in its
settlement, Leo spoke as follows : 1
There was raised among the ministers o f God an absurd conflict and
schism, whose beginning went back to the days before his [Basil’s] advent,
but b y the inscrutable judgement o f God, had grow n worse, when the most
peace-loving o f men came to imperial power. Those who should have been
for their people the preachers o f peace, waged against each other a merciless
w ar; those who should have set the flock an example o f charity and union,
bred hatred. He who struck hardest was considered the best priest. The
whole thing was absurd: pontiffs and priests fighting with priests and pontiffs !
The evil seemed to defy every cure, until this man o f m ighty thought,
summoning the full energy o f his intelligence, or rather raising it to God and
deliberating with Him upon what was to be done, found at last the solution
to this great evil and restored concord among the clergy. The whole Church
being in exile with its archbishop, he ordered his recall, and all, finding them
selves together, shook hands, when these long dissensions ended with the
symbol o f holy charity, the sacred kiss o f peace. And as the ruler o f the
Church at that time had gone to his abode beyond, the archbishop, recently
1 A. Vogt, I. Hausherr, ‘ L ’ Oraison funèbre de Basil 1er’, in O rien ta lia C h ristian a ,

vol. X X V I I , pp. 62-9.
τ 69
returned from exile,1 received the throne and the government o f the priestly
body. There was then, in accordance with the Gospel, one flock, one pastor:
no longer were they divided, one with Cephas, another with A pollo, a third
with the Lord knows whom, but all were really in Christ, the first corner
stone that gives unity to the whole construction o f the Gospel.123
Taking into consideration the circumstance that this document is a

solemn speech, a panegyric by a son in memory o f his father, and that
therefore some exaggerations and inaccuracies must be allowed for, we
must admit that at least with regard to the fact o f the reconciliation
before Ignatius’ death, Leo’s attestation is fairly clear and it would be
difficult to question its cogency. The w ay Leo recounts the adjustment
between the two dignitaries forcibly recalls what Photius said about it
in his speech at the Council o f 879-80: their pacification was sincere
and lasted till Ignatius’ death.3
When did the reconciliation take place? I am inclined to place it
in the year 876, as we possess a letter from John V III to Basil, dated
April 878,4 which presupposes another letter by the Emperor, sent to
Rome in the course o f the year 877, to reach its destination probably
towards the end o f the summer. In it, Basil asked the Pope to send to
Constantinople legates for a new pacification o f the Byzantine Church;
but as the dispatch o f legates took some time, one can understand that
the Pope did not reply till the spring o f the following year, at the first
reopening o f sea-traffic.
Now the pacification mentioned in Basil’s letter and referred to by
the Pope could only mean the settlement o f the Photian schism, for
the Pope wrote:
On hearing, beloved, that the scandals o f controversy are still rife in the
Church o f Constantinople and that many religious are still scattered far and
1 ό άρτι τής ύπερορίου φυγής άνεθεις άρχιερεύς. These words suggest that
Photius had been recalled from exile shortly before Ignatius’ death, though I have
no wish to press their bearing unduly. Leo speaks oratorically, summarizing the
facts for rhetorical effect. The date 873 I propose for Photius’ recall from exile
is not incompatible with this passage in the speech. Besides, Photius and Ignatius
made peace later, perhaps in 876.
2 It was A. Vogt’s special merit to discover and publish this document, though
the true import of it escaped him. Read what he says about the passage, loc. cit.
pp. 18 seq.
3 Note that in his Synagogai Photius calls Ignatius άγιώτατος and ό έν άγίοις.
This declaration by Photius flatly contradicts Nicetas (P.G . vol. 105, col. 572),
when he alleges that Photius reordained those of Ignatius’ ordination. Photius
apparently, as a token of peace, handed them priestly vestments blessed with his
own hands. 4 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 64 seq.
wide and are treated harshly, we are naturally pained and full o f sorrow .
W hat we feel most is that peace, which we thought the many efforts o f the
A postolic See had restored, is disturbed there in endless bickering and that
a number o f men in holy orders who, we hoped, were safe from all oppression,
have been subjected to various indignities.
The exiled and persecuted ecclesiastics could be none but the Photianist
bishops and priests, since there were no other exiled priests in Byzan
tium in 877.
It seems then evident, judging from the contents o f the pontifical
letter, that Basil was anxious to efface the last traces o f dissension in the
Byzantine Church, and this before Ignatius’ death.1 But the Emperor’s
attempt had not a chance to succeed, unless Photius and Ignatius
concurred in the matter. Peace then may well have been made in
876 and Basil’s move in the spring o f 877 may have been its first
result.
Thus, the Pope’s letter indirectly confirms the fact that Photius and
Ignatius were at one. They also agreed, with Basil’s approval, to settle
their differences once for all and prepare a revision o f the Council that
condemned Photius and his friends. But it was a pity that Ignatius
should have died before the final covenant, which he himself had
assisted in negotiating, for, had he been alive, the legend depicting
Ignatius as an obstinate old man, more reactionary than his supporters,
would never have arisen. The description o f him by his opponent Photius
before the Fathers o f the Council o f 879—80 totally differs from the
portrayal by his so-called biographer Nicetas-David. Ignatius was far
more human than would appear from his ‘ biography’, for he knew how
to sacrifice his self-love in the interest o f the Church over which he
ruled. It· was not an old man’s bodily weakness that made him yield to
Photius, as we are asked to believe, but the magnanimity o f an ascetic,
not well versed in the ways o f life, but ready, in the long run, to
acknowledge his own shortcomings and to stretch out his hand to an
adversary. Had the revision o f the decisions o f the anti-Photian Council
been completed in Ignatius’ lifetime, and on Ignatius’ initiative, the
essentials o f the rupture would have been better understood in Rome
1 Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, pp. 289 seq., alleges that this letter was written
or dictated by Photius after his restoration, and that he deliberately omitted to
mention Ignatius’ death. But this allegation is inadmissible. Ignatius died on
23 October 877. It would have been difficult for Basil, given the risks o f the voyage,
to send legates to Pmme in December, as journeys by sea were most unusual at
this time of the year. Basil tried the experiment only once (in 869), with anything
but encouraging results.
and opinions that had gained general credence since Nicholas and were
in reality nothing but Theognostos’ tittle-tattle would have been
similarly revised.
As things were, it is quite possible that Photius actually exercised
patriarchal functions in the last months before Ignatius’ death, to which,
after peace was made, no objection could be raised, since Ignatius, as
stated before, considered Photius’ ordinations to be valid. He certainly
agreed likewise to Photius’ right o f succession.1 As, however, by tradi
tion in the Eastern Church, a sentence passed by a Council could only be
reversed by another Council, it was actually arranged to convoke it, as is
proved by Basil’s request to John V III concerning the sending o f legates.
John V III acceded to Basil’s demand all the more readily, as he had
hopes o f definitely settling the Bulgarian problem on the same occasion,
and throughout his correspondence we can guess the outlines o f his
scheme. The legates, Paul and Eugene, were to hand a very energetically
worded letter to Ignatius,2 this letter, to which previous reference has
been made, to be the third and last summons served on Ignatius to
withdraw his priests from Bulgaria; and refusal to obey it would carry
the severest sanctions against him.
The document suggests that the Pope felt something in the situation
in Constantinople had altered. Basil did not tell everything in his letter,
in the hope o f coming to an understanding with the legates in Byzan
tium, the very reason why he asked that the legates should be acquainted
with the position, and even proposed to the Pope certain names, among
them probably that o f Zachary o f A n a g n i .3 Though we do not know
exactly what the Emperor said in his letter, it certainly gave the reader
to understand that Photius’ conditions had altered for the better and that
the Emperor meant to have the ex-Patriarch’s position regularized. Was
that not the best moment for the Pope to try some pressure on Ignatius?
The pressure may have looked all the more effective, as the Pope—
or rather his collaborator Anastasius— had been busy paving a w ay
leading straight in the direction o f Photius. A letter from him to Ana
stasius4 intimates that the Librarian had got into touch with Photius,
1 Photius would in this way have been a sort of ‘ coadjutor cum iure successionis ’ ;
and as a matter of fact there was after Ignatius’ death neither synod nor election o f
a new Patriarch, Photius automatically taking possession of the throne.
2 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 62, 63.
3 Ibid. p. 64: ‘ Quia vero Deo amabiles viros, quos nominatim litteris expetitis,
quibusdam incommodis impeditos destinare nequimus, misimus Paulum et
Eugenium.. . . *
4 P.G . vol. 102, cois. 877, 880. Cf. what I have said in my book, Les Légendes
de Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 315 seq.
P H O T IU S* R E H A B I L I T A T I O N AND SYNOD O F 8 7 9 -8 0
very likely after the latter’s recall from banishment; for Anastasius
followed the march o f events very closely and overlooked nothing
that might further his master’s interests.
The legates were also to present to Boris a new request definitely to
declare for R om e;1 Greek bishops and priests were to be intimidated
with threats o f excommunication and degradation, should they refuse
to leave Bulgaria within a month.2 Thus the offensive was well planned.
Everything seemed to go in the Pope’s favour and fervent wishes saw
the legates off on their w ay to Byzantium. Such was the irony o f fate
that the last remnants o f the so-called success scored by the pontifical
legates at the Ignatian Council were to be swept aside by the Greeks
themselves on the initiative o f Ignatius.
However, things did not get quite as far as this. When the legates passed
under the gates o f Constantinople, Ignatius was no longer alive, having
died on 23 October 877, and Photius, after the agreement between the
Emperor, Ignatius and himself, had resumed possession o f his throne,
leaving the legates to face, to their utter embarrassment, the situation
they had least expected. Everybody in Constantinople expected the
legates to make immediate contact with the new Patriarch; unfortunately,
John V III had not counted on such a turn o f events nor given the legates
any instructions to that effect; and Paul and Eugene remembered too
vividly what was thought and said in Rome about Photius to deem it
advisable to open negotiations with him. The fate o f Radoald and
Zachary served as a painful reminder and the thought that they might
be condemned to share it came as a nightmare to trouble their sleep on
the banks o f the Bosphorus.
This gave Basil his second unpleasant experience with the Roman
legates : it was exactly what he had feared and the very reason why he
had hoped to welcome to Byzantium men who like Zachary knew the
position. But there was nothing for the moment he could do, except
once again to get in touch with John V III, and that was what Basil and
the Patriarch did. Already in April 879, the Pope had heard o f the
Emperor’s intentions through the Primitiarius Gregory,3 who in 877
was in command o f the imperial fleet at Beneventum, and he immediately
notified Count Pandenulf o f Capua4 o f the imperial embassy’s proximate
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 65, 66. 2 Loc. cit. pp. 66, 67.
3 Loc. cit. p. 142. Cf. John’s letter to Gregory sent in April 877, ibid. p. 45.
4 Loc. cit. p. 141. On the dates of these letters, cf. E. Caspar, ‘ Studien zum
Register Johanns V IlT , in Neues Archiv (1910), vol. x x x v i, p. 153.
173
arrival, requesting him to have the ambassadors taken to Rome : there

they must have arrived in May.1 They explained the new circumstances
in Byzantium and presented letters from the Emperor, the clergy o f
Constantinople and the Patriarch Photius. The Emperor in his letter
asked for recognition o f the new Patriarch and for the convocation o f
a Council to regularize the position in Byzantium; the letter from the
clergy o f Constantinople made it clear that Photius had been all but
unanimously acknowledged.
Thereupon, John V III summoned a synod o f eight bishops, including
his most intimate collaborators, for the purpose o f sanctioning the
results o f his pourparlers with the ambassadors. These details and what
happened at that synod we learn from the letters which the Pope sent
to the Emperor, to the clergy o f Constantinople and to the leaders o f
the Ignatian party.12
In his letter to Basil, the Pope begins by expressing satisfaction that
Basil should submit to the authority o f the Roman See an authority
confirmed by the Founder o f that See, when He said to St Peter, ‘ Feed
m y sheep’. He also notes with pleasure that Basil acknowledged this
See to be the head o f the whole Church. In deference to the Emperor’s
wishes, although Photius had resumed his see without Rome’s consent,
the Pope is agreeable to his being the legitimate Patriarch; but Photius
should apologize before the synod and make amends for his previous
conduct. In the exercise o f his powers to bind and loose, the Pope
releases Photius and his bishops from the ecclesiastical censures imposed
on them. It is the Roman See’s right to judge Patriarchs; and as the
condition o f his recognition by Rome, Photius must no longer exercise
any ecclesiastical powers in Bulgaria. The Emperor must honour Photius
and give no ear to his detractors. Basil must also receive all the Ignatian
bishops returning to Photius, and those who refuse to accept the new
state o f things are threatened with excommunication.
The letter addressed to the bishops o f Constantinople and to the
three Eastern Patriarchs, whose letters o f assent Photius had forwarded
to John V III, expresses the Pope’s great satisfaction to note the unanimity
o f the episcopacy’s feelings towards Photius. The Pope also, in virtue
o f the authority vested in the successor o f St Peter, approves his
nomination to the patriarchate; but, as previously Pope Hadrian I had
1 Cf. V. Grumel, ‘ Qui fut l'Envoyé de Photius auprès de Jean V III?', in Échos
<TOrient (1933), vol. x x x ii, pp. 439-43. Photius' envoy was Theodore, bishop of
Patras.
2 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 166-87.
174
laid down certain conditions for his recognition o f Patriarch Tarasius,

who had been raised without the canonical intervals from the lay state
to patriarchal dignity, so John V III considers himself bound to stipulate
certain conditions for the recognition o f Photius. They are as follows:
Photius is forbidden in future to promote in the Byzantine Church any
laymen to the episcopacy; he must restore Bulgaria to the Roman See;
he must apologize to the Council; he and his bishops must endeavour
to induce the Byzantine clergy to accept the new conditions in the
Byzantine Church.
In the letter addressed to Photius, the Pope praises his wisdom,
humbly confesses that the compliments addressed to himself by Photius
are undeserved and expresses satisfaction at the concord established in
Constantinople on Photius’ appointment. And yet, the Pope should
have been informed o f the fact. Dismissing this in a few words and
happy over the return o f peace, he recommends to Photius the utmost
condescension towards his adversaries, restores him to his dignity,
provided he apologizes before the Council, and adds that the legates
have received special instructions contained in a Commonitorium.
This Commonitorium had been sanctioned by the synod and signed
b y all present; it was also read to the Fathers o f the Photian Council at
the fourth session.1 We do not possess the Latin text o f this document.
As the tenth clause o f the Commonitorium orders the legates to proclaim
the suppression o f the Eighth Council and o f the synods held against
Photius, it has generally been assumed that this clause was inserted into
the document by Photius, an assumption which has rendered the whole
contents o f the Commonitorium suspect. The fact is that none o f the
other letters o f the Pope makes mention o f the suppression o f the Igna-
tian Council, which would justify the general suspicion in which this
passage and the whole document are held.
We should, however, draw attention to the Pope’s last letter on
Photius’ recognition, a letter addressed to the principal leaders o f the
Ignatian opposition, the Patricians John, Leo and Paul and bishops
Stylianos o f Neocaesarea, John o f Silaeon andMetrophanes o f Smyrna.3
After urgently exhorting them to foster peace and union with Photius,
the Pope concludes:
Let none o f you on turning back find excuses in writings on the subject,
since all fetters are unfastened b y the divine power which the Church o f
Christ has received, whenever what is bound is undone b y our pastoral
1 Mansi, vol. xvn, cols. 468-73. Cf. M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 188 seq.
2 Loc. cit. pp. 186, 187.
175
authority; for, as the saintly Pope Gelasius says, there is no tie that cannot
be unfastened, except for those who persist in their error. F o r if you refuse
to listen to our apostolic warnings which so many divine attestations have
confirmed, and decide to remain obdurate, know that we have instructed our
legates to deprive you o f all communion with the Church as long as you
refuse to return to the unity o f the B od y o f Christ and to your Patriarch.
It is evident that the Pope refers here to the Acts o f the Eighth
Council : these Acts and documents, which were read before the Fathers,
should not serve as a pretext for the die-hard Ignatians to refuse com
munion with Photius. When pastoral authority looses what is bound,
then, in virtue o f the divine power the Church o f Christ has received,
all fetters are undone. To judge from the context, the Pope pointedly
refers to the same Acts when he writes: ‘ Cuncta solvuntur vincula.’
Therefore, even the fetters that bound Photius were undone. How then
could fetters that were undone keep the force o f law that was revoked
by supreme authority? The Roman synods o f 863 and 869 as well as
the Council o f 869-70 were summoned solely against Photius and the
Patriarch’s condemnation was virtually the only topic o f their delibera
tions: if these decisions are declared to be valueless, what is left o f the
synods? Hence, the version o f this clause o f the Commonitorium, such
as was read before the Photian Council,1 corresponds roughly to what
John V III intended to convey; and if the passage was altered, in
accordance with the compromise arranged with the legates, the altera
tion must have left its substance untouched. It may be that the original
text was worded in terms more abrupt and that instead o f three declara
tions, there was only one, on the synod’s annulment. In fact, the last
sentence o f the text seems to reflect Byzantine mentality; Rome was
not so keenly concerned as Constantinople about counting synods.
What mainly leads one to think thatt his passage remained substantially
unaltered is the phrase in the Greek text— από του παρόντος (‘ from
this very moment’)— words that stand exactly for the point o f view on
the Photian affair that had prevailed in Rome since Nicholas. The
expression, in fact, conveys the view that these synods had kept their
full value till that very moment, because the sentence they had passed
on Photius was considered well justified. John V III, although better
1 Mansi, voï. x v il, col. 472. Θέλομεν ενώπιον της ενδημούσης συνόδου άνακη-
ρυχθήναι, ϊνα ή σύνοδος ή γεγονυΐα κατά του ττρορρηθέντος πατριάρχου Φωτίου εν
τοϊς καιροις τού Άδριανού τού άγιω τάτου πά π α έν τη 'Ρώμη, και εν Κωνσταντινου-
ττόλει οπτό τού παρόντος η έξωστρακισμένη και άκυρος και αβέβαιος, και μη συναριθ-
μήται αύτη μεθ’ ετέρας άγιας συνόδους.
17 6
PHO TIU S’ R E H A B IL IT A T IO N AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 -8 0
disposed towards Photius than his predecessors, was still, at least in 879,
o f their opinion, and that is why, speaking in other places on the Photian
business, he still used the words ‘ absolution5, ‘ dispensation5 and
‘ pardon5 to be granted by the Holy See.1 How could the Photian point
o f view have been adopted in Rome at that moment and in its complete
ness, since there had been neither time nor opportunity to know the
exact state o f affairs in Byzantium? Nicholas5 prestige was then still
paramount in Rome. It is even surprising that Photius should have
made no reference to these words, which, fundamentally, did not accord
with his own position.
The Pope had also to mention those synods in the instructions he
gave to the legates and to make it clear that they had lost all value,
owing to the Ignatians5 refusal to acknowledge Photius, and their appeal
to the very same synods. It was necessary that his words should be
sufficiently precise to obviate every possible pretext on the part o f the
Ignatian clergy. But the Commonitorium, in the version known to us,
is the only document in which the Pope mentions this matter : it therefore
cannot substantially differ from the original.
A passage in the letter from John V III to Basil reveals the Pope’s
true feelings with regard to the Eighth Council fairly clearly. He writes : 2
For even the legates o f the Apostolic See who were sent to Constantinople
b y our predecessor, the eminent Pontiff Hadrian, gave their well considered
assent to the synod held there ‘ with the approval o f their Pontiff5, nor did
they wish to remain severed from the Apostolicus [the Pope], since the See
o f St Peter, the key-bearer o f the heavenly kingdom, has after due considera
tion power to absolve prelates from all ties. It is well known that many
Patriarchs, Anastasius and C yril o f Alexandria, Flavianus and John o f C on
stantinople and P o ly chronius o f Jerusalem, who were condemned b y synods,
were prom ptly acquitted and reinstated b y the A postolic See.
Do these words not imply that even the synod o f 869-70 would remain
legally valid only so long as the Pope considered it expedient? When
a synod loses its legislative value, it may be said to be suppressed. And
incidentally, the prelates mentioned by the Pope in the same letter were
all men who had been unfairly condemned by synods.
All things considered, this passage o f the Commonitorium need no
longer be considered suspect; at most can it be said that Photius, in
agreement with the legates, only worded more emphatically and
pointedly what the Pope actually said.
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 170, 171. 2 Loc. cit. p. 171.
DPS 177 12
With regard to the other chapters o f the Commonitorium under

discussion, their contents reveal still more unmistakably the style o f
the Pontifical Chancellery o f that period and recall the Commonitorium
given by Pope Stephen V in 8851 to the legates dispatched to Moravia
for the settlement o f its ecclesiastical problems after Methodius’ death.
The first part o f this Commonitorium, like the document o f 879, also
deals with questions o f protocol. Another analogy is to be found in the
Commonitorium which John V III gave in 873 to Paul, bishop o f
Ancona, who was sent as ambassador to Louis the German, and to
Moravia.2
What in my opinion enhances the historical value o f this document
and corroborates its authority is the fact that other instructions given
to the legates correspond nearly word for word with certain passages
o f the pontifical letters. For instance, chapter v, which concerns the
reception o f the Ignatian clergy who would consent to submit to
Photius, tallies with what the Pope says in his letter to Basil and to
Photius .3 It is true that the Commonitorium draws a distinction
between those bishops who had been ordained under the first patriarchate
o f Ignatius and must be restored to their sees, and those bishops who
were ordained under the second patriarchate and are told to take their
living from their former dioceses. But this is no proof that this passage
was added by Photius and that this chapter o f the Commonitorium was
altered. We are told how at the second session o f the Council the legate
Peter understood the pontifical letters that had been read at the meeting:
they ordered the Ignatian bishops who accepted Photius to return to
their sees. Peter said : 4
Y o u see, most holy Patriarch, how the most holy Pope wishes all the
dispersed bishops to be recalled again and to be treated b y your Holiness
with mercy and p ity: so that those who were ordained first should recover
their sees, and those who were ordained later should receive living and upkeep
from those same churches until they re-enter into possession o f their old
or o f other sees.
The copyist whose extract from the Acts was used by Deusdedit
adopted the same reading, for he writes : 5
The letter o f the most holy Pope John directs that all the scattered bishops
should be summoned together and be treated with m ercy and compassion;
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 352 seq. 2 Loc. cit. pp. 283-5.

3 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 175, 184. 4 Mansi, vol. xvn , col. 417.
5 W olf von Glanvell, loc. cit. pp. 614 seq.
178
PHOTIUS’ REHABILITATION AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 -8 0
that those who were first ordained be received into their own sees, and those
who were ordained later should receive food and clothing from their churches
until they recover either the same or other sees.
There is then no reason for assuming that this passage o f the Com
monitorium was altered by Photius because he did not admit the legi
timacy o f the second patriarchate o f Ignatius.1
The excommunication o f priests refusing after two summonses to
obey the pontifical orders, as threatened in chapter vu , is likewise held
out in the Pope’s letters. The two following chapters concern the pro
hibition to raise laymen to episcopal dignity without the intervals, and
Bulgaria, but the latter topic is underlined in the Commonitorium where
Photius is threatened with severe canonical censures, should he refuse
the Pope’s request.12
Only chapter iv in the Commonitorium has been substantially
altered by Photius, for its original text certainly contained the Pope’s
order, expressed in all his letters, that Photius should apologize to the
Council. This order is suppressed and in its stead is found a feeble
invitation addressed to Photius to be thankful for what has happened
to him and to give due credit to the Roman Church. This is the only
portion o f the Commonitorium that has been completely altered; but
the alteration is connected with another problem that calls for special
treatment.
The Commonitorium was to be conveyed to Constantinople by Cardinal

Peter, who had been selected by the Pope as the additional member o f
the delegation that was waiting in Byzantium for further orders. Peter
had also to deliver to Paul and Eugene a letter from the Pope expressed
in somewhat severe terms. This is the text:3
Y o u have acted against our will. After reaching Constantinople and

examining the conditions o f ecclesiastical peace and unity, you failed to carry
out the mission with which we had entrusted you. W e should really not
entrust you with another, but to show apostolic kindness and m ercy we are
giving you as an additional member o f the second mission, which this time
you will have to carry out faithfully, Peter, a pious priest, cardinal and our
1 Cf. Grumel, ‘ Lettres de Jean VIII pour le Rétablissement de Photius’ in

Échos (ΓOrient (1940), vol. x x x ix , p. 153.
2 Observe a similar passage contained in the Pope’s letter to Photius (M .G .H .
Ep. vu, p. 185), with similar threats of censure, but omitted from the Greek
edition of the letter.
3 Loc. cit. pp. 188-90.
179 12-2
personal friend, so that you may do what is best for the peace and unity o f
G od’s Church, in accordance with the instructions* o f our apostolic authority
and the tenour o f our Commonitorium, which is divided into chapters. A ct
with intelligence and judgement and try b y faithful loyalty to regain our
favour, which you have exasperated b y your previous disobedience.
I have quoted the whole o f this document, because the letter

decisively influenced the legates during the first negotiations that pre
ceded the Council. I stated that the attitude o f Paul and Eugene had
exasperated the Emperor and the Patriarch, when the legates, for fear
o f committing themselves, had abstained from all action and waited for
further orders. To John V III this seemed absurd, since it left him without
a true and accurate report on the position in Constantinople and com
pelled him to rely on the accounts by the Emperor and the Patriarch,
with presumably a letter from the delegates. Note that the Pope here
blames his legates for their lack o f initiative in an unexpected emergency
and tells them to follow the tenour o f his instructions with ‘ intelligence
and judgement5; so that they could not but read into the Pope’s recom
mendations an injunction not to limit themselves to their standing orders
but to act on their own responsibility, were they ever to find themselves
in a similar position.
When Peter arrived with the Byzantine ambassadors in Constanti
nople, pourparlers between the Patriarch and the legates on the procedure
o f the coming Council were resumed, and it soon became evident that
the points o f view o f the Pope and o f the Patriarch radically differed
on one item: the Pope wanted the Patriarch to apologize for his past
conduct to the Council, and Photius flatly refused. He and his partisans
looked upon the measures taken against them by Nicholas and Hadrian
as utterly unfair and canonically unjustifiable. To their way o f thinking,
the synod o f 867 was only an act o f self-defence against Nicholas’
interference in the domestic life o f their Church. I f on that occasion
they went beyond the limits o f self-defence, they had been sufficiently
punished by the Council o f 869, when, from the Photian point o f view,
the papal legates also exceeded their powers by condemning Photius
and his friends without any preliminary legal examination. Moreover,
Photius had made peace with Ignatius before his death. All that the
Council about to be held in Constantinople was asked to do was to
sanction the position as it had existed since Ignatius’ death and to give
Photius and his friends due satisfaction.
This placed the legates once more in the quandary which had so
puzzled Radoald and Zachary in 861. Like them they could see that
180
PHOTIUS’ REHABILITATION AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 - 8 0
in Byzantium things had gone contrary to what was thought in Rome,

where Theognostos’ reports still remained the only source o f informa
tion. What was more, they saw that in the opinion o f Photius and his
friends the Ignatian Council was the main bone o f contention, and that
there was more to be said for Photius’ standpoint than they had thought
at first. They were also aware that in view o f conditions in Byzantium
their mission was doomed to failure, if they persisted in their demand
that the obnoxious condition should be fulfilled ; in which case, the two
Churches would sink back into schism and John V III would lose his
last chance o f recovering Bulgaria. For they knew how keen the
Papacy was on this item o f foreign conquest achieved by Nicholas I.
Their master also expected other things from the Emperor, to wit, his
military aid against the Arabs. What were they to do? A second recourse
to Rome was out o f the question, for the Emperor was getting impatient,
and besides, the Pope had blamed them for their lack o f initiative.
The legates apparently demurred to the Emperor’s solicitations for
some time; finally, yielding to common sense, they consented to the
suppression, on their own authority, o f John’s condition, but in return
asked for the cession o f Bulgaria.
The logical consequence o f the understanding between the legates and

the Patriarch was that the Pope’s letters could not be read to the Fathers
o f the Council as they stood. When writing them, the Pope was, as
stated above, under the influence o f ideas about Photius that had been
current in Rome since Nicholas I. John V III, like nearly everybody
else in Rome, was also convinced that Nicholas’ proceedings against
Photius were perfectly justified. No doubt, the unpleasant experience
he had had with Ignatius in connection with Bulgaria and the fact that
the see o f Constantinople was in reality vacant at the moment inclined
the Pope to condescension towards Photius. He had also heard the
imperial envoys’ explanations with more sympathy. But all this was
not enough to dispose o f old prejudices. Not even the intervention by
Zachary o f Anagni could dissipate all doubts, for since the time o f his
mission something had happened o f which even the new Librarian,
successor to Anastasius, was at a loss to afford adequate explanations—
the condemnation o f Nicholas by the synod o f 867. John V III therefore
considered himself quite in order, when he asked Photius for apologies
before he would annul the sentences passed by the anti-Photian synods.
But as soon as the legates perceived that the prejudices prevailing in
Rome against Photius were not wholly defensible, it became necessary
181
to delete the passages reflecting this prejudice. It was the usual procedure
in Byzantium; and similar action had been taken at the Eighth Council,,
at the synod o f 861 and had been tried again without success in 869.
As rapid communication with Rome was out o f the question, the
legates had no option but to take the responsibility on the spot and,
after the Council, to justify their action with the Pope as best they could.
Alterations made by the patriarchal chancellery in the pontifical
letters were fairly numerous, and as the practice has for centuries raised
severe criticism and some embarrassment among historians, let us
examine these alterations more closely and emphasize some features
which have so far not received the attention they deserve.1
In the original pontifical letter to Basil, the Patriarchal Chancellery
first paraphrased the introduction, which wTas too severe, and con
siderably improved upon the Pope’s compliments paid to the wisdom
o f the Emperor and o f his sons. This is not very material; but
what is curious is that the Pope’s emphasis on the primacy o f his
See has scarcely been touched. This is what we read in the Greek
version:
It was then that, wishing to establish and possess this concord, you have
addressed, through your legates and your godly letters, the H oly Rom an
Church, firmly confident that she would help you in your w ork and give yo u
energetic support. In this you did not take the initiative but followed and
imitated the excellent example o f those w ho ruled the Empire before you .
But it is worth asking who taught you to act thus. It was certainly the first
Apostle Peter, whom the Lord placed at the head o f all the Churches, saying :
Feed m y sheep. N ot only St Peter, but also the sacred synods and constitu
tions, the sacred and orthodox decrees and declarations b y the Fathers, as
testified b y your saintly and godly letters. Y o u act thus, in order that yo u r
faith, already firm and renowned, m ay shine the more brightly.
The original text is more explicit in its proclamation o f the Roman

primacy,12 but the Greek text does sufficient justice to the Pope’s leading
idea. Is it not surprising that the man who till then had been looked
1 Cf. Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 396 seq. M .G .H . Ep. v i i , pp. 166 seq.; Hergenröthery
Photius, vol. II, pp. 396-416; Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. ΐν, pp.
570 seq.
2 M .G .H . Ep. v i i , pp. 167: ‘ Romanae sedi reverentiam more praedecessorum
vestrorum piissimorum imperatorum conservatis et ei cunctam subicitis auctori
tatem, ad cuius auctorem, hoc est apostolorum omnium principem, domino loquente
praeceptum est: Pasce oves meas. Quam esse vere omnium ecclesiarum caput et
beatorum patrum praecipuae regulae et orthodoxorum principum statuta declarant
et pietatis vestrae reverentissimi apices adtestantur.’
182
upon as the bitterest enemy o f the primacy should have left such a
compromising passage untouched?
Later, the Pope referred to the imperial letter in which Basil asked
for recognition o f Photius, a request that was duly granted by the Pope,
who says in the authentic version :
Know ing that the Patriarch Ignatius has departed this life and having
considered all the circumstances mentioned in your letter, we decree that
Photius may be forgiven whatever he is known to have done in the past,
although he usurped functions that were forbidden him without reference to
our See; and we decree this without prejudice to the apostolic statutes or the
rules o f the holy Fathers: rather do we act on the strength o f those rules and
their manifold authority.. . .
Then, after quoting canon 2 o f the Council o f Nicaea, a decree o f

Gelasius, Leo, Felix and Innocent, John V III declares that he acknow
ledges Photius in common with the other Patriarchs and bishops who
were consecrated by Methodius and Ignatius, on condition that he
should ask pardon before the Council. In virtue o f the same supreme
power to bind and to loose, given to Peter, the Pope relieves Photius
and his clergy o f all censures.
This passage could o f course not remain in the Greek version o f the
letter and was thoroughly overhauled: mention o f Ignatius, o f the
Eighth Council and o f the apology is suppressed, but curiously enough,
even the Greek version, for all its doctoring, has preserved some
expressions endorsing the Roman thesis o f the primacy, which John V III
appealed to in the original. This is for instance what Photius makes the
Pope say: fiAs we considered it advisable to pacify the Church o f God,
we sent our apocrisiaries to carry out your will, although your own
piety had already anticipated us, i.e. our legates5 arrival, to reinstate
that man. But we accept him [none the less], not by our authority,
though we have the power to do so, but in obedience to the apostolic
institutions.5 And later on:
A fter receiving the keys o f the Kingdom o f Heaven from the first great
Pontiff Jesus Christ through the intermediary o f the first o f the Apostles,
Peter, to whom He said: I will give thee the keys o f the kingdom o f heaven;
and whatever thou shah bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, this apostolic throne has
the power to bind and loose all, and in the words o f Jeremiah, to uproot and
to plant. F or this very reason, we also, b y the authority o f the Prince o f the
Apostles, Peter, announce to you with our entire H oly Church, and through
you, to your dear confrères and co-ministers, the Patriarchs o f Alexandria,
183
Antioch and Jerusalem, and the other bishops and priests and to the whole
Church o f Constantinople, that w e agree and consent with you, or rather
with God, to your request.. . . Accept that man without hesitation. Let no
one seek pretexts for refusal in the decisions o f the iniquitous synods that met
against him ; let no one— as many simple people think they can do— appeal
to the decrees o f our blessed predecessors, Nicholas and Hadrian, for they
never credited what was alleged against the very saintly Photius. Let no one
use your signatures against him as a pretext to sever communion with him
or with you. Everything is over, everything repudiated, everything annulled
and whatever was done against him has lost all validity. A ll these things,
we, however unworthy, have handed to the Coryphaeus, to be laid on the
shoulders o f Jesus Christ, the Lamb o f God, who remits the sins o f the
w o rld .. . . Intensify your love, your faith, your obedience, you r reverence in
Him and b y Him in the H oly Rom an Church. W hoever refuses to accept
him also refuses to accept— this is evident— either our decrees or those o f
the H oly Rom an Church; and he declares war, not on us, but on the very
h oly Apostle Peter, or rather on Christ, Son o f God, who so honoured and
glorified His Apostle as to give him power to bind and to loose.
The words are as clear as those used by the Pope himself. What is
more, Photius’ words so appealed to the canonists o f the post-Gregorian
period that they were quoted word for word by Ivo o f Chartres,1 and
many canonists who copied them from him, who fully understood their
significance and quoted them precisely for the purpose o f exalting papal
power and o f proving that the Pope can annul any sentence— a fact
which, unfortunately, has so far not been sufficiently realized.
The other conditions o f Photius’ reinstatement as laid down by the
Pope are translated fairly accurately in the Greek version o f the letter.
Mention is made o f the Pope’s prohibition in future to elect Patriarchs
from among the laity, with the additional remark that this canonical
rule has not always been observed. The order forbidding Greek priests
to be sent to Bulgaria is worded in the form o f a request; Photius at
the same time making the Pope imply that the Greek priests may stay
in Bulgaria in anticipation of the compromise that would afford a
solution. Photius also suppresses the threat o f excommunication
uttered in the original letter in the case o f disobedience in this particular
matter.
The Pope’s letter to the Eastern Patriarchs and to the Fathers o f the
Council is less important than the letter addressed to the Emperor, and
the alterations introduced by Photius are less glaring, though even here
1 P .L . vol. 16 1, cols. 56-8. Cf. pp. 302 seq.
184
PHOTÏUS’ REHABILITATION AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 -8 0
the Patriarch has left nearly intact the words by which the Pope means
to vindicate his rights. T o quote the passage after the Greek version:1
. . . It was then your saintly and solicitous zeal, quoting the Blessed Prince
o f the Apostles, Peter, that appealed to our love and asked us to embrace the
very saintly Patriarch Photius, after his reinstatement in the countries o f the
Church o f Constantinople, and that we should join you in accepting him.
This w e have done with jo y and promptitude, observing what was said in
the Gospel to the first pastor, to whom the Lord said: ‘ I have prayed for
you, Peter, that your faith may not fail; and you, once converted, confirm
your brethren/ Inspired b y these divine words and possessing full power to
succour all Christians, as far as we can without incurring blame or damnation
— a power whose fame has reached the confines o f the world—-and following
the example o f our predecessors, w e have acknowledged P hotiu s.. . . Let this
very saintly and pious confrère o f ours, the Patriarch Photius, not take it ill,
i f we ask him to do honour before the synod to our grace and favour, or
rather, to the heart o f the Rom an Church. F or we have conferred on him
our brotherly favour and acknowledged him as the legitimate Patriarch,
raised to that dignity according to the canons, and as associate o f the Blessed
Peter the Apostle. And the whole Rom an Church, after the example o f our
predecessors, has opened her heart to h im .. . . F or many bishops, who lost,
and were expelled from, their sees, recovered them b y apostolic interven
tion. . . .
Obviously, Photius deleted the Pope’s order to apologize before the

Council, but without tampering with the essentials o f the text in reference
to the pontifical primacy.
There was no equivalent passage in the original o f the papal letter
to Photius, who paraphrased the opening lines; made the Pope say that
the see in which he was reinstated belonged to him by right; accentuated
the reference to the Ignatians who should refuse to acknowledge him;
attenuated the Pope’s order to apologize before the Council; removed
allusions to the Ignatian Council, the threats o f papal censures and the
order to recall the Greek priests from Bulgaria; and, lastly, put into the
Pope’s mouth the solemn declaration that the Councils held against
him were null and void.12
On the whole, therefore, all the alterations concerned the differences
o f Roman and Byzantine views regarding Photius’ case : some amplifica
tions are rhetorical and superfluous; the compliments addressed to
Photius and to the Pope are in every case touched up to create an
1 Mansi, vol. xvn, cols. 452 seq.; M .G.H . Ep. vu, pp. 177 seq.
2 Mansi, vol. xvn, cols. 412 seq.; M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 181 seq.
185
impression of perfect understanding between Rome and Byzantium and

to underline the cordiality o f the tone, which, in fact, is evident even
in the original. Let this Photian ‘ impudence’ shock people to their
hearts’ content, as it has done with a vengeance; nevertheless it is clear
that in these avalanches o f fiery and indignant criticisms, critics have
been too excited to notice that Photius nowhere interfered with essential
passages expressing John V III’s views on the primacy o f the Roman
See— a point o f capital importance.
It must also be admitted that Photius and his friends could not
possibly accept the Roman view o f their own affairs : it was that o f their
enemies, and had been injected into the Romans by Theognostos,
Photius’ bitterest opponent. This was common knowledge in Byzan
tium and was well summed up by an unknown Latin cleric who in
Gregory V II’s reign prepared an extract from the Acts o f the Photian
Council to document the canonical writers.
I shall have occasion in the first chapter o f the second part o f this
work to deal with those intermediary collections o f canon law from
which the great canonists o f the period derived materials for their
modernized canonical collections. T w o o f the Gregorian and post-
Gregorian canonists, Deusdedit1 and Ivo o f Chartres,2 have preserved
in their Collections some extracts from the Photian Council. There we
read a curious passage which differs from the corresponding version
found in the current edition of the Acts o f that Council. Here it is:
‘ Nullus sanctorum praedecessorum meorum Nicolai et Adriani sen
tentias contra eum causetur. De ipso enim surreptum est illis? (Let none
allege against him the sentences passed by my holy predecessors Nicholas
and Hadrian, since [what they said] about him was surreptitiously
obtained from them .)3
Here the author has grasped better than the Acts the idea which
inspired the Fathers o f the Council by suggesting that Popes Nicholas
and Hadrian had been misled on the true state o f affairs by a third person
(the Fathers had Theognostos in mind), who acted surreptitiously, or
1 W. von Glanvell, loc. cit. p. 614. z P .L . vol. 16 1, col. 57.
3 It is inadmissible to translate the word ‘ surripere’ by the word ‘ suppress’
{abroger in French), as does M. Jugie, ‘ Schisme Byzantin’, in Diet, de Théol.
Cath. (1939), vol. X I V , col. 13 4 1; ‘ Les Actes du Synode Photien de Sainte-Sophie’,
in Échos d’ Orient (1938), vol. x x x v ii, p. 98; Le Schisme Byzantin (Paris, 1941),
p. 129. Nor is there any reason why the word ‘ sententiis’ should be added after
‘ surreptum est illis’, since the text is perfectly intelligible without the addition.
The word ‘ surripere’ always connotes fraud or dolus, and none would suppose that
in the author’s meaning the suppression of the sentences against Photius was
obtained by fraud.
186
P H O T I U S* R E H A B I L I T A T I O N AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 - 8 0
by fraud. The Greek original insinuates the same: £They never credited
what was alleged [rather, plotted] against Photius.’ 1 Now the author
o f the extract from the Acts faithfully rendered the thought o f Photius
and the Byzantines by the words ‘ surreptum est illis’. This does not
mean that Deusdedit and Ivo o f Chartres used a version o f the Acts
which differed in many ways from the version we know. As we shall
see in greater detail, both used an extract from the Acts which must
have circulated in their days in so-called intermediary Collections o f
canon law.
Let us remember that what embittered the Photian bishops’ feelings
against Rome and put their consciences to such a hard test was that the
Popes should have so uncritically adopted Theognostos’ view o f their
case. O f this we find reliable information in a speech which Zachary
o f Chalcedon, one o f the persecuted Photian bishops, made at the first
session o f the Council, when he said at the beginning o f his address
that the troubles o f the Church o f Constantinople were due to Ignatius’
simplicity.12 Strange as this appreciation may sound, it faithfully reflects,
what the Photianists thought about Ignatius. It may even surprise
some to hear a Photianist as prominent as Zachary expressing so
moderate an opinion about his master’s leading opponent.
After a lengthy paean in praise o f the address o f the Patriarch Photius,
too long and rhetorical to suit our modern taste, Zachary went on:3
W e have restored to the Church what belonged to her and she has recovered
her spouse. W hatever was done against him is now treated as insensate and
futile; and when this came about, many prom ptly rallied to the decision,,
whilst many others did so later. But a few, no friends o f the peace o f the
Church, have yielded to their self-love, and when asked w h y they had
severed themselves from the common body o f the Church, were ready to
answer in their defence: ‘ The Rom an Church ordered it so.5 But they only
behaved like church thieves and murderers, who on being charged with their
misdeeds, would answer: T did it b y permission o f the Rom ans.5 And that
Church [the Roman], which so far has enjoyed peace and to the best o f her
ability radiated that peace to others, is made— i f not truthfully, at least in
their mouths— the cause o f all the troubles, conflicts and scandals, nay all
the evils that have afflicted our Church.
1 See p. 184. Mansi, vol. xvn, col. 401: μηδεις. . .τάς των προ ημών μακαρίων
αρχιερέων, Νικολάου τέ φημι και Άδριανοΰ, καταψηφίσεις αιτιάσθω* ου γάρ άπο-
δείχθησαν παρ’ αυτών τά κατά του άγιωτάτου Φωτίου τυρευθέντα__
2 Mansi, vol. χνΐΐ, col. 384·’ °νδέ πρότερον άστασιάστου ταύτης ουσης τή του
κρατουντος άπλότητι---
3 Mansi, vol. χνιι, cols. 385 seq.
THE P H O T ! A N SCHISM. I. T H E H I S T O R Y
And that is w h y our very pious Em peror has summoned you [legates]
here. Y o u are gathered here to rebut all the imputations and charges which
nearly everybody levels at you b y making you responsible for the evils that
have undeservedly afflicted us. Truth to tell, this synod has been summoned
for your sakes;— for you, our brothers and Fathers, for the very H oly
Rom an Church, for your honour, lest the last remaining schismatics should
accuse you o f being the authors o f all these dissensions and disorders. N ow
everything is at last satisfactorily settled without any further need for cor
rection, all b y the grace o f God, b y the action o f that lover o f Christ, our
Em peror, b y the prayers o f our very saintly Patriarch, b y the agreement and
collaboration between the three Eastern pontifical sees and b y the god ly
prayers and supplication o f the very saintly Pope John. Y o u can hear for
yourselves that what I say is not only m y voice, but that o f this numerous
synod.
After energetic and reassuring applause from the Fathers, their pro
testations o f loyalty to Photius and their protests against the dissidents,
Zachary continued :
In fact, those who have clung to their schismatic errors deserve reproba
tion; for, apart from other crimes they are committing, they are guilty o f a
paradox, the very thought o f which is revolting to me. W hat is it? T h ey are
trying to enslave the Rom an Church, which for centuries has kept her
freedom unbroken. H ow ? B y saying: ‘ Nicholas’ and Hadrian’s decisions
we accept; but we repudiate the decisions o f the very holy and blessed Pope
John. W h y? Because those two Popes submitted to our will, whereas this
one, instead o f obeying our orders, expects us to obey his.’ This only means
one thing, that they refuse to obey the decrees o f the Rom an Pontiffs and
would force those great and admirable men to obey their own behests; they
accept the Rom an decrees they have dictated in advance, and reject those
that clash with their own prejudices. Y o u may repeat those decrees a thousand
times, they may be true to the canons and reflect superior inspiration— those
men will in their pride have their own w a y : could there be greater folly?
Hasten then, beloved, and gallantly stand up to liberate the H oly Roman
Church from this dreadful barbarian slavery. W ipe away the dishonour and
disgrace that d in g to you and substitute the glory o f w orking for the universal
peace o f all the Churches.
Hergenröther chose to be deeply shocked by this Lügengewebe;τ and

yet, Zachary’s words faithfully reflected the mind and the opinions o f
the Photian clergy on the part played by the Holy See in this business.
The Photian clergy were at the time in an overwhelming majority and
1 Photius, vol. II, p. 468; cf. also M. Jugie, Le Schisme Byzantin (Paris, 1941),
p. 122.
T8 8
PHOTIUS’ REHABILITATION AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 - 8 0
their opinions deserved respect, unless the Roman Church was ready
to risk the prestige she had commanded in the East. The legates could
not but see the importance o f the issue and the danger that again
threatened the peace o f the Church; and as Photius was ready to make
many concessions to the legates and the legates could ill afford to
exasperate the Byzantine clergy by ill-advised rigidity, a compromise
was arrived at and the Council could meet.
It has always been a surprise to many that this Council should have
been presided over, not by the Emperor, but by Photius; this has led
to him being suspected o f a desire to occupy the supreme position in
the Church, but the suspicion is unfounded. There was a precedent in
the Seventh Oecumenical Council, when the conciliar debates were
directed by Tarasius. Imperial officials were also present, but unlike
Baanes at the Eighth Council, did not participate in the debates.
Evidently, Tarasius officiated for the Emperor for the simple reason
that at that time the Empire was ruled by Irene, when it would have
been inconceivable in Byzantine eyes for an oecumenical council to be
directed by a woman. It should also be remembered that as Tarasius,
before being a Patriarch, had filled the important post o f president o f
the Imperial Chancellery, he knew the routine; and Photius, before
being a Patriarch, had occupied the same post as his uncle. So it was
no matter for surprise that the Emperor should appoint him to the chair
at the Council in his own name and allow him to exercise the rights
hitherto reserved to the Emperor, when he himself could not perform
the function.
The reason for the Emperor’s absence was also a natural one: Basil
had just lost his eldest and favourite son Constantine. The chroniclers
who record this painful accident make it clear how deeply Basil must
have felt the loss ; 1 and as the death must have occurred shortly before
the opening o f the Council,12 one can understand that the Emperor, in
mourning over the greatest loss o f his life, could not appear in public
at such an important function.
The outstanding event o f the first session occurred at the Church o f
St Sophia at the beginning o f November— the exact date o f this session
not being given in the Acts— the great speech by Zachary, mentioned
before, and the presentation o f the legates. The second session,
1 Theoph. Cont., Vita Basilii (Bonn), pp. 345 seq.; Leo Grammaticus, ibid,
p. 258; Pseudo-Simeon, ibid. pp. 692 seq.; Georgius Monachus Cont., ibid. p. 844.
2 Cf. Vogt, Basile 1er, pp. 58, 155, 333.
189
THE P H O T ! A N SCHISM, i. T H E H I S T O R Y
summoned for 17 November, opened with the reading o f the pontifical

letters, o f course in their revised and corrected version. After the
reading o f Pope John’s letter to Basil, Procopius o f Caesarea in Cappa
docia expressed the Fathers’ satisfaction at Pope John’s conciliatory-
attitude towards Photius and asked the legates to induce the dissidents,
few as they were, to rally to the Patriarch. Peter, the Cardinal, then
emphatically promised in the legates’ name to do whatever was in the
apostolicus’ (Pope’s) delegation’s power in that direction, in accordance
with the Pontiff’s instructions.1
After the reading o f the Pope’s letter to Photius, the Cardinal once
more summed up the leading points o f the letter with regard to the
Ignatian bishops. To this Photius replied that the Emperor had banished
no more than two bishops, accused o f civil disturbances.2 One o f them
moreover had publicly insulted Pope John ; but the Patriarch undertook
to apply to the Emperor for the recall o f these two bishops, so that they
might be persuaded by the legates to unite with the Church.
The Cardinal then asked for explanations o f the Pope’s request on
the subject o f Bulgaria. In reply, Photius stated that since his accession
to the throne he had refrained from sending the pallium to Bulgaria or
making ordinations there, and that he had declared himself ready to
make any sacrifice for the sake o f peace and unity. He then added these
striking words :
W e once even went so far as to reply to Pope Nicholas, who claimed some
sees and some dioceses as his own, to the follow ing effect: ‘ W hat your
Holiness claims is only within the powers o f the Em peror o f the East. W ere
m y great love for G od not hampered either b y imperial orders or b y other
canonical considerations— even the clergy under me would agree with
me in this— I should be only too ready to hand over on demand not only
the sees which you say once belonged to the Rom an See, but even those
that were never under it, as far as it would be necessary to keep your
friendship.’
The Metropolitan o f Caesarea in Cappadocia stated that there would

be a redistribution o f the dioceses under the various patriarchates, once
the Emperor had finished subjugating all the peoples to his power.
Gregory o f Ephesus then rose on a point o f order, observing that the
Council had not been summoned to solve that question.3 This dis
cussion is interesting for its revelation o f public opinion in Byzantium.
1 Mansi, vol. xvn, col. 409. 2 Ibid. col. 417.

3 Ibid. cols. 417, 420.
190
After all, Photius declared his readiness to accept a compromise : what

that compromise was to be, we shall see presently.
The legates then examined the circumstances o f Photius’ recovery of
his see, emphasizing that he became Patriarch for a second time, before
the Church o f Rome was duly informed. T o this Elias, legate o f
Jerusalem, replied: ‘ Each o f the three patriarchates o f the East has
always had its own Patriarch, and in this instance nearly all the bishops
and priests o f Constantinople wanted him [Photius] as their Patriarch :
who then was to stop him from returning to his see?’ B y these words,
the Patriarch’s legate meant to vindicate the right o f the Eastern Church
to elect its own Patriarchs and bishops without the intervention o f
, Rome : it was an ancient custom in the Church, and to that extent the
Fathers did not accept the Roman claims as put forward by the Pope’s
legates.
Photius then considered it necessary personally to explain how he
became Patriarch again, and emphasized his attitude towards Ignatius.1
Then the letters from Michael o f Alexandria were read; these had been
brought by his delegate and addressed to Photius and to the Emperor,
and their main contention was that the persons representing his
patriarchate at the Eighth Council had no mandate from his see.
Moreover, Thomas o f T yre had confessed his sin and sent to the
Council a Libellus Poenitentiae, which gave the Fathers great satisfaction.
Photius thereupon pardoned him. Then followed the reading o f the
letters sent by the Patriarchs o f Jerusalem and Antioch.
The third session* began with the reading o f the pontifical letter to
the Fathers o f the Council. The various points contained in the letter
were agreed to in the course o f the debate. Procopius o f Caesarea and
Zachary o f Chalcedon tried to prove that the order forbidding the
elevation o f laymen to episcopal honours was not absolute.
Then followed a letter to Basil from the delegate o f Theodosius o f
Jerusalem, who was duly cross-questioned by the legates to make sure
that his mandate was genuine. After a solemn protestation by the
legates that they had not been bribed into their recognition o f Photius,
there followed the reading o f the Pope’s Commonitorium.
On Christmas Eve and in the course o f the fourth session, the reading
o f the letters from the Patriarchs o f Antioch and Jerusalem, brought at
the last moment by the Metropolitan o f Martyropolis, Basil, enabled
the Fathers to make it clear that Photius would have become Patriarch
even without the consent o f the Eastern Patriarchs.3 This declaration
1 See p. 167. 2 Mansi, vol. xvn , cols. 449 seq. 3 Loc. cit. col. 484.
TH E PH ΟTI AN S CH I S M. I. T H E H I S T O R Y
by the bishops o f Constantinople, made a second time in the course o f

the Council, was meant to vindicate their right to elect their own bishops
without the intervention o f any other power, and their insistence showed
how jealously the Church o f Constantinople stood on her rights. This
part o f the session ended with lengthy tributes, paid by Elias o f Jeru
salem and by the Cardinal, to Photius’ address; Photius, they said, was
like the sun, illuminating the world and other constellations.
The legates then rose to ask for two Patricians, who till then had
refused to recognize Photius, to be admitted to penance. There followed
the examination o f the principal items o f the Pope’s letter to the
Emperor and o f the Commonitorium. The Pope’s request about Bul
garia was discussed chiefly by Procopius o f Caesarea, Theophilus o f #
Iconium and Nicetas o f Smyrna, who concluded that only the Emperor
could decide, and that since John and Photius were agreed and loved
each other like brothers, there was no point in bringing in the question
o f a redistribution o f dioceses.
The question o f the elevation o f the laity to episcopal honours met
with severer criticisms than in the preceding sessions; but clauses 4 and 5
o f the Commonitorium, pronouncing the suppression o f the anti-
Photian synods and the excommunication o f recalcitrant Ignatians,
received general approval. On a proposal by the legates, it was decided
that the perfect unanimity prevailing among the Fathers o f the Council
should be symbolized by everyone joining with Photius in the celebra
tion o f the sacred mysteries on Christmas D ay.1
The fifth session, held on 26 January, was particularly important.
Photius first proposed that the Council should officially confer on the
second synod o f Nicaea the title o f Seventh Oecumenical Council, and
the Cardinal threatened to excommunicate any who should refuse to
number that synod among the oecumenical councils. The legates o f the
other sees concurred.
Then, on the proposal o f the apostolic legates, the Council decided
to send three bishops to Metrophanes o f Smyrna to urge him to declare
himself openly for Photius before the Council. After giving an evasive
reply and excusing himself on grounds o f ill-health from appearing
before the Council, Metrophanes was excluded from the Church until
such time as he should change his mind.
Metrophanes’ case being settled, the Council voted on the first canon,
which was proposed by the pontifical legation and worded as follows:
This Holy and Oecumenical Synod has decided that the clerics or
1 Loc. cit. cols. 475-92.
19 2
PHOTIUS5 REHABILITATION AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 - 8 0
laymen or bishops o f Italy, living in Asia, Europe or Libya, and having

been suspended, deposed or excommunicated by the very Holy Father
John, be regarded as such, i.e. as either deposed, or anathematized or
deprived o f communion; also, that the clerics, laymen, bishops or
priests, o f whatever diocese they be, who have been excommunicated,
deposed or anathematized by our very Holy Father Photius, be likewise
regarded as such by the very Holy Pope John and by the Church
subordinated to him, i.e. as subjected to the same punishment, without
any prejudice whatsoever to the privileges o f the very Holy Roman
Church or its bishops, either now or in the future.1
When this canon had been adopted by the representatives o f the
other patriarchates and by the Fathers, a vote was taken on the second
canon, on a motion by Photius, forbidding bishops who became monks
to resume their former dignity and functions. The third canon voted
by the assembly anathematized any layman who, with or without pro
vocation, should strike a bishop, this canon being intended to put an
end to abuses that had spread in Constantinople during the recent
conflicts between the two parties ; o f these both Ignatian and Photianist
bishops had been victims.
The items on the agenda being exhausted, the legates proposed that
the conciliatory decisions should be signed by all present. Paul, bishop
o f Ancona, signed first in the following terms :
I, Paul, unworthy bishop o f the H oly Church o f Ancona, legate o f the
H oly Apostolic See and o f m y master, Blessed John, the Supreme Pontiff o f
the Rom an, Catholic and Apostolic Church and oecumenical Pope, accept,
in accordance with m y mandate, order and consent o f the very H oly, A po s
tolic and Oecumenical Pope John, and with the assent o f the Church o f
Constantinople and o f the legates o f the three other Patriarchs and with the
approval o f the same H oly and Oecumenical Synod, this venerable Photius,
legitimate and canonically elected Patriarch, to his patriarchal dignity, and
I am in communion with him in accordance with the tenour and the terms
o f the Commonitorium. I repudiate and anathematize the synod that was
summoned against him in this H oly Church o f Constantinople. W hatever,
in whatever manner, was done against him at the time o f Hadrian, o f pious
memory, then Rom an Pope, I declare abrogated, anathematized and rejected
in accordance with the Commonitorium, and that assembly I in no w ay
reckon among the sacred synods. W hoever shall attempt to divide the H oly
Church o f God and sever him self from his own supreme pastor and oecu
menical Patriarch, the saintly Photius, must him self be severed from the H oly
Church o f G od, and until he returns to her, communicates with the H oly and
1 Ibid. col. 497.
DPS 193 13
THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I. T H E H I S T O R Y
oecumenical Patriarch and submits to the judgement o f the H oly See, must
remain excommunicated. Moreover, to the holy and oecumenical synod
which met for the second time in Nicaea on the subject o f the sacred and
venerable images, at the time o f Hadrian I, Roman Pope o f blessed memory,
and o f Tarasius, the very holy Patriarch o f the Church o f Constantinople,
I give the name o f Seventh Council and number it with the six holy synods.
Signed with m y own hand.
The two other pontifical legates signed in the same way. There
followed the signatures o f the representatives o f the Oriental sees and
o f the 383 bishops who had attended the Council. Thus concluded the
Council’s weighty deliberations.
One important, and all but essential, item was still lacking in the Acts
o f the Council, the Emperor’s signature: without it, the conciliar
decisions could not become laws o f the Empire, obligatory on all
citizens. The Emperor had attended none o f the conciliar sessions and
his officials had attended in fewer numbers than was usual on such
occasions; one looks in vain in the Acts for a list o f imperial func
tionaries after the bishops’ names. The Emperor and the court were in
mourning, and in this the prescriptions o f Byzantine ceremonial seem
to have been followed to the letter. But as the Emperor’s presence at
one meeting at least was indispensable, a special session in the Emperor’s
presence was arranged, opening on 3 March in the triclinium o f the
imperial palace.
This session, the seventh on the list, was especially remarkable. First,
its opening apparently did not coincide with the closing o f the court
mourning. It is not known exactly when Basil’s son died: all we
know is that it was towards the end o f 879, possibly at the beginning
o f October, in which case it is likely that the Emperor’s and the court’s
mourning lasted six months, from the beginning o f October till the
end o f March.
Then again, the session took place, not at St Sophia, but in the
imperial palace, which on the face o f it meant that the Emperor still
refused to make his appearance in public. Out o f respect for his feelings
and his loss, the Fathers went to the imperial palace, but not all were
admitted to the session: only the Patriarch, the legates and the eighteen
metropolitans and archbishops were present to represent the 383 Fathers
o f the Council; the others were summoned ten days later to St Sophia,
to hear the reading o f the protocol o f that session and to signify their
agreement with what had already been decided.
194
It has been a matter o f general surprise that these two sessions, short
as they were, should have been held in a manner apparently so irregular,
after the debates on the most important problems had been closed.
Following the example o f a Greek scholiast, who in a marginal note
preserved in some Manuscripts o f the fifteenth century cast doubts on
the authenticity o f the last two sessions,1 many have thought they were
only a fabrication by Photius. But Hergenröther 12 has already pointed
out the flaw in this argument. B y taking into account the Emperor’s
mourning for his son Constantine and the Byzantine customs that
governed general councils, we have seen many difficulties vanish or
yield to simple and straightforward explanations.
On closer examination, the proceedings o f these two sessions disclose
nothing that might invalidate their authenticity. The canons o f the
Council had been proposed and voted at the fifth session; but each
Council required its horos or Symbol o f faith, a practice introduced by
the first four Councils and followed by all the great oecumenical
councils; and apart from the definitions o f the first five Councils, the
Sixth, the Seventh and even the so-called Eighth Council invariably
proclaimed their Symbols.3 This rule was certainly followed by the
Photian Council in 861 and must likewise have been observed by the
Council o f 879-80.
This time the proclamation o f the horos was held over till the session
that was attended by the Emperor, who presided and proposed the
Symbol o f the Council o f Nicaea and o f Constantinople for adoption as
the Symbol o f faith o f the present synod. After a dogmatic introduction,
the Symbol was read out by the protonotary Peter, after which the
Fathers firmly forbade any alteration, addition or suppression to be
made to the Symbol. The Emperor then, together with his sons, signed
the Acts o f the Council and the Symbol. A short speech o f thanks,
delivered by the Metropolitan o f Ancyra, Daniel, and the usual acclama
tions brought the session to a close.
The seventh session, with Photius in the chair, met only to report
to the Fathers what the delegates o f the Council, the legates and the
Patriarch had done at the imperial palace. The horos was adopted by
acclamation, and after the usual compliments addressed to the Emperor
and to Photius by the protonotary Peter, the pontifical legates and

2 Photius, vol. π, pp. 528-39.
3 Mansi, vol. x i, cols. 633 seq.; vol. xm , cols. 376 seq.; vol. xvi, cols. 179-84
(after the vote on the canons of the Council).
13-2
T95
Procopius o f Caesarea, the synod was formally terminated with a second

anathema against any who refused to acknowledge Photius and the
customary acclamations.
There was, therefore, nothing to justify any misgivings about the
authenticity o f these two last sessions o f the Photian synod, and they
yielded nothing which the pontifical legates could not have signed or
which might have given offence to the Romans at the time. Nowhere
was the doctrine o f the Filioque questioned: the only objection was to
the addition o f the formula to the Symbol. It is well known that the
Roman Church in those days still recited the Symbol without the
addition. Photius also clearly referred to the sixth session o f this Council
and to what was said and done there in his letter to the Archbishop o f
Aquileia,1 confirming the same in the M ystagogy? These two docu
ments, belonging to the period that followed the Council almost imme
diately, afford all but unimpeachable evidence in favour o f the authen
ticity o f these two sessions; and if credit is refused to Photius’ word, we
have other proofs which completely dispose o f the latest attempt to
question their authenticity.3
1 P.G . vol. 102, col. 820: 4Also at a synod of certain ecclesiastical leaders, holy
Pope John’s legates, who had been sent to attend it, subscribed, as though Pope
John had been present and joined us in professing the true doctrine of the Trinity,
to the symbol which is professed and believed at the conclusion of all General
Councils in conformity with the word o f the Lord, and they confirmed it in the
same sense and with the same conviction, in writing and in speech and with their
own signature.’
2 P .G . vol. 102, ch. 89, col. 380: ‘ My own John (he is also mine for other
reasons and because he took my defence more vigorously than any)— so my John, so
manly in thought and piety, so virile in attacking and castigating every injustice and
disloyalty, so strong on sacred and civil law and on the restoration of order, this
gracious Pontiff, I say, through his saintly and illustrious legates Paul, Eugene and
Peter, prelates and priests of God who came to our synod, accepted the symbol of
faith as the Catholic Church of God and his predecessors on the pontifical See of
Rome had ever done, subscribed to it through the medium o f the minds, the voice
and the sacred hands of those worthy and saintly men and signed it. Moreover,
his successor, the saintly Hadrian, in sending us his synodical letter according to
ancient custom, professed the same faith and taught that the Spirit proceeds from
the Father.. . . ’
3 Cf. V. Grumel, ‘ Le Filioque au Concile Photien de 879-880’, in Échos (ΓOrient
(1930), vol. X X I X , pp. 257-64; also V. Laurent, ‘ Le Cas de Photius dans l’Apolo-
gétique du Patriarche Jean X I Beccos au Lendemain du Deuxième Concile de Lyon ’,
ibid. pp. 396-415 ; my book Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 324 seq.;
Laurent, ‘ Les Actes du Synode Photien et Georges le Métochite’, in Échos
d ’ Orient (1938), vol. x x x v n , pp. 100-6; V. Grumel, ‘ Le Décret du Synode Photien
de 879-880 sur le Symbole de F oi’, ibid. pp. 357-72; V. Grumel, Les Règestes des
Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, pp. 106 seq. (cf., however, A. Michel’s criticism
o f the same in By{. Zeitschr. (1938), vol. x x x v m , pp. 452-9). E. Amann, whose
19 6
PHOTIUS’ REHABILITATION AND SYNOD OF 8 7 9 - S 0
But we cannot be so emphatic about the authenticity o f a letter from

John V III to Photius regarding the addition to the Symbol and which
was published by Mansi at the end o f the Acts o f the Photian Council.
In this letter the Pope complains o f unfriendly rumours spread in Con
stantinople about the Church o f Rome. Lest these rumours should
raise suspicions in Photius’ mind, the Pope hastens to assure him that
the Symbol has always been recited in Rome without any addition or
suppression and that it does not at all contain the ‘ article5 that had
caused so many scandals in the Church. He severely condemns all those
who dared, ‘ in their short-sightedness5, to insert it and compares them
to Judas. He observes, however, that it is not easy to persuade the
bishops o f the Roman patriarchate to abandon a practice which is, in
fact, quite a recent one. The Pope himself refuses to believe in the use
o f force and thinks it better to proceed cautiously in trying to suppress
the usage. It is anyhow false to accuse the Pope o f the innovation, and
at the end o f the letter he requests Photius not to allow himself to be
scandalized by the practice and to help the Pope in suppressing it.
Hergenröther, who specifically dealt with this problem, came to the
conclusion that the document was a forgery, whose author might be
Photius or rather some Greek polemist o f the fourteenth century.1 In
agreement with Hergenröther’s finding, I have placed the forgery in
the fourteenth century and know o f no reason for revising this conclu
sion. But I should draw the reader’s attention to some particulars that
deserve consideration.
First o f all, this document nowhere touches on the doctrine o f the
merits in Photian researches I have noted, as also those of Lapôtre, in my book

Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 314, 320, 324, expressed in his study
on Photius {Diet, de Théol. Cath. (1935), vol. x ii, cols. 1536-1604), the best and
most recent study on the Patriarch, the opinion that the doubts cast on the two last
sessions of the Council were not justified (loc. cit., cols. 1589, 1590). I note with
satisfaction that M. Jugie is ready to admit the authenticity of the Greek Acts,
including the last two sessions: ‘ Schisme’, in Diet, de Théol. Cath. (1939),
vol. X IV , cols. 1340 seq.; ‘ Les Actes du Synode Photien’, loc. cit. pp. 89-99;
L e Schisme Byzantin (Paris, 1941), pp. 126—30. On pp. 383 seq. I set forth evidence
which proves decisively that the authenticity of the two last sessions can no longer
be questioned. I here call attention to the short, but judicious exposé of the
Photian affair and the main problems connected with it, by E. Amann in vol. vi
of Histoire de V Eglise, edited by A. Fliehe and V. Martin (Él’Époque Carolingienne’,
Paris, 1937, pp. 465-501)·
1 Photius, vol. II, pp. 54 1-51. Cf. M. Jugie, Theologia Dogmatica Christ. Orient.
(Paris, 1926), vol. 1, pp. 247-56, where the author mostly copies the Cardinal’s
arguments. Cf. also Amann, ‘ Jean V III’, in Diet, de Théol. Cath. vol. vm , cols.
609—11.
197
Filioque, as Hergenröther seems ready to adm it:1 all that the author is
concerned with is the addition o f the Filioque to the Symbol. Once this
is clearly realized, there is no difficulty in admitting that whatever is
said in the document roughly corresponds to fact, barring a few ex
pressions that could never have been written by John V III : the particular
passage in which the writer compares the initiators o f the innovation
to Judas certainly did not issue from the Pontifical Chancellery. Then
again, the fact that the existence o f this letter was never referred to
either by Photius or by any o f the Greek polemists before the fourteenth
century is not so extraordinary as might seem at first sight, for the
Greeks always preferred to quote conciliar decisions, naturally with
papal attestations, in support o f doctrines and standards that were
common to the whole Church. Granted this mentality, declarations
by the legates o f John V III at the sixth session o f the Photian Council
had in their estimation far greater value than any letter from the Pope.
On the whole, it is not absolutely impossible, but most unlikely, that
John V III should have written to Photius on the addition to the Sym bol;
and certainly the letter could never have been couched in the terms
alleged. Even if the possibility o f such a letter be not ruled out, one
must admit that it was drawn up in such vague and general terms that
it failed even to attract the attention o f the Greek polemists, who pre
ferred to quote the legates5 declarations at the sixth session o f the
Photian Council rather than this letter. I f not wholly an invention, it
was at least, as is well known to-day, thoroughly altered by some
polemist o f the fourteenth century.
T o return once more to the Acts o f the Council, it remains to examine

the pontifical legates5 procedure in the course o f the Synod. Western
historians have in general been very hard on them and blamed them for
grossly departing from pontifical instructions, for adopting the Greek
point o f view throughout and for being too complimentary, nay servile,
to Photius. I have tried to show why the legates had to adopt the
Photian view in the settlement o f the dispute, for, had they insisted on
the Pope’s orders being carried out to the letter, their mission would
have collapsed completely. A full examination makes it clear that they
1 Ibid. p. 541: ‘ Er, der Papst, nehme jene Lehre, um derentwillen Spaltung
zwischen beiden Kirchen entstanden, nicht nur nicht selbst an.. . . ’ The original
Greek has: περί του άρθρου τούτου. ..ο τι ου μόνον ου λέγομεν τούτο. The word
τό άρθρον does not mean ‘ doctrina’ but ‘ articulus’, i.e. part of a sentence.
Hergenröther’s summary is therefore very inaccurate.
19 8
honestly tried on every possible occasion to do justice to the Roman

views on the pontifical primacy.
For instance, Cardinal Peter, addressing the Fathers, declared at the
opening o f the first session: ‘ Like a good father and a good pastor, the
holy Pope constantly exhorts and visits you by his letters and his
legates; and wishes to see the whole Church united into one flock with
one single pastor/ The words did not appeal to John o f Heraclea, who
retorted that the Byzantine Church had achieved that unity, before the
Pope ever made his exhortation.1
Without allowing himself to be disconcerted by the interpellation o f
the Metropolitan o f Heraclea, the Cardinal repeated towards the end o f
the session in more solemn words that the purpose o f his legation was to
establish peace and union in the Byzantine Church.2 After that, he
presented the gifts the Pope had sent to Photius, including the pallium.
What this meant for the Romans, we know; but the Byzantines saw in
it only a token o f friendship for their Patriarch on the part o f the
Pope.
At the beginning o f the second session, Peter conceded to his inter-
pellator o f the first session that peace had indeed been restored in the
Byzantine Church before the legates5 arrival, but added emphatically
that the Emperor and the other Patriarchs had never ceased to beg the
Pope to set his seal to this peace.3 To this Procopius o f Caesarea retorted
again that peace had been restored before the Pope’s admonition. But
Peter was not to be thwarted and repeated the same statement in nearly
the same w ords; then calmly proceeded to detail the procedure to be
followed in dealing with those who refused to acknowledge Photius.
After the reading o f the Pope’s letter to the Byzantine Patriarch, Peter
asked several questions regarding the manner o f Photius5 resumption
o f office, making it therefore perfectly clear that he wanted to assert
himself before the Fathers as judge and arbiter. After the Patriarch had
given his own explanations, Peter again rose to declare that the Holy
See had restored several Patriarchs and bishops to their sees, and
that John only followed their example in restoring Photius to this
throne.4
When the Fathers had heard Thomas o f T yre’s Libellus Poenitentiae
and pleaded with the Patriarch for the repentant prelate’s pardon, the
pontifical legates objected that this case would have to be submitted to
1 Mansi, vol. xvn, col. 384. 2 Ibid. col. 389.

3 Ibid. cols. 393, 408, 409.
4 Ibid.'col. 428: άπέδωκε τή άγιωσύνη υμών τον οίκεΐον θρόνον.
199
T H E PH Ο TI AN S C H I S M . I. T H E H I S T O R Y
the Pope personally, since they had no powers to absolve such a grievous
sin. On the Fathers and Photius expostulating with them, the legates
relented from their rigidity, whereupon the Fathers asked Photius to
decide for himself, since he alone was the aggrieved party in the case.
Photius then pronounced the absolution o f the repentant prelate and
the legates at once rallied to his decision.1
It has already been stated that the legates had only consented to such
alterations in the Commonitorium as were absolutely necessary to effect
a compromise. I f read with care, the document expresses with sufficient
clearness the views held at that time in Rome on papal powers.12 In the
fifth chapter the Pope orders the bishops to acknowledge Photius; in
the next chapter, he makes his legates declare that the Roman Pontiff
had the care o f all the Churches, a principle often reiterated in pontifical
documents o f the period; in general, the Pope adopts the tone o f a
master giving orders and these orders are preserved, even after the
modifications made by the Patriarchal Chancellery in agreement with
the legates.
A t the fourth session Peter unequivocally stated that the Pope was
the head o f all the Churches,3 and at the fifth session the Cardinal’s
assertions in the same sense were still more explicit. Whatever has been
said to the contrary, the first canon voted by the assembly had been
drawn up by the legates, and the clause added to the canon was meant
to guarantee the privileges o f the Roman Church : those who read into
the canon an infringement o f the Roman See’s powers45only wasted
their breath, for the Greek canonists3 read into it exactly the reverse,
and their opinion was well worth having. In the course o f the debate
on methods o f procedure with those who might alter their minds and
join Photius, the Cardinal said: ‘ Pope John, oecumenical and apostolic,
who received his powers from Peter, Prince o f the Apostles, has con
ferred the same powers o f binding and loosing on the very saintly
Patriarch Photius.’ 6
The above instances should suffice to show that the legates did not,
in the course o f the Council, deviate from their duty to the extent it
has generally been believed, but remained faithful to the instructions they
1 Mansi, vol. xvn, cols. 440, 441. 2 Ibid. cols. 468-71.

3 Ibid. col. 480.
4 For instance, Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. ΐν, ρ. 6οο; cf. Hergen-*
röther, Photius, vol. π, p. 5°d.
5 Baisamon (ed. Beveridge), Synodicon, vol. i, p. 360; Zonaras, ibid. p. 361.
6 Mansi, vol. xvii, col. 501.
200
had received on the essential point which the Pope valued most highly—
the primacy o f the Roman See.1 One may be shocked by the extrava
gance o f some o f the compliments paid to Photius, but the legates had
sufficient perception to see that they were dealing with a really extra
ordinary man and that the Patriarch had actually conquered the hearts
o f the whole Empire and o f the whole Byzantine Church.
1 Cf. Jugie, Theologia Dogmatica Christ. Orient, vol. I? pp. 229-44: 4De iis quae
in actis synodi Photianae primatui Romanae Sedis favent. . .et in detrimentum
ac irrisionem cedunt.’
201
C H A P T E R VI I
TH E S E C O N D SCHISM OF PH O TIU S,
A HISTORICAL MYSTIFICATION
Photius’ letters to the Roman bishops— John VIII approves the Acts of the
Council— Basis of the compromise concerning Bulgaria— Anti-Photian Collection
and the legend of Photius’ second condemnation by John V III— Photius, Marinus I
and Hadrian III— Stephen V and Byzantium— Stephen’s letters on the Photian
incident.
T h e legates arrived in Rome with somewhat heavy hearts: it is true,

their mission had succeeded, the two Churches were once again at
peace, but only at the cost o f their disregarding some o f the Pope’s
strictest orders. Would John V III be satisfied with their explanations?
Would he be convinced that Byzantium was not exactly what it was
imagined to be in Rome? Would he believe that they could not
possibly have acted otherwise? Their predecessors, Radoald and
Zachary, had also achieved a signal success in Constantinople in 861,
but with what fatal results to themselves! And now their only hope
lay in that very same Zachary o f Anagni, who had succeeded at the
Pontifical Chancellery to the post o f Anastasius the Librarian, the man
who certainly had had something to do with the revision o f Pope John’s
Oriental policy.
It also appeared that Zachary had had a long talk with Cardinal Peter
before the latter’s departure for Byzantium and had handed him a letter
addressed to Photius, explaining to the Patriarch the true circumstances
in Rome and apologizing for his inability to do more for him at the
Pope’s court: this much at any rate can be inferred from the Patriarch’s
letter to Zachary which the legates handed to him :1
It is told o f one o f the ancients— I think it was Theodektes— that he had
asked a friend for the gift o f something he needed at the time; but his friend,
instead o f giving only what he had been asked for, decided in a free-hearted
moment to add something equally desirable. Isidorus— for that was his name
— perhaps wanted to make a show o f his munificence, but that did not suit
his friend, who took the addition as an insult and returned the whole parcel.
He did not regard it as a sign o f true friendship, that when one modestly
1 We owe the last edition of this letter to A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Photiaca
(St Petersburg, 1897), pp. 6 seep See ibid. pp. 7 seq. on previous editions. Cf.
Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, pp. 556 seq.
202
SECOND PHOTIAN SCHISM
asked a friend for less than one’s needs, the friend should in fact give a great
deal more. But what becomes o f the law o f friendship, if friends must condemn
each other either for excess o f gifts or for lack o f trust?
F or fear the same should happen to us, we have sent you, dearest friend,
no more than the proofs o f old and true friendship you asked fo r; and if ever
you should need more— but perhaps these very words are a breach o f the
rules o f friendship— you will find us as ready to oblige you as we are now.
Though your efforts did not meet with the success they deserved, we welcome
the zeal you displayed on our behalf as gratefully as if it had benefited us;
for we know that results must be left to the decision o f time and are often
frustrated b y events.
But the law o f true friendship knows how to value struggles, zeal and
favours, not b y their appearances, but b y the energy o f their mainspring.
F o r you know without m y telling you— I would not tell you, if I feared to
be suspected o f not trusting m y friends with the whole truth— that things
happened not only differently from, but contrary to, our intentions. A s for
the rest, we wish you, saintly soul, the best o f good fortune and safety from
all attacks and threats, from enemies visible and invisible, b y the intercession
o f our Glorious Lady, Mother o f God and all the saints. Amen.
Zachary may have cautioned the Patriarch against some particularly

dangerous personalities at Rome, whose intrigues might defeat his
friends’ efforts at the pontifical court. Foremost among these was
Marinus, bishop o f Cere, the same who played a leading part at the
Council o f 869-70. Photius had understood his friend, for to disarm
Marinus he sent him a letter, offering his friendship. The document
which the legates were asked to deliver to Marinus is indicative o f
Photius’ intentions and feelings : 1
W hen you presided as a judge in the case that did us such injustice, you
were evidently put to a severe test; but you refused to submit to that test,
when it pleased G od to vindicate us against our aggressors. Had you had
the courage to face us, God is our witness that you would have severely
condemned not only your first judgement, but also your present hesitation,
under the pressure not o f revenge, but o f the friendship o f which you would
have been the object. Lest you should mistake these words for em pty
vapourings, I have sent to your holiness, as first evidence o f m y vengeance,
the particles o f the H oly Cross framed in gold. Fare you well, and do not
forget that the bonds o f true friendship are often forged, not in joy, but in
pain, as the words o f the Lord, great and divine words, confirm it. I will ask
you for a favour— see how far we dare venture— but a favour o f which I need
not be ashamed, and which if granted will benefit y o u : should anybody at
1 Loc. cit. p. 5. Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, pp. 553 seq.
203
any time hurt or offend your feelings, intentionally or not, for such things
do happen among men— take m y attitude to you as a pattern for your attitude
to the sinner and inflict on him the same punishment as our humility has
inflicted on you.
It is difficult to see why, following Hergenröther, we should find in

this letter nothing better than ‘ the Byzantine Patriarch's deeply wounded
pride' (den ganzen schwer gekränkten Stolz des byzantinischen Patri
archen). Far from this being the case, the letter is good evidence o f
Photius’ goodwill, with all the dignity to be expected from a Byzantine
Patriarch : it is the letter o f one who feels at last rehabilitated and sends
the good news to those who contributed to his downfall. He does not
stoop to flattery to bring an old enemy round to his cause, but is the
first to stretch out a friendly hand. It is at once the beau geste o f a priest
and the master-stroke o f a shrewd diplomat.
Another close associate o f John V III was the bishop o f Velletri,
Gauderich, who had been spokesman for the bishops summoned to
Rome by Hadrian II before the legates’ departure for Constantinople
in 869.1 It was he, too, who in the name o f the assembled bishops
urged the Pope to take the most drastic steps against Photius and his
supporters. But Gauderich also attended the Roman synod o f 879
which was called to rehabilitate Photius, and his signature was found
at the foot o f the Commonitorium.12 The following is the gist o f a
letter from Photius to Gauderich :3
Those who are joined in bonds o f friendship unspoiled b y past quarrels

and misunderstandings usually take their mutual good feelings for granted,
and though afraid o f any possible breach, are fairly lenient in cherishing their
friendship ; but those who become friends after earlier quarrels, especially if
the offended party is chivalrous enough to make the first advance, act so as
to ease a feeling o f shame (which is only right) and find in past regrets an
incentive to keep the laws o f friendship. That is w h y those who were the
main cause o f old scandals try not only to remove similar provocations in
the future, but ^lso to let bygones be bygones. W e then— and you would
say the same, if you looked squarely at the truth— invite you, after the
misunderstandings that severed us, to a true friendship in the H o ly Spirit.
It would be your task to intensify and quicken the flame o f divine love, not
to extinguish it b y inconstancy or foster the bad feelings which uprooted the
law o f love and banished it from our thoughts and memories. That is w h y

2 Mansi, vol. xvn, col. 473; M .G .H . Ep. v i i , p. 189.
3 Photiaca, pp. 5, 6. Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, pp. 555 seq.
204
SECOND P H OT IA N SCH ISM
I embrace your holiness in these lines as with the lips o f the purest feelings
and wish to be bound to you b y the bonds o f cheerful friendship b y the gift
I send to you as a symbol o f friendly welcome.
It is possible that Photius sent similar letters to others whose names

had been submitted to him by the legates; but it is also evident that
Photius and the legates took every precaution, a lesson they had gathered
from the unpleasant experiences o f Radoald and Zachary, and that they
did everything in their power to forestall similar surprises on the part
o f the Pope.
After receiving the legates in the summer o f 880, John V III carefully
studied their reports, the Acts o f the Council and the letters from the
Emperor and the Patriarch. The reply to these letters, dated 13 August
o f the same year,1 shows fairly clearly how the Pope reacted to the
happenings in Constantinople. As his letter to Photius is extremely
important for a true estimate o f Photius’ case, I translate it from the
original and quote it in full :
It has always been the object o f our endeavours, labours and wishes that
for the maintenance o f the orthodox faith and for the peace and welfare o f
all the Churches o f God for whose care we are responsible, we should strive
to reunite what is scattered, to preserve what is united and to watch over
whatever is w rong or objectionable among the things which the providence
o f God has committed to us. For this purpose, true to apostolic custom and
taking pity on the Church o f Constantinople, w e have decided that the
advantage o f one should not be the detriment o f another; rather, that every
one should be o f spontaneous assistance to all.
A fter summoning our Church, urged b y the necessity o f the times, we
have turned our attention to the Church o f Constantinople in the exercise
o f our apostolic authority and power and instructed our legates to proceed
cautiously. W e rejoice at her unity o f peace and concord and abundantly
praise A lm ighty God and, though we cannot sufficiently thank One who has
bestowed so many benefits on His servants, we bless Him and try to give
Him unstinted glory. G lory, praise and virtue be to Him b y whose majesty
and praiseworthy grace crooked things are made straight, evil is mended,
obstinacy broken, humility exalted, dissension uprooted, goodness intensified
and all scandals thrown aside. Let us therefore not glo ry in ourselves but in
G od, rejoice and exult in His mercy who says: ‘ Have confidence, for I over
came the w o rld ’ ; and elsewhere: ‘ Y o u can do nothing without Me.’ But
though we have determined to deal with you in writing and speech with
exceptional restraint, it is a wonder to us w h y so many things that we had
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 227, 228.
205
decided should have been obviously altered, transformed and, we do not

know through whose mistake or design, distorted.
M oreover, you have hinted in your letter that at your suggestion only
those should ask for mercy who have done ill. W e also charitably agree that
we should thus deal with those who say they do not know God. Y e t w e do
not wish to exaggerate what has been done, lest we should have to judge
according to deserts. So, let such excuses be dropped, for fear they should
come under the condemnation : ‘ It is you who justify yourselves before men,
but God knows your hearts ; for what is great in the sight o f men is abominable
in the eyes o f God. ’
Therefore, let your wonderful prudence, which is reputed to know humility,
not take offence that you should have been asked to sue the Church o f God
for mercy, but rather to humble yourself that you m ay be exalted and that
you may learn to give brotherly affection to one who showed m ercy to you ;
and i f you try to increase in devotion and loyalty to the H oly Roman
Church and to our insignificant person, we also embrace you as a brother
and hold you as the closest friend.
W e also approve what has been mercifully done in Constantinople b y the
synodal decree o f your reinstatement and if perchance at the same synod our
legates have acted against apostolic instructions, neither do we approve their
action nor do we attribute any value to it.
What conclusions emerge from this document? First, we discover

that the Pope, before writing this letter, had carefully studied the Acts
o f the Photian Council and seen with his own eyes the alterations which
the patriarchal chancellery had introduced into his own letters: 'Sed
cum nos scriptis et verbis misericorditer tecum specialiter agendum esse
decrevimus, mirandum valde est, cur multa, quae statueramus, aut aliter
habita aut mutata esse noscuntur.5 It is, however, important to note
that the Pope confines himself to these few words, without insisting on
the non-compliance with his orders ; he is even loath to point out the
culprit responsible for the alterations, and with the utmost discretion
fastens the responsibility on Photius, without naming him, 'nescimus
cuius studio’, and on the legates, 'vel neglectu variata monstrentur’ .
He is surprised at such daring, but refrains from denouncing the fact.
The same text informs us that Photius had, in the letter delivered by
the legates, drawn the Pope’s attention to the alterations and explained
the reasons for them: the Patriarch chiefly objected to the Pope’s
command to sue for the Council’s mercy. The Pope reproves Photius
for his lack o f humility. Photius, says the Pope, is not an unbeliever,
but a bishop from whom more is asked and expected than from one
who has not the faith. Yet, Photius must have explained to the Pope
206
w hy he looked upon the injunction as impossible, and his reasons must

have made a certain impression on the Pope, for after his solemn
exhortation to humility, addressed to Photius, John V III hastens to
apologize for having imposed on him such an obligation : 4Igitur lauda
bilis tua prudentia, quae dicitur humilitatem scire, non moleste ferat,
quod ecclesiae Dei miserationem iussa est postulare, quin potius se, ut
exaltetur, humiliet/
Contrary to what has been believed to this day, these words do not
in the least convey that Photius had actually asked the Council Fathers’
pardon and that the Acts were later tampered with by the Greeks, for
in the version extant to-day there is not a trace o f such a capitulation
b y the Patriarch,1 and the Pope’s letters authorize no such assumption.
The sentence in the pontifical letter means on the contrary that the
Pope, after reading the legates’ report, the Acts and the letters from the
Emperor and the Patriarch, realized that he had ventured too far on
ground which was not nearly so firm as he had thought, and discovered,
as a good strategist, that to cling to his position would risk the fine
victory he had scored in Constantinople: so he beat an honourable
retreat, screening his strategic move by exhortations to humility ad
dressed to Photius. It is clear that in this sentence the Pope meant not
to insist further on such a trifle, for he says to P h o tiu s:4if you persevere
in your loyalty and devotion to our Holy Roman Church, we embrace
you as a brother and as our dearest relation.’ 4Nam et ea’, he goes on,
4quae pro causa tuae restitutionis synodali decreto Constantinopoli
misericorditer acta sunt, recipimus.’
These last words distinctly imply that the Pope agreed to everything
done at the Council o f Constantinople for Photius’ rehabilitation. Now,
what did the Council actually do in the matter? The Patriarch was
reinstated without begging the Fathers for mercy; those who refused
to acknowledge him were excommunicated and all the synods held
against Photius were annulled. This was done 4pro causa Photii restitu
tionis synodali decreto Constantinopoli’, and all this was put down in
the synodal decrees: therefore, all this was agreed to by John V III. No
other conclusion is logically tenable.*
But the Pope’s declaration ends on a sentence that has puzzled the
historians : 4Si fortasse nostri legati in eadem sinodo contra apostolicam
1 It was in this sense that I interpreted the letter in question in my book, Les
Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 324 seq., in the light o f Father Laurent’s
researches, ‘ Le Cas de Photius. . in Échos d ’ Orient, vol. x x ix , pp. 396-415.
His conclusions are, however, erroneous. See pp. 180 seq. for my evidence.
207
THE PH ΟΤΙ AN SCH ISM. I. T H E H I S T O R Y
preceptionem egerint, nos nec recipimus nec iudicamus alicuius existere

firmitatis.’ What is the proper interpretation o f these words? Taken
literally, they would mean that the Pope here withdraws what he has
just agreed to in a previous sentence: for the legates did go against the
Pope’s orders by allowing Photius to be reinstated without the apologies
and by tolerating the alterations in the Pope’s letters and in the Com
monitorium. It was all done ‘ pro causa Photii restitutionis synodali
decreto Constantinopoli’. This would imply a strange contradiction
and a procedure at variance with every precedent in pontifical diplomacy.
We must then conclude that the last restriction laid down by the
Pope did not refer to the points which John V III had just agreed to in
the same document, those points being, to sum them up again : Photius’
reinstatement without apologies, the annulment o f the Anti-Photian
Councils, the alterations in the pontifical letters and the excommunica
tion o f all those who refused to submit to Photius.
In the light o f the above, we can only interpret the sentence as a
precautionary clause, designed to safeguard the rights o f the primacy:
if after a close examination o f the whole case it should ever become
evident that the legates had exceeded their mandate and disobeyed their
instructions to a degree incompatible with the rights o f the Papacy, the
possibility would be left open o f shifting the responsibility on to them
and declaring the concessions null and void.
On the whole, therefore, the legates came off better with their master
than their colleagues o f 861 ; but on one thing John V III refused to go
back: not a single clear hint can be found in this letter to suggest that
he looked upon his predecessor’s policy to Photius as mistaken. The
legates, o f course, had arrived at this conclusion consistently with their
action at the Council in Constantinople; but John V III, even supposing
that he concluded from their report that the case called for revision,
hesitated to venture that length. In this very document, one can discern
a trace o f the same opinions on Photius’ case as the Pope had expressed
in his letters to Constantinople before the convocation o f the Photian
Council and he still persists in looking upon Photius’ rehabilitation as
an act o f gratuitous condescension on the part o f the See o f Rome. The
words ‘ misericorditer tecum specialiter agendum’ and ‘ quae pro causa
tuae restitutionis. . .misericorditer acta sunt’ are clear enough. As was
to be expected, the Pope was not as explicit as in his previous letters,
and in this respect he did veer round. A t the same time, it would have
been awkward, if not impossible, for John V III to unsay and set aside
whatever had been thought about Photius in Rome : such a disclaimer
208
would have cast a slur on the memory of a great Pope, and the Pontifical
Chancellery is not in the habit o f overriding previous declarations.
Better to leave certain things severely alone, the more so as the aggrieved
party had not insisted on such abjuration.
Pope John’s letter to the Emperor Basil reveals why the Pope went
as far as he did and why he agreed to all that had been done at the
Photian Council for the Patriarch’s reinstatement. After thanking Basil
and his sons Leo and Alexander for their keenness on the restoration
o f peace in the Byzantine Church, he goes on : 1
N ow , after God, we thank your Serenity for having displayed such
sincerity and devotion to the Church o f St Peter and our own paternity not
only in words but in striking deeds ; we thank you for having sent your fleet
and placed it at our service for the defence o f the land o f St Peter; second,
because filled with divine inspiration and reverence for the Prince o f the
Apostles you have restored to our jurisdiction the monastery o f St Sergius
which was founded in your royal city and form erly belonged b y right to the
H oly Rom an Church; third, we thank you profoundly for having for the
love o f us, though it was only fair, allowed St Peter to re-enter into possession
o f the Bulgarian diocese. Hence, we urge you for your own comfort in
every w ay to help and to defend the H oly Roman Church in these critical
days, so that your imperial glory may increasingly shine over the world with
the help o f our apostolic prayers and receive a great reward from the
Alm ighty.
W e also urge you to persevere in the feelings o f good will and piety which
for the love o f God you have for the Church o f Christ, for it is with the love
o f a father that we hold your Exalted Highness in our arms, venerate you
with due honour and b y constant prayers poured out near the sacred bodies
o f the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul try to ask the Alm ighty, for all the
great services you are rendering to St Peter, ever in this world to keep your
holy Empire in increasing prosperity, to bless it with glorious victories and
give you eternal glory and happiness with His saints and elect in the Heavenly
Kingdom . W e also approve what has been m ercifully done in Constantinople
b y the synodal decree o f the very reverend Patriarch Photius’ reinstatement
and if perchance at the same synod our legates have acted against apostolic
instructions, neither do we approve their action nor do we attribute any
value to it.
These words are significant, and disclose the great joy the Pope felt-
over the reconciliation with Byzantium and his sincere gratitude to the
Emperor. And he had excellent reasons for being thankful to Basil, for
the military aid which the Emperor had sent him was substantial and
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 229, 230.
DPS 209 Μ
well-timed, and the Pope knew better than anyone in Rome or in Italy
that without Byzantium’s assistance it would have been impossible to
ward off or even to take the sting out o f the Arab threat. The gift o f the
convent o f St Sergius was a free donation on the part o f the Emperor ;
but the permanent transfer o f Bulgaria to the Roman patriarchate was
the best part o f the transaction. John V III could now boast o f having
secured what the great Nicholas had had so much at heart and what for
over twenty years had been the main bone o f contention between East
and West. After securing such concessions from Byzantium, could the
Pope have refused to endorse the Constantinople settlement, and could
anyone seriously believe that John V III, after agreeing to all the Con
stantinople decisions, could in the same breath make such reservations
as would unsay what he had said? The assumption is too absurd.
A careful analysis o f the Pope’s letter to Basil drives us to the same
conclusion: the Pope cancels the conditions he had laid down for
Photius’ rehabilitation; he agrees to the annulment o f all the anti-
Photian decrees issued by his predecessors and by the synod o f 869-70,
and he sanctions the Acts o f the Photian Council brought to him by the
legates in the version as we know it to-day.
The main objection to the above conclusion has been drawn from the
fact that Bulgaria, after all that was said and done, remained as before
under the jurisdiction o f the Byzantine patriarchate; hence, it is con
tended that the concession made by Basil and Photius was only a blind
and that the Pope was again duped by the astute Byzantines. As soon as
he perceived the fraud, John V III is alleged to have withdrawn his
consent by falling back on the safety clause that qualified his two letters.
But the objection does not hold water. The Bulgarian concession was
sincere and was actually carried into effect, for we find that from that
time onward Bulgaria ceased to be listed among the dioceses belonging
to Byzantium in the official catalogue or the ninth-century episcopal
directory,1 a fact significant enough to be taken into account. In this
respect, the Byzantines were always punctilious.
But how was it that Photius and the Emperor could make such a
concession to Rome in all seriousness, seeing how fiercely the govern
ment o f Michael III and Bardas had fought for the conquest o f that
province and that Basil had followed his predecessors’ policy to the
very last? Did Bulgaria lose overnight its importance in Byzantine
eyes? Certainly not. Then how can we explain the fact?
1 Cf. J. Gay, L\ Italie Méridionale et VEmpire Byzantin (Paris, 1904), p. 124.
210
SECOND PH O TIA N SCHISM
Some light can be thrown on the problem by the terms o f the com
promise arrived at by the legates and the Emperor after the Council in
Byzantium. Photius, in his speech at the second session o f his synod,1
clearly showed he was quite aware o f the importance o f the issue to
John V III; nor did he overlook the fact that reconciliation with Rome
would be a hopeless proposition without some concession from his side
on the Bulgarian issue. That is why he so pointedly stated that since
his accession to the throne he had refrained from sending the pallium
to Bulgaria and holding ordinations there, just to demonstrate to the
legates his readiness to come to an agreement on that very issue.
What Photius stated may have been correct for, as a matter o f fact,
the Byzantine bishops in Bulgaria made their own provision for the
spiritual needs o f their flocks. I f after Photius’ accession to the patriarchal
throne no change occurred among the higher clergy, Photius had in
fact no opportunity for sending the pallium to anybody.
John V III defined his own point o f view best in his letter to Photius : 2
Furthermore, as it is your duty to lend strength to your will, so it is our
will that our Bulgarian diocese, which the A postolic See received b y the
efforts o f the blessed lord Pope Nicholas o f apostolic mem ory and held at
the time o f blessed Pope Hadrian, be restored as soon as possible; and b y
apostolic authority we forbid any ecclesiastical ordinations to be performed
in the same diocese b y the heads o f the Church o f Constantinople. Y o u will
see that the bishops consecrated there and all lower clergy leave the country
and refrain from entering our Bulgarian diocese. I f you give them the pallium,
perform any ordination or communicate with them, as long as they refuse to
obey us, you will fall under the same excommunication as theirs.
The Pope, therefore, maintained the same general attitude to the

Greek clergy operating in Bulgaria as he explained in April 878, in his
letters to Ignatius, Basil and the Bulgarian bishops;3 but it was less
resolute. There is one particular sentence in the letter showing that the
Pope leaves a door open to a compromise : ‘ Si tu . . . donec nobis
obediant, cum eis communicaveris’, a broad hint that a simple transfer
from one patriarchate to the other would be acceptable in Rome and
that agreement on the future o f the Greek clergy working in Bulgaria
would be possible.
This portion o f the letter was completely suppressed in its Greek
edition. The pontifical letter to Basil has a similar passage, only more
1 Mansi, vol. xvn , cols. 417, 419.
3 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 185, 186.
3 Loc. cit. pp. 62-5. See above, p. 157.
ill 14-2
pointed, in which the Pope, after recalling Nicholas’ efforts to gain the
confidence o f the Bulgarians, says : 1
I f the Patriarch... refrains from claiming or retaining possession o f the Bul
garian diocese, performs there no ordination o f any degree (there seem to be
some bishops or priests there who were illicitly ordained b y either the
Patriarch or the archbishop) and does not send them the pallium which
prelates wear at solemn M ass.. . .
These words suggest possibilities o f a compromise and Photius was

quick to detect the Pope’s drift. This is how he translates them in the
Greek edition o f the letter:
And yet, some people were bold enough to appropriate b y force a province
that did not belong to them, made ordinations there, consecrated churches
and did, in short, what they had no right to do. Besides what we have said
already, be warned also o f this, that i f we hear o f any bishops over there
damaging our interests and if we proceed against them with ecclesiastical
penalties, let them not find sanctuary with you, but behave in a w ay apt to
convince us that on this point you think as w e do and agree with our opinion.2
This, then, was the basis o f the compromise between Rome and
Byzantium: as long as the Bulgarians were ministered to by Greek
clergy and remained culturally dependent on Constantinople, the danger
to Byzantium o f a Bulgarian Empire rising at its very gates could easily
be dealt with; but Byzantium could never tolerate the proximity o f a
Bulgaria drifting under the cultural influence o f the Franks and the
spiritual ministrations o f a Latin and Frankish clergy: yet for all that,
the Emperor could allow the Bulgarian archbishop to apply for his
pallium to Rome instead o f Byzantium.
This also goes to prove that the desire for a real and permanent
entente was perfectly sincere on the part o f both John V III and Photius,
since both made substantial sacrifices for the lasting peace o f the Church.
The above reading o f the facts has to this day escaped the experts,
who have allowed themselves to be mystified by the fragment o f a
letter from John V III to Boris, erroneously attributed to the year 882.3
The following are the words o f the fragment: ‘ Si ab his quos excom-
municatos habebamus sacramenta quaecumque suscipitis, constat quia
1 Loc. cit. pp. 173 seq. 2 Mansi, vol. xvn , coi. 405.
3 P .L . vol. 126, coi. 959. Zlatarski, in his H isto r y o f B u lg a r ia { Istoria na B i g .
D r f ia v a , Sofia, 1927), vol. π, pp. 200 seq. infers from the passage that the Pope
had excommunicated not only Photius, after detecting his deceit, but also the
Bulgarians. Cf. M. Jugie, T h eologia D o g m a tica C hrist. O rien t, vol. I, p. 145. See
my study, ‘ Le Second Schisme de Photios’, in B y ia n tio n (1933), vol. vm , p. 435-
2 12
SEC O N D PH ΟΤΙ AN SC H ISM
idololatriam, non ut Catholici essetis, sed ut schismatici efficeremini,

reliquisse videmini.5 But this fragment does not belong to the period
generally postulated; and in the new edition o f the letters and register
o f John V III brought out by E. Caspar,1 it is placed where it belongs,
at the end o f a letter which the Pope dispatched in 874-5.
We possess two letters by John V III belonging to the period that
followed the Photian Council and addressed to Boris, both indirectly
bearing out what was said above on the Bulgarian compromise between
Byzantium and Rome. The first o f them assumes the transfer o f Bulgaria
under the jurisdiction o f Rome, as arranged between the Pope and the
Patriarch, and even leads one to suspect that the Pope had made other
attempts to obtain Boris’ consent to the arrangement. John V III had
used as his go-between the Croat bishop o f Nin, Theodosius, an indi
vidual specially equipped for such a mission. As head o f the Roman
party in Dalmatian Croatia, Theodosius had proved in 879 a valuable
supporter o f Duke Branimir in his revolt against his rival, Prince
Zdeslav, the Byzantines’ special protégé? This revolution, besides
restoring the Dalmatian Croats’ independence, also checked the expan
sion o f the Byzantine patriarchate in that region. In 880 Theodosius
went to Rome for his consecration as a bishop, on which occasion the
Pope charged him with a mission to Boris. Theodosius carried it out
so well, that the Khagan promised to send his ambassadors to Rom e;
but as they never arrived, John V III had to remind Boris o f his promise
by letter. The document bears no date, but must have been written in
the latter half o f the year 881. As the Pope’s reminder fell on deaf ears,
John sent another letter to Bulgaria the following year ,3 more impetuous
in tone and bearing evident traces o f exasperation at Boris’ obstinate
silence.
Neither o f these two letters makes mention either o f Photius or o f
the Greeks and the Pope has no complaint to make about Emperor or
Patriarch: the correspondence clearly shows that if Bulgaria did stay
under the influence o f the Byzantine patriarchate, none but Boris must
bear the responsibility, for in a second fit o f obstinacy he refused even
to hear o f Rome, which had once refused to pander to his moods.
But this time, Boris’ refusal to submit to the Pope was not inspired1*3
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, p. 295.

z Cf. my book, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX e siècle (Paris, 1926), pp.
229 seq.
3 See the text of these letters in Mansi, vol. xvn, cols. 2 11, 217 ; P .L . vol. 126,
cols. 919, 938; M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 260, 266, 267.
2 T3
by any caprice o f his. Anxious to make his country as independent as

possible, and weary o f the endless bickerings between the two pa
triarchates, Michael-Boris saw his opportunity to take another step
towards the realization o f his old dream— a Bulgarian Patriarch ; and
by his refusal to bring his country directly under the patriarchate o f
Rome Boris actually laid the first foundation o f the Bulgarian National
Church. The work, thus started by the shrewd Boris, was to be com
pleted by hia son Simeon in 918 by the erection o f an autonomous and
îndependent Bulgarian patriarchate. In 927 the Bulgarian Patriarch was
officially acknowledged by the Byzantine Church.1
It is interesting to note how circumstances helped Boris in his schemes.
Death prevented John V III from pursuing his Bulgarian designs with
his customary doggedness and his successors followed each other too
rapidly to gather up the threads o f a policy initiated by their great
predecessors, with the result that relations between Bulgaria and the
Holy See came to be completely suspended. Even Formosus, though
still remembered in Bulgaria, did not, on becoming Pope, renew contact
with that country, which at that time was rapidly progressing towards
the status o f a great power.
And yet, the very reverse is often taken for granted, and it is believed
as a matter o f course that Formosus tried to wrest Bulgaria from the
Byzantines. This would explain why they kept such unfriendly recol
lections o f this Pope. There is in a letter from the Bulgarian Prince
Caloyan, addressed to Pope Innocent III, a vague reference to Simeon
as one o f the Bulgarian Tsars who applied to Rome for the imperial
crown, this being taken as evidence that relations between Rome and
Bulgaria were renewed under Formosus, were continued by the Tsar
Simeon and that Rome had agreed to the foundation o f the Bulgarian
Empire and the national patriarchate.2
But the reference to Simeon in Caloyan’s correspondence with
Innocent III is extremely vague and warrants no such conclusion.^
1 Cf. Zlatarski, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 399-401, 529 seq. Also idem, ‘ Blgarski
Arkhiep.-Patriarsi Pryez prvoto Tsarstvo’, in I^v. Istor. Druihestvo (1924),
kn. vi, pp. 1-2 2 ; Geizer, ‘ Der Patriarchat von Achrida’, in Ahh. d. kgl. Sächs.
Akad. (Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1902), Bd 20, p. 3.
2 D. Farlati, J. Coletti, Illyricum Sacrum (Venetiis, 175 1—1819), vol. vm , p. 194;
Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, p. 694.
3 The following are the passages under discussion: In his first letter to the Pope,
Caloyan writes (P .L . vol. 214, col. m 3 ) : ‘ Imprimis petimus ab ecclesia Romana
matre nostra coronam et honorem, tamquam dilectus filius, secundum quod impera
tores nostri veteres habuerunt. Unus fuit Petrus, alius fuit Samuel et alii qui eos
in imperio praecesserunt, sicut in libris nostris invenimus esse scriptum/ No
21 4
SECOND PH O TIAN SCHISM
Simeon, moreover, felt in no need o f permissions, for he adopted in

918, long after Formosus5 death, the title o f Emperor and founded the
Bulgarian patriarchate.
Bulgaria’s surrender by Constantinople, o f which Rome could not
take advantage, only stimulated, as we have stated, Bulgaria’s dreams
o f independence, and from that time onward we can watch Boris acting
as a sovereign, even in the country’s religious problems, asking leave
from neither Rome nor Byzantium, and after the expulsion o f the
disciples o f St Methodius from Moravia (884) offering them sanctuary
in his country and adopting the Slavonic liturgy, which Pope Stephen V
had banished from Moravia. Thus there gradually arose in Bulgaria a
Slav National Church, which soon displaced all Greek elements. Happily
for Boris, Bulgaria was possessed about the year 880 o f a fairly numerous
native clergy: a letter from Pope John V III to Boris, dated 878,1 men
tions a Slav priest, Sergius, appointed bishop o f Belgrade; and Photius’
letter to Arsenius2 makes reference to many young Bulgars who had
joined the monastic life and received their theological and ascetical
training in Byzantium. Such foresight certainly helped the slow, but
well-directed, formation o f a Bulgarian National Church; though one
is left to wonder whether such a transformation would have taken place
if Bulgaria had remained under the direct jurisdiction o f Byzantium, or
if, by the terms o f the compromise between Photius and John V III, the
Popes had secured a footing in Bulgaria. It thus happened by a strange
whim o f destiny that this very compromise facilitated the creation o f
a Bulgarian National Church and thereby saved the Slav liturgy.
It is therefore evident that the charge against Photius o f having
prevented by his intrigues the implementing o f his solemn undertaking
is false : Photius had nothing whatever to do with the astute Boris’s flat
and obstinate refusal to place his country under the direct jurisdiction
o f Rome. Again, after the Photian synod John V III has no complaint
to make against Photius, and Photius has no fault to find with John V III
after their reconciliation— only matter for praise. So, whatever has been
said about Photius’ second condemnation by John V III is sheer per
version, and in any case, the Bulgarian incident had nothing to do with it.
conclusion can be drawn from this text. In his second letter (P .L . vol. 215, col. 290)
Caloyan seems more definite, but even this passage warrants no such conclusion:
4. . . ut impleret desiderium imperii mei sanctitas tua, secundum consuetudinem
praedecessorum meorum, imperatorum Bulgarorum et Blachorum, Simeonis, Petri
et Samuelis progenitorum meorum et caeterorum omnium imperatorum Bul
garorum.’
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, p. 60. 3 P.G . vol. 102, cois. 904, 905. See p. 160.
215
The assertion that John V III had repudiated his legates5 stewardship
and again condemned Photius, and that this condemnation was reiterated
by his successors Marinus, Stephen V and Formosus, is based on data
found in some documents included in the anti-Photian Collection and
added in some Greek manuscripts to the Acts o f the Eighth Council.1
This Collection is divided into three parts. The first includes the
encyclical letter o f the Eighth Oecumenical Council and the letter
addressed by the Fathers o f the Council to Pope Hadrian II, together with
an extract from a letter from Hadrian to Ignatius on the Bulgarian issue,
and a lengthy correspondence by the Ignatian Metropolitan Metro
phanes, explaining to the Logothete Manuel how Photius had been
condemned. The second part is important. It has a letter from Pope
Stephen to the Emperor Basil on the legality o f Pope Marinus5 tenure;
a short historical commentary on Photius5 second deposition; a long
letter from archbishop Stylianos o f Neocaesarea to Stephen anent the
recognition o f Photian ordinations; a reply from the Pope to this letter,
as also to that o f the Emperor Leo the W ise; a second letter from
Stylianos; then a letter from Pope Formosus announcing the rigorous
proceedings he would take against the Photianists. The third part con
tains several writings on the Photian case; a short supplement on the
stauropatai, i.e. the Photianists who, by frequently violating their pro
mises, had discredited the cross which by common usage preceded their
signatures; a document under the pompous heading— ‘ Collection o f
the Synodical Letters o f the Roman Pontiffs Nicholas, Hadrian, John,
Marinus, Stephen and Formosus against the Prevaricator Photius5; the
copy o f an inscription placed at the entrance o f St Sophia and recalling
the decrees o f the Council against Photius; a long explanation by the
compiler to prove that Photius, after repeated condemnations, could no
longer be absolved, followed by a note on the Eighth Oecumenical
Council borrowed from a small hand-book on the Councils, and, finally,
a letter from Pope John IX to Stylianos, with a free commentary.
The Collection was compiled at the end o f the ninth century, in the
reign o f Pope Formosus (891-6).* This is beyond dispute. The anony
mous compiler was therefore contemporary with Photius and was one
o f his bitterest enemies. In its original form, the work ended with a
‘ synodicon5, or short list o f the oecumenical councils; but the copyist
who transcribed it in the last years o f the ninth century or the first
o f the tenth, omitted the passage bearing on the first seven councils,
only copying what was said about the eighth. He added, however, the
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 409-57. 2 See pp. 271 seq.
216
remark about the ‘ apostasy’ o f Stylianos, who had ended by acknow

ledging Photius’ ordinations— and the letter with commentaries o f Pope
John IX to Stylianos. It is mainly the latter part o f the Collection which
supplies information about the fate o f the compilation and about the
date when it was made and copied.
Now it is from this anti-Photian Collection, as already stated, that
the main arguments have to this day been assembled to prove Photius’
second condemnation by John V III and his successors and to make out
a case for the serious deterioration in the relations between Byzantium
and Rome under the pontificates o f Stephen V and Formosus. I have
shown elsewhere1 that the arguments covering the period 880-5 are
valueless. I have also examined the whole problem in all its details
in another study12 and all I intend to do here is to go over the main
points o f my argument and draw attention to the compiler’s methods
in building up his case. This should help us to understand the attitude
o f John’s successors, from Marinus I to Stephen V, to Photius and his
followers, and to realize to what extent the die-hards made use o f the
Collection for their campaign o f misrepresentation against Photius.
The compiler o f the Collection treats o f the relations between Photius
and John V III in a special chapter under the comprehensive title3 o f
‘ Collection o f synodical letters by the Popes who condemned Photius’ .
What does he produce as a synodical letter from John V III? After
quoting a passage from a letter by Nicholas I and an extract from the
Acts o f the Roman synod o f 869, the compiler gives the declaration by
the archdeacon John, introduced as spokesman to the Fathers o f that
same synod, whose truculent philippic ends : ‘ May the sharpness o f your
sentence tear his memory to tatters and let those who follow or protect
him be bound by the fetters o f an anathema. Should they fail to anathe
matize him either in speech or in writing, let them be excluded from lay
communion.’ The compiler then goes on:
When John, who had uttered these words, mounted the throne after
Hadrian, he also anathematized Photius for outwitting Eugenius and the
messengers accompanying him to Bulgaria. Seizing the Gospels, he [the
Pope] went up into the pulpit and declared to all present: ‘ Let him be
anathematized who refuses to admit that Photius was law fully struck b y the
judgement o f G od, and was moreover condemned b y m y predecessors, the
very saintly Popes Nicholas and Hadrian/

2 T e Second Schisme de Photios— Une Mystification historique ’, in Byiantion
(1933), vol. vin, pp. 42 seq. 3 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 448, 449.
217
THE P H OT IA N SC H ISM . I. T H E H I S T O R Y
The compiler then quotes the inscription recalling the decrees o f the
Eighth Council, enumerates the Pontiffs who condemned Photius and
adds:
None o f Nicholas’ successors has absolved them.1 T h ey had not even the
power to do so. W hen in the Patriarch Ignatius’ lifetime Joh n sent Eugenius
and his companions on the Bulgarian mission, Photius had them seized to
induce them b y various methods o f pressure to communicate with him and
thereby deceive the world. But on their return to Rom e, they were repri
manded b y John, who excommunicated them from the ambo.2
This is all the writer has to say as evidence for Photius’ condemnation
by John V III, and it is very little. The bombastic heading promised
better. Instead o f John V III’s synodical letter condemning Photius, the
compiler produces a long statement made, so he pretends, at the Roman
synod o f 869 under Hadrian’s chairmanship. The declaration is pure
invention. We have seen that the Acts o f this synod were read at the
end o f the seventh session o f the Council o f 869-70 and they make it
evident that the spokesman o f the synod was not John, then Roman
archdeacon, but Gauderich, bishop o f Velletri. Naturally, archdeacon
John, as head o f the Roman deacons, signed the Acts, but only after
the bishops, the archpriest George and the priests attached to the
churches o f Rome.3 On the strength o f this, the compiler invented a
long anti-Photian statement which he put into the mouth o f John, the
future Pope, and passed off as a synodical letter against Photius by
Pope John V III.
The same Pope’s alleged condemnation o f his legates is likewise the
compiler’s invention and it is easy to imagine on what grounds the
legend was framed. The Ignatians o f course knew that the legates’
instructions brought from Rome did not go as far as the decisions o f
the Photian Council, nor was there any secret about it in 879-80. Some
die-hards then sought comfort in the thought that the legates would
meet the same fate as had befallen Zachary and Radoald after the synod
o f 861. But no message to that effect came from Rome (the collection
of Pope John’s letters seems to be complete for the period it covers and
there is no trace o f any such communication to Constantinople), and
the die-hards made up the story that the Pope had condemned both his
legates and Photius from the ambo o f St Peter’s.
1 Photius and Gregory Asbestas. * Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 452.

3 Ibid. col. 13 1. The signatures are introduced as follows: ‘ his sententiis a nobis
promulgatis, sicut superius legitur, consensi et propria manu subscripsi.’
218
The compiler seems to be conscious o f the weakness o f his argument,

for he covers his tracks with theological and canonical disquisitions and
then tries to prove that the Pope had no powers to absolve a man
condemned by the other Patriarchs and by the Council.1 W hy such
insistence, if the Pope went back on his first decision and excommuni
cated Photius a second time? The compiler is not even aware that such
a statement smacks o f heresy and contradicts his emphasis in other
places on the sacredness o f pontifical decrees.
On the other hand, the treatise on the ‘ stauropats’ in the same C ol
lection lists also the Romans among those prelates who violated their
signatures; for after signing the Acts of the Roman synods o f Nicholas
and Hadrian for Photius’ condemnation, they ended by acknowledging
the Patriarch. The same Acts were ‘ also signed by archdeacon John,
who became Pope after him [Hadrian]’ .2 The inconsistency is
obvious.
Another document reproduced by the compiler, the letter o f arch
bishop Stylianos to Pope Stephen V, gives the direct lie to his tale about
John’s condemnation o f his legates and Photius. Though the writer
insists in his letter3 on the legates’ responsibility for Photius’ recogni
tion by John V III by repeating the conventional fable, not only has he
nothing to say about the new verdict attributed to John V III, but he
dare not even repeat to the Pope the story o f the legates’ castigation so
solemnly administered from the ambo. And yet, it was actually his
purpose to induce the Pope to indict Photius and his partisans. He
recalls with much relish the Acts o f Nicholas and Hadrian II together
with the decisions o f the Council o f 869-70, but is completely silent
about John V III, though he could not have produced a more striking
illustration than John’s outburst. It is therefore evident that in this
particular matter the anti-Photian Collection deserves no credit and
that John V III never fell out with Photius.
T o prove that the successor o f John V III, Marinus I, was unfriendly

to Photius, the compiler proceeds again in the same way. Here also he
promises to produce Marinus’ synodical letter and again omits to do so,
quoting instead the inscription placed at the entrance o f the Great
Church to commemorate the sessions o f the Eighth Council, with a
summary o f the conciliar decrees against Photius, and a list o f the names
o f the apostolic legates present at the meeting, including those of
2 Ibid. col. 444. 3 Ibid. col. 432.
219
bishops Donatus and Stephen and o f deacon Marinus. The last name
is enough for the compiler to record with triumph that Photius was
condemned by all the Popes from Leo IV to Formosus, including
Marinus. When he uses the same argument in the manual o f the Councils,
o f which the copyist preserved only the reference to the Eighth Council,
he cites, as representing the Holy See, Marinus, ‘ who was destined to
become Pope’ . Bishops Donatus and Stephen, who in the first official
document were placed before Marinus in accordance with protocol,
now disappear before the future Pontiff, a clear indication o f the com
piler’s purpose: Since Marinus had, together with the other Fathers,
condemned Photius at the Council o f 869-70, he o f course condemned
him for ever after, and could not, even as a Pope, go back on his pre-
papal verdict. After this direct argument— the only one we are given—
the compiler offers as indirect argument the letter from Pope Stephen V
to the Emperor Basil, in which the Pope defends the memory o f
Marinus, unfairly attacked by the Emperor in a letter to Hadrian III.
But Stephen V attributed these attacks to Photius’ intrigues and towards
the end o f his letter referred enigmatically to an embassy o f Marinus to
Constantinople, which ended in his imprisonment:
Because he felt and thought as our predecessor and teacher, the very holy
Pope Nicholas, felt and thought, whose decision he wished to carry out to
the letter, the god ly Marinus fell into your utter disfavour; because he
refused, as reported, to admit those who thought differently and to declare
null and void what had been decided at a synod in the presence o f your
Majesty, Marinus was imprisoned for thirty days.
The above extract has been commonly quoted to prove that John V III,
after discovering the deception o f his legates and o f Photius, sent to
Constantinople an embassy headed by Marinus, who thereby incurred
the anger o f Photius and the Emperor, and was imprisoned. The general
drift o f the letter has also been advanced as evidence o f Marinus’ hostility
to Photius.
The deduction is unwarranted, for nothing in the letter justifies the
inference that Pope Marinus was in open conflict with the Patriarch.
Stephen V does not refer to it in the letter included in the Collection,
and had there been anything in the letter to prove that Marinus, on
becoming Pope, openly broke with John V III’s policy, the compiler
would certainly not have omitted it.
Historians who, in order to make a breach between John V III and
Photius more likely, invented a second embassy o f Marinus to Con
220
stantinople in 880 and dated the incident o f his imprisonment from that
year, made a serious mistake. Stephen V explicitly states that Marinus
incurred the Emperor’s displeasure because ‘ he r e fu se d ...to admit
those who thought differently and to declare null and void what had
been decided at a synod in the presence o f Your Majesty’ . Now these
words could not refer to an embassy whose purpose was, not to refuse
to declare, but to declare null and void the decisions o f the Council o f
879-80 taken in the presence o f His Imperial Majesty. The words should
not be severed from the context. In the first part o f the passage,
Stephen V writes that Marinus ‘ fell into the Emperor’s disfavour’
because he ‘ felt and thought as did our predecessor and teacher, the
very holy Pope Nicholas, whose decisions he wished to carry out to
the letter’. These words can only refer to Marinus’ presence in Con
stantinople at the Eighth Council in 869-70, when he refused cate
gorically to depart from the instruction he had received from Hadrian II.
These reflected the true spirit o f Nicholas’ Eastern policy, though the
Emperor tried hard to bring the legates to a frame o f mind more sym
pathetic to the Photian clergy. It follows then that the second part o f
Stephen’s reference to Marinus’ relations with the Emperor should also
refer to the same Council, and it would besides fit in with the incident
in connection with the ‘ Libelli’ . The Emperor disliked the condition
(pressed by the legates) to admit to the Council only those prelates who
had signed the ‘ Libellus’, and when the prelates urged him to take the
‘ Libelli ’ away from the legates lest they should be used as evidence o f
Byzantium’s submission to Rome, the legates refused to hand them
over, arguing that such were the Pope’s orders, to which the Emperor
had agreed at the opening o f the Council.
This incident should be placed within the interval o f three months
that came between the eighth and the ninth sessions o f the Council.
B y that time the ‘ Libelli ’ must have been duly signed by the prelates
and it is possible that the Emperor, infuriated by the incident, confined
the legates to their quarters.1 Nor should it be forgotten that Basil’s letter
had not been addressed to Marinus but to his successor, Hadrian III,
and that the Emperor’s criticism was meant for a dead Pope. This
and the fact that the anti-Photian Collection knows nothing o f a
1 It is also possible that Stephen V confused the cLibelli5 incident with what
befell Marinus at the Bulgaro-Byzantine frontier in 866, when the papal embassy
may have been in some sort of confinement for a month whilst the Byzantine
frontier authorities awaited instructions from the capital upon what to do with the
papal legates. Marinus had thus quite a number of unpleasant experiences with the
Byzantines. Cf. above, p. 117 .
221
correspondence exchanged between Marinus and the Byzantines is

evidence sufficient that the alleged embassy o f 880 was never sent.1
And yet, it has been asserted* that if Marinus did not actually sever rela
tions with Photius, acknowledged as he had been by ] ohn V III, it was very
much against his better feelings ; that at heart he regretted this recognition
by his predecessor; that he deliberately refrained from corresponding
with the Patriarch and that he continued to hate him openly, in spite o f
the letter which Photius sent after the Council o f 879-80 with offers o f
pardon and friendship. The differences that existed between Marinus and
Photius under the latter’s first patriarchate are appealed to as evidence that
such was also Marinus5 attitude during his enemy’s second patriarchate.
It seems, however, that the extent o f those differences is apt to be
exaggerated. It is true that Marinus was prominent at the Council o f
869-70. It is, however, good to remember that much the same hap
pened to the future Pope John V III, who as archdeacon to Hadrian II
signed the Acts o f the Roman synod that preceded the Council o f
Constantinople and gave to Marinus and his colleagues, representing
the Holy See at the Eastern Council, the very instructions which Marinus
carried out so literally and with such fervent conviction. At that time
John certainly also approved the decisions o f that Council, which did
not prevent him forgetting later the part he had played in Photius’
condemnation and making friends with him. W hy then should Marinus,
once Pope, be assumed to harbour such resentment?
It is also true that Marinus’ signature is missing from the Acts o f the
Roman synod o f 879, which was prior to the Photian Council sum
moned to rehabilitate Photius. But can a mountain really be made o f
such a mole-hill? Was Marinus in Rome at the time? For it seems
possible that he was still acting as the bishop o f Cere and, as we shall
see presently, he was not to officiate as archdeacon in Rome until 880.
Such conclusions might be admissible, if it could be proved that
Marinus entirely reprobated his predecessor’s policy.
This has been attempted with two main arguments: first, it is well
1 Hergenröther’s allegation (Photius, vol. 11, p. 578) that the Emperor and the
Patriarch kept Marinus’ embassy of 880 a secret cannot be taken seriously. The
same author states that the Ignatians were alone in Byzantium to remain in com
munion with Rome. In that case, how can he explain that they did not learn any
thing more definite about Rome’s altered attitude to Photius? He cannot have it
both ways.
2 Cf. Grumel, £La Liquidation de la Querelle Photienne’, in Échos d 'Orient
(1934), vol. x x x iii, pp. 258 seq. For details, see my reply, ‘ Études sur Photios’,
in Byiantion (1936), vol. x i, pp. 2 seq. Here I only summarize the main drift of
my study.
222
known that John V III had dealt rather severely with Formosus, the
distinguished prelate whose mission to Bulgaria had been such a success.
A s it provoked jealousies in Rome, he had been recalled by Nicholas,
and Boris5 request to place the prelate at the head o f the Bulgarian
Church did not allay suspicions. Followed a dispute with John V III,
who then suspended and excommunicated him. But Marinus5first act on
ascending the papal throne was to rehabilitate Formosus, and it was this
move that has served as evidence that Marinus disowned John’s policy.
It has been further suggested that John V III was on bad terms with
Marinus and made him bishop o f Cere in order to remove him from
Rome and wreck his chances as a candidate for the next papal election,1
since it was not customary in those days to transfer bishops from one
see to another. For this reason, so it is alleged, Marinus resigned his
see after the death o f John V III on the pretext that he had been forced
to accept the episcopal appointment, but in reality to canvass for the
papal throne. Once there, he settled accounts with his predecessor by
reversing the whole o f his Eastern policy.
But this is a misreading o f the facts. I f John made Marinus a bishop
to spoil his chances o f promotion, he stultified his own principles, for
at a Roman synod which met between 8 11 and 818, i.e. at the time o f
Marinus5 consecration, John V III reminded the bishops o f the prohibi
tion to follow similar proceedings in the case o f their own deacons and
archdeacons.123
Contrary to what has been said, John seems to have availed himself
later o f Marinus5 services, as we learn from his correspondence that he
sent a certain bishop Marinus, whom he calls ‘ arcarius sedis nostrae5—
a function in the Roman Curia usually performed by the archdeacon—
on two important embassies, one to Charles III in March 880 and another
in 882 to Athanasius, bishop o f Naples .3 This may have been the bishop
o f Cere whom John asked to resign his see for that purpose. It was
rather John’s confidence in Marinus that helped his candidature to the
Papacy in December 882, and he was elected just because he was the
archdeacon and had ceased to exercise episcopal functions.4
1 See the latest publication on Marinus I by J. Duhr, ‘ Le Pape Marin T , in

Recherches des Sciences Religieuses (1934), v o l . X X IV , pp. 200—6.
2 F. Maassen, Eine Römische Synode (Wien, 1878), ch. xvn , p. 20.
3 M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 200, 265.
4 This explains why one of the Continuators of the Fulda Annals was shocked
to see Marinus, bishop of Cere, changing sees in defiance of canonical rules, whereas
the other only designates Marinus at the time of his election by the title of arch
deacon (M .G .H . Ss. I, pp. 397, 398).
223
Another item o f especially strong evidence may be quoted : Marinus,

once on the throne, kept as librarian Zachary o f Anagni,1 who had
occupied the same post under John V III; and it was precisely this
Zachary who, as Photius’ faithful friend, was the strongest supporter
in the Roman Curia o f a Graecophil policy. Now it is inconceivable,
if Marinus had nursed his old resentment against Photius and dis
approved his predecessor’s Graecophil policy, that he would have kept
Zachary in his office. And it was the same Zachary who must have
wielded a certain influence at the pontifical court under Pope Stephen V ,
his former pupil, until his death in 891. I f this conjecture by Lapôtre
is correct,123 one can understand how the pontifical policy towards
the East remained so favourable under the three successors o f
John V III.
I f such is the case, we can no longer adduce Marinus’ omission to
send a synodical letter to the Patriarch o f Constantinople as evidence
that he had abandoned John’s policy and continued to hold Photius in
detestation; for we have better reasons to account for the omission.
Marinus’ reign was a short one (December 882-April 884). Then
Formosus’ rehabilitation 3 in the first months o f Marinus’ pontificate
must have caused some unrest, and these troubles forced the Pope to
give his full attention to Roman affairs. As Marinus’ death presumably
followed a period o f illness, which prevented the execution o f several
o f the Pope’s projects, his successor Hadrian III hurriedly dispatched
his synodical letter to Constantinople in the first days o f his pontificate,
for fear the long delay should create an unfavourable impression in that
city. Since Basil makes reference to Marinus in his reply to Hadrian III,
his name must have been mentioned, probably in connection with his
failure to send the synodical letter.
A ll this had to be said in defence o f this Pope’s memory, there being
no evidence to show that the Roman Pope was any less noble and
generous than the Patriarch o f Constantinople or that he lacked the
moral strength to sacrifice his personal feelings to the needs o f the
Church he governed.
1 It was Zachary who wrote Marinus’ letter ‘ pro monasterio Saviniensi’ (P .L .

vol. 126, col. 970).
2 ‘ Le Souper de Jean le Diacre’, in Mélanges (ΓArchéologie et <THistoire (1901),
vol. X X I , pp. 333 seq. D. Amelli published in the Spicilegium Casinense, vol. i,
p. 381, a letter attributed to Stephen V which hints that Zachary participated in the
activities of the Church even under the pontificate of Stephen V.
3 It is possible that Marinus hoped to use Formosus’ services in Bulgaria to
induce Boris to return to the Roman obedience.
224
T o return to our main source, the anti-Photian Collection which has

provided the materials for the argument that Marinus had severed rela
tions with Photius, we may conclude that here again the compiler
mainly relies on the Patriarch’s first condemnation, to which Marinus
had naturally subscribed, and adduces in support o f the second con
demnation only scraps o f evidence, which have led historians to con
jectural conclusions.
Now let us see how he treats the relations between Photius and
Hadrian III. In this case, he can scarcely hide his embarrassment, for
not only does he lack a single statement by Hadrian III with reference
to any Roman Council or to the Eighth Oecumenical Council, but he
must have heard and known about the resumption o f friendly relations
between Photius and the new Pope, as attested by the Patriarch himself.1
So he prefers to skip lightly over this period and coolly omits the name
o f Hadrian III from the list o f Popes, whose anti-Photian synodical
letters he intends to publish.12
The copyist o f the Collection, to whom we owe the present edition
o f the compilation, and who was a fiercer Ignatian even than the com
piler himself, thought he had discovered evidence in support o f Photius’
condemnation by Hadrian III in the letter from Pope John IX to
Stylianos, which he duly included in the anti-Photian Collection .3
The Pope says there among other things: 4We therefore wish the
decrees o f the very saintly Pontiffs who preceded us to remain intact
and to be held in the same esteem as before. We also admit Ignatius,
Photius, Stephen and Anthony to the same rank to which they have
been admitted by the very saintly Popes Nicholas, John, Stephen V
and the whole Roman Church to this day.’ Having explained this letter
after his own fashion and enumerated all the Popes from Nicholas to
John IX , the copyist goes on: 4When he therefore said 44as the whole
Church has admitted him to this d ay” , he included all the Patriarchs
who preceded him 4 and succeeded him and whose decrees he [John IX ]
also wishes to observe.’
This, it must be confessed, is an extremely weak argument and its
weakness will be more evident when we examine the bearing o f
John I X ’s letter. The Ignatians had to be satisfied with it for want o f
a better; but it is surprising that historians should have taken it seriously.
1 P.G . vol. ιο ί, col. 381.

2 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 445. 3 Loc. cit. cols. 456, 457.
4 He means either Stephen V or Formosus. Formosus is not mentioned in this,
though the copyist may be responsible for the omission.
DPS 225 H
What then are we to think o f the relations existing between Photius

and Stephen? A t a first glance, the position looks quite different. As
Stephen appears on the scene, the schism seems to have recurred, and
Rome to have repeated her old anathemas against Photius. The compiler
has given us in the second part o f his Collection two letters from the
Pope, one addressed to the Emperor Basil and the other to archbishop
Stylianos ; 1 and the form in which they have come down to us apparently
justifies the assumption, universally accepted for several centuries, that
Pope Stephen did break off relations with Photius.
What o f the documents that look so irreconcilable with friendly
relations between the two Churches? In his letter to the Emperor
Stephen begins by registering surprise at the unfriendly references to
Marinus contained in Basil’s letter. He then proceeds to trace the
dividing line between the priestly and the imperial powers and to urge
the Emperor to confine himself within the limits laid down by divine
power. He denounces the man who had slandered Marinus in the
Basileus’ eyes. Then, taking his predecessor’s defence in general terms,
Stephen again urges the Emperor to stay within the limits o f his power,
scorns the slanderous denial that Marinus was a bishop at all, and quotes
numerous instances from history o f transfers from one see to another :
W here is the sin o f that Roman Church [he adds] against which wicked
people have urged you to turn and use your tongue? D id she not send her
legates to Constantinople under your reign according to ancient synodal
usage? D id she not spend infinite care on that synod? A nd are you asking
to whom the Rom an Church sent her legates? T o none but Photius, the
laym an; for if you had a Patriarch, our Church would visit him more fre
quently. For it has been that city’s misfortune, for all her fame and G o d ’s
protection, that she has no pastors and that her only light comes from Y o u r
Imperial Majesty. I f love for you did not restrain us, and help us to put up
with the insult flung at our Church, we should most certainly consider our
selves obliged to order against Photius, the transgressor, who used such
defamatory words against us, penalties more severe than any imposed b y our
predecessors. But whatever we say here is not meant to offend you, for we
bear witness that you are G od ’s beloved, but only in self-defence and to
Photius’ utter shame.
After thus unburdening himself, the Pope recalls Marinus’ adventure

in Constantinople at the time o f the Eighth Oecumenical Council and
once more urges the Emperor to follow the example o f Constantine
the Great, who used to cast into the fire any accusations brought against
1 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 420-5, 436, 437.
226
priests, declaring himself unworthy to sit in judgement over the servants

o f God. He then goes on to express his joy on hearing that Basil had
given one o f his children to the Church and implores him to send to
Italy further subsidies for the campaign against the Saracens, whose
incursions were so severe that Rome ran short even o f oil for her
sanctuary lamps.
More important still is the Pope’s second letter in reply to another
request by Stylianos that the Pope should dispense the Photianists and
ratify under certain conditions their ordinations. As this is a document
o f the greatest importance, we quote it in full:
Stephen, servant o f the servants o f God, to all the bishops o f the whole
world and other clergy. O ur Catholic Church o f G od, founded on the firm
rock o f Peter’s confession, though shaken b y storms and gales, is steadily
consolidating herself and grow ing apace. It was only to be expected that the
E vil One should attack and tempt the members o f the Church, since he did
not hesitate in tempting the Head o f the Church, O ur Lord Jesus Christ;
and it is no surprise to us that you should have banished from the Church
the execrable Photius, for deriding Our Lord’s life-giving Cross, the venerable
sym bol that inspires all the charisms o f the priestly ministry and sanctifies
our baptismal fonts. I f only the said layman had followed the royal road and
kept the regulations laid down b y the Fathers, he would not have stumbled
into such folly. F or this reason, those who mocked Christ’s humility, i.e. His
venerable Cross, were stricken like the Egyptian first-born, whereas those
among the Israelites who bore the mark were spared. W hat else did the
blood o f the Lamb on the Israelites’ doors signify but the Cross o f Christ’s
suffering, which marks the Christians’ foreheads? W hoever then despises
the salutary Cross will be slain b y the sword o f the Gospel.
This is how you wrote about Photius, but on reading the Em peror’s letter
w e find it substantially1 differing from yours. F or it was written there that
Photius had joined the monastic life and resigned the patriarchal throne,
preferring, as his private life proved, humility to pride. But this caused us
to hesitate, as there is a difference between voluntary abdication and expulsion.
So, being unable to pass sentence without serious examination, we reserved
judgement. It will be necessary to send trustworthy bishops from both sides,
so that we may clear up doubts, discover the truth, and make such pronounce
ment as G od may inspire us to make. For the H oly Rom an Church is held
up as a pattern to other Churches and what she decides holds for centuries.
Hence the necessity for an inquiry before passing sentence.
Now these two documents have so far been used as evidence to prove
that Pope Stephen did not consider Photius to be the legitimate
1 ττλεϊστον.
227 15 -2
Patriarch; and there was something to be said for the contention, as long
as a rupture between the two Churches was assumed to exist and this
rupture was attributed to Stephen’s predecessors. But it has already
been established that their relations remained friendly till 885, so that,
if the documents we have quoted really corroborate the assumption,
the rupture should be attributed to Stephen V.
But their evidential value is highly suspect, for neither o f the two
texts contains any direct stricture on Photius. The few derogatory
remarks on the Patriarch, provided they be reported in their original
version (which is doubtful, as we shall see presently), can be read as
relieving the resentment left in Roman hearts, reconciliation notwith
standing, by the old disputes about Photius5 first pontificate. But even
if reported in their genuine version, they are no proof that Stephen V
had broken with the policy o f his three predecessors— sanctioned as it
was by a Council whose authority was recognized by Rome as well as
by Byzantium— and excommunicated Photius. An act o f such importance
should have been communicated to the Church o f Constantinople in
unmistakable terms, as was the practice at the Pontifical Chancellery.
The fact that the compiler knows nothing about such a pontifical
declaration is a sign that the Church o f Constantinople never received it.
T o find out whether any radical change in the Popes5 Eastern policy
occurred at the beginning o f Stephen’s reign, we must search Stephen’s
register for any letter that might reveal the Pope’s attitude to Byzantium
and we find a significant one that was dispatched to the bishop o f Oria,
Theodosius, immediately after the Pope’s accession, and from which
we quote the fo llo w in g:1
W e have learned from the reports o f the faithful how our predecessor
Hadrian sent you once to Constantinople as ambassador to the pious Em peror
and received from him not only the pension that was due to your merits, but
also other gifts which he sent to our Church and to others o f the faithful.
W e wish to thank your Holiness for carrying out your mission so loyally.
Now we know that Pope Hadrian HI, in the course o f his short
pontificate (April or May 884-August or September 885) did send, as
attested by Photius, an embassy to the Patriarch o f Constantinople for
the usual exchange o f synodal letters. We may take it for granted that
the embassy was headed by the bishop o f Oria, Theodosius, and con
sidering that Hadrian’s reign was so short, it must have been the only
one he undertook. Imagine then a Pope, who is supposed to have
1 M .G .H . Ep. vu, p. 334.
228
severed relations with the Byzantine Church, sending a message o f

praise and thanks to an ambassador for having presented the Holy See’s
homage to the Emperor as well as for having assured the Patriarch that
the Church o f Rome desired to remain on good terms with him. It is
true that Stephen only mentions the mission to the Emperor, but the
letter implies approval o f whatever Theodosius did in Byzantium. We
must conclude then from this letter that relations between Byzantium
and Rome were o f the best at the outset o f Stephen’s reign.
From letters on the affairs o f southern Italy we gather the impression
that Stephen V , far from departing from his predecessors’ policy o f
friendship, actually co-operated with the Byzantines against the Arab
danger. When the Arabs recaptured the ancient stronghold o f Agropolis
and Garigliano and repeated their incursions into the Principality o f
Salerno and pontifical territory, the Pope asked Byzantium for assistance,
his request reaching the city a few months before the arrival o f Guaimar,
Prince o f Salerno, who appealed to Leo V I, Basil’s successor, for the
same object.1
Again, Stephen’s action taken against Athanasius II, bishop o f Naples,
at the time o f his request addressed to the Emperor, contributed not a
little to the Duke-bishop’s improved behaviour. He had been severely
blamed by John V III for secret dealings with the A rabs/ Stephen’s
resolute stand must have impressed the bishop, for we find him turning
to Byzantium for auxiliaries. He obtained 300 soldiers and probably
acknowledged Byzantium’s supremacy in return/
These are serious indications o f Stephen’s friendly policy. A weightier
document in Stephen’s register proves up to the hilt that the Pope was
on excellent terms with the Church o f Byzantium about the years 887-8,
the period in which the Pope’s letter to Stylianos, since used as counter
evidence, was written. It was addressed to the Patricius George, com
mander o f Calabria, the province recently wrested from the Arabs. The
change o f masters in Calabria inevitably brought many changes in its
ecclesiastical organization. It was only natural that many Greeks were
eager to spread their liturgy and their own institutions in the newly
conquered land. This led to a conflict in Tarento, where the people,
Latin by a good majority, promptly elected a new bishop to be
1 For particulars, see Gay, L'Italie Méridionale et VEmpire Byzantin (Paris,
1904), pp. 129, 137 seq. Cf. my study, ‘ Le Second Schisme de Photios’, in
Byiantion, vol. vin, p. 448.
2 See John’s letters in M .G.H. Ep. vu, pp. 204, 217, 246, 264. On Stephen’s
intervention, ibid. p. 337.
3 Erchemperti Historia Langob. M .G .H . Ss. ni, pp. 258 seq., cap. 56 seq.
229
THE P H OT I AN SCHISM . I. T H E H I S T O R Y
consecrated by the Pope; but the Byzantine commander expelled him

and in his stead had another priest elected for consecration by the
Byzantine Patriarch. Stephen V at once addressed a strongly-worded
remonstrance to George. In claiming the right to consecrate the bishop
o f Tarento, he used a phrase which is pertinent to our inquiry :1
B y expelling the same [priest] after his election and, in defiance o f canonical
rules, electing one who belonged to another Church, you aimed at having
him consecrated b y the Church o f Constantinople. This body, on learning
that he should be consecrated b y the H oly Church over which, b y the grace
o f G od, we preside, postponed the consecration.
This protest must have struck home, for in another letter1 2 written
about the same date, the Pope informs the Tarentans o f his refusal to·
consecrate the priest Deusdona who had presented himself for con
secration, claiming to be the elected bishop o f Tarento, but without a
single testimonial in support o f his statement. Further, Tarento was not
listed among the Byzantine dioceses o f the period, so that we may
conclude that this time the Byzantine Church really did acknowledge
the Roman patriarchate’s rights and withdrew its claims.
This is important. Here we have clear evidence that the two Churches,
were at peace and that Stephen V acknowledged Photius’ successor
Stephen, the same man who had been raised to the diaconate by Photius-
and was for this reason refused obedience by the die-hard Ignatians.
But this is not all. The reign o f Leo V I, brother o f the Patriarch Stephen,,
coincided with the Byzantines’ political and ecclesiastical reorganization
o f their Italian possessions, and the list they drew up o f their dioceses
shows what importance they attached to them and what trouble they
took over their reorganization .3
A ll the more surprising that Greek influence in the south o f Italy
did not spread as far and as rapidly as one would have expected : Oria,„
Bari and Tarento remained Latin and Roman sees.4 The Acts o f the
local synod o f Oria held by Theodosius in 887-8,5 which gives a vivid
picture o f the distressing religious conditions o f those regions, show
that the bishop, though a loyal subject o f the Byzantine Empire,,
remained like the rest o f his clergy Latin and Roman., Even in northern
1 M .G .H . Ep. V II, p. 343. 2 Ibid. p. 344.

3 See the list in H. Gelzer, G eorgii C yprii D escrip tio O rbis R om a n i (Leipzigs
i 89°)? ΡΡ· 59? 77 ? 82.
4 Gay, loc. cit. pp. 184 seq.
3 S p icilegiu m C asinense (1888), vol. 1, pp. 377-81. Cf. D. G. M orin,4Un Concile
Inédit’, in R ev u e B én éd ictin e (1900), pp. 143—51.
230
Calabria, where Byzantine claims seem to have been pressed more

forcibly, it was mutually agreed that the bishops o f Cosenza and Bisig-
nano should be Latins elected from the local clergy, but consecrated by
the Byzantine Metropolitan o f R eggio.1 Now such an arrangement can
only be explained by the reasonable desire not to use force in the sub
jugation o f the Lombards or to Hellenize them against their will. Had
the two Churches been at loggerheads at that time, such political scruples
would never have been considered for a moment and the opportunity
o f getting on even terms with a Pontiff who could be so unpleasant to
the Byzantine patriarchate would never have been missed.
But all this does not accord with the implication attributed to the two
letters o f Pope Stephen. I f our findings about the relations between the
two Churches under Stephen’s pontificate are correct, then it follows
that the Pope’s two letters have not been handed down in their original
form and must in some way have been doctored by the compiler o f the
anti-Photian Collection. Tw o passages in the first letter addressed to
Basil corroborate the inference.
First o f all, Constantinople is called ‘ most famous city’ and ‘ pro
tected by G o d ’, a most unusual designation in a document issued by
the Roman Chancellery, though common in Byzantine documents.
And it significantly appears in the passage dealing with Photius, which
therefore betrays a Byzantine hand and must be held to be suspect.
Suspicion grows stronger when we consider that in the same passage
Photius is designated as ‘ layman’ . This appellation would be quite in
its place in any Ignatian writing, as such was the interpretation put upon
the declarations o f Popes Nicholas I and Hadrian II and upon the
decisions o f the Eighth Council against Photius by the die-hard Igna-
tians. The letter addressed to Manuel2 by Metrophanes may serve as
an illustration.
Again, though, as stated before, Nicholas I was induced by Theo-
gnostos to use many o f the ‘ epithets’ which the die-hard Ignatians were
fastening on Photius, he seems to have refrained from adopting that o f
layman.3 No doubt, the two notions o f the invalidity and the unlaw-
1 Cf. Gay, loc. cit. pp. 188-92. This famous scholar, who also believes in a
quarrel between the two Churches, feels embarrassed in trying to square the facts
with the alleged enmity between the Churches.
2 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 416: ‘ but the godly Pontiff [Nicholas]. . . after summoning
a Council of Western bishops, condemned him. . .calling him a “ layman’V
3 For evidence, see my study ‘ Le Second Schisme de Photios’, in Byiantion,
vol. vin, pp. 452 seq.
231
fulness o f ordinations uncanonically performed were often confused

even in Rome in those days, but I have the impression that the Pon
tifical Chancellery unconsciously refrained from using th e4title5layman,
in order to preclude a misunderstanding o f a more serious character.
It is also admitted that Photius’ own ordination and the ordinations
performed by him were regarded as valid, once the Patriarch was
reconciled with the Roman See.
Now it was the specific purpose o f the anti-Photian Collection,
which rescued from oblivion the papal letter under discussion, to make
out a case for the invalidity o f Photius’ ordination and for the absolute
prohibition to hold communion with the bishops and clerics ordained
by the Patriarch. This makes me think that the passage on Photius was
doctored and that the offensive names given to Photius were added by
the compiler.
I do not suggest that Photius was not mentioned in the Pope’s
letter. Stephen V apparently answered a letter which Basil had sent to
Hadrian III in reply to a letter o f his brought to Constantinople by the
bishop o f Oria. The Emperor presumably had taken exception to
Marinus omitting to pay homage to him. In spite o f explanations
offered by Hadrian III, Marinus’ successor, the Emperor took the
omission as evidence o f ill-feeling and resentment for incidents that
occurred during Marinus’ stay in Constantinople. He also took excep
tion to such a person being raised to supreme honours in defiance o f the
canons forbidding a bishop’s transfer from one see to another.
This objection to Marinus’ elevation must have galled the Romans.
Translations were forbidden by the first canon of the synod o f Sardica,
the same which forbade the precipitate elevation o f laymen to the
episcopate. Now the neglect of that canon had been one o f the main
reasons for Nicholas I to contest the legitimacy o f Photius’ elevation.
Photius defended himself on the ground that the canons o f Sardica had
not been accepted by the Church o f Constantinople, so that the Byzan
tines could retort with some satisfaction that the Roman Church did
not observe them either, though she had accepted them and adopted
them as part o f her routine. The Byzantines could take a serious view
o f it, since the Photian Synod had decided that each Church should
observe its own ancient customs and traditions.1 By transferring Marinus
to another see, the Roman Church had broken with her own customs :
1 Mansi, vol. xvn , col. 489, canon 2. The point was made very forcibly by
M. Jugie in one of his best studies on the subject (‘ Les Actes du Synode Photien
de Ste Sophie’, in Echos d ’ Orient (1938), vol. x x x v il, p. 90).
232
how could she then object to Photius’ elevation, which at least had been
in accordance with the old tradition o f the Byzantine Church ? Marinus’
elevation was therefore uncanonical and illegitimate, and we may
well imagine that the Emperor’s representations did not please the
Romans.
The Pope in his letter politely suggested that such calumnies against
a Roman Pontiff could not have come from the pious Emperor, but
must have been prompted to him by somebody else. It should be
observed here that there is nothing in the first part o f the letter to suggest
that the ‘ somebody else’ was Photius. The Emperor, in presuming to
give a lesson to the Church o f Rome— the Pope went on— was over
reaching himself; there was nothing unusual about Marinus’ election,
since the Roman Church had more than once approved the transfer o f
bishops from one see to another. Basil had no reason to complain o f
the Roman Church, which had always complied with his wishes. Did
she not send her legates to a synod (the so-called Eighth Council) at
the Emperor’s request and spend infinite care on it? She even sent
legates to Photius (the Pope here has in mind the Photian synod o f
879-80), and given the opportunity, would have done more. You have
therefore no grounds for complaint, and were it not for the love we bear
you restraining us and helping us to put up with such insults flung
at our Church, we should most certainly consider ourselves obliged to
impose on the slanderer penalties more severe than any inflicted on
Photius by our predecessors. It is not in a spirit o f aggressiveness, but
in pure self-defence that we are writing this.
Such in all probability must have been the passage in the letter on
Photius in its original form and nothing in it could possibly be construed
into a second censure on Photius. The Pope on the contrary mentioned,
besides the Eighth Council, the council which rehabilitated Photius,
a sign that he subscribed to it. That such was the case and that the
incriminating words must have been added by the indiscreet compiler
will be seen from an analysis o f the second document, the Pope’s letter
to Stylianos.
This letter, in the form in which it has been preserved, is still more
enigmatic than the first and contains glaring discrepancies between the
first and second parts. In the first, the Pope accuses the Patriarch o f
blasphemy against the Cross, whereas in the second, he defends him
in the matter o f deposition or abdication under compulsion. At the end
o f his letter the Pope quotes from the imperial letter the compliments
in praise o f Photius, in flat contradiction o f what he had written in the
233
first part o f his letter. The only possible conclusion is that here again
the letter has been tampered with.
The designation o f ‘ layman’ is also repeated, and it should be noted
that a legend circulated in ultra-Ignatian circles to the effect that Photius
had committed blasphemy against the symbol o f salvation.1 It makes
one look instinctively in the Pope’s letter for some mention o f the word
‘ cross’ which the compiler could have twisted into the sense o f the
legend. In fact, we read in the fragment o f the pontifical register, in a
letter by Stephen V ff ‘ T o Stylianos, Anastasius, Eusebius, John and
Paul, archbishops and their clergy.— Are not all the charisms o f the
priestly ministry operated by the sign o f the Cross? Does baptismal
water not remit sin on the one condition that one be sanctified by the
Cross? And, omitting the rest, can anyone ascend the steps o f the
priesthood without the sign of the C ross?’ Item\ ‘ I f therefore the
Roman Church, which we govern by the will o f Christ, is held to all
as a mirror and a pattern, whatever she decides must be at all times
unequivocally observed.’
Another document included in the anti-Photian Collection, Stylianos’
reply to the Pope’s letter, will show in what connection the Pope men
tioned the Holy Cross. This is the text o f the letter: 3
O ur lowliness has received the god ly and saintly letters o f your most
saintly and excellent pontifical honour and they have filled us with great jo y.
A fter the introduction, which lavishes high praise on the Apostolic See, w e
read the follow ing: ‘ It was stated in the letter o f your venerable pontifical
majesty that the letters o f our serenest Emperors [Leo and Alexander] did
not agree with ou rs’ ; but this is the reason o f the discrepancy: Whereas those
who wrote that Photius had resigned, acknowledged him as a priest, how
could we, who, in keeping with the legitimate and canonical decision o f the
most venerable Pontiffs Nicholas and Hadrian and in conform ity with the
holy and oecumenical Synod held in Constantinople b y the representatives
o f the H oly See and the three Oriental thrones, refuse to attribute to Photius
any degree o f priesthood, have written that one who had been condemned
had resigned? W e were also surprised to note that you say at the end o f you r
letter that he should be judged as a legitimate archbishop, after stating at the
beginning that he had been severed from the solid rock o f C hrist: how can
he be judged, who has been severed? Is this the w ay the decrees o f your h oly
predecessors are emasculated ? But I believe that if any one wished to recon- 123
1 For particulars, see my study ‘ Le Second Schisme de Photios’, in Byântion^

vol. vin, p. 456. See the anecdotes in Pseudo-Simeon (Bonn), pp. 669-71.
2 M .G.H . Ep. vu, p. 348.
3 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 437, 439; M .G.H . Ep. vu, pp. 381, 382.
234
sider Photius’ case, he would only aggravate the condemnation. But omitting
all the rest, what do you think o f his misrepresentation o f Pope Marinus ?
The letter you wrote to Basil, our glorious Em peror, shows that you are not
ignorant o f them.1 But again, we take refuge in prayer, interceding for those
who were forced to submit to Photius, and we ask you to be good enough to
send encyclical letters to the Eastern Patriarchs, that they also may receive,
acknowledge and confirm our dispensation, the more so as the Em peror,
who drew us from the darkness and shadows o f death into the light o f day,
desires it.
The letter makes it clear that Stylianos only took notice o f the
sentences passed on Photius by Nicholas I, Hadrian II and the Eighth
Council and read into them the meaning that Photius had been stripped
o f every degree o f the priesthood. On this point he was at variance
with Stephen V, who in his letter referred to Photius as the legitimate
Patriarch. Stylianos tried to bring the Pope round to his own opinion
and induce him to give a special dispensation to all those who had under
Photius5 patriarchate acknowledged him as the legitimate pastor. It is
in this light that we must now study the Pope’s letter to Stylianos.
It seems to have followed this train o f thought:
I am not surprised that you should have disowned Photius, since he did
come under canonical strictures ; but regarding your request to dispense the
clergy who held communion with Photius, I do not see the necessity, since
Photius, though condemned, was validly ordained. The validity o f the sacra
ments is not dependent on the worthiness or otherwise o f the person
administering them; and the grace o f the sacraments does not come from
men, but from the virtue o f Our Lord’s Cross. A re not all the charisms o f the
priestly ministry operated b y the sign o f the Cross? Does baptismal w ater
not remit sin on condition only that one be sanctified b y the Cross ? And to
omit the rest, can anyone ascend the steps o f the priesthood without the sign
o f the C ro ss?3
The Pope then returned to the discrepancy between the Emperor’s
letter and that o f Stylianos concerning Photius’ resignation, repeating
finally his injunction addressed to Stylianos and his friends always to
obey the orders o f the Roman Church.
1 It is not here implied that Stephen V accused Photius of slandering Marinus.
It may be Stylianos’ own interpretation of the Pope’s charitable excuse that the
words might have been prompted to the Emperor by somebody else.
2 I readily accept the suggestion offered by V. Grumel (Échos <FOrient, 1934,
vol. X X X I I I, p. 263): his interpretation harmonizes better with the drift of the
fragment of this letter, and confirms among other things the fact that even under
Nicholas I the Pontifical Chancellery made the necessary distinction between the
validity and the illicit nature of Photius’ ordination.
2 35
It was in this sense, I believe, that the Pope was led to speak o f the
Lord’s Cross, and one can understand w hy Stephen V insisted so
forcibly on Photius’ first condemnation.1 Having no wish to treat the
Ignatians too roughly, as they had addressed themselves to him with
such reverence for the Holy See, he acknowledged that their attitude
was justified at first, since Photius had really been condemned by the
Holy See; but ended by gently chiding them and observing that what
the Church has decided must hold good for ever: and what she had
decided was not only the first condemnation, but also Photius’ rehabili
tation.
It will thus be seen that the compiler made considerable modifications
in the text o f the letter : he betrayed himself by referring to Photius as
'laym an’ and by his characteristic distortion o f the Pope’s reference to
the Cross; the sentence is given an ‘ Ignatian’ twist and there is a clumsy
gap in the join o f the two parts o f the letter.
Stylianos’ reply proves moreover that the Ignatians had understood
the Pope’s idea perfectly well; that they were aware o f his persistence
in holding Photius to be the legitimate Patriarch and his ordinations
to be valid, and that they rightly assessed the interest he took, being in
possession o f the conflicting evidence, in the change that came over the
patriarchal throne.
Here again the compiler took his materials from the Pope’s utterance
on Photius’ first condemnation, but gave it a wider connotation than
was really justified. Now that we have seen through the device, we
can confidently state that Pope Stephen V, whatever may to this day
have been said about him, did not break with Photius, but like his
predecessors continued to treat him as the legitimate Patriarch. It may
now be stated that the same Pope, who was always believed to be Photius’
particularly venomous enemy, will in fact champion his cause on the
occasion o f his second deposition by the Emperor. There is only one
possible conclusion: Photius’ second schism, assumed so far to have
been particularly fatal to the friendly relations between the two Churches,
belongs to the realm o f legend.
1 The forceful terms which the compiler puts into the Pope’s mouth on the
subject of this condemnation are, however, in all probability the compiler’s own
concoction.
236
C H A P T E R VI I I
P H O T I U S, L E O V I A N D T H E H E A L I N G O F
THE E X T R E M I S T S ’ SCHISM
Photius acknowledged by the Moderate Ignatians— Leo VFs change of policy and
Photius’ resignation— Leo, the ‘ Little Church’ and the Moderates— Was there a
schism under Formosus?— The ‘ Little Church’s ’ liquidation— A reunion synod
in 899?— Authorship o f the anti-Photian Collection and date of composition of
the Vita Ignatii— The Extremists and the Moderates in the tetragamy conflict.
I n our examination o f the relations between Stephen V, the Emperor

Leo V I and Photius, the problem o f the so-called second Photian schism
made it necessary to reverse the chronological sequence o f events and
temporarily to abandon the historical method previously followed. We
may now return to the Patriarch’s story.
The Council, after rehabilitating Photius, voted severe penalties
against those who refused to acknowledge Photius as the legitimate
Patriarch. But it took more than a Council to crush the ultra-Ignatian
opposition. The reader will remember that part o f the clergy attached
to the church o f St Sophia completely ignored the new Patriarch and,
the moment he took possession o f his throne, suspended the celebration
o f the sacred mysteries and left the church, affecting to be deeply
shocked by the ‘ invasion’ o f the ‘ intruder’. Photius himself had to
confess in the course o f the Council that two bishops had been banished
by the Emperor for exceptional refractoriness.
So the opposition persisted ; but it is difficult to state anything more
definite about its extent or about the number o f bishops and clergy who
remained obdurate even after Rome had declared in favour o f Photius.
Stylianos addressed his letters to the Pope not merely in his own name,
but also in the name o f Eusebius, bishop o f Nazianzus, John o f Comana,
John o f Leontopolis, in the name ‘ o f all the bishops, priests and deacons
o f the most holy Church o f Constantinople, o f the abbots in West and
East, priests, monks and anachorets’.1 We also know that Metrophanes
o f Smyrna refused to make peace with Photius, and the more intractable
bishops were banished, in company presumably with the prelates men
tioned in Stylianos’ letters. Yet, everything seems to indicate that the
1 Mansi, vol. xvi,cols. 425,437. Pope Stephen V, as we saw previously,addressed
his letter ‘ to the archbishops Stylianos, Anastasius, Eusebius, John and Paul and
their clergy’ (M ,G .H . Ep. vu, p. 348).
237
bishops who refused to compound with Photius were not many, the
most recalcitrant elements being mainly to be found in the monasteries.
The smaller the number, the more bitter their fanaticism.
The more moderate elements among the episcopacy and the clergy
rallied to Photius, and among the outstanding members o f Ignatius’
party was St Joseph the Hymnographer. Joseph, at first, belonged to
the die-hards. He also suffered persecution under the last iconoclastic
Emperor Theophilus, and though recalled by Theodora refused to
leave his place o f banishment, preferring 6to enjoy his exile for the
sake o f Christ as though it were paradise’, says his biographer, John
the Deacon.1 This particular portion o f his biography definitely suggests
that Joseph refused to return to Constantinople because he did not
approve the election o f Methodius and his religious policy. Not until
the patriarchate o f Ignatius did he go back to the capital,2 where he soon
won the new Patriarch’s confidence and received from him an appoint
ment as synkellos. Now it is remarkable that the same Joseph unhesi
tatingly rallied to Photius, and his biographer even extolled the intimacy
between the two men: yet, Joseph was one o f those who were banished
after the fall o f Ignatius.3
The case o f Metrophanes o f Smyrna is not so clear. We possess a
letter addressed to Metrophanes4 by Photius, whose cordial and light
hearted tone would at first lead one to believe that the metropolitan o f
Smyrna had made peace with Photius; but a closer study o f the text o f
the letter— and certainly the Patriarch’s Greek is o f such finesse and
subtlety as to embarrass any translator, however familiar with Byzantine
Greek— shows that things happened somewhat differently.
The letter was apparently written after Photius’ accession to the
patriarchal throne after Ignatius’ death, but before the Council o f
1 Vita S. Josephi Hymnographi, P.G. vol. 105, col. 968.
2 Note that Ignatius the Deacon, biographer of St Tarasius and St Nicephorus,
never mentions Joseph the Hymnographer in his biography of St Gregory the
Decapolite, though these two men were intimately united in their lifetime. Ignatius
the Deacon belonged to the Moderate party. Did he omit to mention Joseph
because the latter disliked Methodius’ religious policy and was an enthusiastic
follower of Ignatius? Cf. my book, La Vie de St Grégoire le Décapolite et les Slaves
Macédoniens au IXe siècle (Paris, 1926), p. 19.
3 P.G . vol. 105, cols. 968, 969. Cf. the Life, written by Theophanes and pub
lished by Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Monumenta Graeca et Latina ad Historiam
Photiipertinentia (Petropoli, 1901), vol. i i , pp. 1-14 . Cf. Van de Vorst, ‘ Note sur
St Joseph l’Hymnographe’, in Analecta Bollandiana (1920), vol. x x x v m , pp.
148-54.
4 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ss. Patris Photii. . .Epistolae X L V (Petropoli,
1896), pp. 18, 19.
238
PH O TIU S, LEO VI AND THE E X T R E M I S T S ’ SCH ISM
879-80, for the purpose o f bringing Metrophanes round to his cause.

But Photius had previously addressed a letter to him offering him peace
and reconciliation, the letter being accompanied with a gift, whose
nature is not revealed. Metrophanes returned the present to Photius on
the plea that the state o f his health did not permit him to make use o f it;
at the same time he conveyed to him the indignation o f one o f his
intimate friends, who was living with him at the time (was it Stylianos ?)
and had taken offence at Photius’ omission to make the same overtures
to him.
In his reply, o f which the text has been preserved, Photius apologizes
for not having selected a better present, being ignorant o f Metrophanes’
state o f health. I f he overlooked his friend, it was because he was busy
and quite unaware that they were living together; but he apologizes for
the omission and regrets that his good will has not been appreciated.
This reveals a new trait in Photius’ character: evidently, the Patriarch
was doing his best to pacify the Church, never hesitating, though he
had every reason to consider himself wronged by his old opponents,
to meet them half-way. He failed, however, in his peace overtures to
Metrophanes and had to replace him on the see o f Smyrna by one o f
his own supporters, Nicetas; for the latter figured among the prelates
who attended the Council o f 879-80. As Metrophanes’ case came up
for consideration by the Fathers o f the Council, this prelate, who was
in Constantinople whilst the Council was in session, obstinately refused
to take notice o f the legates’ pressing invitation to appear before the
assembly; his plea was always that o f ill-health, until finally the legates
proposed, in obedience to the Pope’s decision, to deal very severely with
Metrophanes on grounds o f contumacy. They themselves, however, did
not pronounce excommunication, but left the decision to Photius, who
had received powers from the Pope to that effect.1
Whether Photius did excommunicate him is not stated in the Acts of
the Council. He apparently reserved sentence, perhaps in the hope of
conciliating Metrophanes, but to no effect, and eventually the recalcitrant
prelate had to pay the penalty imposed by the Fathers on all those
who refused to accept Photius as the legitimate Patriarch. Photius
must have been sorry for his failure in placating the most eminent
among the Ignatians and one he esteemed so highly for his literary
work.12
1 Mansi, vol. xvn , cols. 496, 500, 501.

2 It is very likely that Metrophanes recovered his see after Photius’ second
resignation in 886, for his disciple Arsenius calls him the Metropolitan of Smyrna
239
As we have seen, Photius did not remain idle and did what he could
to pacify the Byzantine Church; but he did more. His short treatise
dating from that period and quoted by the title ‘ Collationes Accurataeque
Demonstrationes de Episcopis et Metropolitis’,1 had no other purpose
than to ease the tension among the clergy and attenuate the bad im
pression which Rome’s intervention against Photius had produced on
certain minds in Byzantium. Historical instances o f bishops being
deposed and reinstated must have defeated the arguments o f those die-
hards who remained obdurate and worked against Photius, for his efforts
proved partly successful. For one thing, relief was felt in Byzantium
at the final settlement o f past differences and joy at the restoration o f
peace within the Church. The biographies o f St Joseph the Hymno-
grapher and o f Nicholas the Studite2 breathe an atmosphere o f peace
and the biographers, in writing about these two saints who once sup
ported Ignatius, deliberately avoid any word that might disparage the
memory o f either Ignatius or Photius.
But in spite o f all his efforts, a small extremist minority, under the
leadership o f Stylianos o f Neocaesarea and Metrophanes o f Smyrna,
formed a sort o f 4Little Church’ which remained stubborn and shunned
all contact with Photius and the bishops consecrated by him. The leaders
were sent into exile and did not return to Constantinople till after
Photius’ second downfall.
To return now to the anti-Photian Collection, this is how the com
piler reports Photius’ reverse and the exiles’ recall; after quoting the
letter from Pope Stephen V to Basil, previously mentioned,3 the com
piler says : 4
This letter had been addressed to Basil, but, the father being dead, was
received b y his son Leo. On realizing its importance and learning o f Photius’
wicked intrigues, he recalled all the priests who had served the truth and been
so bitterly persecuted b y the cursed Photius, expelled Photius the tyrant and
usurper, and replaced him b y Stephen, the same Leo ’s own brother. He then
in 912, in a panegyrical poem probably written after Metrophanes’ death (S. G.
Mercati, ‘ Inno anacreontico alla SS. Trinità di Metrofane Arcivescovo di Smirne’,
in B yi. Zeitschrift (1929-30), vol. x x x . Nicetas, however, may have succeeded
him again. Two letters from Symeon Metaphrastes (P .G . vol. 114 , cols. 228-9)
are addressed to Nicetas, Metropolitan of Smyrna.
1 Ed. F. Fontani, Novae Eruditorum Deliciae (Florentiae, 1786), vol. i, pt. 2,
pp. 1-80; P.G . vol. 104, cols. 1220—32. Cf. Hergenrôther, Photius, vol. 11, pp.
558 seq. As I cannot enter into all the details of Photius’ argumentation and
Hergenrôther’s criticisms, I deem it sufficient to give the drift of the pamphlet.
2 P.G . vol. 105, cols. 908, 913.
3 P. 226. 4 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 425.
240
PH O TIU S, LEO VI AND THE E X T R E M IS T S ’ SCHISM
summoned Stylianos, called Mapas, the Metropolitan o f Neocaesarea and all

the bishops, abbots, priests and deacons who had stood b y him in persecution,
with all the other champions o f justice, and said to th e m :4Our god ly majesty
has examined the true state o f things, dethroned the iniquitous man and put
an end to your persecution. U nw illing to force any o f you to hold com
munion against his will, I would rather appeal to your piety and invite you
to join m y brother so that the flock may at last be one. But if you object to
holding communion with m y brother because he was ordained b y Photius
without the consent o f the Romans who had excommunicated him, well then,
let us write and send a joint request to the Pope asking him to absolve from
the sentence o f excommunication all those who were ordained b y Photius.’
The Em peror and all those who supported Mapas, the Metropolitan o f
Neocaesarea, then wrote a letter to the Pope.
This is, indeed, an extraordinary and unexpected testimony. The w ay
in which the die-hards o f the ‘ Little Church’ represented the facts and
again succeeded in embroiling the See o f Rome is truly remarkable.
But did things actually happen as the compiler asserts? T o verify the
allegations made by the compiler o f the anti-Photian Collection, it will
be necessary to inquire into the circumstances o f Photius’ second
downfall.
The problem offered for solution is not an easy one, as we unhappily

possess little reliable information about the reign o f Leo V I, and Photius
tells us nothing in his vast correspondence about the circumstances that
raised a quarrel between him and his former pupil. So the story o f
Photius’ humiliation remains wrapped in m ystery; but to understand
as best we can the sequence o f events at the outset o f the reign o f Leo V I,
it will be necessary to go back to the last years o f the reign o f Basil I
and examine the ties that linked the father to his son and successor.
It was no secret that Basil was not fond o f his son Leo. All his love
and fatherly affection had centred in his eldest son Constantine, whose
loss was the worst trial o f Basil’s life. To him Basil had hoped to hand
over his life’s work, and when his hopes were dashed he had little
heart left either to resign himself to his fate or to love his son Leo,
designated to the succession in 879, although crowned co-emperor as
early as 870.1
T o make matters worse, Basil touched his son on the place where
a young man o f Leo’s age would feel most sensitive: though he knew
1 The fact that Leo was not Basil’s legitimate son can no longer serve to explain
the estrangement. This question has been definitely settled by Μ. N. Adontz,
‘ L ’ Oraison funèbre de Basile T , in Byiantion, vol. vin, pp. 508 seq.
DP S 24I l6
o f his son’s attachment to Zoe, daughter o f his compatriot Zautzes, he

gave Leo, against his will, in marriage to Theophano, o f the Martiniakioi
family, to which the Empress, Eudocia Ingerina, also belonged. The
marriage, as is well known, was not a happy one. Theophano was her
rival Zoe’s exact opposite: equally passionate, she yet gave her passion
a nobler object, too noble in fact to suit Leo’s taste— the practice o f
virtue, prayer and works o f m ercy;1 and as her practices were not such
as to interest her husband, then in the full glow o f youth and passion,
he looked for consolation elsewhere and resumed his relationship with
Zoe.
Here Theophano made a bad mistake, natural and comprehensible
no doubt, but none the less fatal: instead o f trying to draw him away
from her rival and give him the satisfaction he was looking for, she
complained to her father-in-law about her young husband’s infidelity.
The panegyrist o f the future saint says nothing about this incident,2
but we gather the details from another source, a reliable one, the Life
o f St Euthymios .3 Basil lost his temper and decided to give his son a
lesson that went further than mere verbal exhortation; but this time
the young prince thought that Basil had abused his paternal authority
and Leo gave an account o f the stormy scene to his spiritual director,
the monk Euthymios. T o end it all, Basil gave Zoe in marriage, against
her will, o f course, to Theodore Guzuniates.
The incident only exasperated the young man, embittering him not
only against his wife, but his father, and from that time he began to
treat with the party which opposed his father’s policy. The Extremists,
disappointed in Basil, who at first had encouraged their hopes, were
quick to take advantage o f the quarrel between father and son and saw
to it that Leo’s wrath should not be allowed to cool.
There is no doubt that the party o f the Extremists, ever active and
watching their opportunity to seize the reins o f government, relied on
Leo’s co-operation to attempt a political plot against Basil; but their
conspiracy was quickly detected, for the other party, conscious that
Basil’s downfall would mean the end o f its supremacy, was also on the
alert. The chief representative o f the Moderates who supported Basil’s
1 Cf. the panegyric of Nicephorus Gregoras: Hergenröther, Monumenta Graeca

ad Photium pertinentia (Ratisbonnae, 1869), pp. 80—1.
2 Nicephorus Gregoras, loc. cit., rather extols Theophano’s patience in putting
up with her husband’s infidelity.
3 Ed. C. de Boor, Vita Euthymii (Berlin, 1888), pp. 20 seq. This Life gives
interesting details about the relations between Leo, Theophano and Zoe. See
de Boor’s commentary on pp. 156 seq.
242
PHO TIU S, LEO VI AND THE E X T R E M IS T S 5 SCH ISM
rule happened to be the learned Theodore Santabarenos, former abbot

o f the monastery o f Studion, metropolitan o f Euchaita, whom Photius
had introduced to Basil. He gradually took the place formerly occupied
b y Gregory Asbestas, and for all practical purposes became the leader
o f the Moderates’ ecclesiastical wing.
It was Theodore who drew the sovereign’s attention to the machina
tions o f the opposition party and to the efforts made by the malcontents
to win his son’s support. Taking action again with his usual energy,
Basil locked up his son in the triclinium o f the Margarita, threatening
in his rage to put his eyes out, and it was all that Photius and the Senate
could do to save the boy from torture. According to the chroniclers,1
all the men o f Leo’s circle were arrested, cross-examined, some o f them
tortured and banished, special mention being made o f Andrew, Domestic
o f the Scholae, Stephen, the Magister and the protovestiarios Nicetas
Helladicos.
It is in this w ay that the facts should be interpreted. The chroniclers
are unanimous, and their unanimity arises from the mutual dependence
o f their reports, in accusing Santabarenos o f having staged the whole
fracas and instigated Leo’s imprisonment. He is alleged to have advised
the prince to remain armed—-some say with a dagger, others, with a
sword— to protect his father’s life in case o f assault. Leo would have
taken the advice, but was immediately accused by Santabarenos o f
attempting his father’s life and the seizure o f his throne; to prove Leo’s
evil intention, he averred that the prince always carried a weapon to
use against Basil at the first propitious moment. The weapon was found
and Leo was imprisoned.
But the story does not deserve the credit it has been given. As the
chroniclers state in the same breath that Leo detested and distrusted
Theodore,12 it is hard to believe that the young man fell into the trap
so easily and armed himself on his enemy’s advice. It is true, however,
that Basil was enraged and that he took a serious view o f the affair:
in spite o f repeated intervention by Photius and the Senate, Basil
remained deaf to all protests and entreaties on his son’s behalf; it was
only after three months that he relented, setting his son free and
1 Cf. Georg. Mon. Cont. (Bonn), pp. 846 seq.; Pseudo-Simeon, pp. 697 seq.;
Leo Gram. pp. 259 seq.; Cedrenus (Bonn), vol. 11, pp. 245 seq. An interesting
repercussion of this wrangle between father and son is also found in the Life of
S. Constantine the Jew, A.S. Nov. vol. iv, p. 648. The anonymous biographer
makes Constantine prophesy the reconciliation at an early date of the Emperor and
Leo. The Life was written in the reign of Leo the Wise.
2 Pseudo-Simeon (Bonn), p. 697.
243 16-2
TH E PH ΟTI AN SC H ISM . I. T H E H I S T O R Y
restoring him to his former honours. Clearly there was something more
in all this than the vile calumny o f a personal enemy; the future Emperor
was in serious danger and was well aware o f it; for the rest o f his life
he maintained a special devotion to the prophet Elias, his father’s
favourite saint, on whose feast day he was released from prison.1
The chroniclers also mention another plot against Basil’s govern
ment, under the leadership o f the Domestic o f the Scholae, John Crocoa
(Curcu), with the support o f sixty-five senators and high court officials.
Specifically mentioned among the conspirators are the Comes o f the
Foederati, Michael Catudares (Catudes), Myxaris (Myxiares) and Babu-
tzicos; but this attempt was also nipped in the bud. The conspirators
were publicly arraigned in the circus by the Emperor, scourged and
banished. The chroniclers who mention the incident2 put the responsi
bility for this revolt on a recluse o f the church o f Our Lady o f
Blachernae, who had prophesied the imperial crown to John Crocoa.
The significance o f the chroniclers’ report is obvious and enables one
to lay these frustrated attempts against Basil’s government at the door
o f the Extremist party, whose radical wing was always packed with
fanatical monks. To judge by the number o f arrests made among the
high State officials,3 the party must have been powerful and gave Basil
every reason to be on the alert and even to suspect his own son o f
making common cause with his political opponents. It makes Leo’s
troubles only too comprehensible and the anecdote on Theodore
Santabarenos may safely be consigned to the realm o f chroniclers’
fables.
It is also to be noted that archbishop Stylianos, Theodore’s relentless
enemy, does not quote this story in his letter to Pope Stephen,4 though
he accuses Theodore and Photius o f intriguing against Leo and mainly
vents his feelings on Theodore, who in his view had set Leo and
1 Cf. the panegyric of S. Elias, delivered by Leo, ed. Akakios, Δέοντος του Σοφού
πανηγυρικοί Λόγοι (Athens, 1868), ρ. 260.
2 Georg. Mon. Corn. (Bonn), pp. 847, 848; Pseudo-Simeon, p. 699; Leo Gram,
p. 261.
3 Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), ch. 45, p. 277, dates the conspiracy immediately after
Photius’ reinstatement by Basil, though the other chroniclers place it after Leo’s
reconciliation with Basil. The object of the plot could not be Leo’s release from
prison, as A. Vogt, Basile 1er, pp. 153 seq., seems to think, though even Vogt
attributes the second conspiracy to the political party which backed Leo against Basil.
In his study, ‘ La Jeunesse de Léon VI le Sage’, in Revue Historique, vol. c l x x i v ,
pp. 417 seq., he repeats the incidents in detail but can scarcely conceal his embarrass
ment in trying to disentangle their complications. He is right, however, when he
refers to the machinations of the two political parties.
244
Basil against each other. And yet, if he wanted the Pope to see that
‘ monster5 in his true colours, that was the right moment to release the
tale, which is found in all later chronicles.1 It all confirms our surmise
that the anecdote was invented later by the historians o f the Macedonian
House to free Leo from all suspicion. The fact is that the incident was
far more serious than gossip suggests.123
Again, no sooner was Leo on the throne than the same men who had
been under suspicion for plotting against Basil, Andrew and Stephen,
exercised considerable influence on Leo: they are the men, together
with the father o f the Emperor’s mistress, Stylianos Zautzes, whose
names are displayed on the very first page o f the works o f Leo’s
historians.
It is clear, then, that the party in opposition to Basil’s government
reared its head after Leo’s accession; but Basil’s unexpected death dis
heartened his supporters,3 as they realized that it was now their
opponents’ turn to govern. As a matter o f fact, Leo, at the beginning
o f his reign, distributed all his favours to the Extremist party, to which
he had already shown his partiality in his father’s reign, if not from
personal conviction at any rate out o f spite against his father and his
father’s policy. It would be impossible to explain the first act o f his
government— the solemn translation o f the body o f the Emperor
Michael III— except as a display o f the young sovereign’s petulance;
it could not be meant to flatter the feelings o f the Extremists, who
detested Michael’ s memory. The translation ceremony had the addi
tional advantage o f rallying round the young sovereign the old partisans
o f Michael III, who had refused to support Basil (for each party had its
die-hards) but under the new regime had no excuse for detachment.
But Leo’s gesture could not prevent every Byzantine from observing
that things had completely altered at the imperial palace. The first
victim o f the Extremists was Theodore Santabarenos, who was arrested.
It was proposed to intern him in the monastery o f Studion, o f which he
had once been the abbot, but as the monks would not have him he was
then interned in the monastery o f Dalmata.4 Photius was also in their
1 The anecdote is not even mentioned by Nicephorus Gregoras, writer o f the

thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in his panegyric of Theophano.
2 Cf. Yared, Khrist. Chtenie (1872), vol. ill, p. 683; N. Popov, Imperator Lev V I
Mudryi i ego Tsarstvovanie (Moscow, 1892), pp. 6 seq.
3 The first chapter of the biography of Euthymios (loc. cit. p. 2) gives a vivid
impression of the gloom that seized the courtiers on learning that Basil’s death
was imminent.
4 de Boor, loc. cit. p. 4.
245
black books. Andrew, the Domestic o f the Scholae, and the Magister
Stephen accused Santabarenos and the Patriarch o f having attempted
to usurp imperial power and to set up a relation o f Photius’ instead o f
Leo. This was a repetition o f the w ay in which Bardas and Michael had
proceeded against Ignatius, who also had been accused o f conspiring
against the government. Methods did not vary much in Byzantium.
There was no difficulty in convincing Leo o f the danger he courted
by keeping Photius at the patriarcheion. Photius had been Leo’s pre
ceptor, but only for two or three years when Leo was eleven or twelve
years old, so that the Patriarch’s influence over him could not count
for much. There was, on the contrary, no love lost between them, as
Photius must have often reproved his pupil about his private life and
his behaviour to his father.1 There was, moreover, his mistress’ father,,
Stylianos Zautzes, to whose obvious benefit it was to make bad blood
between master and pupil, the same Stylianos who could submit without
question to the iron will o f his compatriot Basil,12 but hoped, after Basil’s
death, to see his daughter play a more profitable part than that to which
he himself had been condemned by Basil’s omnipotence. His influence
was considerable at the time, for he had recently been appointed Magister
and Logothete o f the Course.3 But he had, for all that, every reason to
fear Photius, who could easily have foiled his plans. Euthymios’
biographer makes Zautzes responsible for all the afflictions that befell
Photius and his party, which is undoubtedly an exaggeration. A s
Zautzes was Euthymios’ personal enemy, Euthymios’ biographer makes
Zautzes solely responsible for every intrigue, but even this indictment
contains a modicum o f truth.
Having once decided that Photius should vacate the patriarcheion,,
Leo could not use force, for fear o f provoking a violent reaction among,
the Moderates; nor could he summon a synod, and have the Patriarch
tried and convicted, for the Patriarch commanded the clergy’s un
swerving loyalty; the only way was to use judicious pressure to make
the Patriarch resign. This, in fact, he did, on the candid pretext that he
1 Vogt-Hausherr, ‘ Oraison funèbre de Basil Ier’, in Orientalia Christiania, voL

p. 22, insist on discovering in Leo’s homily on St Elias a hint o f the remon
l x x v i,
strances which Photius had often addressed to the young prince; but a closer study
of the passage (Akakios, loc. cit. p. 260) would seem to indicate that the panegyrist;
is not referring to Photius at all, but only means to pay homage to St Elias and his-
intercession ‘ with the King of Heaven’.
2 Cf. de Boor, loc. cit. p. 136.
3 Georg. Mon. Cont. (Bonn), p. 849; Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), p. 354; Leo Gram..
(Bonn), p. 263.
246
PH O TIU S, LEO VI AND THE E X T R E M IS T S ’ SCH ISM
wished to bestow the patriarchal throne on his brother Stephen, already-

predestined to the honour by Basil. Photius’ resignation has often been
questioned, as the chroniclers say nothing about it;1 yet its attestation
by Euthymios’ biographer leaves no room for doubt. Relating Photius'
downfall, he writes : 45As regards Photius himself, he [Leo] immediately
relieved him o f his charge, and after ignominiously dismissing him
called upon him for his resignation, which Photius gave under pressure
and much against his will. He then ordered him to take up his residence
on the outskirts o f the city o f Hieria as an exile1.'2
Such was the act o f abdication which Magister Andrew and the
Logothete John Hagiopolites read to the faithful from the ambo o f
St Sophia.3 It goes without saying that the chroniclers pictured them
mounting the ambo to enumerate the Patriarch’s misdeeds and proclaim
his overthrow, though the procedure was most unlike the usual practice
o f the Byzantine Church.
Photius probably consented to sign the act o f abdication to expose
the futility o f his adversaries' accusations and to prove his own un
willingness to stand in the way o f his former pupil; but not satisfied
with this, his enemies insisted on public proceedings against him and
Santabarenos. The case was heard at the palace o f the Source, the
presiding judges being John Hagiopolites and the Patricius Gumer,
with Andrew, the Magister, and Stephen, the Domestic o f the Scholae,
as plaintiffs and prosecuting counsel all in o n e ;4 with the result that the
ex-Patriarch was banished to the monastery o f Hieria,3 and Santabarenos
was exiled to Athens, where his enemies’ hatred dogged his steps, for,
as reported by Euthymios’ biographer, he was later blinded at the
instigation o f Zautzes and banished to Asia Minor.
Leo Catacoilas, a relative o f Photius, who had formerly been one o f
his most devoted supporters,6 was also banished by the new government
1 The only mention of Photius’ abdication is to be found in the letter from

Pope Stephen V to Stylianos (Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 436), but the truth of the informa
tion was questioned, after the example set by Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, p. 691.
2 de Boor, loc. cit. p. 5.
3 Georg. Mon. Cont. (Bonn), p. 849; Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), p. 354; Leo
Gram. (Bonn), p. 263 ; Cedrenus (Bonn), vol. 11, p. 249.
4 Georg. Mon. Cont. (Bonn), pp. 850, 851; Pseudo-Simeon (Bonn), pp. 700,
70 1; Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), p. 355; Leo Gram. (Bonn), pp. 264, 265.
5 Chroniclers state that Photius was interned in the monastery of Gordon of
Armeniakoi. The two traditions can be reconciled, if we admit with de Boor
(loc. cit. p. 142) that Photius was first interned in Gordon and sent to Hieria after
the trial.
6 Nicetas, Vita Ignatii, P .G . vol. 105, col. 569.
247
and had all his property confiscated,1 to be used later by the Emperor
for the erection o f the monastery o f Psamathia. Young Nicholas, des
tined later to ascend the patriarchal throne, but fearing meanwhile
similar proceedings against himself (he was Photius’ nephew), fled to
the monastery o f St Tryphon in Chalcedon, and to make assurance
doubly sure, adopted the monastic life.
Euthymios’ biographer refers to other molestations, which were such
that the father had to plead with the Basileus in favour o f the victims,
and this led to a heated argument on the subject with Zautzes.2 From
this account by a contemporary witness, one can see that the sole
pretext for these annoyances was the fear o f danger threatening the
Emperor on the part o f those who were so severely dealt with, and that
undoubtedly these measures were prompted by political motives. With
the new regime, influences and tendencies other than those that had
found favour with Basil came into play. In other words, we are faced
again with the old antagonism between the two politico-religious
parties— the Extremists and the Moderates— that had striven for control
over the political and religious affairs o f the Empire. But this time the
Extremists got the upper hand, and the change over brought with it,
as a logical sequel, the recall from exile o f the ultra-Ignatians.
That is the proper explanation o f the events which occurred in
Byzantium after the change on the imperial throne in 886; no other
explanation can reconcile the chroniclers’ reports, often mutually con
tradictory in important details, with accounts from other sources, and
especially the narrative o f Euthymios’ biographer, that are closer to the
events they deal with. If, then, we compare all this with the version o f
the compiler o f the anti-Photian Collection, we realize more than ever
the inaccuracy o f this source. Rome’s personal feelings in no way
influenced the decisions taken by Leo V I : Photius’ second humiliation
was nothing but a matter o f internal policy, o f which the course had
been altered by the new Basileus.
On this particular point, too, the compiler flatly contradicts the
documents he quotes in the Collection. The papal letter which, in the
compiler’s opinion, had such a disastrous effect on Photius’ fate, can
have reached Byzantium only after Stylianos had dispatched his first
letter to the Pope; in that letter Stylianos had no knowledge o f Photius’
attack on Marinus, which is believed to be mentioned in the letter
referred to from the Pope Stephen to Basil, which was received by
Leo: he mentions it only in his second letter to the Pope. Evidently
1 de Boor, loc. cit. pp. 5, 6, 16. 2 Ibid. pp. 6-8.
248
then the compiler’s short ‘ historical’ commentary, inserted between the

Pope’s letter to Basil and Stylianos’ first letter to the Pope, is sheer
misrepresentation.
The prominence in this affair attributed to Stylianos by the compiler
o f the anti-Photian Collection points to the probability o f Metrophanes,
with other Extremists, abandoning his die-hard attitude and accepting,
on the Emperor’s invitation, Leo’s brother as a Patriarch, which left
Stylianos as the sole leader o f the ‘ Little Church’.
It was precisely the untenable position taken by Stylianos and his
friends and the appeal they sent to Rome on their own authority which
must have compromised their interests in the Emperor’s eyes; for,
shortly after, another change was noticeable in Leo’s attitude to Photius
and his friends : the exile, against whom the Emperor had immediately
after his accession staged such a sensational arraignment for high treason,
was quietly living in his retreat and devoting himself to scientific and
literary pursuits. His treatise on the M ystagogy o f the Holy Spirit was
the fruit o f that period, at least in its revised and enlarged edition.1 And
what is still more remarkable, Leo was reconciled with Photius’ nephew,
Nicholas, for Euthymios’ biographer2 reports that Leo recalled Nicholas
from exile and gave him the important appointment o f ‘ Mysticos ’ or
private secretary. Even Santabarenos benefited by the alteration in
Leo’s feelings, as he was recalled from exile and pensioned out o f the
revenues o f the New Basilica.3
An echo o f the young ruler’s new mood is found in the funeral oration
he delivered in honour o f his father, in which the praise he bestowed on
his father and his father’s reign was in strange contrast to his first acts
as a sovereign ; abandoning his attitude of petulance, he poured rhetorical
approval on Basil’s policy, from which he had openly and completely
departed at his accession. This was evidently an attempt to establish
among the public a good tradition o f the dynasty and to make a hero
o f its founder. The passage dealing with Photius4 is also at variance
with Leo’s treatment o f him after his accession, for his words breathe
peace and reconciliation, and sound as though they were meant to
convince the Photianists and the Moderates o f the Emperor’s desire for
more harmonious relations. In short, one notices in Leo V I the
same change o f mind as came over Basil I, who also courted the E x
tremists at the beginning o f his reign, afterwards turning to the
1 Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. n, p. 714. 2 de Boor, loc. cit. p. 6.

3 Theoph. Cont. (Bonn), p. 356; Georg. Mon. Cont. (Bonn), pp. 851, 852;
Leo Gram. (Bonn), p. 265; Cedrenus (Bonn), vol. 11, p. 252. 4 See p. 169.
249
Moderates, who gradually ousted their opponents from the palace and
the patriarcheion.
The funeral oration also indicates the date o f the turn, Μ. N. Adontz1
having proved that Leo delivered his panegyric on the second anni
versary o f his father’s death, i.e. in the month of August 888. In com
posing his oration, Leo took for his models the orations o f St Gregory
o f Nazianzus, being true to pattern in the very date he chose for his
speech. The date also serves to explain how the transformation had
come about: two years had been enough to convince Leo that the
support he had been expecting from the Extremists was not as solid as
he had hoped; and what disappointed him most was the ecclesiastical
wing o f the party. Stylianos and his friends had actually refused to
acknowledge his brother Stephen as the legitimate Patriarch, the reason
o f their refusal being, not the Patriarch’s uncanonical p ro m o tio n -
Stephen was only eighteen years old when he became Patriarch2— but
the fact that the prince had been ordained deacon by Photius. However,
they declared their willingness to submit to him on the one condition
that Rome and the other Patriarchs should grant dispensation by
‘ oeconomia’ to those promoted by Photius. We have seen with what
results they appealed to Rome.
In drawing up his memorandum, Stylianos committed a blunder
which showed up the Ignatians’ manoeuvres and gave the lie to what
the compiler says about the consequences o f Photius’ resignation. A s
his explanation o f the change o f Patriarchs differed from the Emperor’s,
he unwittingly, but neatly, exploded the legend which the compiler
tried to circulate, namely, that the request for dispensing the eccle
siastics ordained by Photius had been made not only by the Ignatians,
but by the Emperor as well. How is it, then, that before making an
application o f such importance the Ignatians and the Emperor had not
taken concerted action ? But the omission alone proves that the Ignatians
acted on their own initiative. All that the Emperor had asked o f them
was recognition o f his brother, but Stylianos’ fa u x pas, which merely
delayed the brother’s recognition by Rome, at a time when the Pope
was anxious to arbitrate between the Emperor’s brother and the de
throned Photius, must have infuriated Leo. Luckily for him, he knew
what he was doing, for he could produce the letter o f abdication,
whether free or not, and he certainly tried to expedite the settlement o f
a question in which he was personally interested. A t any rate the
1 ‘ L ’Oraison funèbre de Basile 1er’, in Byântion, vol. vin, pp, 507 seq.
2 Cf. Adontz, loc. cit. p. 508.
250
PHO TIU S, LEO VI AND THE E X T R E M IS T S ’ SCH ISM
incident must have effectively prejudiced the Emperor against the

Extremists, on whom he had built such hopes immediately after his
accession to power; but the fanaticism o f these Extremists soon cooled
his enthusiasm, and this cooling was accelerated by the Photianists’
promptitude and unhesitating support o f the new Patriarch.
Stylianos’ second attempt with the Pope was made only three years1
after he had received the disappointing reply from Stephen V, and the
long delay showed the Ignatians’ embarrassment at the Papacy’s attitude.
Stylianos’ second effort may well have been provoked by the Emperor’s
impatient insistence and his vexation at the ‘ Little Church’s ’ obstinacy,
which did his brother no good.
It was not Stephen V, but his successor Formosus (891-6) who replied
to archbishop Stylianos’ letter. This reply is an important document
as a piece o f plausible evidence that this Pope at least condemned
Photius, if not in his capacity as a Patriarch, at any rate on the ground
o f acts committed during his patriarchate; it therefore deserves careful
examination. The following is the text o f the letter as the compiler o f
the anti-Photian Collection has handed it down to us:*
Letter containing the reply to the preceding and written b y the most holy
Pope Form osus, successor to the blessed Stephen, to the same Stylianos; for
it was Form osus who wrote, he [Stephen] being dead. W e have received
with jo y the letter your Holiness addressed to the H oly See.. . .A n d after
many [other] things contained in the letter, there was also this: Y o u ask for
mercy, but you do not explain how and for whom , whether for a layman or
a priest. I f you mean a layman, he deserves pardon, as he received a dignity
from a laym an; but if you mean a priest, you overlook the fact that one who
has no dignity cannot impart any to others. Photius could not give anything
except the condemnation he incurred b y the imposition o f an impious hand
[G regory Asbestas], and this condemnation he gave. H ow could anybody
come b y a dignity b y association with a condemned man? Take care: when
you ask for m ercy for one ordained, you seem to make common cause with
the ordainer, according to the L ord ’s w ords: you are either a good tree whose 12
1 de Boor, loc. cit. p. 147, disagrees with Hergenröther (Photius, vol. 11, p. 692),,
who counts the three years from the time of Stylianos’ first recourse to Rome. The
compiler (Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 437) states that the Emperor had dispatched the
explanations requested by the Pope concerning his brother’s accession to the
patriarchal throne at the same time as Stylianos. The statement is very questionable.
It was the easiest thing for Leo to produce a copy of the letter of resignation signed
by Photius, and it was in his interest and that of the new Patriarch that the incident
should be closed as soon as possible.
2 Mansi, vol. x vi, cols. 440, 441 ; M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 382 seq.
251
fruits will be good ; or a bad tree whose fruits will be bad. Can a fig tree bear
grapes, or a vine figs? This [our] Church, to which such things belong, should
inflict the severest punishments, so that yours be thereby purged; but our
goodness and clemency preclude such a course and prompt us to tolerate one
thing, whilst completely uprooting another. F or this purpose we sent from
our side (a latere nostro) the most pious bishops Landulph o f Capua and
Romanus ; we urge your Holiness to come to an understanding with them :
also Theophylactus, Metropolitan o f A ncyra, and Peter, our confidant. But
take care above all that the sentence synodically passed on Photius, violator
and transgressor o f the law, b y our predecessors, the oecumenical pontiffs,
and besides confirmed b y our humble self, remain for ever valid and un
changed. A s for those ordained b y Photius, this is our merciful verdict:
they will have to present the libelli with the acknowledgement o f their sin
and to ask pardon b y their penance, with the promise never to commit it
again. This being done, your Holiness will see to the rest, in obedience to our
orders and in agreement with the legates above mentioned, without any
addition or alteration whatsoever. Once they have been received into the
communion o f the faithful as laymen b y ourselves and b y your Reverence,
the scandal will be removed. This done, if any o f them should refuse to hold
communion with you, let him know that he would likewise be severed from
our communion. Greetings in Christ.
It looks at first sight as though Formosus had repealed the decisions

o f all his predecessors, from John V III to Stephen V, and adopted
towards Photius and his friends the unfriendly and wooden attitude o f
Nicholas I and Hadrian II. I f the document is authentic, it goes to
prove that the Roman Church did condemn Photius and once again
break off relations with the Church o f Constantinople: the responsibility
in that case would fall on Formosus.
But time after time it has been established that the anti-Photian
Collection does not always deserve the implicit trust which, unfor
tunately, has too often been placed in it. We must therefore examine the
document in detail before pronouncing on Formosus’ line o f conduct
towards Photius.
W hy has this feeling o f dislike for the Byzantines been so commonly
attributed to Formosus? First, because he is supposed to have disagreed
with John V III’s Eastern policy and this on purely personal grounds,
and to have been a fervent Nicholaite who found even Hadrian’s policy
too accommodating to his taste.1 The second reason is that Formosus’
1 Lapôtre (‘ Hadrien II et les Fausses Décrétales’, in Revue des Questions his

toriques (1880), vol. x xv ii, p. 410) attributes to Formosus the passionate ‘ Nicholaite
plea’ made at the Roman synod of 869.
2 52
interest in Bulgaria must have made him a political enemy o f the Greeks.
His name has even been associated with Simeon the Great’s endeavour
to set up an independent Bulgarian Church and to assume the imperial
title.1 Lastly, the criticisms o f Roman activities in Bulgaria in Photius’
letter to the Eastern Patriarchs123and his reference to the gruesome trial
over Formosus’ dead body in his M ystagogy3 are quoted as evidence
o f Photius’ antagonism to Formosus.
But all this is no proof o f Formosus’ anti-Greek feelings. Marinus
and Stephen V also diverged from John’s policy on many points—-
Stephen even wrecked that Pontiff’s achievement in Moravia, the Slav
liturgy— yet both remained faithful to his Eastern policy. It should also be
remembered that it was Nicholas who recalled Formosus from Bulgaria.
In the preceding chapter,4 I have shown that whatever has been
said about Formosus’ activities in Bulgaria after his recall is pure
fabrication; so it is idle to seek there any grounds for his declaration
o f war on the Byzantine Church.
As to Photius’ writings, nowhere does he even mention Formosus.
In the first instance, he only refers to the Romans in general; and in the
second, Photius never mentions any offence committed by the Pope
against himself personally, but only against the Symbol. And the Pope
whom he had in mind was not Formosus, but Nicholas.5
So the weather was after all not so stormy as is commonly imagined
and one is left to wonder how a squall could suddenly burst over the
Byzantine Church from a sky that was to all appearances fairly serene.
Formosus, besides, had his hands full during his short reign (891-6)
dealing with another menace— G uy o f Spoleto, who had been crowned
Emperor by Stephen V and was trying to carve out for himself an
Italian kingdom. Formosus saw the danger and tried to prevail on
Arnulf, King o f Germany, to save the independence o f the Roman
Church. How could he, under such conditions, run the risk o f another
breach with the Byzantines and imperil the position o f the Papacy in
the south o f the peninsula at the very moment when the Byzantines
were occupying Benevento and preparing to march on Capua and
Salerno?6 Since nothing in Formosus’ reign makes a departure from
1 Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, p. 694. Cf. de Boor, loc. cit. p. 153.
z P .G . vol. 102, cols. 724 seq.
3 Lapôtre, L?Europe et le Saint Siège (Paris, 1895), p. 69.
4 See pp. 214 seq.
3 See the last short study on the problem by V. Grumel, *Formose ou Nicolas 1er?
in Échos d 'Orient (1934), vol. x x x m , pp. 194 seq.
6 For particulars, see Gay, U Italie Méridionale et V Empire Byiantin, p. 147.
253
his predecessors5 policy at all likely and the compiler’s fragment asserts
it as a fact, the only possible conclusion is that the Pope’s letter was not
reproduced in its original form.
Again, there are in the fragment expressions that betray the ultra-
Ignatian hand. Photius is again called a layman, who could only confer
condemnation on those he ordained. The reference to Gregory Asbestas
could not have been written in Rome, where the incident must have been
long forgotten. The first part o f the letter was certainly considerably
altered, for the passage, as it stands, makes no sense and the compiler
himself confesses that the letter contained other things, obviously left
out because they did not suit his purpose.
The second part o f the letter possibly reveals the Pope’s real intention
and the compiler’s method. The words— ‘ our goodness and clemency
. . .prompt us to tolerate one thing whilst uprooting another’— and
‘ take care above all that the sentences synodically passed on Photius
remain for ever valid and unchanged’— give us perhaps the key to
Formosus’ policy. One may imagine that in his anxiety to give satis-
faction to Stylianos for his deference to the Holy See and to settle the
difficulties o f the Byzantine Church, he proposed a compromise between
the two parties, by letting Stylianos’ partisans have their own way and
by admitting justification for Photius’ condemnation by Nicholas and
Hadrian, yet at the same time by ordering the clergy ordained by Photius
under his first patriarchate to apply for supplementary dispensation to
the pontifical legates. I f this be so, then Formosus must have used
words with reference to the dispensation which the compiler, true to
his method, stretched to suit his own views about the invalidity o f
Photius’ ordinations.
A t all events, Formosus upheld the legitimacy o f Photius’ rehabilita
tion by John V III and by the Council o f 879-80, so that the ordinations
made by Photius under his second patriarchate were not only valid,
but also licit and there was no reason for reconsidering them. The latter
part o f the compromise was o f course meant to satisfy the Photianists.
The legates Landulph o f Capua and Romanus were commissioned, in
the light o f this suggestion, to conduct an inquiry on the spot and to
settle the dispute in accordance with the instructions outlined in
the letter. This reading o f Formosus’ letter seems in keeping with
public opinion prevailing in Rome at the time about the Photian
affair. We have seen that not even John V III could make up his
mind to throw over completely the opinion that the first con
demnation o f Photius by his predecessors was not justifiable; and yet,
254
none was better placed to judge from the legates’ report how things
stood.
Furthermore, Photius was called upon to resign for the second time,
and after his resignation Leo V I recalled the Ignatians from their exile,
which was enough to convince any distant observer that all was not
well in Photius5 chequered career. Yet on the other hand, even Formosus
had to admit the fact o f the reconciliation with all its consequences,
especially as the position o f his patrimony imperatively demanded the
maintenance o f friendly relations with Byzantium.
But if Formosus actually made the proposal he made a mistake, as
the compromise so ingeniously devised could please neither the Pho-
tianists nor the Ignatians. The Extremists could not for a moment
consider Photius5 ordinations, even those made under his second pon
tificate, to be valid; for in the Ignatian version o f the Pope’s letter which
has come down to us, we find Formosus saying about these Photian
ordinations : fi Whenever they are received by us and by your Reverence
to communion with the faithful as laymen.’ But this was exactly the
interpretation which the Ignatians put on the verdicts o f Nicholas
and the Eighth Council, when they decided that the repentant
Photianists could be admitted to lay communion. And yet, no
Pope, after the reconciliation effected under John V III, could have
countenanced such a claim, for it would have meant the complete
revocation o f the decisions o f the Photian Council which John had
sanctioned.
Nor could the Photianists agree to the solution proposed by the
Pope, for they would never admit that there was any justification for
the judgement passed against Photius and themselves by Nicholas,
Hadrian and the Eighth Council; and nothing but ignorance o f the true
state o f things in Constantinople could excuse the Pope in the eyes o f
the majority o f the Byzantines.
What happened then in Byzantium after the legates’ arrival in 892?
Did the legates carry out the sentence supposed to have been passed
b y the Pope? I f they did, it would have meant that from that very year
the two Churches were again in schism, for in no case could the Church
o f Constantinople submit to such a decision. T o what conclusion can
we come?
We find in the anti-Photian Collection clear evidence o f one thing
at least— that the Stylianites did not make their peace with the Pho
tianists in 892, for the compiler states that Stylianos did not communicate
with the Photianists until seven years after the receipt o f Formosus’
255
letter, i.e. in 899 ;τ and the same document affirms that Stylianos again
applied to the Pope in 899 for permission to communicate with the
Photianists. This at any rate proves that Formosus’ intervention failed
to establish internal peace in the Byzantine Church.
Does this mean that the two Churches were in schism? I f the legates
did carry out the supposed sentence and excommunicate the clergy
ordained by Photius during his first patriarchate for refusing to produce
the penitential libellus, a schism should have followed automatically,
since the official Church in Byzantium could not possibly accept such
a verdict. Attempts have been made to prove that there was such a
schism,12 but I hold to my position3 and repeat that things never came
to such a pass. Formosus’ efforts in Constantinople failed, no doubt,
to restore peace in the Byzantine Church, but they did not provoke a
new schism between Byzantium and Rome.
Had they done so, traces o f it would have been left in contemporary
literature. First o f all, there are some contemporary writings by two
Neapolitan ecclesiastics, Eugenius Vulgarius and Auxilius, who may
enlighten us on Formosus’ attitude to the East. Eugenius published
about the year 907 a plea in defence o f Formosus under the title D e
Causa Formosana Libellus, and another in the form o f a dialogue.4*
Auxilius, who probably hailed from the Frankish Empire originally but
was living in Naples, published about the year 908 two writings for the
same purpose: In Defensionem Sacrae Ordinationis Papae Formosi, and
Libellus in Defensionem Stephani E pisco pii Tw o other publications
followed towards 9 11 (De Ordinationibus a Formoso Papa Factis, and
Infensor et Defensor).67 This series o f Formosian writings concluded
with an anonymous pamphlet, Invectiva in Romam pro Formoso P a p a l
probably published in 914.
Now we find in Auxilius’ first treatise a passage referring to For
mosus’ recognition by the Church o f Constantinople, which was
recently adduced as evidence that Pope Formosus, however desirous
he was o f restoring peace in the Church o f Constantinople, rent as it
was by the ‘ Ignatian’ schism, eventually brought it to another rupture

2 Grumel, ‘ La Liquidation’, in Échos d 'Orient, vol. x x x m , pp. 280 seq.
3 Cf. my ‘ Études sur Photios’, in Byântion, vol. xi, pp. 7 seq.
4 E. Dümmler, Auxilius und Vulgarius (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 117 —39; Mabillon,
Vetera Analecta (1723), pp. 28—31.
Dümmler, ibid. pp. 58 seq.
6 P .L . vol. 129, cols. 1061—1102.
7 E. Dümmler, Gesta Berengarii (Halle, 1871), pp. 137-54.
256
with Rome, and that this rupture persisted until the Council o f Ravenna
(898), which was summoned by John IX to sanction the ordinations
made by Formosus. Here is the passage referred to :1
Personally, we have no doubt that the same ordination was valid and lawful,
since, as was shown previously, it is known to be based on the writings and
examples o f the holy Fathers. It was besides publicly rectified b y the authority
o f a venerable synod in the town o f Ravenna at which were known to be
present not only the heads o f the H oly Roman Church, but also the arch
bishops, bishops, priests and deacons o f the Franks. Likewise the Church
o f Constantinople, after approving this ordination, unfailingly remains united
in the Lord’s peace. ['N ihilom inus autem et Constantinopolitana ecclesia
hanc ordinationem complexa dominicae pacis concordiam regulariter
fovet.’]
As to the interpretation o f this passage, it seems at least an exag

geration to find in it evidence that Constantinople acknowledged
Formosus only after the Council o f Ravenna. The word nihilominus
in particular, on which the erroneous interpretation is meant to rest,
does not, as I understand it, express time sequence.^ The author
only means to quote at the end o f his argument another case in its
support: ‘ Likewise the Church o f Constantinople, after approving
[complexa] this ordination, unfailingly remains united in the Lord’s
peace.5
For its exact bearing on the argument, the passage must be studied
in its context, read in the spirit in which the whole work was written
and compared with other writings in connection with the Formosus
incident. These works were written by members o f the clergy in southern
Italy where Greek problems were a local interest and opinions in the
Church o f Constantinople carried weight.123* The writers5 casual remarks
show that they were informed o f all important happenings in Byzan
tium. And yet, they know nothing o f a schism between the Churches
under Formosus. They speak o f the peaceful conditions in all the
Churches with the exception o f the Roman Church, where this con
1 V. Grumel, loc. cit. pp. 285, 286.

2 As can be proved by many instances in the eleventh-century chronicler o f
Monte Cassino, Leo of Ostia, the meaning of the word was at this period and in
southern Italy etiam,perinde (M .G.H. Ss. vu, 1. 1, chs. 9, 18, 25, 34, 36, 39, 52, 53;
1. π, chs. 12, 13, 25, 32, 36, 43; 1. ni, chs. 6, 9, 10, 19, 32, 33). Cf. Du Cange,
Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis (Niort, 1882—7), col. 740.
No other meaning is admissible.
3 For more details., see my study, ‘ Études sur Photios’, in Bypantion, vol. x i,
p. 9.
DPS 257 17
TH E PH ΟΤΙ AN S C H ISM . I. T H E H I S T O R Y
troversy had been causing trouble.1 A pertinent passage is to be found

in the Invectiva in Romanam Ecclesiam :2
Thus the whole world and all its Christian inhabitants raise their voices
against thee (O Rome!), because thou hast deceived them and thou hast been
deceived. Constantinople, Sicily, the whole of Italy, Gaul, Germany, on
whose territories metropolitans who claim to have consecrated their episcopal
suffragans are known to dwell, depose and argue against thee, because no
metropolitan may consecrate unless he receives the pallium from the Apostolic
See. Then from whom but Rome do Byzantium, called Constantinople,
Ravenna, Frioul, Milan, Habrudunum, Arles, Lyons, Rheims, Cologne,
Mainz and other metropolitan cities receive the pallium? If things are as you
pretend them to be, nearly the whole world has for thirty years been on the
brink of disaster to the damnation not only of their bodies, but what is worse,
of their souls.
How could this writer, in this passionate apostrophe, contrast Con
stantinople with Rome, if that Church had cast the same doubts as
Rome on the ordination o f Formosus? As the writer estimates that this
sorry state o f affairs had lasted thirty years since the days o f Marinus 1,3
the Pope who rehabilitated Formosus, we may infer from the context
that unlike Rome the Churches enumerated acknowledged Formosus
and his ordinations throughout that period. Well may the writer quote
the great metropolitan sees o f the West, since Formosus’ case seems to
have all but exclusively concerned Rome and the patrimony o f St Peter,
where nearly all those who had been ordained by Formosus were living;
but frequent references to Constantinople in this and other writings o f
Formosus’ champions make it plain that they knew about his intercourse
with the Church o f Constantinople, which had acknowledged him as
Pope and never went back on that recognition.4
1 Auxilius und Vulgarius, ch. i, p. 1 1 9 : ‘ Patet enim ratio quia, dum omnis
mundus in suo stet statu omnisque ecclesia sub Christi militet optentu, sola ecclesia
Romana peragit, unde post omnium ecclesiarum ordinatio tabescit/ Invectiva in
Romanam Ecclesiam (E. Dümmler, Gesta Berengarii, pp. 137-38): ‘ Mirum tamen
et valde mirandum est, cum omnes ecclesiae tam cismarine quam transmarine in
proprio statu permaneant, sola Romana ecclesia procellosis a fluctibus navitas suos
morti proximos redundat/ Both authors are evidently thinking here also of the
Church of Constantinople, but the reference would have no point, if Byzantium
had impugned the ordination of Formosus and if a special move had been necessary
to obtain recognition. 2 Loc. cit. pp. 148-49.
3 Cf. Dümmler, loc. cit. p. 67, on this computation and on the date of the
writing.
4 Note that the author (loc. cit. p. 151) refers not only to the condemnation, but
also to the rehabilitation of Zachary, papal legate at the synod of 861. For details,
cf. my study, ‘ Études sur Photios’, in Byântion, vol. xi, p. 11.
258
We possess another document o f the same period, Flodoard’s

H istory o f the Church o f Rheim s, which proves that Formosus did
not, by his alleged method o f settling the Ignatian schism, provoke
another rupture between Byzantium and Rome. In reporting the corre
spondence between Formosus and Folco o f Rheims, Flodoard says:1
In reply, the same Pope Form osus urges him [Folco] to sympathize with
the Rom an Church, to save it from imminent peril and not refuse it his help,
adding that heresies and schisms are springing up everywhere with nobody
to oppose them. He also states that pernicious heresies are harassing the East
and that the Church o f Constantinople is troubled with regrettable schisms;
also, that envoys from A frica insist on instructions in connection with the
schism that has long divided the bishops o f those provinces. The delegations
from the different parties all claim different answers. It was for this reason
that he decided to summon a General Council on the ist March o f the X llt h
Indiction, to which he urged him to hasten without delay to enable them to
treat these matters in a general discussion and to give answers to each o f the
delegations.. . . He had also sent other letters about this same Council to our
Metropolitan, stating that he had ordered it to be summoned for the middle
o f M ay o f the X th Indiction.. . . He admits in these letters that Italy had twice
been devastated and all but ruined b y disastrous wars and that he deplored
the insane heresy o f the East which was blaspheming Jesus C h rist.. . .
This document goes far to substantiate our contention that under

Formosus peace between the two Churches endured and that his fruitless
attempt to end the £Ignatian ’ schism did not make the relations between
Rome and Byzantium any worse than they were. The fact is that For
mosus here refers only to a schism within the Byzantine Church, and
it is hard to see how the evidence o f such a witness could possibly be
questioned.2 In any case, Folco knew only o f troubles inside the Roman
Church,3 probably provoked by Formosus5 rehabilitation, and which
the synod in question was designed to put an end to.4
1 Flodoardi Historia Remensis Ecclesiae, lib. iv, M .G .H . Ss. xm , p. 559.
2 Cf. my study, ‘ Études sur Photios’, in Byântion, vol. x i, pp. 12 seq.
3 Flodoardi Historia Rem. Eccl. M .G.H . Ss. xm , p. 558: ‘ quod audierat a
quibusdam sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam turbari, paratumque se totis viribus pro
ipsius honore omnimodis decertare.. . . ’ In the same letter to Formosus Folco
complains that he received no answer to his last letter addressed to Pope Stephen V.
The extract under investigation is taken from Formosus’ answer to Folco’s letter.
4 Moreover, Formosus was not the first Pope desirous to see the Frankish
episcopate joining in deliberations in Rome on Eastern as well as on Western
affairs; twice did Nicholas summon a similar Council in Rome, but to little avail.
See M .G .H . Ss. 1, pp. 460, 466, 476. E. Pereis, ‘ Ein Berufungsschreiben Papst
Nikolaus’ I. zur fränk. Reichssynode in Rom ’, in Neues Archiv (1906), vol. x x x u ,
pp. 135 seq.
259 17 -2
THE PHOT IAN SCH ISM . I. T H E H I S T O R Y
Greek sources confirm our reading o f the events. We read in the

Life o f St Euthymios1 that ‘ Anthony [the Patriarch] died after the
reconciliation between the Pope and Stylianos and after the unification
o f the whole Church5. The author therefore distinguishes between the
two events, and the latter happened shortly before 898, the probable
date o f Anthony Cauleas5 death. An allusion to the same event is found
in Nicholas Mysticos5 letter and in the Life o f Anthony Cauleas, as we
shall see in connection with the date o f the unification.2 It all goes to
prove that Formosus did not break off relations with the Byzantine
Church, and that he did not agree with Stylianos5 views, since the latter
needed a special reconciliation with Pope John IX . One o f the later
Greek treatises on the so-called Eastern schism, often quoted as evidence
that Formosus was on bad terms with Byzantium,3 states that on
becoming Pope Formosus sent to the Patriarch o f Constantinople an
encyclical letter containing the Symbol without the Filioque formula,
again another indication that Formosus was on friendly terms with the
East.
Let me repeat here what I have already said elsewhere,4 that the
silence in this Collection on an excommunication o f a number o f Pho-
tianists is the best proof that such an excommunication was never
uttered. And it is no answer to this to say that after all Formosus5
decision meant a set-back for the Ignatians, whose demands had been
only partially met; for all the papal decisions provoked by the Ignatians
were a set-back for them and yet they carefully preserved copies o f
them, though with the usual distortion in their own favour. But such
an event as the excommunication o f some Photianists by Formosus
would have played into the Ignatians5 hands, and I fail to understand
w hy the copyist should not have insisted on such an event, instead o f
drawing from the letter o f John IX , whose general drift conflicted with
his own views, a lame argument in support o f his contention. We are
thus forced back to our first conclusions. I f it is true that Formosus
made a futile attempt to end the schism within the Byzantine Church
1 De Boor, loc. cit. p. 34.
2 See p. 271. The problems raised by these writings are treated in my ‘ Etudes sur
Photios’, in Byqantion, vol. xi, pp. 13 seq. There I prove that the Church mentioned
in these passages cannot be the Universal Church but the Church of Constantinople.
3 Hergenröther, Monumenta Graeca ad Photiumpertinentia (Ratisbonnae, 1869),
pp. 160, 179. Greek ill-feeling for Formosus as expressed in the later treatises
on the Schism is probably due to Formosus’ activities in Bulgaria, which possibly
started rumours about his heretical doctrine on the Filioque of which he is accused
in those writings.
4 ‘ Le Second Schisme de Photios’, in Byqantion, vol. vm , p. 468.
260
and to reconcile the Ignatians with the official Church o f Byzantium,

there is nothing to suggest a new breach between Byzantium and Rome
as a result o f a blunder or short-sightedness on the part o f Formosus.
If then our reading o f Formosus’ letter is correct, in 892 there hap
pened in Byzantium what had happened in 879; the legates, on arriving
in Constantinople and discussing matters with the two parties, soon
perceived the real state o f affairs. Like the legates in 879 they saw that
the ‘ Little Church’ did not deserve the interest it claimed, that the
Stylianists had misrepresented the facts and that a literal compliance
with the Pope’s orders and the papal scheme would only spell disaster
for Christian peace. They took no action and referred the matter to the
Pope.
But the evidence for friendly intercourse between Rome and
Byzantium under Formosus is so overwhelming that I have my mis
givings about the reading o f Formosus’ letter proposed above. What is
so strange is that there is not a trace o f his attempt to bring about peace
by a compromise so little in line with the attitude o f his predecessors
John V III and Stephen V. Moreover, the tone o f the Formosian writings
on the subject is too friendly to be compatible with an attempt that
would have hurt official feelings in Constantinople. It makes one think
that Formosus never went so far as the alleged compromise suggests
and that the letter partly reproduced in the anti-Photian Collection was
more seriously altered than we supposed at first. It is possible that the
words about Photius only gave the sense o f Stylianos’ request, and
summarized previous papal decisions, giving them an interpretation
which the Pope could not make his own, and that the letter and the
papal embassy simply aimed at inducing Stylianos and his followers to
get reconciled with their Mother Church. The compiler’s method and
his confession that the letter ‘ contained many other things’ make this
supposition more plausible. Formosus only abode by the decisions o f
John V III and tried to enforce Stephen V ’s injunctions upon the ultra-
Ignatians.
Anyhow, in justice to Formosus’ memory it should be said that he
was not responsible for a second breach or that he was swayed by
prejudice. Far from this being the case, this unfortunate Pope gave
evidence o f such good sense as to make it ungracious to lay at his door
the failure to restore peace in the Church o f Constantinople.
So the Ignatians’ schism persisted after the legates’ departure, to last

until Formosus’ death, as nothing more is heard o f any other overture
by Stylianos to that Pope. We stated that the copyist o f the anti-

Photian Collection mentioned in a lengthy postscript appended to the
compilation a reunion under Pope John IX to which Stylianos had
rallied. Other documents such as the Life o f St Euthymios, o f the
Patriarch Cauleas and o f Nicholas Mysticos, also refer to a reunion o f
the Ignatians with the official Church o f Constantinople. When and
under what circumstances did this reunion take place?
It seems strange that the Ignatians did not approach the official
Church at the time o f the legates5 presence in Constantinople, although
Photius5 death should have been the right moment for such a reunion.
Presumably, Photius had died before the legates5 arrival, as the compiler
o f the anti-Photian Collection states that Photius had lain under a ban
o f excommunication for thirty years since his accession to the throne.
On the strength o f this statement, one arrives at the year 892; and he
must have died in February, as the Synaxaria place his feast on the
6th or the 9th o f that month.1 The legates probably reached the capital
in the spring o f 892, as it is unlikely that Formosus sent them immediately
after his accession, which probably took place in October 891. Prepara
tions for a delegation took time and winter was near.
The date o f the receipt o f that letter may also serve as a starting-
point to fix the date o f Stylianos5 reunion with the official Church, for
the copyist o f the Collection, in his postscript, dates the reunion from
the seventh year after the receipt o f Formosus5 letter by Stylianos,2
which would make it 899. Many have disputed the computations o f
both compiler and copyist, but as they were contemporary witnesses
and deeply interested in the events, we have no reason to dispute their
calculations.
This is how the copyist comments on the event:
It should also be known that Mapas [i.e. Stylianos], the Metropolitan o f

Neocaesarea, seven years after receipt o f the letter quoted above, softened b y
his friends and relatives, strayed from the path o f truth and, turning to the
opposite doctrine, wrote to Rom e asking for his ordination to be sent from
there and for permission to communicate with them [the Photianists]. Pope
John received and examined Mapas5 request, but fearing that it was written
in irony, to make the Romans look ridiculous i f the request were granted,
he refused the application and did not even send an autograph letter.1*3 Rut
1 Ed. Delehaye, A.S. Nov., Propylaeum, cols. 448, 453.

3 Loc. cit. : διό ούτε επέτρεψεν, ούτε το ιδιόγραφον άπέστειλεν * αλλ9 αντέγραψε
ττρός αυτόν γράμμα εχον ούτως.
20 2
he let him have the following reply: 4W e owe a deep gratitude to your love,
honoured brother, as you never consented to leave your Mother, the H oly,
Catholic and Apostolic Rom an Church; neither persecution nor exile nor
the machinations o f evil-minded men1 ever succeeded in severing you from
your Mother. It is m y fervent hope that the ardour o f your prayers will
soften the hearts o f those who must be saved and bring back the peace we
so much desire. Unmistakable signs are pointing that w ay and the schism
which has lasted now for nearly forty years bids fair to give place to the
peace o f old. And what your Mother has condemned to this day, you also
have condemned, as you have approved what she approved.
‘ That is w h y we wish the decisions o f our most holy predecessors to be
observed even now in the same spirit and without any alteration; for which
reason we also receive and confirm Ignatius, Photius, Stephen and A nthony
in the same spirit as they were received b y the most holy Popes Nicholas, Jo h n ,
the seventh Stephen and the whole Roman Church to this very day. A nd
to those o f their ordination who are still alive we offer our hand in the same
spirit o f love, and exhort you to do the same as we do. And if they on their
part will obey our orders, we offer them the grace o f peace and communion*
‘ A s to the document signed b y you rself2 and which you drew up for us,
w e have been, after a long search, unable to find it.
Now for the examination of this document. It is easy to see that it

has been subjected to but slight doctoring at the copyist’s h an d elt
deserves credit for its essentials and provides valuable information.
There is in it one sentence that deserves noting: the copyist says that
Stylianos had asked for the return o f his ordination paper from Rom e.3
The passage puzzled J. S. Assemanus,4 who interpreted it as a request
‘ to be confirmed in his orders’,but thought that Stylianos was referring
to the confirmation o f the Patriarch Mysticos’ consecration.
Hergenröther3 has proved that the passage could only concern
Stylianos himself, and in this respect he is right. In his interpretation
o f the word ficheirotony ’ the Cardinal identifies it with the4idiographon ’
mentioned in the copyist’s comments and with the 4cheirographon ’
mentioned by the Pope in his reply and whose return Stylianos had
applied for.
This reading is admissible, though it remains to be explained w hy
the copyist used the word ‘ cheirotony’ . But the passage is too short
1 άπάται των πορνοβοσκησάντων. These words were certainly not in the original
papal letter. 2 τό δέ σόν χειρόγραφον.
3 These are his words in Greek: "Εγραψε προς ‘ Ρώμην, αΐτούμενος πεμφθηναι
εκεΐθεν χειροτονίαν αυτοϋ, και επιτροπήν εκεΐθεν λαβεΐν του συγκοινωνήσαι αυτοΐς.
4 Bibliotheca Juris Orientalis Canonici et Civilis (Romae, 1762), p. 319.
3 Loc. cit. vol. ii, pp. 708 seq.
263
to allow for such an error as ‘ cheirotony’ being used for ‘ cheiro-

graphon’ . The copyist, no doubt an ecclesiastic, must have known the
real meaning o f the word ‘ cheirotony’, and if he read over what he had
written, it was only too easy for him to make the necessary correction.
And yet, it is also possible that the Pope’s refusal mentioned by the
copyist in his preliminary comments referred to the two requests which
Stylianos had made in his letter— the dispatch o f the cheirotony and
permission to hold communion with the Photianists— the copyist
adding that Stylianos failed to obtain from the Pope even the document
he had signed with his own hand, whose dispatch he had also requested
and which the Pope mentioned at the end o f his reply. But even in this
case it would be necessary to admit— and this is possible, but not certain
— that the words ‘ idiographon’ and ‘ cheirographon’ are identical.
Should then the passage not rather be taken to mean that Stylianos
had asked Rome for a second confirmation o f his priestly character?
I f the words could be understood in this sense, they would bear out the
fact that Stylianos had not yet made his peace with his Church in 892,
when Formosus sent his legates to Constantinople, and that he was still
under the Church’s ban in 899. We know that the members o f the clergy
who had refused to submit to Photius and to communicate with the
clerics ordained by him were excommunicated and deprived o f all
sacerdotal character. This sentence was o f course as valid in Rome as
it was in Constantinople, the Popes having no choice but to accept in
these special matters all the decisions issued by the Patriarchs as though
they had been issued by themselves. Stylianos had thus, in changing
his attitude, to be reconciled with both Churches and since Stylianos
and his followers had so often prided themselves upon having Rome
on their side, it was the least he could do to explain his new attitude to
the Pope and to become reconciled with him. The puzzling passage in
the copyist’s comment that Stylianos 'wrote to Rome asking for his
ordination (cheirotony) to be sent from there’ could then be interpreted
in the sense that Stylianos asked the Pope to recognize him again as
a legitimate bishop with all his rights restored.
With regard to the specific document which Stylianos was so
anxious to recover, we may best suppose that he referred to some docu
ment which the last Roman embassy sent by Formosus had brought to
Rome and which probably contained Stylianos’ explanation why he
could not enter into communion with the Photianists. Such a declara
tion was o f course valueless once Stylianos had changed his mind and
it was quite natural that the bishop should be anxious to recover its
264
PH O TIU S, LEO VI AND THE E X T R E M I S T S 5 SCH ISM
possession. It may o f course have been a document which Stylianos

sent to Rome on another occasion and we are probably not in possession
o f all the details that marked the endeavours made by the die-hards in
Rom e; but it would be difficult to imagine an opportunity more suitable
than the one mentioned above.
It has been generally believed that Stylianos5 reconciliation with the

Patriarch and the Pope was enacted at a special synod held in Con
stantinople and attended by the representatives o f the Pope and o f all
the Patriarchs. Let us see how far this opinion can still be defended,
and begin by recapitulating once more the evidence o f the chief wit
nesses who happen to speak o f the liquidation o f the schism.
There is first the important deposition by the anonymous biographer
o f St Euthymios. This is what he s a y s :4After the reconciliation between
the Pope and Stylianos o f Neocaesarea and the reunion o f the whole
Church, Anthony, whose happy and praiseworthy life was a credit to
all, died the same year on February 12 .5 Now even this contemporary
writer, who was acquainted with the religious events in Byzantium in
his time, says nothing about the reunion synod.1
Nicholas Mysticos is another contemporary witness who describes
the reunion in the same way as Euthymios5 biographer:3 4And again,
in the days o f the Emperor Leo, you know that when Mapas and they
1 V. Grumel, ‘ Chronique des Événements du Règne de Léon V T , in Échos
d ’ Orient (1936), vol. x x x v , p. 18, is of opinion that even in this text Mapas should
be read for Papas. In that case, the copyists of the Life of Euthymios made the
same mistake as the copyists of the letter of the Patriarch Nicholas and one should
read: ιστέον δε ότι μετά την του Μάπα {του) και Στυλιανού του Νεοκαισαρείας
συνέλευσιν και της άπάσης εκκλησίας ενωσιν.... The suggestion is so attractive,
because the editor of the Life observes that the first ίγ in the word πάπας was written
by another hand after deletion. The text, however, is perfectly clear even in the
version adopted by the editor; this is not the case with the text o f Nicholas
Mysticos, which makes no sense unless the word πάπας be changed into Μάπας.
Besides, according to the anti-Photian Collection, the Pope certainly had a hand in
this συνέλευσις. On Grumel’s supposition, one must also admit that there must
have been in the original letter the article του and that this was also suppressed.
One should be cautious about alterations in texts that are perfectly clear without
them.
2 Nicolai Mystici Epistolae, ep. 75, P.G . vol. i n , col. 277: Πάλιν εν ταΐς
ήμέραις του κυρου Δέοντος γινώσκεις ότι ό Πάπας {to be read Μάπας) συνήλθε και
οι μετά τούτου όντες, και ήνώθησαν τη Εκκλησία, και ειρήνης βαθείας ούσης άπήλθεν
ή Θεσσαλονίκη και τό Ταυρομένιον. V. Grumel (‘ La Liquidation de la Querelle
Photienne’, in Échos d’Orient, vol. x x x m , pp. 266 seq.) has shown that Μάπας
should be read instead of πάπας. The reading πάπας makes the text unintelligible.
Nicholas has here in mind not the Church universal, but that of Constantinople,
as should be evident to any careful reader of the whole letter.
who were with him made peace and were united with the Church, and
when a profound peace was reigning, Salonica and Tauromenium were
lost/ Nicholas knows nothing about a Council, though we need not
overlook the fact that he does not mention any Councils at all in con
nection with other occasions recalled in the same letter.
The third witness who also mentions this reunion is Nicephorus the
Philosopher in his biography o f the Patriarch Cauleas: ‘ Thereby the
flock o f the Church felt persistently drawn to higher things and God
was made merciful; the great Emperor rejoiced exceedingly, for he saw
in him [Cauleas] the discretion o f a pure mind that keeps its balance
and is not deceived. B y healing the old ulcer o f the Church, i.e. the
schism, he united East and West.’ 1
It has been the practice to find support in this passage for the assump
tion that the schism was wound up by a General Synod o f the whole
Church o f East and West, but it must be confessed that the reference
is anything but clear and may simply mean a certain collaboration
between the Eastern Patriarchs and Rome in the winding up o f the
schism. This collaboration did indeed take place. The correspondence
between Stylianos, the leader o f the schismatics, and the Pope is an
historical fact and it is more than likely that Stylianos addressed the
other Patriarchs in much the same way, for in his second letter to the
Pope Stylianos suggests it is advisable for other Patriarchs to be
consulted in this matter and to give their dispensation to the clergy
ordained by Photius.12
One may wonder whether the biographer is really thinking here, as
is commonly assumed, o f East and West, i.e. o f the Eastern and
Western Churches, for in the same biography he uses an expression
nearly identical, but in quite a different sense. In comparing his hero,
towards the end o f his biography, with the Fathers o f the Old Testa
ment and halting at St John the Baptist, Nicephorus describes his life
and work and says : ‘ Around him there crowded not only a town and
a people, but innumerable multitudes from an over-crowded city,
gathered there from various towns and nations, Eastern and Western,
1 A .S . Febr., d. 12, vol. 11, p. 626. Papadoulos-Kerameus, Monumenta Graeca

et Latina ad Historiam Photii pertinentia, p. 4: Βασιλεύς... δι3 αύτου το παλαιόν τής
εκκλησίας έλκος ήτοι σχίσμα, εις συνούλωσιν προθέμενος άγαγεΐν, εις εν συνάγει τα
Έωα και τά Έσπέρια__
2 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 4 3 7 ·* άλλ3 ημείς πάλιν των προτέρων δεήσεων εχόμεθα περί
των δεξαμενών τον Φώτιον κατά βίαν, και παρακαλούμεν εγκυκλίους επιστολάς
πέμψαι προς τούς πατριαρχικούς τής άνατολής θρόνους, ως αν και αύτοι την παρ3
ημών οικονομίαν δεξάμενοι, συνασμενίσωσι και επισφραγίσωσι....
2 66
not to be baptized with water, but to be purified by the spiritual

m ystery/1 No one can pretend that the biographer is here thinking o f
the Eastern Churches and o f Rom e: all that he means is that people,
including the Jew s o f the diaspora, flocked from every country.
In the same way, does he not simply mean in the first passage the
totality o f the Byzantine Church? The fact is that after the reconcilia
tion o f Stylianos by the combined efforts o f St Anthony Cauleas and
the Emperor Leo V I, peace reigned throughout the Byzantine Church
from the West— the south o f Italy, which also belonged to the Byzantine
Church— to the East as far as the interior o f Asia Minor, so that we are
justified in holding that this piece o f evidence in favour o f a reunion
synod is anything but conclusive.
There remains a witness, contemporary, or slightly posterior to the
events— the Kletorologion o f Philotheos, which clearly and pointedly
refers to a reunion synod o f the Church:2 £The legates who in the reign
o f the Emperor Leo had come from Rome for the union of the Churches,
especially bishop Nicholas and Cardinal John, received honours that
raised them above the rank o f Magistri/ As the Kletorologion was
drawn up on 3 September 899, the synod referred to must have taken
place before that date.
But there is a difficulty. P. Maas3 asserts that this passage is an
interpolation dating from the beginning o f the tenth century and that
the synod referred to is that which took place in Constantinople in
906-7 for the purpose o f settling the issue o f Leo V i’s fourth marriage.4
I also believe that the text is an interpolation later than 899 and
that it actually refers to the synod o f 906-7. Let us review the principal
objections to this interpretation. First o f all, none but the Patriarchs
1 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, loc. cit. vol. 1, p. 24: και συνέρρει προς αυτόν ου μία
πόλις, ουδέ εν έθνος, άλλ’ όχλοι παμπληθείς τής πολυανθρώπου πόλεως, εθνών και
πόλεων συνειλεγμένοι παντοδαπών, Έωοί τε και Έσπερίοι, ουχ υδατι βαπτισθησό-
μενοι, αλλά πνευματική καθαρθησόμενοι τελευτή__
2 Constantinus Porphyrogennetos, D e C erem o n iis. . . (Bonn), p. 739; Bury,
T he I m p e r ia l A d m in istra tive S y stem in the N inth C en tu ry (London, 19 11), p. 155:
ετιμήθησαν δε οι από 'Ρώμης έλθόντες διά τήν ένωσιν τής εκκλησίας έπι Λέοντος του
φιλοχρίστου δεσπότου, οΐον ό επίσκοπος Νικόλαος και (ό) καρδινάλιος Ιωάννης,
επάνω πάσης τής τάξεως των μαγίστρων.
3 ‘ Der Interpolator des Philotheos’, in B y{ . Z eitsch r ift (1934), vol. x x x iv ,
pp. 258 seq.
4 V. Grumel, in the study (‘ Notes d’Histoire et de Litt. Byz.’) he wrote for
the É ch os d l O rien t (1930), vol. x x ix , pp. 337 seq. was of the same opinion. But as
his arguments were inconclusive he altered it in his ‘ Chronique des Événements
du Règne de Léon V I’, loc. cit. pp. 23 seq., to return to the theory that the passage
refers to the Synod of 899.
267
o f Antioch and Jerusalem are mentioned in the Kletorologion, though

it is a well-known fact that the Annals o f the Patriarch Eutychius o f
Alexandria,1 which give a long account o f the synod o f 906-7, not only
mention the Patriarchs o f Antioch and Jerusalem, but also the Patriarch
o f Alexandria. Let us examine this difficulty.
The imperial ambassador to the Oriental sees in 906 was Leo Choero-
sphactes and we possess a letter o f his addressed to the Emperor Leo
in which he quotes this very embassy as a deed that deserved well o f
His Majesty. After mentioning his embassies to the Bulgarians and to
the Arabs, he boasts with some relish that he succeeded in taking to
Constantinople even the representatives o f the patriarchates o f Antioch
and o f Theopolis.2 Theopolis undoubtedly stands for Jerusalem. It is
known that Justinian had conferred this name on Antioch, but in this
particular place the ambassador can only mean the Holy City, the City
o f God.3 Leo says nothing about the representative o f Alexandria,
though this should have been the right moment for mentioning him to
impress the Basileus, considering that the letter was an urgent plea for
the recovery o f imperial honours which Leo had lost.
Euthymios5 biographer corroborates the fact that the imperial ambas
sador to the Eastern Patriarchs was Magister Leo, while Simeon had
gone to Rome in the same capacity, and he relates that before returning
to Constantinople, Leo informed the Emperor that he was taking with
him legates 'bringing libelli from the Patriarchs o f Antioch, Alexandria
and Jerusalem5.4 But he omits to give the legates5 names3 and nothing
is said about the legate o f Alexandria in the rest o f Leo’s correspondence.6
1 P .G . vol. in, col. 1 144: ‘ Scripsit ergo Leo imperator ad Patriarcham Romanum,
Michaelem, Patriarcham Alexandrinum, Eliam Mansuri filium Patriarcham Hiero
solymitanum, et Simeon Zaruaki filium, Antiochenum, rogans ut ad ipsum
accederent.. . . ’
3 J. Sakkelion, Δέοντος Μαγίστρου ανθυπάτου πατρικίου, Συμεών άρχοντος
Βουλγαρίας και τινών άλλων επιστολαί, in Δελτίον της ιστορικής και εθνολογικής
εταιρίας της Ελλάδος, ι (1883), ρ. 396: ναι μην και τούς ιερείς Άντιοχέων και τούς
εκ τής Θεουπολέως ούς διά την επι σοι σύνοδον ήγαγόμην συνοιδοπόρους, άρας
μέχρι τής πόλεως. Cf. the new edition of Leo’s letters with a French translation
by G. Kolias, ‘ Léon Choerosphactès ’, Texte und Forschungen pur Byânt.-Neugriech.
Philologie, no. 31 (Athens, 1939), ρ. 113 .
3 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 190. Helias, who represented the Patriarch of Jerusalem at
the Eighth Council, signed the Acts as follows: ‘ Hierosolymorum, sanctae Christi
Dei civitatis.’
4 Vita Euthymii, loc. cit. ρ. 46. 3 Cf. loc. cit. pp. 42, 54.
6 In his letter to the Patrician Genesios, Leo states, but only in general terms
(Sakkelion, loc. cit. p. 406): και τό κρεϊττον τούς άρχιερεϊς αυτούς ώς βασιλέα
άνάξομεν (Kolias, loc. cit. ρ. 91)· Another mention of this embassy occurs in a
letter from the spathar Procopius to Leo and is also couched in general terms.
268
P H O T IU S, LEO VI AND THE E X T R E M I S T S 5 SC H ISM
It is therefore quite possible that the Patriarch o f Alexandria only sent

a libellus or a written declaration, and that he was himself represented
by the other Patriarchs5 legates. It is none the less extraordinary that
the name o f this Patriarch should not be mentioned either in the Kleto-
rologion or in Leo’s report, though the omission is not absolute proof
that the reference is to any synod other than that o f 906-7.
Another difficulty may arise from the fact that according to the
Kletorologion this meeting had been summoned for the purpose o f
bringing about the reunion o f the Church, whereas the actual result o f
the synod o f 906-7 was another schism in the Byzantine Church, since
the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticos refused to accept the synod’s decision
on the legality o f a fourth marriage.
But this difficulty can also be explained. P. Maas is right in saying1
that the purpose of the synod in the matter o f the tetragamy was
precisely to forestall the schism that was then threatening the Church,
so that the synod did actually aim at its pacification. At the same time,
it was inconceivable that the Byzantines should quote in this connection
the names either o f the Emperor or o f the Empress, especially in the
book o f ceremonies— which made it imperative to find for the synod
some euphemistic designation to disguise the true purpose o f the
meeting.
It also appears that this synod actually received the name o f ‘ reunion
synod’, as hinted in a letter written by the spathar Procopius to Leo
Choerosphactes, when the latter was away on an embassy to Bagdad.
The writer extols Leo’s character and the success of his embassies,
particularly his successful mission to the Arabs and to the Eastern
Patriarchs, so much so that he brought with him the prelates whose
task it was to restore peace to the Church? Restoring peace to the
Church is not very much different from reuniting the Churches.
Unluckily, the names o f the Eastern legates who attended this synod
have been lost, and the Kletorologion only mentions the Roman legates,
bishop Nicholas and Cardinal John. In 921 the Patriarch Nicholas
asked John X to send legates to Constantinople and in his letter expressed
the desire to see again on this occasion in Byzantium bishop John, who
had been there as a legate before. What he had said in Constantinople
‘ was worthy o f the Roman Church’ ? 123
1 Loc. cit. p. 260.

2 Sakkelion, loc. cit. p. 409; G. Kolias, loc. cit. p. 97: . . .κ α ι π ρ ο π ά ν τ ω ν to u s
τ η ν ε κ κ λ η σ ια σ τ ικ ή ν ε ιρ ή ν η ν ο ϊκ ο ν ο μ ή σ α ν τ α ς α ρ χ ιερ έα ς ε ρ χ η φ έρ ω ν μ ε τ ά τ α υ τ ο υ .
3 P.G . vol. n i , col. 252; Baronius, Annales, ad annum 916.
269
Would the John mentioned by Nicholas be the same as Cardinal John

o f the Kletorologion} We know that the manuscript used for the pub
lication o f the Patriarch’s letters and edited by Migne calls this legate
by the name o f Jacob, which makes the identification o f this personage
rather doubtful; but theoretically, on the supposition that the legate
was really called John, he might be identified with the Cardinal John
o f the Kletorologion. It is true that the Patriarch Nicholas had no clear
recollection o f the Roman legates o f 906-7, but this may be the very
reason w hy he wished to see the same individual in Constantinople in
921, just for the satisfaction o f making him witness his triumph. Photius
also would have preferred to have Marinus in Constantinople in 879;
it was he who in 869-70 had been foremost in humiliating the deposed
Patriarch and his disciples.
On the whole then it is not at all certain that the Kletorologion offers
any evidence for the assumption that the reunion o f the Church in 899
was brought about by a special synod attended by the representatives
o f all the Patriarchs. One thing should be noted : neither Stylianos nor
the Emperor Leo had asked for the convocation o f a synod to end the
ultra-Ignatian schism. Stylianos had contented himself with a request
for dispensation, which could easily be given in writing, and in 892
Formosus sent legates cex privata industria’, there being no question
o f summoning a synod.
We have also seen that this schism was not o f such importance as to
call for the convocation o f a quasi-general synod, which for one thing
would have done far too much honour to Stylianos and his ‘ Little
Church’. Both court and city were aware o f this. The Emperor, no
doubt, wished to see the end o f the dissensions in the Church and for
this reason insisted, through the good offices o f Cauleas, that Stylianos
should definitely make peace with the official Church; but a synod—
that was quite another matter. It was certainly not in the best interests
o f the Empire, nor even o f the Church o f Constantinople, to draw too
much attention to such petty quarrels and to give Rome another chance
to meddle with a small domestic matter that could be settled by a
procedure more in keeping with the prestige o f Byzantium.
Again, in comparing and weighing all the evidence on the settlement
o f this schism, we note that it was Stylianos himself who took the first
step in the direction o f reunion and that he gave his followers the lead
towards reconciliation with the official Church. It is true that even after
the reconciliation there were some dissidents left— the commentator o f
the letter o f John I X was one o f them— but one cannot assume, after
270
collating the documents, that Stylianos only asked for peace after the
majority o f his followers had rallied to the official Church. I once
put forward this theory,1 feeling unable to explain how the reunion
synod took place before 899 while Stylianos had written to the Pope
only seven years after receipt o f Formosus’ letter, i.e. in 899. But
everything is satisfactorily explained once we assume that the Council
in question never took place and that reunion was put into effect at a
local synod o f Constantinople.
The commentator on the letter o f John IX has it that Stylianos had
decided to take the plunge ‘ softened by his friends and relations’ .2
Am ong these friends there certainly was the Patriarch Anthony Cauleas,
for it is to him that some sources give the credit o f having contrived
the reunion: he was o f Methodius’ ordination, a qualification that must
have carried weight in the negotiations. Since the reunion must be
dated from 899, we must assume that Anthony was still alive in that
year and discard the notion that he died in February 898.3 I feel
inclined to accept the alternative date o f his death, namely, 12 February
901.4
The letter from Pope John IX is an interesting document, very
cleverly worded and reflecting the Roman policy to Photius as it had
prevailed since Nicholas I. The Pope pays a tribute to Stylianos for his
constant obedience to the orders o f the See o f Rome, tested by persecu
tion under Nicholas I and again by his recent submission to the decisions
o f John V III. It is evident that not even Pope John I X could completely
shake himself free from the notion, common in Rome, that Photius’
first condemnation was justifiable. Such would appear to be the best
explanation o f the reunion o f the extremist Ignatians with the official
Church o f Byzantium and with Rome.
The anti-Photian Collection which has preserved the letter o f John IX

is therefore, in spite o f its tendentious character, a very valuable piece
o f documentary evidence, and may well have been compiled after the
legates’ failure in 892. One can understand that as the ultra-Ignatians’
intransigent refusal to compromise, in spite o f the legates’ expostula-
1 £Le Second Schisme de Photios’, in Byiantion, vol. v iii , p. 471.
2 Raderus’ translation (Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 455) is again at fault here, χυνωθεις
υπό των φίλων και συγγενών does not mean, as Raderus would have it, ‘ stolida
per amicos et cognatos superbia elatus’ .
3 H. Grégoire, ‘ Études sur le IX e siècle’, Byântion (1933), vol. vin, pp. 540 seq.
4 As proposed by V. Grumel, ‘ Chronique des Événements du Règne de Léon VI ’,
in Échos d'Orient, vol. x x x ix , pp. 6 seq.
tions, provoked much criticism in Byzantium, the Ignatians felt them

selves obliged to prove that their attitude to Photius and his ordinations
was both fair and consistent with the decisions o f the Holy See. We
have already studied the passage in which the compiler indicates the
length o f time that Photius remained under the ban o f excommunica
tion, which provides the clue for fixing the date o f his compilation,
i.e. 892, the year o f the failure o f Formosus’ negotiations. The compiler’s
desperate efforts to prove that Photius could not possibly be absolved
by any Pope should help us .to appraise the criticisms levelled at the
die-hard Ignatians.
The Life o f the Patriarch Ignatius, which forms the third part o f the
Collection, was also written at the same period, and one passage in the
Life shows clearly that it was written soon after Photius’ death. Nicetas
admits that he would never have spoken o f Photius’ misdeeds, had he
not seen how ‘ those who did such things and their friends, far from
being conscious o f any feeling o f shame, boasted o f them and conferred
on him [Photius] an aureole o f sanctity which he did not deserve’ .1
These words speak for themselves; they illustrate the Byzantines’
feelings towards Photius after his death and provide the first evidence
o f the cult o f Photius. The admission is all the more welcome, as it
comes from a bitter enemy o f the late Patriarch’s, and shows that the
author o f the Life o f Ignatius is taking the offensive against this spurious
saint and that his ‘ biography’ o f the Patriarch Ignatius is meant to be
a counter-blast showing the Byzantines who was the true and only
saint o f the time, the Patriarch Ignatius, the victim o f Photius’ pride.
Another passage in the Life clearly denotes that it was written during
the first years o f the reign o f Leo, for the writer recalls the disasters
that had afflicted the Empire ever since Photius’ restoration to the
patriarchal throne. He mentions the loss o f Syracuse (21 May 878):
‘ The whole island,’ the writer goes on, ‘ the whole city and the province
were pillaged and the population decimated by the enemy, because the
prayers o f those who make a pretence o f administering sacred things
can never incline God to mercy.’ 2
These words show that at the time the Life was written people were
1 P.G . vol. 105, col. 541: και διά τούτο παντάπασιν εύ ϊστε, κατησίγησα άν,
ει μή εώρων tous ταυτα καταπραξαμένους, και τούς αυτών οικείους, ου μόνον εν
τούτοις ουκ έγκαλυπτομένους, αλλά και εγκαλλωπι^ωμένους και δόξαν άγιωσύνης
έττιψευδομένους αυτω.
2 Ibid. col. 573 : κα* ττασα νήσος, και ττασα πόλις και χώρα προνομεύεται και
καταφθείσεται μέχρι και τήμερον τοΐς έχθροΐς, οόδεμίας εκ των ιερασθαι δοκούντων
ιλουμένης τον Θεόν προσευχής.
2 ?2
still under the recent impression o f the great loss sustained by the
Empire by the Arab occupation o f Syracuse and that desperate efforts—
one o f them ending in the disastrous defeat o f the Byzantine fleet at
Mylae (Milazzo) in 888— were being made to retrieve the remnants o f
Byzantine possessions in Sicily, the last important town, Taormina,
being taken by the Arabs in August 902. The first fourteen years o f the
reign o f Leo V I proved generally disastrous to the Empire, and the
wars with the Bulgarians and the Arabs brought more than one humilia
tion on the Byzantines.1
The same passage also makes it clear that the reigning Patriarch at
the time the book was written was not reckoned to be the legitimate
Patriarch by the author, who found nothing better to say than that the
man was only a make-believe Patriarch. The taunt fits Stephen best,
the Emperor’s brother who ruled the Byzantine Church till 893. His
successor Anthony Cauleas must have been ordained by Methodius, or
at least by Ignatius, so that the sneer could hardly be applicable to him.
We also find in the Life o f St Ignatius passages suggesting a certain
similarity between the author and the writer o f the treatise on the
Stauropats, as also between the Life and other documents collected by
the compiler o f the book. The violent abuse hurled at the Photianists
by the author o f the treatise against the Stauropats reveals a similar
truculence. Nicetas-David Paphlago took the same line, severely
reproving the Council o f 869-70 for letting off the priests ordained by
Photius too lightly, and so repeating the mistake made by their pre
decessors o f the Seventh Council2 in relation to the repentant icono
clasts. The Fathers should have proscribed the Photianists without
mercy and refused communion even to those who had been ordained
by Methodius or Ignatius.
Nicetas is also violent against the bishops who had rallied again to
Photius after his rehabilitation and calls them Stauropats, i.e. people
who disowned their own signatures, and we know that the author o f
the treatise on the Stauropats similarly abuses the bishops who had
‘ apostatized ’ . Nicetas also indulges in an angry outburst against Photius
in his account o f the ex-Patriarch’s recovery o f Basil’s favour .3 Photius,
o f course, is called a Stauropat for having forced the bishops to violate
their signatures, and at the end o f his work Nicetas4 calls Photius the
leader o f all Stauromachs and hypocrites. This final outburst forms a
1 Cf. Cambridge Medieval History, vol. IV, The Eastern Roman Empire (1927),
pp, 140 seq. (A. A. Vasiliev, ‘ The Struggle with the Saracens’, pp. 867-1057).
z P .G . voL 105, cols. 545—9. 3 ibid. cols. 569 seq. 4 Ibid. col. 573.
DPS 273 18
suitable pendant to the abuse poured at the beginning o f the pamphlet

on all the followers o f Photius for their many sins : but the greatest o f
these is the sin o f stauropaty}
The comparison suggests that the author o f the Life o f Ignatius
might well be the same man as the compiler o f the whole Collection.
Nicetas5 frequent appeals to various signs such as earthquakes, etc.,
as irrefutable evidence o f the truth o f his own lucubrations betray the
pseudo-pious die-hard and the uncompromising fanatic and are equally
characteristic o f the author o f the whole compilation.
The Life o f St Ignatius is therefore little better than a ‘ political
tract52 and its veracity is highly questionable. It should, however, be
said to the credit o f the Byzantines that they seem to have been aware
o f the partisan character o f this ‘ biography5. Cedrenus, for instance
(or rather Skylitzes whom Cedrenus is copying), in the introduction
to his Compendium Historiarum ,3 speaks o f writers who had their own
axe to grind, ‘ one to extol an Emperor, another to calumniate a Pa
triarch, a third to advertise a friend5, and among the writers who per
petrated such books he mentions Nicetas the Paphlagonian.
This passage is important, as it may help towards the definite solution
o f the problem o f the authorship o f the anti-Photian Collection.
Skylitzes, who wrote his work at the end o f the eleventh century,
possibly had in mind the writings against Photius; for it is difficult to
think o f any Patriarch before Skylitzes5 time whose memory was so
deliberately besmirched as that o f Photius. Does the fact that he men
tions amongst the authors o f the calumny Nicetas the Paphlagonian
indicate that in Skylitzes5 days the writings against Photius were
attributed to him ?4
I am on the whole inclined to attribute the entire Collection to
the author o f the Vita Ignatii and this is attributed to Nicetas-David
o f Paphlagonia,5 though o f course not all the documents were written 12*4 5
1 P.G . vol. 105, col. 508.

2 Cf. A. Vogt, ‘ Deux Discours inédits de Nicétas de Paphlagonie’, in Orientalia
Christiana (Rome), vol. l x x v , i , p. 10. 3 (Bonn), pp. 4, 5.
4 This is by no means certain. We shall presently learn that a certain Nicetas of
Paphlagonia wrote a pamphlet against the Patriarch Euthymios, and it is quite
possible that Skylitzes has this incident in mind, as it came nearer to his period and
was perhaps better remembered by Skylitzes’ and Cedrenus’ contemporaries than
the anti-Photianist campaign. In this case, could Nicetas be taken to be the author
o f the writings against both Patriarchs? Cf. what I write on this on p. 277.
5 There is, however, still some doubt about the identity of Nicetas-David, to
whom the Life of Ignatius is ascribed, with Nicetas of Paphlagonia, the author of
some theological and philosophical writings, only a few of which have so far been
274
PHOTI US, LEO VI AND THE E X T R E M I S T S ’ SCHISM
by him. It is possible that under the second patriarchate o f Ignatius

there circulated among the Ignatians an extract from the Acts o f the
Eighth Council which Nicetas simply annexed to his Collection, and
the same might be said about the treatise on the Councils o f which
Nicetas quotes only the lines on the Eighth Council.1
It follows, then, that Assemanus2 was well inspired in attributing
the anti-Photian Collection to Nicetas-David. But the reference to
Mapas and the letter o f Pope John IX , with its commentary, were added
to the Collection after 899, probably by another copyist, one even more
stubborn than Nicetas-David. It is clear then that the Collection,
which was to do duty for a justificatory plea in favour o f the Stylianists
in extenuation o f their refusal to reunite in 892, also served some fol
lowers even more obdurate than Stylianos in justification o f their refusal
in 899 to follow the majority o f their own kind.
Did the author o f the compilation— Nicetas-David— follow Stylianos,

or was he the man who added the notorious postscript to his Collection?
It is hard to say. Nor do we know when, or how, the last traces o f the
schism faded out. These ultra die-hards were apparently not many, and
besides, the Byzantines5 attention was soon to be diverted to another
published. On the two Nicetases, cf. Chr. Loparev, ‘ Zhitie sv. Evdokima’, in
/{vestiya Russkago Arkh. Instituta, vol. χ ιιι (1908), pp. 164 seq. (reprinted in
Vitanti)skiy Vremennik (1912), pp. 143 seq.) and A. Vogt, loc. cit. p. 6. It seems
doubtful, if not impossible, that one man should be the author of the Collection
and of the works mentioned. The writer of the so-called Life of St Ignatius was not
to all appearances a man of high intellectual attainment and could hardly be sup
posed to be the author of works of any theological or philosophical value. I
think that the authorship of the Collection will never be elucidated without a
thorough study of the manuscript text of the anti-Photianist Collection. It had
been my original intention to collate all the MSS. of the Acts and documents
connected with the Ignatian and Photian Councils, when recent events upset my
plans and I was only able to examine the principal MSS. o f the Acts of the Photian
Council. It seems now established that all the MSS. of the anti-Photian Collection
are derived from the Venetus Marcus Graecus 167, the result of researches made by
K. Schweinburg, as we read in the preface to the edition of some extracts from this
Collection published by G. Laehr in the M .G .H . Ep. vn, p. 371. According to
K. Schweinburg, this MS., from which all others are derived, dates from the
fourteenth century. As the study of the original manuscript Collection which
K. Schweinburg promised to publish in the By(. Zeitschrift has not yet appeared,
the difficult verdict on this problem must be held over till after the publication of
K. Schweinburg’s researches. In the meantime, we may assume, until the problem
is definitely settled, the author of St Ignatius’ Life and o f the Collection to be
Nicetas-David of Paphlagonia, as the MSS. have it.
3 Loc. cit. vol. i i , pp. 322-4. Hergenröther’s objections (loc. cit. vol. 11,
pp. 73 seq.) against this attribution are anything but convincing.
27 Ï 18-2
controversy, the tetragamy, before which the old issue faded into
oblivion.
After all, the controversy provoked by the refusal o f the Patriarch
Nicholas Mysticos, successor to Cauleas, to allow the Emperor Leo V I
to marry a fourth time was merely a continuation o f the struggle
between the Extremists and the Moderates, or partisans o f the policy o f
oeconomia. The new contest brought about a certain redistribution in
the ranks o f the old antagonists; for instance, Nicholas Mysticos, a
student and relation o f Photius, became the leader o f the Extremists on
the issue o f the tetragamy and was destined to organize a vicious cam
paign against Euthymios, to replace him on the patriarchal throne in
906 ; whilst Euthymios, formerly a Moderate Ignatian who acknowledged
Photius under his second patriarchate and was likewise in communion
with Stephen,1 became after 906 the head o f the Moderates, the partisans
o f the policy o f oeconomia, with old Photianists, like Arethas o f
Caesarea, fighting by his side.
It is even more surprising that Nicetas-David appears to have joined
Nicholas and with his usual venom to have attacked Euthymios. In the
Life o f this Patriarch we find a lengthy paragraph 12 on a certain monk
Nicetas the Paphlagonian, surnamed the Philosopher, who was sus
pected o f acting in collusion with the Bulgarians, a nation that was at
the moment at war with the Byzantines. From the passage we learn
that Nicetas fell foul not only o f Euthymios, but also o f the Metropolitan
who supported him, that he wrote a pamphlet against Euthymios and
uttered words offensive to the Emperor. Only the intervention o f the
aggrieved Patriarch saved Nicetas from the heavy punishment which
by the Emperor’s orders awaited him. The publication mentioned was
a pamphlet o f the Extremist party, then the party o f Nicholas, against
the Moderate party which supported Euthymios and the Emperor. It
would be interesting to know more about this Nicetas the Paphlagonian.
Was he the author o f the philosophical and theological works and
thereby sufficiently known in Byzantium to attract the attention o f
Euthymios’ biographer? Or was he the author o f the Life o f Ignatius
and o f the anti-Photian Collection?
De B o o r, 3 the editor o f the Life, expressed doubts about Nicetas’
identification with the author o f the Life o f Ignatius on the score that
such a passionate partisan o f Ignatius would on that supposition have
1 Vita Euthymii (ed. de Boor), pp. 17 seq. Euthymios had his monastery con
secrated by Stephen.
2 Loc. cit. pp. 56-8. 3 Loc. cit. pp. 194-6.
276
P H O T I US , L E O V I A N D T H E E X T R E M IS T S ’ SCHISM
become a protagonist o f the Photianist party. De Boor is right in

questioning the identity o f this Nicetas with the author o f the Life o f
Ignatius, for the fact is questionable and the passage in Euthymios’ Life
is too short to establish even the identity o f this Nicetas with his name
sake, the author o f the philosophical and theological writings; but the
reason for de Boor’s hesitation is not compelling. Nicetas, the Igna-
tianist, in turning against Euthymios never became a Photianist; he
only followed his bent for reactionary tenets and his instinctive aversion
to the application o f the famous principle o f oeconomia to religious
matters. A ll that happened was that the Photianist and Ignatian parties
were transmuted into Nicholaite and Euthymian parties. Nicholas
Mysticos, relative and pupil o f Photius though he was, remained by
nature an Extremist.
From this point o f view we are in a position to assess the issue that
again divided the parties in Byzantium. It is also quite admissible that
Nicetas-David, intransigent by instinct, by character and by experience,
offered his services to Nicholas, who had become the leader o f those
who believed in uncompromising rigour in the settlement o f eccle
siastical questions.1 But even this problem cannot be finally solved
until the identity o f Nicetas-David and the authorship o f Vita Ignatii
can be definitely settled.
We cannot pursue any further the detailed story o f this conflict and
all its incidents. Once again, there were between 907 and 920 exiles in
both camps; again, the Byzantine Church found itself split into two
factions, the faithful in many dioceses being given the choice, according
to personal tastes, between a Nicholaite, or Extremist bishop, and an
Euthymian bishop, that is, a Moderate and partisan o f oeconomia; again,
Rome intervened at the request o f the Emperor and the ecclesiastical
authorities o f Byzantium, and the synod o f 907 ended in a Nicholaite
schism, which lasted till the death o f Leo V I in 91 1 . Nicholas’ reinstate
ment was the signal for a persecution o f the Euthymians like that
at the time o f the Photianist and Ignatian dispute, and again the
Emperor’s death brought about the Patriarch’s dismissal, as the new
Emperor relied for his support on the opposition party, all in accordance
with long-established custom. Lastly, like the feud between Ignatius
and Photius, so the breach between the Nicholaites and the Euthymians
ended in a concordat between the leaders o f the opposite camps 12 and
1 Cf. Kurganov, K iisledovaniyu o Pair. Fotiye, pp. 218, 219, as against Ivantsov-
Platonov, Sv. Patriarkh Fotii, pp. 1 1 , 12.
2 Vita Euthymii (ed. de Boor), pp. 73 seq.
277
THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I. T H E H I S T O R Y
a Council, this time the real reunion Council, held in Byzantium in 920.
A tomos o f the reunion1 was passed unanimously and the acclamations
addressed to the late Patriarchs, from Germanus to Tarasius, promul
gated to the whole Empire and to the Church that the old divisions
were healed for ever.
But the Fathers were gravely deluded, if they really believed this.
Dissensions were to revive again, as occasions arose, because Byzantium
was never without its partisans o f rigidity and its partisans o f adaptation,
its extreme conservatives and its Moderates: only the issues varied.
Even the final death-struggle o f the Byzantine Church for and against
union with the West was at bottom but a revival o f the old antagonisms
between Moderates and Extremists; this time the die-hards carried the
day, despite the desperate efforts o f the last Byzantine Emperor, who
met his heroic death on the walls o f the city, ‘ protected by G o d ’. And
the struggle is not yet ended, and will never be ended, as long as the
two tendencies compete for the mastery within the human heart and
degenerate into passions when religious issues are involved.
And yet it is in the very clash o f these two tendencies that we shall
find the key to the understanding o f many a problem o f Byzantine
history, and in particular, o f the history o f the Photian Schism.
1 Mansi, vol. xvm , cols. 336 seq.
2? S
IL The L egen d
CH APTER I
T H E P H O T I A N C A S E IN L A T I N L I T E R A T U R E
TILL THE TW ELFTH C EN T U R Y
Contemporary repercussions— The Anselmo Dedicata— Tenth-century writers—

Unpublished canonical Collections of the tenth century— Historians of the eleventh
century— The Photian case in the ‘ Gregorians’ * canonical Collections— The Latin
Acts of the Photian Council in the writings of Deusdedit and Ivo of Chartres.
F r o m the examination o f the history o f Photius, it should now be

clear that one account o f the growth and the importance o f the Photian
Schism, as based on contemporary evidence, differs in many respects,
some o f them fundamental, from the accounts that have been accepted
through the centuries down to our own time. It is evident, then, that
if our argument is sound the true historical picture o f the Photian
Schism has been blurred in the distant past and that there has gradually
grown up a Photian Legend which was finally adopted as canonical
truth. We shall now follow the growth o f this legend in Western, and
even Eastern, tradition from the ninth century to our present era,
noting the different phases o f its evolution and the men responsible
for the conversion o f legend into accepted truth.
As regards Western tradition,1 we have had occasion to point out
some o f the factors that facilitated the birth o f the Photian legend, and
the most telling o f these was the enormous prestige enjoyed by the great
Pope Nicholas I in the ninth century and throughout the Middle A ges:
his reputation was so universally established as to make it next to
impossible for anybody to question his well-known attitude to
Photius. Anti-Greek animosity, which for the first time broke out
in its more violent form in the reign o f Nicholas and gained strength
in medieval centuries, also militated against the memory o f a
Patriarch who was daring enough to ‘ rebel’ against the great Nicholas,
the first great precursor o f Gregory V II, the man whose opinions
1 This chapter is a re-edition, with additions, of my study ‘ L ’affaire de Photios

dans la Littérature Latine du Moyen A ge’, in Annales de VInstitut Kondakov
(Prague, 1938).
279
THE P H O T IA N SCHISM. II. THE L E G E N D
on pontifical primacy became the leading axioms o f the Latin Middle

Ages.
To turn first to the repercussions o f the Photian case among his
contemporaries in Latin countries, it was between 863 and 870 that the
Western world began to take an interest in the bold Patriarch o f Con
stantinople, whose conflict with Pope Nicholas I all but set the whole
Western Church at odds with the Eastern Church.
Nicholas I, the gallant champion o f papal rights, o f which he enter
tained such a lofty notion, endeavoured to mobilize his whole Church
against the Emperor Michael III and his Patriarch, and the Pope’s letter
o f 23 October 8671 was meant to organize the movement in Gaul and
Germany; Hincmar o f Rheims was personally commissioned to set up
the common front o f the Frankish Church against the Greeks.
The Frankish Church, indeed, took its mission very seriously. The
bishops o f the Rheims metropolis charged Odo, bishop o f Beauvais,
with the task o f refuting the Greek calumnies in writing; whereas the
mouthpiece o f the Sens metropolis was to be Aeneas, bishop o f Paris.
Odo’s work has been lost, but the bishop o f Paris did not exert himself
in carrying out his honourable mission; his production is extremely
feeble.* But Ratramnus, abbot o f Corbie, who probably had also been
requested to place his learning at the service o f the common cause,
wrote a reply,3 which is a credit to the theological learning o f the Frankish
clergy o f the time, and must have deeply impressed his contemporaries
in Gaul, and possibly in Italy, too.
Hincmar has given us in his writings a version o f these events, to
which he refers in his letter to Odo o f Beauvais;4 and we also find in
his polemical writings against his namesake o f L aon 3 a spirited attack
on the Greeks, in which the archbishop takes the Patriarchs o f Con
stantinople to task for pretensions that had already been made by the
Council o f Chalcedon, and takes exception to their use o f the title
4oecumenical’·— the whole passage being probably a hint at the Photian
Affair.
But a more detailed account o f the facts is found in the Bertinian
Annals, in which Hincmar mentions the embassy o f Radoald and Zachary
to Constantinople in 860-1, refers to the Pope’s intention to condemn
them and to his scheme o f summoning a Council in 864, with the
Frankish bishops in attendance and even with the Patriarch Ignatius’
1 M .G.H . Ep. vi, pp. 169 seq. 2 P .L . vol. 12 1, cols. 685 seq.
3 P .L . vol. 12 1, cols. 225-346. 4 P .L . vol. 126, Ep. xiv, cols. 93, 94.
5 Loc. cit. ch. x x , cols. 345-50.
280
THE P H O T IA N CASE IN L A T IN L I T E R A T U R E
case on its agenda;1 he then describes the moral and physical depression
in which his legates found the Pope in August 867, as also the vigour
o f his appeal to the Western bishops, in particular, the archbishop o f
Rheim s? Hincmar’s main sources are the Pope’s letters, which he often
copies textually, and his information is confirmed and completed by
the historiographer o f the church o f Rheims, Flodoard?
The Bertinian Annals also contain a report on the dispatch by Pope
Hadrian II o f the legates to Constantinople to sanction Ignatius’ rein
statement and on the convocation o f a Council in this connection.1234*
And there ends the information supplied by the archbishop o f Rheims.
The account o f the Annals takes us as far as the year 882, without
giving any further details on subsequent developments in the Photian
affair— which seems surprising. If, however, one brings together
Hincmar’s various references to Photius, it becomes evident that the
issue interests him only in so far as it concerns his Church and his own
person, since he had been charged by the Pope to enlist public feeling
in Gaul against the Greek pretensions. That is why Hincmar often
prefers to quote word for word the letters Nicholas had addressed to
him.
Weaker still is the reaction o f the Photian case in Germany. Nicholas I
had requested the archbishop o f Mainz, Liutbert,^ to summon a
council o f Germanic bishops to formulate a common reply to the
Greek calumnies: the Germanic bishops did meet at Worms, but
committed themselves to nothing more exciting than a short synodic
reply.67
Except for the mention o f this Council, there is only one reference
to the Photian case in German contemporary literature and we have it
from the Annals o f Fulda; but here again, the annalist confines himself
to a laconic commentary. This is what he sa y s? ‘ Nicholas, the Roman
Pontiff, addressed two letters to the bishops o f Germany, one on the
1 Cf. E. Pereis, ‘ Ein Berufungsschreiben Papst Nikolaus’ I. zur fränkischen

Reichssynode in Rom ’, in Neues Archiv d. Ges. f . ält. deutsche Gesch. (1906),
vol. X X X I I , p p . 135 seq.
2 M .G .H . Ss. I, pp. 466, 475. Cf. above, p. 124.
3 Flodoardi Hist. Rem. Eccl., M .G .H . Ss. xm , lib. m, ch. 17, p. 508; ch. 21,
pp. 516 seq.
4 M .G .H . Ss. I, p. 494.
3 Cf. Nicholas’ letter to Louis the German of 23 October 867, M .G .H . Ep. vi,
p. 610.
6 Cf. A. Weringhoff, ‘ Verzeichnis der Akten fränk. Synoden’, in Neues Archiv
(1901), vol. X X V I , p. 639; P .L . vol. 119, cols. 12 0 1-12 . Cf. above, p. 123.
7 Ad a. 868, M .G .H . Ss. 1, p. 380.
281
THE PH ΟΤΙ AN S CH I S M . II. THE L E G E N D
Greek divisions, the other on the deposition o f the bishops Theotgand

and Gunthar.. . . A synod was held in the month o f May in W orm s. . .
where the bishops. . . gave answers apposite to the Greek futilities.’
We might expect to find more in contemporary literature o f Roman
and Italian origin ; but while information on the first stage o f the Photian
quarrel is extremely abundant— the letters o f Popes Nicholas I, Ha
drian II, John V III, the writings o f Anastasius the Librarian— accounts
o f the second stage o f the conflict are, as a result o f the concurrence
o f several unfortunate circumstances, very scanty. First, Anastasius
vanished from the scene about 878 ; his death is untimely, as in the last
years o f his life he gave signs o f a modified attitude to Photius. He was
the writer, as I have shown elsewhere,1 who settled the preliminaries
o f a rapprochement between John V III and Photius as well as o f a new
departure in the Holy See’s Eastern policy; Anastasius was not a man
o f fastidious temperament and would certainly not have hesitated to
say exactly the reverse o f what he had written in the preface to the
translation of the Acts o f the Eighth Council and in his biographies o f
Nicholas and Hadrian, if there had been any such need in the interests
o f the new policy o f the master he was then serving. Unluckily, death
prevented him from giving the last touches to his Conversion’, though
it seemed to have been well on the way.
More light would have been thrown on the revision o f John V III’s
policy towards Photius, had that Pope been blessed with a biographer;
but unfortunately the Liber Pontificalis breaks down at this very place.
Hadrian II was the last Pope to be favoured in this respect, but his
biography does not cover the last years o f his pontificate. About
John V III, Marinus and Hadrian III there is complete silence. The
biography o f Stephen V , which concludes the Liber Pontificalis, deals
apparently only with the first year o f his reign.*
Lastly, it is much to be regretted that John the Deacon, an intimate
associate o f John V III, failed to fulfil his intention o f publishing an
ecclesiastical history and devoting special attention to Greek affairs, for,
judging by the biography he wrote o f St Gregory the Great,3 his work
would have been o f the highest value.
We are thus reduced to one single source o f information, which makes
a brief, but important, reference to Photius’ rehabilitation, the history
o f the Benevento Lombards, written by the monk Erchempertus. This

3 L. Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, vol. 11, pp. vii, viii.
3 P .L . vol. 75, cols. 60-242.
282
THE P H O T I A N CASE IN L A T I N L I T E R A T U R E
is what he has to say about the ascent o f Leo and Alexander to the
imperial throne:1
A t the death o f Serene and A ugust Basil, his two sons were elected to the
throne, namely, Leo the eldest and Alexander, his younger brother; the
third, called Stephen, took charge o f the archiépiscopal see o f that city, after
the expulsion o f Photius, who had come under the perpetual anathema o f
Nicholas, the Pontiff o f the first See, for usurping the see o f Ignatius in his
lifetime and had been reinstated in his previous dignity b y Pope John, who,
so to speak, acted in ignorance.
Brief as it is, this testimony is o f capital importance, for not only does
Erchempertus bear witness to Photius5 rehabilitation, but he also
indirectly certifies that the Holy See never went back on its decision.
We are o f course aware that Erchempertus was no friend o f the Greeks,
at whose hands he experienced some rough handling as a prisoner in
his younger days, and that for the rest o f his life he never forgave them.
As a zealous patriot, he frankly detested the Greeks as his country’s
worst enemies ; and pious monk as he was, he readily forgave even the
prince o f Capua, Atenolf, for his ruthless treatment o f the sons o f
Benedict in that city and— what is more remarkable— o f himself, in
consideration o f the victory the prince had won over the combined
Neapolitans, Saracens and Greeks. He warmly applauded this victory,2
and his account contains bitter asides addressed to the Greeks, whom
he describes as 4akin to animals in feelings, Christians by name, but for
morals worse than Agarenes’ .3
Erchempertus also relieves his feelings against the Greeks in his
reference to Photius, making it quite clear that he did not approve
John Y I I I ’s conduct and excusing the Pope’s ‘ weakness’ on the
ground o f his ignorance o f the true state o f affairs.
• It is easy to imagine with what relish he would have recorded on
this occasion that the Pope had realized the cunning o f those people
‘ who were Christians but in name’, revoked his decision, and again
excommunicated Photius. The fact that Erchempertus says nothing
about the second excommunication o f the Patriarch o f Constantinople
by John, clearly indicates that it never took place.
1 Erchemperti Historia Langobard. Benevent., ch. 52, M .G .H . Ss. Rer. Lang,
p. 256: ‘ . . .eiecto Focio, qui olim a Nicolao primae sedis pontifice ob invasionem
episcopatus Ignatii adhuc superstitis perpetuo anathemate fuerat multatus, et a
Ioanne papa, ut ita dicam ignaro, ad pristinum gradum resuscitatus.
2 Ibid. ch. 73 seq. p. 262. Cf. Waitz’ s Introduction to this edition, p. 232 and
Pertz’s remark in his edition in the M .G .H . Ss. in, p. 240.
3 Ibid. ch. 81, p. 264.
283
Erchempertus’ silence is a sign that not even John’s successors broke

off relations with the Greeks. He was in personal contact with Stephen V
for instance, who at Erchempertus’ request had intervened against
Atenolf and sanctioned the privileges o f the Brothers o f St Benedict in
Capua.1 Had Stephen V severed relations with the Greeks, the action
would have been commended by this enthusiastic patriot as a meritorious
deed, and Erchempertus, who thought highly o f Stephen for inter
vening in favour o f his confrères, would never have lost the chance o f
emphasizing the Pope’s unbending attitude towards the Greeks.
For lack o f other contemporary historical documents, we may seek

some indications o f John V III’s dealings with the Greeks in another
class o f literature which is still little known and has not so far been
utilized by historians—-the Collections o f canon law. It happens that
the period we are studying— that o f Nicholas I, Hadrian II and John V III
—-is marked by a revival o f canonical activity,^ and canon law Collec
tions invariably reflect with faithful precision the spirit o f the policy o f
the Popes who inspired them.
Now there exists a canonical Collection o f the period o f John V III
which goes by the name o f Anselmo Dedicata, and was composed by
a cleric o f Lombardy, devoted to the policy o f John V III, probably
towards the end o f that Pontiff’s reign, about 882.3 The author dedi
cated his Collection to Anselm, archbishop o f Milan (882-96), who
had been the Pope’s faithful lieutenant in an acrimonious campaign
which John had fought against Anspertus, Anselm’s predecessor in
the see o f Milan, who tenaciously championed the rights o f his see
even at the risk o f falling foul o f the Pope.
This Collection is relevant to our investigation, as it seems to reflect
the Pope’s political opinions. The author has the same lofty notion as
John V III o f the Papacy’s mission in the Church. According to the
description given by P. Fournier4 o f this unpublished Collection, the
author aims at assembling the greatest possible number o f texts on the
1 Historia Langobard. Benevent., loc. cit. ch. 69, p. 261.
2 Cf. Giesebrecht, ‘ Die Gesetzgebung der Römischen Kirche zur Zeit
Gregor V I I ’ (München), Historisches Jahrhuch fü r das Jah r 1866, pp. 93 seq.
3 P. Fournier-G. Le Bras, Histoire des Collections Canoniques en Occident (Paris,
1931), vol. I, pp. 239 seq.
4 Loc. cit., P. Fournier, ‘ L ’ Origine de la Collection Anselmo Dedicata’, in
Mélanges P. F. Girard (Paris, 1912), vol. 1, pp. 475-98; P. Fournier-G. Le Bras,
Histoire des Collections Canoniques en Occident, vol. I, pp. 235 seq. Cf. F. Maassen,
Geschichte der Quellen der Litteratur des can. Rechtes im Abendlande (Gratz, 1870),
pp. 717 seq.
284
THE P H O T I A N CASE IN L A T I N L I T E R A T U R E
primacy o f the bishop o f Rome, both authentic and spurious, the latter
being drawn from the False Decretals. On the other hand, he neglects
anything that is not Roman and does not quote a single text o f Frankish,
Irish or Anglo-Saxon origin. P. Fournier rightly discovers traces o f
the Roman spirit animating John V III, but the author’s bias in favour
o f Rome does not prevent him from being polite to the Greeks. Evidence
o f this is to be found in the first book o f the Collection. In canon 128
the author copies the decision o f the Council o f Constantinople con
ferring second rank on the Patriarch o f that city. The next canon is
taken from one o f Justinian’s N ovels1 and defines the rights o f the
Patriarchs in Constantinople in the following terms: ‘ Be the Pope first
o f all bishops and patriarchs, and after him the bishop o f the city o f
Constantinople.’ 2 As this composition appears to belong to the last
reign o f John V III’s pontificate, such partiality to a Graeco-Roman
entente may be taken as indirect evidence that John V III had not
swerved from his Graecophil policy. How then could a writer so loyal
to his master’s opinions have inserted in his Collection these two canons,
so favourable to the Patriarchs o f Constantinople, if John V III had in
that year, or in the previous year, excommunicated Photius for the
second time, after discovering, as has so often been asserted to this day,
that he had been disgracefully duped by the astute Greek? Such a
demonstration would have provoked in Rome, and throughout Italy,
a reaction very different from that revealed in the Anselmo D edicataß
It should be enough to recall the agitation that arose in the West at
the first declaration o f hostilities between Photius and Nicholas I. In
the writings o f Ratramnus o f Corbie,4 and o f Aeneas, bishop o f
1 Codex Justinianus, lib. in, tit. 3, novella 130: ‘ . . . Sancimus. . . Senioris Romae
papam primum esse omnium sacerdotum; beatissimum autem archiepiscopum
Constantinopoleos Novae Romae secundum habere locum post sanctam apostolicam
Senioris Romae sedem: aliis autem omnibus sedibus praeponitur.’ The author of
the Anselmo Dedicata quotes Justinian’s Novels mostly from the Epitome made by
Julianus (ed. G. Haenel, 1873).
2 ‘ Papa Romanus prior omnibus episcopis et patriarchis, et post illum Con-
stantinopolitanae civitatis episcopus.’
3 An extract from the Anselmo Dedicata will be found in a Latin manuscript of
the Prague National Library, Codex Lobkovicz, no. 496 (13th c. parch.), fols.
850-102, under the title: ‘ Incipiunt Excerpta sanctorum pontificum’, where the
copyist has transcribed 87 chapters of the famous Collection, but without the
slightest reference to the Pope and the Patriarchs. The extracts date from the end
of the ninth or the beginning of the tenth century. Cf. Schulte, ‘ Über Drei in
Prager Hs. enthaltenen Canonen-Sammlungen’, in Sitzungsberichte d. Akad. Wiss.
Wien, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1867), pp. 17 1-5 .
4 Contra Graecorum Opposita, L. d’Achery, Spicilegium (Paris, 1723), pp.
107 seq., chiefly p. i n . P .L . vol. 12 1, cols. 223 seq.
285
THE P H O T IA N SCHISM. II. T HE L E G E N D
Paris,1 we find that these two writers, who were thoroughly cognizant o f
Pope Nicholas’ ideas, emphasized that the Patriarch o f Constantinople
was subject to the Pope, and did all they could to minimize Justinian’s
N ovel on the right o f the Patriarch. Remembering the vicious castiga
tion, which only a few years previously Hincmar had administered to
the Greeks for calling their Patriarch ‘ oecumenical’, and to the Council
o f Chalcedon for deciding in favour o f Byzantium, we can readily
appreciate how far the spirit o f those invectives was removed from that
which inspired the author o f the Collection Anselmo Dedicata— to con
clude that the Holy See’s Oriental policy under John V III had turned
a full circle.
Thus the echoes o f the Photian Affair in the Latin literature o f the
ninth century are feeble enough, but what little evidence they offer
contains no reference to a second Photian schism.
In any examination o f the literary documents o f the period, it must
be remembered that the tenth century is characterized by the complete
collapse o f the Carolingian Empire. As a result o f external dangers,
especially the Hungarian invasions, and o f internal trouble, historio
graphy was barren for several decades and no relevant description o f
the period survived. Decadence was worst in Rome, at the very centre
o f Western Christianity, where Anastasius the Librarian and John the
Deacon were the last surviving historians. Nor was the position any
better in Gaul and Germany, as there other problems, more absorbing
and topical than Greek controversies, occupied the few writers who
were at work.
So we search in vain through the Germanic writings o f the period
for the barest reference to Photius. The works published in Gaul are
equally unsatisfactory, and when we turn to Italy, the only reference to
the incident is to be found in the Chronicle o f Salerno written about
the year 978,12 in which the chronicler merely copies the extract from
Erchempertus verbatim.
But not even in Rome was the memory o f Photius quite obliterated.
In a letter addressed to the Frankish episcopate, Pope Sergius III seems
to make him responsible for the campaign against the Latin Filioque
and mention o f it is made in the Acts o f the Frankish synod o f Trosley
1 Liber adversus Graecos, ibid. pp. 143 seq. P .L . vol. 12 1, cols. 683 seq.
2 M .G .H . Ss. in, p. 538. A MS. of the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, written by
Leo (eleventh century), also copies this extract from Erchempertus. Ibid. vol. vu,
p. 609, ad ann. 880.
286
THE PHOTIAN CASE IN L A T I N L I T E R A T U R E
in the Soissonnais, summoned in 909 by Hérivée, archbishop o f Rheims ;J

but to judge from what Hérivée has to say about it, remembrance o f
Photius is extremely faint among the Frankish episcopate:
A s the H oly Apostolic See has brought to our knowledge that the errors
and blasphemies in the East against the H oly Spirit b y a certain Photius are
still rife, asserting that He proceeds, not from the Son, but from the Father
alone, we exhort you, brethren, each o f you, to join me in obedience to the
warnings o f the Lord o f the Rom an See and after studying the opinions o f
the Catholic Fathers, in drawing from the quiver o f divine Scripture the
pointed arrows that will crush the head o f the wicked serpent.
I expected to meet Photius5 name again in some Formosian writings

early in the tenth century, but the references there proved to be insigni
ficant. But as I hope I have demonstrated elsewhere, it is a mistake
to look in these writings for any evidence o f schism between the two
Churches, provoked by Pope Formosus5 obstinate attitude to the
Photian ordinations.123 On the contrary, we may infer from a careful
examination o f these writings that even Pope Formosus remained on
good terms with the Byzantine Church and that the issue o f the Photian
ordinations had ceased to disturb peaceful relations between the two
Churches.
Another document o f the end o f the tenth century recalls the energetic
measures taken by Nicholas I against Photius: it is a letter by Leo,
abbot o f St Bonifacius in Rome and legate o f Pope John X V to Kings
Hugh and Robert in connection with the case concerning Arnulf,
archbishop o f Rheims, and his successor Gerbert. Leo’s letter is in reply
to the charges made by the Rheims synod against Arnulf and against
the Pope, the synod disputing the Pope’s right to meddle with what is
the business o f the church o f Rheims. After a virulent attack on the
Popes o f the tenth century, the Council quotes in support o f its con
tention a letter from Hincmar to Pope Nicholas .3 The legate replied:4
‘ So you draw Pope Nicholas to your side on the ground o f his silence
in face o f the bishops’ deposition against the Roman Church. Yet,
you will find in his letters how severely he dealt with Photius, the
usurper o f the Church o f Constantinople, till the day he recalled Ignatius
to his own see.’
1 Mansi, vol. xvm , cols. 304, 305.

2 ‘ Études sur Photios’, in Byântion (1936), vol. xi, pp. 1-19 . See pp. 251-65.
3 P .L . vol. 139, cols. 3 12 -18 .
4 Loc. cit. col. 342; M .G .H . Ss. m , p. 689. In this connection cf. J. Havet,
Lettres de Gerbert (Paris, 1889), pp. xxiii seq.
287
Leo does not here touch on any other problems raised by the Photian
incident, as it would have been a clumsy move on his part to mention
Photius5 rehabilitation. The fact is that the King had applied to Pope
John X V for an identical act, i.e. the recognition o f Gerbert in the see
o f Rheims. It would have served his purpose better to point in this
connection to Photius5 second condemnation by John V III, if it had
in fact taken place.
We may also note that the decree by Nicholas I against Photius and
the clergy ordained by him is cited in a letter from the clergy o f Verona
to the Holy See.1 It was written by the bishop o f Verona, Ratherius,
and the metropolitan appeals there to a number o f pontifical documents
in his own defence, and for the invalidity o f the ordinations made in
Verona by his rival, the illegal bishop Milo. That he should pass over
Photius5 rehabilitation by John V III in silence is natural enough, since
it would only have harmed his cause.
And that is all there is about Photius in the Latin literary output o f
the tenth century, and it is very little. It is disappointing to find that
the only Latin writer who at that time specially dealt with Greek affairs
did not make the slightest reference to the Photian case: this is Liud-
prand the Lombard, deacon o f the church o f Pavia (Ticino) and later
bishop o f Cremona, who between 948 and 950 made a long stay in
Constantinople as the ambassador o f King Berengar. He speaks, how
ever, on two occasions o f the Emperor Michael III and o f Basil I in his
Antapodosis? His malevolence against the Greeks should have induced
him to quote an excellent illustration o f Greek astuteness, o f which he
complains so often, if the history o f Photius had in fact been what
modern historians have made it.
There remain the canonical Collections o f the period, though here

again we must not expect any sensational finds, as the canonists o f the
time contented themselves with out-of-date documentation which went
no further than the ninth century. This is noticeable, for instance, in
the L ib ri de Synodàlibus Causis, by Regino o f Prüm o f the beginning 12
1 Loc. cit. vol. 136, col. 480. Cf. ibid. cols. 97 seq., for remarks on this move
by the Veronese clergy. Ratherius lived between 890 or 891 and 974. Cf. M .G .H .
Ep. vi, p. 519; A. Vogel, Ratherius von Verona (Jena, 1854), vol. I, pp. 316 seq.;
vol. II, pp. 206 seq.; C. Pevani, Un Vescovo Belga in Italia nel secolo X (Torino,
1920).
2 Lib. I, chs. 9, 10, lib. h i , chs. 32-4; M .G .H . Ss. h i , pp. 276^277, 309, 310.
Cf. English translation by F. A. Wright, The Works o f Liudprand o f Cremona
(Broadway Medieval Library; London, 1930), pp. 36 seq., 124 seq.
288
THE P H O T IA N CASE IN L A T I N L I T E R A T U R E
o f the tenth century:1 all he adds to the documents taken from existing
Collections are the canons o f the Gallo-Roman or Merovingian Councils
with a few extracts from the Frankish kings’ capitularies or Collections
o f Decreta. Some o f these new documents, it is true, belong to the
second half o f the ninth century, but one would seek there in vain for
any decisions by the Popes and Councils o f the period bearing on
general topics, except for some fragments from Nicholas’ letters about
Frankish affairs.
Fragments o f letters from John V III have here and there found their
w ay into the Germanic Collections from the end o f the ninth to the
beginning o f the tenth century, but hardly any o f them bear on the
subject under discussion.123
Similarly one looks in vain for any light on our problem in the
famous compilation o f the beginning o f the eleventh century, Bur-
chard’s Decretum, which for all the success it had in the ecclesiastical
world o f the time, makes only fragmentary use o f the conciliar and
pontifical documents o f the ninth century; 3 and the same may be said
o f Lanfranc’s canonical Collection, which in its day had a great vogue
in England.45
The canonical Collections o f southern Italy, though primarily o f
local interest, belong to a country which lies at the cross-roads o f papal
and Byzantine currents o f influence and faithfully reflect the general
lines o f pontifical policy towards the Greeks.
The first o f this class is the Collection preserved in the Manuscript
T X V III o f the Vallicellania.5 The author is, o f course, a Latin,
probably a native o f southern Italy, who wrote his Collection between
1 P .L . vol. 132, cols. 175 seq.; cf. P. Fournier-G. Le Bras, loc. cit. pp. 244-67.
2 Chiefly the collection in four volumes of the Chapter of Cologne (Fournier-
Le Bras, loc. cit. p. 285: Letter from Nicholas to the Emperor or Michael III);
the collection of St Emeran of Ratisbon (ibid. p. 294); the collections of the
Manuscript of St Peter of Salzburg (ibid. p. 306).
3 P .L . vol. 140, cols. 537-1053; cf. Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. pp. 364-414.
4 MS. of the British Museum Cotton. Claud. D. IX : Decreta Romanorum
Pontificum, Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum. The MS. dates from the
eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century. It has two decrees by Nicholas,
fols. 125 α, 126, but they are irrelevant to our subject. The author of the Collec
tion only makes use of the first seven Councils and local synods (chiefly fols.
Ï28-59).
5 See detailed description of the manuscript in Patetta, ‘ Contributi alla
Storia del Diritto Romano nel Medio E vo ’, in Bullettino delV Istituto di Diritto
Romano (Rome, 1890), vol. m, pp. 273-94; P. Fournier, ‘ Un Groupe de Recueils
canoniques Italiens’, in Mémoires de VInstitut, Acad, des Inscriptions et Belles-
Lettres (1915), vol. x l , pp. 96 seq.
DPS 289 L9
THE PH ΟTI AN S C H I SM . II. THE L E G E N D
912 and 930; he is a very outspoken partisan o f pontifical primacy, yet

none the less favourable to the Greeks. In the first part, we find the
same canon as in the Anselmo Dedicata, which gives the archbishop o f
Constantinople precedence over all the other Eastern Patriarchs and
first place after the Pope.1 Besides this canon, the Collection includes
some canons one would never expect to find in a Western production
o f the kind. For instance, the author gives five texts on the question,
so much discussed in the East, o f image worship (fol. 145 o f the manu
script). One o f these texts (no. 13, as reckoned by Patetta and Fournier)
is an extract from the Second Council o f Nicaea, very little known in the
West. He also gives (under no. 432) a list not only o f the Popes, but
o f the Patriarchs o f Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople
(fol. 143 o f the manuscript), and the compiler includes in his Collection
texts taken from Justinian’s Novels purporting to regulate the relations
o f the higher clergy with the imperial court and the Byzantine Patriarch,
as well as texts concerning the archimandrites;2 but no indication on the
Photian affair, except perhaps an allusion to no. 451, which is a rule
prohibiting the raising o f laymen to the episcopacy. It is, however, not
clear whether the text is taken from the Council o f 869-70 or not. The
manuscript is very incomplete; the last part is missing and from fol. 143
onwards— the portion which would be o f the greatest interest— there
is merely a list o f chapters.
Although the Collection provides nothing relevant to our subject,
it nevertheless has some interest, since it throws light on the relations
between the two Churches in the first years o f the tenth century, when
the Latin clergy o f southern Italy, in obedience to the Roman Pontiff,
showed the sincerest deference to the distinctive institutions o f the
Church o f Byzantium. Such mutual regard would be inexplicable, had
the two Churches been at enmity till about 890, the date o f their so-called
reunion. Had this been the position, one might have looked in a
canonical Collection o f the beginning o f the tenth century for some
traces o f a contest fought under the author’s eyes in a general atmosphere
o f discomfort; and the first to feel its consequences would have been the
clergy o f southern Italy, where the rival interests o f the two Churches
would be the first to be engaged in any general clash.
A similar impression is conveyed by another canonical Collection o f
the same period, unpublished, but preserved in MS. 1349 o f the Vatican
1 Vol. I, p. 129 of the Anselmo Dedicata and no. 28 of the Collection as numbered
by Patetta and P. Fournier.
2 Cf. Fournier, loc. cit. pp. 120, 12 1; Patetta, loc. cit. pp. 281, 282.
290
THE PHOTIAN CASE IN LA TIN LIT E R A T U R E
Latin MSS. section,1 called the Collection in Nine Books. It is later

than the Vallicellania Collection which served the compiler as one o f
his sources and manifests the same partiality to Byzantium. The author
includes the canon on the precedence o f the Patriarchs of Constantinople
over the other Eastern Patriarchs and unhesitatingly enters a canon
(canon 29 o f Book ix , folio o f MS. 200<2-201)" with its definite bias
in favour o f the Greek clergy for treating third and fourth marriages
as illicit. Even in penitential questions, the author is influenced by the
practices o f the Greek Church, without prejudice to his own loyalty as
a son o f the Roman Church.
Another work on canon law, the Collection in Five Books, dates
from the beginning o f the eleventh century.123 Apparently published in
Italy, somewhere between Naples, Monte Cassino and Benevento,
about 1020, it clearly shows Byzantinophil feelings. The three manu
scripts that have preserved it date from the eleventh century. In the
Vatican MS. (Latin section, no. 1339) several miniatures picture the
Assumption o f the Blessed Virgin and the six oecumenical Councils
(fols. 7 -14 0 ),4* showing in the midst o f the assemblies the Byzantine
Emperors presiding over the Councils, as well as the principal authors
o f the canons quoted in the Collection. Byzantine influence is un
doubtedly traceable in the miniatures o f the general Councils, and there
is in this Collection the same spirit o f repugnance to third and fourth
marriages as in the Collection in Nine Books.3 We must remember that
we are on the eve o f the final rupture between the two Churches, which
makes the Byzantinophil bias o f this Collection all the more striking.
The Collection in Five Books enjoyed great popularity in Italy
and was widespread throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
P. Fournier6 lists a whole series o f Collections produced in Italy under
the inspiration o f the Collection in Five Books, most o f them being
simply extracts from it and offering nothing particularly relevant to the
Oriental Church.
The Italian canon Collections o f this period therefore deserve special
attention, chiefly from those who are bent on finding evidence to prove
1 The MS. is described by Patetta, loc. cit. pp. 286 seq., and by P. Fournier,
loc. cit. pp. 124 seq. The bibliography of this Collection is also to be found there.
2 Cf. P. Fournier, loc. cit. p. 153.
3 P. Fournier, loc. cit. pp. 159-89 (Vatic. Lat. 1339, Vallicellan B, 1 1 , Monte
Cassino no. cxxv).
4 Cf. P. Fournier, loc. cit. pp. 160, 187.
3 Cf. the chapter ‘ De Legitimis Conjugiis et de Raptibus’, fols. 253 seq.
6 P. Fournier, loc. cit. pp. 190 seq.
29 ï 9 -2
that the two Churches were in schism long before 1054: the spirit that
animates this class o f writing will give little encouragement to their
prejudice.
We should note particularly that Justinian’s N ovel summarizing the
famous 28th canon o f the Council o f Chalcedon and determining that
the Patriarch o f Constantinople should occupy second rank among the
Patriarchs immediately after the Pope o f Rome found its place in the
Anselmo Dedicata and in other Italian Collections as early as the tenth
century. This important finding has so far escaped the attention o f
Church historians, who assumed that Rome did not accord such a
prerogative to Constantinople before 121 5, i.e. at the Lateran Council,
when Constantinople and its patriarchate were in Latin hands and Rome
no longer felt in any danger. This general opinion is thus shown to be
incorrect.
The second half o f the eleventh century was o f paramount importance

to the internal growth o f the Western Church— the period o f the great
reforming Popes, o f the gigantic struggle led by the noble figure o f
Gregory V II against lay Investiture and for the freedom o f the Church.
Naturally, one notes a renewal o f activity in the literary field, and
the Papacy’s reforming ideas had a good deal to do with it, since it was
thought necessary to school contemporary minds in the loyal acceptance
of the lofty notions o f the sovereign Pontiff’s supremacy, to stabilize
the ascendancy o f the spiritual power over lay power and to popularize
the schemes for reforming clergy and laity. The historical and juridical
documents available up to that time soon proved inadequate and others
had to be sought; the need for them was all the more urgent, in that the
reformers’ leading ideas on the plenitude o f pontifical power in matters
spiritual and temporal were provoking vigorous opposition; the cham
pions o f lay power declared them to run counter to the spirit and the
true evolution o f the Church.
In the arguments o f the eleventh-century reformers, the writings o f
Nicholas I naturally had a prominent place. Had their ideals not been
at least partially formulated by this great Pope o f the ninth century?
Was he not the Pontiff who so gallantly resisted refractory princes and
their attempts to violate the laws o f the Church? His brave attitude
to Lothar, his refusal to ‘ yield to the whims o f Michael I I I ’ had not
been forgotten. And what a test was provided by the Photian case to
put in their place rebellious and haughty bishops who refused to obey
the Pope’s commands! How could the reformers have overlooked the
292
THE PH O TIA N CASE IN L A T IN L I T E R A T U R E
Council o f 869-70, which helped them with the detailed story o f a

Patriarch’s solemn condemnation, and best o f all with canon X X II,
forbidding the laity to meddle with episcopal elections?
It was, then, only natural at this period that special attention should
be given to the Photian incident in the reformers’ writings, though even
in these one notes some sort o f progression. The supporters o f Leo IX
for instance still contented themselves with stale documentation, to the
neglect o f the Photian case. Peter Damian does not even mention it.
Cardinal Humbertus, for all the dominant part he played in the contest
with Michael Cerularius, is surprisingly discreet about our Patriarch,
making no reference to him either in his writings against the simoniacs,1
or in his report on the embassy to Constantinople,* or in the excom
munication bull that was certainly drawn up by him, or in his Rationes
de S. Spiritu a Patre et F ilio .3 There is but one allusion to the Photian
affair in the letter o f Pope Leo IX , written for the benefit o f Michael
Cerularius, perhaps by Humbertus. After mentioning the decrees o f
the iconoclastic synod and the intrigues o f the enemies o f image-
worship, the text goes on:
Though the authority o f the Roman Pontiff, and above all, the indepen
dence, so universally praised, o f the saintly Pope Nicholas, always opposed
them, he closed the church o f St Sophia through his legates in defence o f the
sacred images and on account o f the deposition o f the saintly bishop Ignatius
and the substitution o f the neophyte Photius, until the decrees o f the Apostolic
See should be obeyed.4
This question is suggestive, showing that the Pope’s entourage was
still ill-informed about the whole affair; that reformers were too easily
carried away by their zeal and that they loved to exaggerate the impor
tance o f the pontifical intervention in Constantinople.
A bolder position is adopted by Bonizo o f Sutri, Gregory V U ’s
devoted henchman. The conflict had become more venomous than
under Leo I X : Gregory V II’s partisans were called upon to defend a
daring move by the Pope— the excommunication o f the Emperor
Henry IV — which led Bonizo to search into history to prove that
Gregory’s proceeding was not an isolated case, since the Popes always
1 P .L . vol. 143, cols. 1005 seq.; M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 1, pp. 100-253.
2 Will, Acta et Scripta quae de controversiis eccL Gr. et Lat. X I extant (Leipzig,
1861), pp. 150 seq.
3 P .L . vol. 143, cols. 1002-4; A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios (Paderborn,
1925), vol. I, pp. 77 seq.
4 P .L . vol. 143, col. 760. This passage is also quoted by Ivo of Chartres in his
Decretum, iv, ch. 147; P .L . vol. 16 1, col. 299.
293
possessed the right to excommunicate kings and emperors. O f thë

‘ historical5 instances he quotes in the Liber ad Amicum, written in 1085
or 1086, several would carry little weight with historians. Nicholas I
is given pride o f place as a matter o f course/ but even here Bonizo
exaggerates, claiming that both Michael III and Lothar had been excom
municated by Nicholas I. It is well known, o f course, that this is untrue.^
But Bonizo had inaugurated a tradition which the Middle Ages readily
accepted and Bonizo’s fiction obtained a surprising currency in later
literature.
The first to copy this passage was Rangerius ( m 2 ) , the biographer
o f St Anselm o f Lucca .3 Archbishop Romuald ( 1 1 81 ) , author o f the
Salerno Chronicle,4 also quotes it in his work, which contains no other
reference to the subject. The same passage occurs in the Chronica
Pontificum et Imperatorum Tiburtina, begun about 1 1 4 5 .5 The Liber de
Temporibus o f Albert Miliolus, written about 1281, quotes it too,6 but
without giving any reason why Michael was excommunicated. Sicard,
bishop o f Cremona, is more explicit in his chronicle, written at the
beginning o f the thirteenth century/ but does not name either Ignatius
or Photius. Bonizo’s report is then textually repeated in the Chronica
Apostolicorum et Imperatorum Basileensia ,8 written about 121 5, and in
an abbreviated form in the Chronicle o f John o f G o d / o f the first half
o f the thirteenth century. Martinus Polonus has similarly come under
Bonizo’s influence.10
The credit given to Bonizo is all the more impressive, as those o f his
contemporaries who could not yet quote him, however devoted they
were to the reformers5 cause and eager to find instances to bolster up
the Popes5 power over princes, never refer to the alleged excommunica
tion o f Michael III.
1 Liber ad Amicum, M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 1, pp. 607-9: *. . .E t quid dicam
de Nicolao qui duos imperatores uno eodemque tempore excommunicavit, orien
talem scilicet Michaelem propter Ignatium Constantinopolitanum episcopum sine
iudicio papae a sede pulsum, occidentalem vero nomine Lotharium propter Gual-
radae suae pelicis societatem/
2 With regard to Lotharius, cf. E. Pereis, ‘ Ein Berufungsschreiben Papst
Nikolaus’ I zur fränkischen Reichssynode in Rom ’, in Neues A rch iv (1906),
vol. X X X II, pp. 143 seq.
3 M .G .H . Ss. X XX, p p . 1 2 1 0 , 12 2 2 .
4 Muratori, S .R .I. vol. vu, pars 1, p. 161 (new ed.).
3 M .G .H . Ss. X X X I, p. 254.
6 Ibid. p. 420. 7 Ibid. p. 155.
8 Ibid. p. 287. 9 ibid. p. 318.
10 Ibid. vol. X X II, p. 429; cf. also Chronica Minora auctore Minorita Erphor-
diensi, loc. cit. vol. x xiv, p. 183.
294
Berthold, author o f the Annals bearing his name and an emphatic

'G regorian 5, only cites the excommunication o f Lothar in his plea for
supreme papal power.1 He probably began writing his chronicle in
1076. The chronicler Bernold, who started his w ork about 1073, likewise
only knows o f Lothar5s excommunication.* Marianus Scottus123 gets
nearer the mark, when he mentions the excommunication o f Waldrada
only, and, in his libelli, Bernold only refers to that o f Lothar.4
More characteristic still is the prominence lent to the Photian affair
in the chronicle o f Hugh o f Verdun. Hugh knows o f the Eighth Council
and even quotes canon X X II, a document very popular with the
reformers o f that period.3 He also endeavours to collect the greatest
possible number o f precedents, more or less authentic, to prove that the
Pope had the right to judge and depose Emperors and that the temporal
power must remain in subordination to the spiritual power. Among the
precedents he quotes one so absurd as to raise a smile on the face o f
the most solemn Byzantinist ; he pretends that the Emperor Michael II
was deposed by the Patriarch Nicephorus6 for nothing more serious
than professional incapacity. O f Michael III Hugh knows nothing;
probably he had no knowledge o f Bonizo’s writing, though he started
his chronicle about 1090.
These examples are not without value, since they illustrate the men
tality o f the reformers o f the time o f Gregory V II, who were carried
away by a zeal that made them distort historical facts to suit their
polemics. The examples also explain how and w hy advantage was so
unexpectedly taken o f the Photian incident in the writings o f this and
the following period.?
1 M .G .H . Ss. V, p. 296.
2 Ibid. p. 420. 3 Ibid. p. 551.
4 Libelli Bernaldi Presbyteri monachi (ed. F. Thaner), M .G.H . Lib. de Lite,
vol. ii , pp. i seq. (written between 1084 and 1100). P. 148: ‘ Item beatus Nicolaus
papa primus Lotharium regem pro quadam concubina excommunicavit. Item
beatus Adrianus papa generaliter omnes reges anathematizavit, quicumque statuta
violare presumpserint.’ This last statement was probably inspired by canon X X II
of the Eighth Council. Bernald is identical with the chronicler Bernold.
3 Loc. cit. vol. vin, pp. 355, 412.
6 Ibid. p. 438.
7 Note also how the monk Placidus comments on canon X X II of the Eighth
Council, without mentioning Photius. Placidi monachi Nonantulani Liber de
Honore Ecclesiae, M .G.H . Lib. de Lite, vol. π, pp. 566 seq. The treatise written in
defence of Pope Paschalis II, p. 618: ‘ Quomodo Adrianus papa anathematizavit
principes electioni praesulum se inserentes. Non debere se inserere imperatores vel
principes electioni pontificum sanctus Adrianus papa VIII synodo praesidens ait:
Promotiones etc.. . . ’
But controversialists and chroniclers only partly represented the literary

activity that stirred the Church in the second half o f the eleventh
century: more important was the contribution by the canonists.
Research in this field was inspired by Gregory V II, whose anxiety to
give his reforming ideas a solid juridical basis prompted him to guide
his collaborators5 work in this direction.
Gregory’s first care was to enlarge his canonical documentation by
throwing open the registers and archives o f the Lateran, where numerous
copyists and compilers at once proceeded to hunt for documents that
might be o f interest to the canonists. Though the mass o f this inter
mediate work must have been enormous, it is difficult to-day to conceive
the size o f it, as most o f the work done by anonymous collaborators has
been lost. Only one specimen o f this class has come down to us, the
Collectio Britannica, preserved in one single manuscript at the British
Museum (Additional MS. No. 8873) an<^ very probably belonging to
the end o f the eleventh century.1
These were the intermediate Collections, extracted from official
documents that have remained unknown to this day, which the great
canonists o f the Gregorian period turned to such good account. One
o f the first big canonical Collections to be adapted to the new needs
was put together about the year 1083 by Gregory V II’s most loyal
associate, St Anselm o f Lucca.12 Obviously, documentation is attaining
considerable proportions. It is chiefly the letters o f Pope Nicholas I
that are pressed into service;3 this is but natural, since the reformers o f
the Gregorian period only aimed at carrying on the work begun by
Nicholas; and most often quoted is the letter in which Nicholas rebutted
Michael I l l ’s accusations.45 But letters by John V III are also reproduced,
though none o f them bears on the Photian incident. The Collection has
but three references to the Eighth Council in connection with canons
X X I, X V III and X X I I .3 The first, or canon X X I, forbids rash judge
ments about Popes and Patriarchs, and Photius is compared with
Dioscorus— the only direct reference to Photius in the whole C ol
1 Cf. P. Fournier on the canonists’ activities at this period. Fournier-Le Bras,

loc. cit. vol. II, pp. 7 seq. On the C ollectio B rita n n ica see Paul Ew ald,‘ Die Papstbriefe
der Britischen Sammlung’, in N eu es A rch iv (1880), vol. v.
s See Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 25 seq. F. Thaner, A n selm i, e p is c o p i
L u cen sis , co llectio ca n on u m (Oeniponte, 1906).
3 i, 63, 72; ii, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70; IV, 44; v, 39; vu, 135; X, 21.
4 h 7 9 ; n, 73 ; IV> 3 L 4 6 ; v, 42; vi, 89; X, 30.
5 i i , 72 = Mansi, vol. xvi, coi. 174; iv, 30 = Mansi, vol. xvi, coi. 172; vi,
20 = Mansi, vol. x vi, coi. 174.
296
THE PHOTIAN CASE IN LATIN LIT E R A T U R E
lection. Canon X V III concerns the privileges o f the Church and the
third is the famous canon X X II, so often appealed to by the reformers
that its quotation here is not surprising.
On the whole, therefore, the choice o f texts bearing on the Photian
incident seems to me remarkably restrained ; none o f the violent passages
that abound in Nicholas’ letters and in the Acts o f the Council o f 869
are even mentioned.
Much the same restraint is to be found in the canonico-moral C ol
lection under the title o f Liber de Vita Christiana, written between 1089
and 1095 by another propagandist o f Gregorian ideas, Bonizo o f Sutri.1
Bonizo, as stated before, even omits to mention Photius in the famous
passage (also quoted in his Liber ad Amicum) about the excommunica
tion o f Michael III by Nicholas,12 and only once, in canon X X I o f the
Eighth Council, does the name o f Photius appear; 3 this is in the same
passage as is found in the Collection o f St Anselm o f Lucca. Besides
this canon, Bonizo also quotes, as a matter o f course, canon X X II .4*
O f the letters o f Nicholas, only one refers to the Photian incident:
it is an extract from this Pope’s famous reply to the letter o f Michael III.3
Most o f the letters by John V III only concern the rights o f the Papacy
over Bulgaria and Pannonia.67 And this is all that interests us in the
Collection.
However remarkable the discretion o f these reformers in dealing with
the Photian case, more revealing still is the study o f the masterpiece o f
the Gregorian reform, the canonical Collection o f Cardinal Deusdedit,
who wrote his work between 1083 and 1087.? His subject-matter was
not quite the same as Anselm’s, for whereas the bishop o f Lucca aimed
at collecting the documents concerning every possible article of canonical
legislation, Deusdedit’s main object was to illustrate the Roman Church’s
privileged position and the reasons why the primacy was part and parcel
o f it. His aim was ‘ to raise a monument to the glory o f the Roman
1 Cf. Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 139 seq.; E. Perels, ‘ Bonizo, Liber
de Vita Christiana’ ( T exte zur G eschich te des R om . u nd K an on. R ech tes im M ittel-
a lter , vol. I, Berlin, 1930).
2 E. Perels, loc. cit. p. 1 3 1 ; cf. M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 1, pp. 607-9.
3 IV, 95 (ed. Perels), p. 159. 4 11, 17 (ed. Perels), p. 42.
3 Especially iv, %6 a = M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 456.
6 iv, 91-94 (ed. Perels), pp. 15S, 159 —M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 281 (letter to
Carloman), 282 (letter to Kocel of Pannonia), 284 (Commonitorium to legates).
7 Cf. Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 37 seq. Edition of W olf von Glanvell,
D ie K a n o n en sa m m lu n g d es K a rd in a ls D eu sd ed it (Paderborn, 1905). Cf. also the
judicious comments on this edition in W. M. Peitz, S.J., ‘ Das Originalregister
Gregors V II’, in S itz u n gsb erich te d. Ak. W iss. W ien , P h il.-H ist. K l. (19 11), vol. 165.
297
T HE PH ΟΤΙ AN S C H I SM . II. THE L E G E N D
Pontiff’s supreme power, so necessary and indispensable an instrument

o f ecclesiastical reform 5.1
It is important to stress this leading tendency in the cardinal’s C ol
lection, since it governs the choice o f his texts. He first made generous
use o f the numerous letters o f Nicholas I and John V III; most o f these
extracts had been utilized by Anselm o f Lucca in his Collection,2 but
Deusdedit’s quotations are usually longer. The cardinal also draws
freely upon the Acts o f the Eighth Council,3 but it is to his credit that
he shows the utmost restraint with regard to the Photian case. It is
true that the passages borrowed from the Acts o f the Eighth Council
several times mention the fallen Patriarch, but they suggest no ill will
towards the alleged author o f the alleged schism and relentless opponent
o f the papal claims. And yet, should he not have treated Photius as
such, if contemporary opinion had deserved to be taken seriously? An as
sociate o f Gregory V II must have been particularly sensitive on the point.
His discretion is all the more unexpected, since the Photian case
provided a ready-made argument for the propositions outlined on the
first pages o f the work by Deusdedit, who meant to deal with the
following topics : 4
1. De ecclesia Constantinopolitana.
2. De episcopis Constantinopolitanis damnatis a R[omana] sede.
3. De excommunicatione eiusdem civitatis episcopi, qui se universalem
nominavit.
4. De interdictu apostolicae sedis pro eodem vocabulo.
5. Quod Constantinopolitani episcopi anathematizaverint se et successores
suos, si quicquam praesumerent contra alicuius episcopi sedem.
1 Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 41, 51.
2 Here is the list, for documentary purposes, of the different passages with their
reference to St Anselm’s work: Nicholas’ letters: 1, i52 = A. 11, 64; 1, 15 3 = A. n,
66; I, 154 = A. π, 67; 1,15 5 = A . v, 44; 1, i57 = A. v ,6 5 ; 1, 158; 1, 159, 160 = A. 11,6 5 ;
I, 16 1 = A. IV, 43; I, 162 = A. π, 65; I, 163 = A. π, 70; 1, 164 = A. 11, 69; 1, 259;
π, 62 = A. vu, 154; IV, 159-73, a long passage from the letter of the Pope to the
Emperor Michael = A. 1, 74; iv, 174; iv, 17 5 = A. x ii , 35; iv, 176 = A. h i , 66.
Letters of John V III: 1, 166 = A. vi, 92; 1, 238 = A. vi, 92 (98); 1, 239; 1, 240 = A. iv,
45; i, 241; i, 242; i, 243 = A. π, 73; π, 90; in, 53 = A. v, 50; m, 54; m, 5 5 = A . iv,
3 1; in, 56, 57 = A. iv, 32; in, 142; in, 143; in, 144; iv, 91 = A . m, 107; iv, 92 = A. 1,
8 1; iv, 178; iv, 182 = A. I, 82; iv, 382.
3 I, 47 = canon 21 of the Council, Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 174 = A. 11, 72; 1, 48 = an
extract from Session VI, Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 86; 1,48 a = an extract from Session V II,
Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 97-99 ; m , 1 o = canon 15, Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 16 8 ,1 69 = A. vi,
171 ; ni, i = canon 18, Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 172 = A. iv, 20; m, 12 = canon 20, Mansi,
vol. xvi, cols. 173, 174; iv, 17 = an extract from Session IX , Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 152,
153 = A. xi, 15 1; iv, i8 = canon 22, Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 174, 17 5 = A. vi, 23.
4 Ed. W olf von Glanvell, loc. cit. p. 13.
298
Thus Deusdedit proposes a thorough examination o f the relations

between Constantinople and Rom e: now let us see which documents
he uses and what he thinks o f the Photian case. As an argument in
support o f his first proposition, the cardinal quotes a passage from the
letter o f Pope Gregory the G reat1 to John, bishop o f Syracuse, in which
he asserts that the Church o f Constantinople is subordinate to the
Church o f Rom e; in support o f the second proposition, he quotes the
condemnation o f the Patriarch Nestorius by the Council o f Ephesus,123
followed by a long extract from the letter o f Pope Nicholas 13 to the
Emperor Michael III, dated November 865, about Ignatius’ deposition.
This excerpt is significant, for the cardinal is satisfied with pointing to
the condemnation— recalled in this letter by Nicholas— o f the Patriarchs
Maximus, Nestorius, Acacius, Anthemius, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and
Peter— without a word about Photius. On the whole o f the Photian
incident, he quotes from the Pope’s letter only the following: ‘ Cum
ergo ita sit, cur in solo Ignatio beati Petri memoriam despicere ac
oblivioni tradere studuistis? nisi quia pro uoto cuncta facere uoluistis
constituentes synodum Ephesinae secundae crudelitati consimilem.’
And yet, there was in Nicholas’ correspondence a whole series o f
letters with particularly pointed statements about Photius’ condemna
tion. Is it not extraordinary then that the learned cardinal, who was
acquainted with the correspondence o f this great Pope, should have
omitted them?
Under propositions III and IV Deusdedit quotes an apocryphal letter
by Pelagius I I 45 against the Patriarch John o f Constantinople and a
letter by Gregory the Great 5 anent the same John, the apocryphal letter
also doing duty as evidence for what he says under V.
This discretion suggests that the compiler’s view o f the history o f
Photius differed from that current in the Western Church o f the modern
period: not only did he know that Photius had been indicted by the
Holy See, but he knew o f the reinstatement by the same supreme
authority.
I have deemed it necessary to examine the spirit o f this canonical
Collection before coming to the study o f the last documents that
conclude it, and which are quite favourable to Photius: there is, first,
1 I, 188, after the edition of W olf von Glanvell (p. 115). M .G .H . Ep. 11, p. 60.
2 I, 32, Actio V, Mansi, vol. iv, col. 1239.
3 iv, 164, M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 469.
4 h I 4 I? P· 95 ·
5 I, 142, p. 96. M .G .H . Gregorii Reg. 11, p. 157.
the extract from the Acts o f the synod that met in Constantinople in
8 6 1 1 under the chairmanship o f Photius and in the presence o f Nicholas’
legates, Radoald o f Porto and Zachary o f Anagni. The insertion o f a
document o f this kind in a canonical Collection o f Gregory V II’s
period is, at least, noteworthy, and raises some doubt whether the
extract in fact appeared in Deusdedit’s original w o rk? Yet, if what has
been said about the spirit in which the whole o f this Collection was put
together by the Cardinal be remembered, few will feel inclined to be
sceptical, for if the Cardinal really knew that Photius had been rehabili
tated by the Holy See and that the Papacy did not revise its judgement,
the Acts o f the 861 synod against Ignatius must have sounded less
odious to him than they did to the refractory Ignatians in Byzantium
and to Nicholas’ contemporaries in Rome in the ninth century.
The last exhibit also completes the documentation on the judicial
procedure and on the manner o f taking the oath, given by the learned
compiler at the end o f his book; for the Acts o f that Council aptly
illustrate the supreme judicial power o f the Bishops o f Rome, when
appealed to in the last instance o f any ‘ major cause’ by the Church o f
Constantinople. The procedure to be adopted in a suit against a bishop
is more clearly explained there than, for instance, in the Acts o f the
Council o f 869-70.
There are also many striking signs o f deference to the Bishops o f
Rome. Nicholas’ legates openly declare that the Pope has the right to
revise the case o f any bishop : 3 4Credite fratres quoniam sancti patres
decreverunt in Sardiniensi concilio, ut habeat potestatem Romanus
pontifex renovare causam cuiuslibet episcopi, propterea nos, per auctori
tatem, quam diximus, eius [i.e. Ignatii] volumus investigare negotium.’
And the bishop o f Laodicea, Theodore, replies in the name o f the
Church o f Constantinople : 4Et Ecclesia nostra gaudet in hoc et nullam
habet contradictionem et tristitiam.’ The Pope, so the legates declare
at the fourth session, has the care o f all the Churches;4 and far from
protesting, the synod spontaneously accepts the authority o f the Roman
See. The ‘ adiutores Ignatii’ enthusiastically exclaimed .*3 ‘ Qui hoc
[i.e. iudicium vestrum] non recipit, nec apostolos recipit.’
1 IV, 428-31, pp. 603-10: ‘ Sinodus habita in Constantinopoli sub Nicolao papa
de Ignatio Patriarcha.’ See pp. 78 seq.
2 W. von Glanveil, p. xiii, casts doubts at any rate on what concerns the extract
from the Acts of the Photian Synod that follows this document. Fournier-Le
Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, p. 48 are of opinion that the two documents may have been
added to the Collection later.
3 Loc. cit. p. 605. 4 Loc. cit. p. 609. 3 Loc. cit. p. 604.
300
T HE PH ΟΤΙ A N C A S E IN L A T I N L I T E R A T U R E
As such declarations must have filled4Gregorian5hearts with supreme

satisfaction and joy, it is only natural that such a text should have found
its w ay into a canonical collection o f that period.
Further, the authenticity o f the exhibit is above suspicion and its
form is in the best style as used on similar occasions by the Chancellery
o f Constantinople. Deusdedit, or else the copyist who entered it into
the Collection, took it from the Latin translation o f the Acts o f the
861 synod, brought to Rome by Zachary and Radoald and deposited
in the scrinium Lateranense; they are, moreover, the same Acts as are
mentioned by the author o f the Liber Pontificalis,1 which he must have
consulted. The question whether the document was entered into the
Collection by Deusdedit or by the copyist in transcribing his book is
immaterial, though everything seems to suggest that we owe its pre
servation to Deusdedit himself. W. M. Peitz, S .J.,12 was struck by the
great number o f oath formularies in the Collection under consideration
and ingeniously inferred that Deusdedit had perhaps occupied the post
o f cancellarius, in which capacity he would have had opportunities for
administering the oath to bishops and other notabilities. We should
also remember that as the only complete manuscript which preserved
this compilation was written under Paschal II (10 9 9 -1118 ), it was
roughly contemporary with Deusdedit.3 That such a document should
have been preserved only in this Collection is not surprising, since the
same applies to other writings reproduced there and not to be found
elsewhere, at any rate in their oldest and most reliable form.4
It is, however, possible that another document, which closes this
Collection, was added by the copyist o f Deusdedit5s work, the famous
summary o f the Photian Council o f 879—80: as a matter o f fact, it seems
not to fit into the scheme o f the original Collection, nor is it mentioned
in the Index, which was drawn up by the Cardinal.34
1 Ed. Duchesne, vol. 11, p. 158: ‘ convocata generali synodo, eundem virum
Ignatium patriarcham denuo deposuerunt, s icu t in g e s t i s C on sta n tin op olim ab illis
co m p ila tis f a c i l e rep eritu r et per legatos, Leonem scilicet a secreto et alios, necnon
per epistolam predicti imperatoris [Michaelis] veraciter mansit compertum/
3 ‘ Das Originalregister Gregors V IT , in S itz u n g s b e r ich te ... P h il.-H ist. K l.
(Wien, 19 11), vol. 165, p. 144.
3 About this MS. cf. the study by E. Stevenson, ‘ Osservazioni sulla Collectio
Canonum di Deusdedit’, in A rch ivio d ella R . S toria P a tria (1885), vol. vm ,
pp. 304-98; cf. also W. M. Peitz, loc. cit. pp. 133-47.
4 For instance the famous extracts from the Lateran Archives (ed. W. von
Glanvell, lib. h i , 191-207, PP· 3 53—^3) and one extract from the Frankish Annals
(ibid. lib. iv, 195, pp. 496, 497).
3 Cf. W. von Glanvell, loc. cit. p. xiii.
301
But this trifle does not impair the value o f the work. Deusdedit
knew the Photian case and notably his rehabilitation by John V III,
since he pointedly alludes to it in his Libellus contra Invasores et
Simoniacos,1 a paragraph strangely reminiscent o f John V III’s letter to
the Emperor Basil which was read at the second session o f the Photian
Council and is also summarized in the extracts from these Acts preserved
in Deusdedit’s Collection?
This document also originates from the Pontifical Archives and it
matters little whether it appeared in the original collection or was added
by contemporary copyists. It at least illustrates the mentality o f the
eleventh-century reformers and proves that their view o f this Council
and o f Photius’ rehabilitation was not that which has been accepted by
modern historians; otherwise, how could the Acts o f a Council, which
it is the fashion to-day to call ‘ pseudo-synodus’, have been admitted
into a Collection o f such importance?
Furthermore, the Acts o f the Photian Council must, through a number

o f extracts, have circulated among the canonists o f the time, to be
utilized not only by Deusdedit and his copyists, but also by another
great canonist o f the period, Ivo o f Chartres? T o establish the accuracy
o f this statement, we must collate the extracts from the Acts as handed
down by the two canonists.
In the famous prologue, which was probably to serve as a preface
to his Decretum, written about 1094, Ivo proves among other things
that the Pope has the right to annul a sentence passed on a defendant,
and quotes in support several cases gathered from history, including
that o f Photius:1234 ‘ Sic Joannes papa V III Photium neophytam a papa
Nicolao depositum Augustorum interventu Basilii, Leonis, Alexandri, in
patriarchatu Constantinopolitano restituit, scribens praedictis Augustis
1 Cf. the passage on the admission of Simoniacs and Schismatics to the priest
hood and on those ordained by them. M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 11, chs. 9, 10,
p. 327: £. . .Sed et Alexander primus et Celestinus et Joannes VIII simili sententia
decernunt, ut id, quod invenitur pro summa necessitate toleratum nullatenus
assumatur in legem.. . . ’
2 W. von Glanvell, loc. cit. pp. 6 12 -14 ; cf. the letter in Mansi, vol. x vii, col. 397;
Jaffé, no. 3271.
3 On Ivo of Chartres and his writings, see P. Fournier, 4Les Collections
canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres et le Droit Canonique’, in Bibl. de Γ École
des Chartes (1897), vol. LViii; idem, ‘ Yves de Chartres et le Droit Canonique’, in
Revue des Questions historiques (1898), vol. Lxm , pp. 51 seq.; Fournier-Le Bras,
loc. cit. vol. π, pp. 55 seq. Ivo’s writings, P .L . vol. 161.
4 P .L . vol. 161, col. 56.
302
in haec verba: Scripsistis nobis dilectissimi filii.. . . ’ There follows a

long extract from the letter o f John V III to Basil I.1 The context reveals
that the Photian case provides in the opinion o f Ivo the leading argu
ment o f his thesis. The bishop o f Chartres only mentions in this place
Photius’ reinstatement and not any second excommunication either by
John V III or by any o f his successors, although this was the right place
to quote the Pope’s second verdict, since it would have provided the
canonist with the most typical instance for his demonstration. And yet,
the canonists o f the period and their co-workers must have delved into
the pontifical archives with some care, noting every single text that
could, in one w ay or another, corroborate their doctrines on the plenitude
o f papal powers.
How could a document o f such importance as the fulmination o f a
second excommunication have escaped their attention? The compila
tion called Collectio Britannica contains long extracts from the registers
o f John V III and Stephen V , which are lost to-day— a sure sign that
all the documents relative to their pontificate were duly scrutinized by
the canonists; but this complete silence about a second excommunica
tion and condemnation o f Photius can point to only one conclusion—
that they never took place.
The study o f the long fragment from the letter o f John V III to
Basil I, quoted by Ivo, brings out another remarkable point. It is
identical with the text o f the letter read out to the Council at the
second session and we are given the same version in the Cardinal’s Collec
tion123— an excellent testimony to the authenticity o f Deusdedit’s
extract.
Nor is it the only excerpt from the Acts o f the Photian Council,
common to Ivo and Deusdedit. Ivo included in his Decretum {Deer.
v u , 149) a declaration by the pontifical legates ordering bishops who
become monks to relinquish their episcopal charge for good; this is
followed by the declaration o f the second canon o f the Council taking
similar action and passed by the assembly at its fifth session : now, the
same prohibition is mentioned at the end o f the extract from the Acts
in Deusdedit’s Collection ; 3 and yet, the passage quoted by Ivo o f
Chartres is considerably longer than the quotation by Deusdedit, and
1 As far as the sentence : ‘ si quis vero tale quid amodo facere praesumpserit, sine
venia erit.’ Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 487; vol. xvii, cols. 141, 395 ; Jaffé, vol. 1, no. 3271 ;
M .G .H . Ep. vi, pp. 168 seq.
2 Ed. W. von Glanvell, lib. iv, 434, pp. 612 (1. i6 )-6 i4 (1. 20).
3 Loc. cit. p. 617.
does not quite tally with the account given in the Acts o f the Photian
Council.1
This shows that Ivo was not copying from Deusdedit, but derived
his information from elsewhere, perhaps from the Acts themselves
which he summarized at this place, or more probably from an inter
mediary compilation made from the original documents o f the Pontifical
Archives, which gave a longer extract from the Acts o f the Photian
Council.
This is the more plausible as Ivo ’s Decretum completes Deusdedit’s
extracts on three points. In the fourth part, where he writes 4de
observandis festivitatibus et jejuniis legitimis, de Scripturis canonicis et
consuetudinibus et celebratione concilii’ , Ivo quotes two important
passages, which raise the problem o f the condemnation o f the Oecu
menical Council o f 869-70 by John V III. He says {Deer, iv, 76):
That the synod of Constantinople against Photius is not to be accepted.

John VIII to the Patriarch Photius.— We annul and absolutely abrogate the
synod against Photius held in Constantinople as much for other reasons as
because Pope Hadrian did not sanction it. (‘ Constantinopolitanum synodum
eam quae contra Photium est non esse recipiendam. Joannes VIII patriarchae
Photio.5— ‘ Illam quae contra Photium facta est Constantinopoli synodum
irritam facimus et omnino delevimus, tam propter alia, tam quoniam Adrianus
papa non subscripsit in ea.5)
The first part o f this passage tallies with the canon IV voted by the
Photian Council at its fourth session.12 The sentence, 'because Pope
Hadrian did not sanction it [the synod o f 869-70]’, is an extract from
the Greek edition o f John V III’s letter to Basil I. Photius gives there
a curious interpretation to John’s words contained in the Latin edition
o f the letter to Basil, to the effect that the legates had signed the Acts
o f the Ignatian Synod with the saving clause 'usque ad voluntatem sui
pontificis’ .3
1 See the comparison of the texts in my study 'L ’Affaire de Photios dans la
Littérature Latine5, in Annales de ΓInstitut Kondakov (1938), vol. X, p. 89.
2 Mansi, vol. xvii, col. 490 (Latin translation) : ‘ Synodum Romae factam contra
Photium sanctissimum patriarcham, sub Hadriano beatissimo papa, et factam Con
stantinopoli synodum contra eundem sanctissimum Photium, definimus omnino
damnatam et abrogatam esse, neque eam sanctis synodis adnumerandam esse aut
recensendam, neque synodum omnino appellandam aut vocandam esse. Absit/
3 Mansi, vol. x v i i , coi. 416 (Greek edition of John’s letter to Basil I); M .G .H .
Ep. vu, p. 18 1 (Latin and Greek edition of the letter). For more details, see infra,
part π, ch. 11, p. 329.
3°4
T H E PH ΟTI A N C A S E IN L A T I N L I T E R A T U R E
This passage and canon IV o f the Photian Council are not mentioned
in the extract from the Acts o f Deusdedit’s Collection;1 nor does the
extract even quote another passage o f equal importance in the Com
monitorium which John V III handed to his legates. It is well known
that these instructions only survived in the Greek Acts o f the Photian
Council. In the Cardinal’s Collection the extract from the Acts is a
summary o f eight chapters o f the Commonitorium, with the omission
o f chapter vi, which lays down for the legates’ benefit the procedure to
be followed at the opening o f the Council— and o f chapter x , which
is about the Council o f 869-70. But this chapter is inserted by Ivo o f
Chartres in his Decretum iv, 77 :
About the same, John VIII to his legates. You will tell them that we annul
those synods held against Photius under Pope Hadrian either in Rome or in
Constantinople and that we take them off the list of Holy Synods. (‘ De
eodem Joannes VIII apocrisiariis suis. Dicetis quod illas synodus quae
contra Photium sub Adriano papa Romae vel Constantinopoli sunt factae,
cassamus et de numero sanctarum synodorum delemus.’)
I f the Latin translation2 o f chapter x o f the Commonitorium be compared
with Ivo ’s quotation, it will be evident that here also the canonist takes
his excerpt from the Photian Council.
That some o f the quotations from the Acts preserved by Deusdedit
should be almost identical with Ivo ’s extracts seems to indicate that
both canonists had at their disposal copies o f the same intermediary
Collection which reproduced extracts from the Acts o f the Photian
Council. It is also possible that Ivo ’s copy contained longer extracts
from the Acts than the copy used by Deusdedit or by the copyist o f the
Cardinal’s Collection.
There must have been a considerable number o f those intermediary
compilations circulating in the West from the end o f the eleventh
century. As they were only meant to provide the canonists with juridical
materials to bolster up the reformist ideals o f the Gregorian period, the
choice o f extracts from papal letters and conciliar decisions was left to
the copyists’ discretion.
On the other hand, in comparing the Latin o f Deusdedit’s extract
from the Acts o f the anti-Ignatian Synod o f 861 with that o f the one he
1 Loc. cit. pp. 615, 616.

2 Mansi, vol. xvn, col. 471: ‘ Volumus coram praesente synodo promulgari, ut
synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano
sanctissimo papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita et sine
robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo.5
DPS 305 20
THE PH O T IA N SCHISM. II. THE L E G E N D
quotes from the Photian Synod, it is obvious that the two extracts could
hardly have been written by the same copyist. The Latin o f the first
extract is clumsy, whereas the copyist o f the second extract not only
wrote better Latin, but he had evidently read the Acts o f the Photian
Council intelligently and with an open mind. I have explained1 how
he grasped the meaning o f his Greek original and its Latin translation;
here he even completes the information supplied by the Acts in his
extract from the second session with reference to Photius’ reply to the
Pope’s request not to make any new ordinations for Bulgaria, for he
writes: ‘ We have occupied this priestly throne for three years, but have
neither sent a pallium nor made any ordinations there.’ 12 Here the Acts
are not so circumstantial, as Photius only speaks in general terms
(‘ having been Patriarch so long’).3 Without using any other copy o f
the Acts than the one we know, the copyist may have got his informa
tion from a careful reading and from other documents which he found
in the Archives.4
It is therefore possible that the copy used by Ivo contained only the
extracts o f the Photian Council and that Deusdedit or his copyist dis
posed o f conciliar materials gathered from the Archives by two different
copyists. Since all these intermediary compilations have been lost, with
the exception o f the Britannica, it is difficult to imagine what they were
like. We shall have occasion to show 3 that even the Britannica, in spite
o f the mass o f new materials it contains, was probably in many places
only an extract from longer compilations. Its concluding portion gives
an extract from Deusdedit’s Collection.
A comparison o f the Britannica materials with Deusdedit’s conciliar
extracts shows the working method o f the copyists, who on the invita
tion o f Gregory V II searched the Lateran Archives for canonical
documentation. Some o f them searched the Registers o f the Popes and
copied whatever they considered to be useful to canonists. The Britan
nica has many such excerpts from the Pontifical Register— letters o f
Popes Gelasius I, Pelagius I, Pelagius II, Leo IV , John V III, Stephen V ,
Alexander II and Urban II— together with extracts from the corre
spondence o f Boniface, the Patron Saint o f Germany. The letters o f
Nicholas I are not found among them: as they were o f special value to
Gregorian canonists, they must have circulated in a special copy.
1 See pp. 1 86 seq. 2 W. von Glanvell, iv, 334, p. 615.

4 It is also possible that this precision was due to the translator o f the Acts.
3 See pp. 325 seq.
306
THE P H O T IA N C A SE IN L A T IN L I T E R A T U R E
Other copyists made extracts from the conciliar Acts and their work
can be traced in Deusdedit’s documentation. But the method was the
same in either case: the copyists and the anonymous compilers o f the
intermediary Collections were only interested in such passages as would
prove useful to canonists, especially those that justified the privileges
o f the H oly See. They were o f course not always able to quote literally
and had to summarize the longer texts, as was the case with the Acts
o f the Councils, but the documents were always faithful to the originals.
No other explanation will account for the inclusion o f the extracts
from the two Councils in the Western canonical Collections o f the
eleventh century and for the form in which they are preserved. The
copyists omitted for instance the lengthy discourses addressed to Photius,
since they did not meet their purpose, and what that purpose was we
can infer from Deusdedit’s extracts— to take from the Acts only such
passages as could serve to document the privileges o f the Roman
Pontiffs.
It is therefore futile to seek in those documents evidence for the theory
that the legates brought from Constantinople only an extract from
the Acts, as though the Byzantines feared to send to Rome a full account
o f what had happened in Constantinople at the Photian Council, or as
though John V III had only seen the Acts in the abbreviated form we
know.1 It was never the custom to send to Rome only summaries o f
conciliar Acts. John V III knew exactly what had happened. A copy
o f the Acts brought from Constantinople by the legates was kept in
translation in the Lateran Archives, where the document hunters found
it towards the end o f the eleventh century.
Because the Acts offered materials that served the copyists’ purpose,
they summarized them or extracted their most telling passages. Tw o
o f the most eminent canonists o f the Gregorian and post-Gregorian
periods— Cardinal Deusdedit, or his copyist, and St Ivo o f Chartres—
saw the value o f this material for the privileges o f the Holy See and used
them independently in their canonical Collections.
By a curious irony o f fate, the same Acts which in the eleventh century
were regarded as favourable to the Papacy were discarded by historians
and canonists o f later periods as damaging to the same Gregorian claims.
Even their authenticity was questioned. What I have said, however,
1 This is M. Jugie’s suggestion (‘ Les Actes du Synode Photien’, in Échos

<TOrient, vol. x x x v n , pp. 89-99; Te Schisme Byzantin, loc. cit. pp. 129 seq.).
Cf. also V. Grumel, ‘ Lettres de Jean VIII pour le Rétablissement de Photius
in Échos ÉOrient (1940), vol. x x x ix , pp. 138-55.
200
3 ° 7
THE P H O T IA N SCHISM . II. TH E L E G E N D
establishes the conclusion that the doubts cast by the West on the Greek
Acts o f the Photian Council are no longer justified. To repeat it once
more, the extracts used by Deusdedit and Ivo o f Chartres prove that
the Latin translation, the only one known till their time, and which
provided their information, faithfully rendered the Greek text o f the
A cts; indeed, the source o f the intermediary compilation used by
Deusdedit and Ivo actually was the official copy brought from Con
stantinople by the legates.1 The Greek Acts o f the Photian Council
must therefore be considered absolutely authentic, at least in regard to
the five sessions, since it is at the fifth session that the extract of Deusdedit
and the quotations by Ivo come to an end.12
The examination, now concluded, o f the Latin literature on the
subject o f the Photian incident between the ninth and the twelfth cen
turies has provided some interesting results: the view held, at that
period at any rate, o f the Photian case was not the same as the view
current in the modern period; Photius’ litigation with the Papacy
occupied a very restricted place in the writings o f the time ; above all,
to our great surprise, absolutely nothing was known o f what to-day
goes by the name o f the second schism o f Photius ; whereas against this,
the Patriarch’s rehabilitation by John V III was common knowledge
and the ‘ Gregorian’ canonists unreservedly accepted the decisions o f
the Photian Council o f 869-70.
1 Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 11, p. 573, ftn. 25, is right, as against Hefele,
Koniiliengeschichte, vol. IV, p. 483, in stating that the translation of the Acts was
made from the copy brought home by the legates (ed. Leclercq, vol. ιν, 1, p. 605).
2 Cf. pp. 383 seq. on the authenticity of the sixth and seventh sessions.
308
C H A P T E R II
O E C U M E N I C I T Y O F T H E E I G H T H C O U N C I L IN
M ED IEVAL W E ST E R N T R A D IT IO N
Number o f councils acknowledged by the Gallic, Germanic, English and Lombard

Churches until the twelfth century— Rome and the seven councils— The Popes’
profession of faith and the number of councils— Eleventh-century canonists and
the Eighth Council— Was there any other edition of the Popes’ Professio fidei
covering the eight councils?
T h e solution so far reached now raises another weighty problem. I f
it be true that the Council o f 869-70 was cancelled by the Council o f

879-80, a decision that was ratified by Pope John V III, how was it
possible for the Western Church to persist in numbering this Council
among the oecumenical synods? It is inconceivable that no trace o f
Pope John’s decision should be found in the tradition o f the Western
Church: the Pontifical Chancellery had inherited from the Roman
Empire its sense o f logic, its respect for tradition and its spirit o f con
tinuity, and the offices o f the H oly See remained true to the tradition.
I f then we should fail to discover in the documents that issued from
the Chancellery and in the tradition o f the Western Church any traces
o f John’s ratification, there would be ample justification for repudiating
our conclusions about the Eighth Council.1
To find what position the Eighth Council occupied in the Western
tradition o f the Middle Ages, we must retrace our steps to the ninth
century and see how Christendom reacted to that Council. Our first
informant is Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, who in his Bertinian
Annals12 wrote as follows on the dispatch by Hadrian II o f legates to
Constantinople in connection with the Ignatian incident:
E t synodo congregata, quam octavam universalem synodumilluc convenientes

appellaverunt, exortum schisma de Ignatii depositione et Photii ordinatione
sedaverunt, Photium -anathematizantes et Ignatium restituentes. In qua
synodo de imaginibus adorandis aliter quam orthodoxi doctores antea diffinie-
rant, et pro favore Romani Pontificis, qui eorum votis de imaginibus
1 I here go again over the ground of my study, ‘ L ’ Oecuménicité du V ille

Concile dans la tradition occidentale du M.A.’, published in the Bulletin de la Classe
des Lettres de VAcadémie Royale de Belgique (1938), vol. X X IV , pp. 445 seq.
2 M .G .H . Ss. I, p. 494.
309
THE P H O T IA N SCH ISM . II. TH E L E G E N D
adorandis annuit, et quaedam contra antiquos canones, sed et contra suam

ipsam synodum constituerunt, sicut qui eamdem synodum legerit, patenter
inveniet.
Whilst concurring with Photius’ condemnation, the representative

o f the Frankish Church none the less definitely refuses to admit the
oecumenicity o f the Eighth Council and his attitude, however unex
pected, is perfectly consistent with Hincmar’s point o f view ; for in his
writings concerning his nephew and namesake, this eminent prelate
forcibly rejected the Seventh Oecumenical Council and acknowledged
only six universal synods.1 He thus shared the Frankish Church’s
distrust o f the Second Council o f Nicaea, and had no option but to
repudiate the oecumenicity o f the Fourth Council o f Constantinople
as well.
The Frankish Church must have unanimously inherited this mistrust
from its great representative o f the ninth century. A century after
Hincmar’s death, another metropolitan o f Rheims, the famous Gerbert,
the future Pope Sylvester II, made in 991, before taking possession o f
his see, a profession o f faith in which he expressly said:^ ‘ Sanctas
sinodos sex, quas universalis mater ecclesia confirmat, confirmo.’ In his
letter to Wilderode, bishop o f Strasbourg, Gerbert mainly insists on
the first four councils,123 as true in this to an old tradition o f the whole
Church, stressed particularly by Gelasius, as Hincmar’s special venera
tion for the same councils.4*
This profession o f faith was apparently not Gerbert’s own composi
tion, for it is found repeated word for word in the biography o f Gauzlin,
abbot o f Fleury and archbishop o f Bourges, who died in 1029, written
by André de Fleury (d. 1056) who as a matter o f course attributed
it to Gauzlin.3 J. Havet asserts that this profession was issued to combat
the doctrines o f the Cathari : 6 the biographer, so he states, assigns it to
Gauzlin, who is alleged to have written it in opposition to the doctrines
o f other heretics, who were at that time gaining a foothold in his diocese.?
But it seems more likely that the profession came from a formulary
1 P .L . vol. 126, col. 359.

2 j. Havet, Lettres de Gerbert (Collection de Textes pour servir à VEtude et à
VEnseignement de VHistoire (Paris, 1889), p. 162, pièce no. 180).
3 Havet, loc. cit. pp. 208 seq., pièce no. 217.
4 P .L . vol. 126, cols. 384-6.
3 L. Delisle, ‘ Vie de Gauzlin, Abbé de Fleury et Archevêque de Bourges,
par André de Fleury’, in Mém. de la Soc. Archéol. de VOrléanais (1853), vol. 11,
pp. 256-322.
6 Havet, loc. cit. p. 161. 7 Delisle, loc. cit. p. 303.
3 10
O E C U M E N I C I T Y OF TH E E I G H T H C O U N C I L
used by the Frankish Church in the tenth and eleventh centuries.1 In

any case, it all goes to show that as late as the eleventh century the
Frankish Church officially acknowledged only six oecumenical
councils.
The Frankish formularies contain very few references to the
oecumenical councils. Formula 1024 o f the Collection published b y
E. Rozières has an archbishop’s profession o f faith,123 which mentions
the first four councils, whereas another formula mentions only two
councils.3
It is also noteworthy that this ancient tradition remained long in
force in the Western Church. Throughout the historical works pub
lished between the end o f the ninth century and the second half o f the
eleventh century, the writers pay little attention to the number o f
oecumenical councils, and if they do happen to mention them, most
o f them go no further than the Sixth or, at most, the Seventh Oecu
menical Council. Here are a few instances.
The Annals o f Hildesheim, which copy textually the Annales
Laurissienses Minores down to the year 814, stop short at the Sixth
Oecumenical Council. The Annals o f Quedlinburg, which rely on the
Annals o f Hildesheim as their principal source until the year 110 0 ,
mention no council after the Sixth.4* The same holds good for the
Annales Lambertiniens es,3 which take us as far as 1077, and the Annales
S. Jacobi Leodiensis,6 which stop in 1055. John the Deacon follows the
same tradition in his Chronicon, where he gives us the history o f Venice
till 1088.7 There also ends the Chronicon Herimanni Augiensis,8 which
carries events till 1054. Marianus Scotus (born in 1028, died about
1087) knows nothing o f the councils after that o f the year 6 8 0 -1 .9
Bernold, monk o f St Blasius (born about 1054, died in 1100), who
follows the Chronicle o f Herimannus Augiensis Contractus till 1055,
also enumerates only six councils in his Chronicle.10
1 Cf. Jules Lair, Études critiques sur divers Textes des Xe et XIe siècles (Paris,
1899), vol. 1, p. 334.
2 E. Rozière, Recueil Général des Formules Usitées dans VEmpire des Francs du
Ve au Xe siècles (Paris, 1859), vol. Il, pp. 644-5 ·* ‘ Praeterea constitutiones quatuor
principalium conciliorum, Nicaeni, Constantinopolitani, Ephesîni et Chalcedo-
nensis, canones quoque synodorum et decreta quae orthodoxa fides suscipit et
complectitur, me suscipere, tenere et praedicare velle confiteor.’
3 E. Rozière, loc. cit. pp. 113 3 -4 , form. no. 1387.
4 M .G.H . Ss. n i, p. 32 . 5 M .G.H . Ss. in, p. 29.
6 M .G .H . Ss. IV, p. 1 2 . 7 M .G.H . Ss. vu, p. 10.
8 M .G .H . Ss. V , p. 96. 9 M .G.H . Ss. V , p. 544.
10 M .G .H . Ss. V , p. 416.
3 11
Most o f these writers use as their source the Ecclesiastical H istory o f

Bede and close their list o f the oecumenical councils exactly where it
is concluded by that great medieval authority. We should also remember
the Frankish Church’s emphatic refusal at the time o f Charlemagne to
accept the authority o f the Seventh Council, a disclaimer that must
have persisted very long in the West, and at least some o f these writers
must have shared it.1
Few also are the chroniclers who add the Seventh Council to their
list. The Gesta Episcoporum Neapolitanorum ,12 an important authority
o f the eleventh century, mention the Second Council o f Nicaea, but say
nothing o f the Fourth o f Constantinople. The Chronicle o f Sigebertus
Gemblacensis 3 also mentions the Eighth Council, and so do the Annales
LaubiensesA
We naturally omit the works o f Frankish origin which, as is well
known, simply deny the oecumenicity o f this Council.
Much the same is found in the other writings o f the period. Burchard
o f Worms, whose canonical work on the rule o f the Catholic faith en
joyed great authority in the West, quotes the decree o f Pope Gelasius I
on the sacred books and on the councils, where only the first four oecu
menical councils are mentioned.3* The decree goes on: £Sed si qua sunt
concilia a sanctis patribus hactenus instituta, praeter istorum quatuor
auctoritatem, et custodienda et recipienda decrevimus.’
Atto Vercellensis, enumerating in his Capitulary o f 954 the sacred
books which constitute the canon o f the faith, mentions only the
Councils o f Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon,67whereas St Udalrich, in
his Instruction on the Duties o f Religious Practice, mentions no council
at all.?
St Alfric, archbishop o f Canterbury, who died in 1006, only insists
1 We come across a curious instance of this mistrust at the outset of the thirteenth
century in the Chronicon Helinandi Frigidi Montis monachi (P .L . vol. 212, col. 840):
4Ad a. 794 Pseudosynodus Graecorum, quam falso septimam vocant, pro adorandis
imaginibus, rejecta est a pontificibus.’ About the Eighth Council Helinandus says
nothing.
s M .G .H . Ss. Rer. Lang. p. 427.
3 M .G .H . Ss. V i, p. 335. Sigebert died in 1112 .
4 M .G .H . Ss. IV , p. 13.
3 Decretorum Libri X X , Lib. I l l , c a p . 220; P .L . vol. 140, col. 717.
6 P .L . vol. 134, cols. 49-52.
7 P .L . vol. 135, cols. 1069-74, ann. 1009. Cf. Ratherius, Praeloqutorum Libri Sex
{P .L . vol. 136, col. 248) for a similar Instruction; also his Itinerarium (loc. cit. cols.
581, 592). St Odilo does not, in his profession of faith, mention the councils either
{P .L . vol. 142, cols. 1035-6).
312
on the first four councils;1 and the priest and monk Bernald, born
about 1054 and who died in 1100 , follows the old tradition by listing
only six oecumenical councils.12
Textbooks on the councils scarcely exist in the Latin literature
o f this period, while the Greek Church, as is well known, could boast
o f a profusion o f writings on the subject. All I have found is one
single short Latin textbook, anonymous and unpublished, in a MS. o f
the tenth century and preserved in the Latin MS. section o f the Paris
National Library (No. 1451), which enumerates only six councils. This
is the original text:
D e sex prioribus conciliis. Primum concilium Nicaenum factum est tem
poribus Constantini imperatoris Magni sub Silvestro papa urbis Romae
antiquae, ubi fuerunt episcopi sanctissimi c c c x v i i i . Secundum concilium
fuit temporibus Theodosii Maioris sub Damaso apostolico antiquae Rom ae
senioris, ubi fuerunt episcopi c l . Tertium concilium fuit Ephesinum sub
tempore Theodosii iunioris sub Caelestino apostolico urbis Romae antiquae,
ubi fuerunt episcopi cc. Quartum concilium Chalcedonense fuit temporibus
Martiani imperatoris sub Leone apostolico urbis Romae antiquae senioris,
ubi fuerunt episcopi c c x x x . Quintum concilium item Constantinopolitanum
fuit temporibus Justiniani imperatoris sub V igilo papa urbis Romae antiquae,
ubi fuerunt episcopi c l x v . Sextum concilium item Constantinopolitanum
fuit temporibus Constantini iunioris, sub Aagata (sic) papa urbis Rom ae, ubi
fuerunt episcopi ccc.
The manuscript then takes stock o f the heretics who were condemned
b y the different councils, beginning: 4In Nicaenum concilium (sic)
fuerunt damnati Arrius et Photinus et Sabellius.. . . ? Note that Pope
Honorius is not included among the condemned. This little treatise
reminds one o f the numerous Greek handbooks and textbooks on the
councils and one may justifiably assume that it followed the Greek
pattern.3
In another Latin manuscript o f the Paris National Library (No. 1340),
dating from the eleventh century, we find a short anonymous history,
which is £ex sancti Leonis et sancti Gregorii epistolis, et Gelasii papae
1 S. Alferici ad Wulfinum ep. Canones, canon x x x m (P .L . vol. 139, cois. 1475—6:

4Quatuor istae synodi adeo observandae sunt a Christi ecclesia ut quatuor Christi
codices/
2 Apologeticus (M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, n, p. 6 1); De excom. vitandis (M .G .H .
Lib. delite, i i , pp. 126, 129, 130-5).
3 Cf. also a small treatise on the six first councils found in the Introduction to
the Vita Methodii. See my translation in Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode,
pp. 383, 384.
313
tomulo concinnata5, a short compilation on the first four councils,

which may be quoted to illustrate that the old tradition o f the Church,
started by Leo the Great, St Gregory and Gelasius, was readily followed
in the West as late as the eleventh century.
On the whole, down to the middle o f the eleventh century, no single
contemporary writing, o f all those I have been able to consult,
provides any evidence o f the oecumenicity o f the Eighth Council. But
weighty as the indication is, it is not adequate. The few writers who do
mention the oecumenical councils in their books follow, as was stated,
the old tradition o f the Church as based on Gregory the Great’s synodical
letter and Bede’s Ecclesiastical H istory. For the Westerners o f that
period, councils had not the same significance as for the G reek s;1 and
what matters is not so much the tradition that prevailed in Gaul,
Germany, England, or even Italy, but the practice observed in Rome.
What then was the attitude in Rome to the Eighth Council? Docu
ments on this precise question are few, but the few that survive are
suggestive.
Pope Marinus II (942-6) addressed to Sicus, bishop o f Capua, a
letter12 blaming him for his unclerical principles and conduct, taking
particular exception to his violation o f the church attached to the
monastery o f St Agnalius de Monte and threatening the bishop with
excommunication, unless he atoned for the damage he had wrought:
Therefore, b y the authority o f A lm ighty G od, o f the Blessed Apostles

Peter and Paul, o f all the saints and o f the seven universal canons [general
councils], we send you this threat o f excommunication, so that you m ay
seriously endeavour to be on your guard against the above-mentioned [sins]
and to amend y o u rse lf.. . . But if you d isob ey. . . this our warning, you w ill
1 A classical instance illustrating the mentality will be found in the Legatio of

Liudprand (M .G .H . Ss. m, p. 351). The Patriarch of Constantinople had asked
Liudprand which councils were acknowledged by the West and Liudprand replied
with the list of the four first oecumenical councils and of the ancient synods of
Antioch, Carthage and Ancyra. The answer tickled the Greeks immensely: ‘ Ha!
Ha! Ha! ait [patriarcha], Saxonicam dicere es oblitus, quam si rogas, cur nostri
codices non habent, rudem esse, et ad nos necdum venire posse, respondeo/
2 P .L . vol. 133, cois. 874—5: ‘ Quapropter Dei omnipotentis et beatorum prin-
cipum Petri et Pauli, et omnium sanctorum, et septem universalium canonum te
excommunicando, mittimus, ut ab omnibus his supra memoratis praecavere te, atque
emendare summopere studeas.. . .Si vero huic nostrae exhortationi.. .inobediens
fueris, sis Dei omnipotentis et beatorum Petri et Pauli et omnium simul sanctorum,
atque venerabilium septem universalium conciliorum auctoritate necnon et Spiritus
sancti iudicio omni sacerdotali honore alienus.. . . 5
3M
O E C U M E N I C I T Y OF TH E E I G H T H COUNCIL
be deprived o f all sacerdotal dignity b y the authority o f A lm ighty G od, o f

the Blessed Peter and Paul, o f all the saints and o f the venerable seven general
councils, as also b y the judgment o f the H oly S p irit.. . .
The passage is clear enough: Pope Marinus II acknowledges no more

than seven oecumenical councils. Nor can there be any question o f a
slip, since the formula used by the Pope is couched in solemn terms and
repeated twice; and Marinus had no special reason for omitting the
Eighth Council in this particular place, if he believed in its oecumenicity.
The other document on the same issue is better known: it is the
famous synodical letter o f Leo IX , sent in 1055 to Peter, Patriarch o f
Antioch.1 After enumerating the first four councils, the Pope writes:
In the same w ay, I accept and venerate the other three Councils, i.e. the
second o f Constantinople, held under Pope V igilius and the Em peror
Justinian; then, the third o f Constantinople against the Monothelites, under
Pope Agatho and Constantine, nephew o f Heraclius; and lastly, the second
o f Nicaea, under Pope Hadrian and Constantine, son o f Irene, for the
preservation o f the images o f Our Lord Jesus Christ and the saints.
W hatever the afore-mentioned seven holy and universal Councils decreed
and praised, I believe and praise, and I anathematize whom soever they
anathematized.
The words leave no room for doubt. C. W ill, in his collection o f

documents bearing on the schism o f 1054,12 tried to evade the difficulty
raised by the specific reference to seven councils by suggesting that the
Pope omitted the Eighth Council for fear o f offending the Greeks who
did not acknowledge it: the suggestion seems to us preposterous, if not
offensive to the supreme head o f the Church. Could anyone seriously
imagine a Pope deliberately disregarding an oecumenical council to
oblige anyone, even the Greeks? The ruse would amount to a thinly
veiled capitulation, a concession made to save himself trouble. Think
o f the consequences o f the deception— for such it would be— had the
issue been a council like that o f Chalcedon: it would have spread joy
1 P .L . vol. 143, cols. 772-3, letter 10 1: ‘ Pari modo recipio et veneror reliqua
tria concilia, id est, secundum Constantinopolitanum, sub Vigilio papa et Justiniano
Augusto; deinde tertium Constantinopolitanum contra Monothelitas, sub Agathone
papa et Constantino nepote Heraclii; ultimum secundum Nicaenum, sub Adriano
papa et Constantino Irenae filio, pro servandis Domini nostri Jesu Christi et
sanctorum imaginibus. Quidquid supra dicta septem sancta et universalia concilia
senserunt et collaudaverunt, sentio et collaudo : et quoscumque anathematizaverunt,
anathematizo.’
2 Acta et Scripta quae de controversiis eccl. Graecae et Latinae saec. X I composita
extant (Leipzig, 1861), p. 17 1.
315
THE PH O TIA N SCHISM. II. TH E L E G E N D
and jubilation among Armenians and all the Monophysites and opened
the gates to heresy.
There is no eluding the force o f the argument by pretending that in
the eleventh century the number o f oecumenical councils was not yet
definitely fixed.1 The evasion could pass muster in the case o f annalists,
or even o f the canonical Collections published between the ninth and
eleventh centuries, but is inadmissible in the case o f an important
pontifical document. The letter is an official statement, purporting to
teach the Church o f Antioch the faith o f the Roman Church— a matter
o f some moment— and at least we must credit the supreme pontiff
with knowing the standards o f the faith o f his own Church. The
Pontifical Chancellery o f the eleventh century was not so incom
petent as to be uncertain about the number o f oecumenical councils.
The truth is that Marinus II and Leo IX , in speaking o f only seven
oecumenical councils, were true to the tradition o f the Roman Church.
There are two more documents o f the same kind belonging to the
period o f Leo IX and his immediate successors, both endorsing the Pope’s
attestation o f the number o f councils as officially acknowledged in Rome.
The first o f these witnesses is Leo I X ’s faithful associate, Cardinal
Humbert de Silva Candida. After the definite rupture with Michael
Cerularius, Humbert pronounced excommunication in the name o f the
Fathers o f the seven councils: ‘ auctoritate-..patrum ex conciliis
septem.. . . ’ 2
It has often been wondered why Humbert did not, at that particular
moment, mention the Eighth Council: was it a slip or diplomatic
caution? It was neither. Humbert no longer felt it necessary to con
sider the feelings o f the Greek spiritual leaders. He had many other
grievances against them and never minced his words: w hy should he
suddenly exercise restraint in the matter o f the councils? Humbert was
not prone to compromise on such matters. A man o f his stature, per
fectly at home in the procedure o f the Pontifical Chancellery, a good
jurist and a conscientious theologian, he would have been the last to
omit an oecumenical council in a document o f such fundamental impor
tance, in which he spoke in the name o f the Pope and o f the whole
Western Church. Humbert may be blamed for many things, but not
for overlooking an oecumenical council, whose authority would have
added weight to his passionate anathema. The truth is that in quoting
only seven oecumenical councils, Humbert faithfully rendered the
1 A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios (Paderborn, 1930), vol. π, p. 425.
2 P .L . vol. 143, col. 1004.
316
doctrine o f his Church, which at that time officially knew no more than
seven councils. On this point, Humbert was at one with his master,
Pope Leo I X .1
The other testimony is later than the Cardinal’s by a few years, dating
from the time o f Nicholas II. At the beginning o f 1059, this Pope sent
St Peter Damian as a legate to Milan on a mission to reform a con-
cubinary and simoniacal clergy, and Peter Damian duly reported on
his mission to Hildebrand, then promoted archdeacon o f the Roman
Churchri Among the documents appended to this interesting report,
we find a copy o f the oath which Peter Damian administered to those
clergy who wished to repent. The following is what we read in this
formula with reference to the number o f councils : 123
I Arialdus, called deacon o f the Chapel o f the archbishop o f Milan, profess
to hold the same faith as the seven sacred Councils have b y evangelical
authority decreed and as the blessed Rom an Pontiffs have explained to
various people in their brilliant expositions o f the truth.
Are we also to accuse St Peter Damian, doctor o f the Church, o f an

unfortunate slip o f memory or o f misplaced diplomatic caution? The
pontifical legate surely had nothing to hide in Milan; the formula must
have been drawn up at the office o f the Pontifical Chancellery, and Peter
and his companion St Anselm o f Lucca, the future Pope Alexander II,
must have been given definite instructions in Rome, before starting on
their official mission. Did the parties concerned forget to remind them
o f the number o f oecumenical councils then officially recognized by the
Church? It would be a poor compliment to the Roman theologians o f
the time.
Here again Peter Damian and his companion Anselm o f Lucca bear
witness to the fact that the Church o f Rome in those days knew only
seven oecumenical councils and therefore upheld the decision o f
John V III who suppressed the Council o f 869-70: there lies the true
solution o f all these puzzles, a solution perfectly consistent and straight
forward.
1 Humbert refers to the number of councils in another place, namely, in his

writing against Nicetas (P .L . vol. 143, col. 992), but there he only mentions six
councils.
2 Actus Mediolani, de Privilegio Romanae Ecclesiae, Opuscul. v {P .L . vol. 145,
cois. 89-98): ‘ Ego Arialdus dictus diaconus de capella Mediolanensis archiepiscopi
. . .profiteor me eam fidem tenere, quam sacrosancta septem concilia evangelica
auctoritate firmarunt et quam beatissimi pontifices Romani ad diversos data praedi
catione lucidissimae veritatis exposuerunt.’ 3 P .L . vol. 145, coi. 97.
3 r7
There remains a document which confirms that such was indeed the
tradition o f the Church o f Rome in the eleventh century, the profession
o f faith which, according to century-old usage, each Pope had to read
and sign before his enthronement. It was then laid on the tomb o f
St Peter and subsequently kept in the Pontifical Archives. The formula
o f this profession was to be found in the Liber Diurnus, the oldest
known formulary o f the Roman Chancellery.1 It has been lost, but we
get an idea o f what it was from a school-book intended for the training
o f notaries, also called Liber Diurnus, as it contained copies o f most o f
the formulae o f the official formulary. It has survived in three Manu
scripts, those o f the Vatican Library, o f Clermont and o f Milan, repre
senting three slightly different versions. All o f them give an idea o f
what the Liber Diurnus must have looked like in the eighth century and
at the beginning o f the ninth.
Am ong the formulae bearing on the election and the consecration o f
Popes, we are here mainly interested in their profession o f faith. It is
a venerable document whose importance to the history o f the Papacy
and the evolution o f dogmas our specialists have not yet fully
realized.2
The formula preserved by the school-book Liber Diurnus enumerates
the six oecumenical councils to be accepted by the Popes as the norm
o f the Catholic faith, but it is clear from the text that the original number
1 I am only summarizing here the results of my researches. See the detailed
discussion in Appendix I.
2 So far, only the Jesuit W. M. Peitz has tried to show the connection of the
profession of faith with the development of Catholic doctrine (see details in
Appendix I, p. 442). I have not seen his latest studies on this subject (‘ Das
Vorephesinische Symbol der Papstkanzlei’, in Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae
edita a Fac. Hist. Eccl. in Pont. Universitate Gregoriana, no. 1 (Rome, 1939), nor
‘ Methodisches zur Diurnusforschung’, ibid. no. 3 (Rome, 1940), but the review
of the two studies published by E. Hermann in Orientalia Christiana Periodica
(1940), vol. V i, pp. 270-4 stresses the importance of Peitz’s researches and the
necessity for proceeding carefully in this delicate matter. Peitz’s conclusions may
sound bold to many, but they follow the right direction. The reviews of Peitz’s
studies by B. Altaner and C. Mohlberg in the Theologische Revue (1939), vol. x x x v m ,
were also unobtainable. L. Santifaller’s study, ‘ Zur Liber Diurnus-Forschung’, in
Hist. Zeitschrift (1940), vol. C L X i, pp. 532-8, summarizing the latest contributions
to the problem, is too short and the author has failed to convince me that the Liber
Diurnus was not a school-book used in the Pontifical Chancellery, but merely a
valuable document of canon law. He should have stuck to his previous conclusions.
This controversy has no immediate bearing on the profession of faith formula of
the Liber Diurnus. Even if it was only a collection of canon law formulae or the
oldest formulary of the Papal Chancellery, it remains established that it was repeatedly
revised, the last known revision having been made in the eleventh century. It was
this last edition that was used by Cardinal Deusdedit.
318
was four, the other two being added when they were officially adopted
b y the Roman Church. This number was considered to meet the needs
till the end o f the ninth century. As will be explained elsewhere,1 the
Seventh Council was officially included only after 880.
It may be taken for granted then that the official formulary o f the
Liber Diurnus was altered from time to time, as some formulae needed
to be brought up to date. But another formulary came into use, and
there are traces o f a different edition o f the Liber Diurnus, published
in the ninth century with alterations that are not registered in the school
book. This edition may have been in use till the middle o f the eleventh
century, when another revision o f the Liber Diurnus was made. This
was used by the famous canonist o f the Gregorian period, Cardinal
Deusdedit, who copied a number o f formulae from the revised Liber
Diurnus for his canonical documentation. The profession o f faith for
newly elected Popes is one o f them. This formula, when compared with
formula 83 o f the school-book, will give an idea o f the profession as
used in Rome till the ninth century and o f the radical revisions to which
the book was subjected in the eleventh century, probably in the reign
o f Leo IX . Even so, the new profession gives only seven oecumenical
councils, without a word about the Eighth. It is the same with the
formula called Cautio Episcopi, or the profession form used by bishops
after their election, in which the passage on the oecumenical councils
was also brought up to date and 4modernized5 in the eleventh century,
yet without a reference to the Eighth Council. Only one explanation is
possible: the Church o f Rome knew only seven, and not eight, oecu
menical councils in the first half o f the eleventh century. And this
tallies with the facts as I have tried to establish them in the first
part o f this book. In the eleventh century, John V IlT s verdict on
the so-called Eighth Council and on Photius5 rehabilitation was still
in force and that Council was not numbered among the oecumenical
synods.
I f this is so, how is it that the Council o f 869-70 is regarded to-day as

an oecumenical council by the Western Church? How and when was
it added to the list ?
Everything points to the conclusion that this change o f attitude to
the Eighth Council in the West and in Rome occurred at the end o f the
eleventh century and was contrived by the canonists and reformists of
the period. It was they who really 'discovered5 this Council, together
1 See Appendix I, p. 444.
3*9
THE P H O T IA N SCHISM. II. TH E L E G E N D
with some canons extremely useful for their documentation, chiefly

canon X X II prohibiting interference by lay power in episcopal elections,
a discovery that was o f considerable importance in the struggle against
lay investiture.1
But the acceptance o f the oecumenicity o f the Eighth Council was
gradual and the first great canonist o f the period, St Anselm o f Lucca,
still seems to follow the old tradition in computing the number o f
oecumenical councils. In book vi, ch. 49, o f his Collection, he mentions
the Popes5ancient practice o f sending to the Eastern Patriarchs synodical
letters with a profession o f faith, and he quotes a fragment from the
Life o f St Gregory the Great, written by John the Deacon.12 In chapter 50
Anselm appeals to the authority o f the first four councils, and quotes
the synodical letter o f St Gregory the Great mentioning the five
councils.
But again, it was St Anselm who introduced canon X X II , since
grown so famous, into canonical legislation. He also quotes canon
X V III, which prohibits all violation o f ecclesiastical privileges, and
canon X X I on the honours due to Pope and Patriarchs,3 and in quoting
the latter gives it the title, which the Council had arrogated to itself,
o f ‘ universalis octava synodus5.
Anselm’s example is followed by another reformer o f the time,
Bonizo, who quotes canons X X I and X X II in his Liber ad Amicum 4
and in his Liber de Vita Christiana.5 Gerhohus o f Reichersberg
(113 2 -6 9 ) also draws an argument from canon X X II against
the champions o f lay investiture.6 The same canon is appealed
1 See my study, ‘ L ’Affaire de Photios dans la Littérature Latine du Moyen Â ge’,

in Annales de VInstitut Kondakov (1938), vol. x, pp. 82 seq. and pp. 293 seq.
2 He also quotes John the Deacon’s comments on this practice and mentions
there the Eighth Council: ‘ Quam videlicet consuetudinem, sicut nostri quoque,
qui ante biennium ab Adriano papa in sancta octava synodo testantur, ita Orientales
praecipue retinent usque hactenus sedes, ut in suis dypticis nullius pontificis nomen
describunt, quo usque ipsius synodicum suscipiant.. . . ’ When John was writing,
this council was still in force in the West.
3 F. Thaner, Anselmi, episcopi Lucensis, collectio canonum, loc. cit. II, 72, p. 109;
IV , 30, p. 205; vi, 20, p. 276.
4 M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, 1, p. 607.
5 E. Perels, ‘ Bonizo, Liber de Vita Christiana’, loc. cit. I, 1 ; iv, 95; 11, 17.
6 Opusculum de Edificio Dei (M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, ni, p. 15 1, cap. 19). The
passage is very suggestive: ‘ Hinc est quod octava synodus electionem laicali
potestate fieri sub anathemate interdicit : quae synodus, petente et presente Basilio
magno imperatore, habita fuit. Neque tamen vel ipse Basilius vel ceteri catholici
imperatores questi sunt hoc ad sui contemptum fieri, ut nichil de pontificum elec
tione eorum referretur potestati: immo potius leguntur sanctorum patrum insti-
320
to by the monk Placidus1 and in the pleading in favour o f Pope

Paschal IL*
As for Deusdedit, he naturally makes frequent use o f the Acts o f the
Eighth Council in his Collection and in his other writings, but it is
generally the same canons that interest him,3 although he betrays some
hesitation about the oecumenicity o f this Council. Knowing that the
number o f officially acknowledged oecumenical councils amounted to
no more than seven— the very reason w hy he dared not touch the
profession o f faith which he copied from his Liber Diurnus— he also
noticed that the Eighth Council had conferred on itself the title ‘ oecu
menical’. It was also bestowed on it by Anastasius4 and by John V III3
— and that before 879. Though it offered canons o f great value to the
reformers, Deusdedit, being a conscientious canonist, hesitated, at least
in some places, to give it the title ‘ oecumenical’ .
In his Libellus Contra Invasores et Simoniacos, he writes: ‘ Synodus
vero pro Ignatio, quae a quibusdam octava dicitur.. . . ’ ‘ In synodo
universali C C X L (!) patrum habita pro Ignatio patriarcha, quae a qui
busdam V III. dicitur.’ ‘ In octava synodo universali habita pro Ignatio.’
‘ In synodo universali patrum C C X L (!) habita pro Ignatio patriarcha,
quae a suis conditoribus octava dicitur.. . . ’6
The words clearly reveal Deusdedit’s misgivings about describing
the Eighth Council as oecumenical; he simply gave it the title which
its authors had claimed for it. The Libellus was composed in 1097 ϋ
we should therefore interpret what he says about it in his canonical
Collection, completed in 1087, in the same sense.
tutiones amplexati fuisse easque quidam eorum post quinque patriarcharum sub
scriptiones suis quoque subscriptionibus roborasse.’ Cf. also ibid. p. 451 (Com
mentarius in psalmum 64). Gerhohus here follows Deusdedit’s argumentation,
‘ Libellus contra Invas.’ (M .G .H . Lib. de Lite 11, p. 307).
1 Liber de Honore Ecclesiae {M .G .H . Lib. de Lite 11, p. 618).
2 Disputatio vel Defensio Paschalis papae {M .G .H . Lib. de Lite 11, p. 662).
3 Lib. i, 47, can. X X I; Lib. 1, 48, extract from the Actio V II, Mansi, vol. χνι,
col. 86; Lib. i, 48<z, extract from the Actio V III, Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 97-9; Lib. m,
10, can. X V ; Lib. ill, 11, can. X V III; Lib. m , 12, can. X X ; Lib. l v , 17, extract
from the Actio I X , Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 152, 153; Lib. iv, 18, can. X X II. Libellus
contra Invas. {M .G .H . Lib. de Lite II, p. 305) also mentions can. X X II.
4 Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 8 seq.
3 M .G .H . Ep. vu, p. 307, letter 53, written in 875. Cf. the passage in the Life
of Saint Gregory the Great, written by John the Deacon, mentioned previously,
p. 320.
6 M .G .H . Lib. de Lite 11, pp. 327, 346, 349, 356; pp. 307 and 313, though the
Council is simply called ‘ octava synodus universalis’ .
7 M .G .H . Lib. de Lite 11, p. 294; preface by Μ. E. Sackur, the editor.
DPS 321 21
THE P H O T IA N SCH ISM . II. T H E L E G E N D
For he writes in his prologue:1 fiItaque primum defloravi neque

optima de quibusdam universalibus sinodis idest Nicena, Ephesina
prima, Calcedonensi et V I et V II et V III, quae partim a IV sive a V
patriarchis, ab eorum partim vicariis sub diversis temporibus univer
saliter celebratae fuisse noscuntur.’ Then, to endorse his notion ‘ quod
legati eius [papae] in omnibus sinodis primi damnationis sententiam
inferunt et primi subscribunt’, he also quotes part o f the seventh session
o f the Eighth Council,12 containing Photius’ condemnation as pro
nounced by the pontifical legates, without, however, expressly desig
nating the Council. In support o f another proposition, ÉQuod neces
sitate exigente ab universalibus sinodis ad Romanam sedem appellatur’ ,
he also cites canon X X I o f the same Council,3 whilst the passage from
the seventh session mentioned above is appealed to in support o f the
phrase: ‘ Quod eius auctoritate iam V III universales sinodi celebratae
sunt.’
But, since the synod o f 869-70 was actually held ‘ auctoritate papae’,
and the rules governing the organization o f ecclesiastical synods had
been observed and the Council was for some time considered oecu
menical by the two Churches, the Cardinal could with some show o f
reason and for the benefit o f his thesis add it to the seven preceding
councils, even though certain decisions were later annulled by the same
authority.
Pope Gregory V II also called this Council ‘ octava synodus’ in his
correspondence, when quoting canon X X II against lay Investiture,4
though it would be difficult to infer from the statement anything in
favour o f its oecumenicity.
The important point in all this is to gain a clear view o f the attitude
adopted towards this Council by the reformers o f the Gregorian and
post-Gregorian periods, for whom the temptation to include it among
the oecumenical councils was irresistible. W hy the first generation o f
canonists did not yield to the temptation is easily explained, since their
case rested directly on the original texts found in Rome, and Deusdedit
was too conscientious a scholar to tamper with his sources.
But as the second generation strayed further from the original texts,
they gradually receded from the old tradition o f the Church; and since
1 See Glanvell ed. p. 3.

2 Lib. I, cap. 48, Glanvell ed. pp. 7, 57; Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 97-9.
3 Lib. I, cap. 47, Glanvell ed. pp. 7, 56.
4 E. Caspar, ‘ Das Register Gregors V II * (M .G .H . Ep. sei. 11, 1, p. 333): letter
to Hugh, bishop of Die.
322
O E C U M E N IC IT Y OF THE E IG H T H C O U N C IL
relations with the Greek Church had been severed, and the West felt
no longer under any obligation to respect its traditions and the Photian
incident had been quite forgotten, the only remembrance left o f the
whole affair was that o f Nicholas I excommunicating a disobedient
emperor.1 A s against this, the struggle against lay Investiture and in
defence o f the rights o f the papacy had reached a climax o f unpre
cedented virulence, and since the canons o f the Council o f 869-70
provided such an efficient weapon in the hands o f the Roman canonists,
it was natural that they should give the Council the oecumenical title
which it had claimed for itself.
What is remarkable is that this was done by the canonist who laid
least stress on this Council, Ivo o f Chartres, who quotes only one canon,
the eleventh.2 In the Collection called Tripartita, so far unpublished,
and in Book iv o f his Decretum, chapter 132, we nevertheless read the
following:
De octo universalibus conciliis. Ex libro diurno professio Romani pon
tificis. Sancta VIII universalia concilia, id est I Nicenum, II Constantino-
politanum, III Ephesinum, IV Chalcedonense, item V Constantinopolitanum
et VI. Item Nicenum VII. Octavum quoque Constantinopolitanum, usque
ad unum apicem immutilata servare, et pari honore et veneratione digna
habere, et quae praedicaverunt et statuerunt omnimodis sequi et praedicare,
quaeque condemnaverunt ore et corde condemnare profiteor.3
Thus it happened that the Council o f 869-70 made its semi-official
appearance among the oecumenical synods at the end o f the eleventh
century and the beginning o f the twelfth. Ivo ’s testimony is all the
more impressive, as he relies on the famous Liber Diurnus o f the
Pontifical Chancellery and once again the profession o f faith o f the
newly elected Popes is put forward in a recension different from that
o f Deusdedit.
1 See my study, ‘ L ’Affaire de Photios’, loc. cit. pp. 79 seq.; also, pp. 294 seq.
in this text.
2 Deer. V, 1 2 2 ; Pan. in , 8.
3 One notes, besides, at this place a certain confusedness on the part of Ivo. In
Deer, iv, 132, he says for instance: ‘ De secunda Nicaena synodo inter universalia
octava (?).’ Deer, iv, 13 1: ‘ Item de eodem.. . . ’ After the historical information
about the Second Council of Nicaea, he writes: ‘ . . . I n Nicaenam civitatem et
celebrata est sancta octava universalis synodus.’ But we need not make much of
this. It is quite possible that the confusion is to a great extent due to the copyists
o f the Decretum. In the MS. of the Decretum at the National Library of Paris
{Latin 3874), for instance, fol. 68, the parts Deer, iv, 12 9 -31, are gathered into one,
and the inscription of Deer, iv, 130, ‘ De secunda Nicaena synodo inter universalia
octava’ is missing.
323 21-2
THE P H O T IA N SCHISM . II. T H E L E G E N D
The Liber Diurnus is also quoted by Ivo in two different places, first
in the Decretum (iv, 19) and again in his letter to archbishop Hugh,1
and in both places the issue concerns the extract from the profession o f
faith. Even this passage, including a variant o f smaller moment, corre
sponds to the version o f the profession copied by Deusdedit. In
another letter, Ivo also refers to the profession o f faith taken from the
Liber Diurnus?
The question then is whether Ivo was able to consult the original
Liber Diurnus or whether he borrowed the two passages from another
Collection. Everything seems to point to the conclusion that the saintly
bishop o f Chartres did not see the original copy o f the Liber Diurnus,
since it was difficult, if not impossible, to consult it anywhere but in
R o m e ;3 and even in Rome, it was to be found only at the Pontifical
Chancellery, for whose exclusive use it had been composed.
On the other hand, Ivo does not seem to have used Deusdedit’s
Collection;4 presumably he copied the fragment from Deusdedit’s
version and simply added the Eighth Council. As P. Fournier3 has
proved, Ivo o f Chartres used one o f those Collections called ‘ inter
m ediary’, which abounded at the time; and the Collection or Collec
tions he disposed o f had some affinities with the Collection called
Britannica, the only one o f its kind to survive. It is possible, on a first
examination, that this Collection served Ivo and his associates as one
o f their sources. The Britannica, according to Fournier,6 was composed
about 1090 or 1091, and a palaeographic examination o f this unique
manuscript (British Museum 8873 Addit.) supports this assumption.
1 P .L . vol. 162, ep. 60, cols. 70-5: ‘ . . .In libro quoque pontificum, qui dicitur
Diurnus, ita continetur de professione Romani Pontificis: Nihil de traditione. . . ’
as far as the words ‘ observare ac venerari profiteor.’ The last word is added by Ivo.
2 P .L . vol. 162, ep. 73, cols. 92-5: *. . .Bernardo majoris monasterii abbati.’
Col. 94: ‘ Ipse enim summus pontifex, antequam consecrationis gratiam conse
quatur, consuetudines Romanae Ecclesiae et decreta praedecessorum suorum se
inviolabiliter servaturum profitetur. Sic reliqui pontifices ante consecrationem
examinantur.’
3 Even the three MSS. of the edition of this school-book, Liber Diurnus, we
possess show reliable affiliation to Rome. Cf. Sickel, loc. cit., in the Introduction
to his edition, pp. viii-xxxiii, Peitz, loc. cit. p. 29: ‘ Trotzdem dürfte Ivo nicht auf
den Diurnus selbst zurückgehen, sondern ihn nur durch Deusdedit oder eine von
diesem abhängige kanonische Quelle kennen, wie Decr. iv, 197, als Quelle ähnlich
wie Deusdedit 11, 109 angibt: Ex libro pontificum qui dicitur Diurnus.’
4 P. Fournier, ‘ Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres’, in
Bibi, de Γ École des Chartes, vols. LVii, Lvm, does not quote this Collection among
Ivo’s sources.
5 P. Fournier, loc. cit. vol. l v i i , p . 661; vol. l v i i i , p p . 53 seq.
6 P. Fournier, loc. cit. vol. l v i i i , p. 53.
3 24
O E C U M E N I C I T Y OF T H E E I G H T H C O U N C I L
The handwriting o f the manuscript is certainly that o f the end o f the

eleventh century.
The minute analysis o f the Britannica carried out by E w ald 1 shows
that the concluding part o f the Collection, which Ewald calls Varia π
(fols. 17 1-2 10 0 ) , is simply an extract from Deusdedit’s canonical
Collection. Even the sequence o f the texts is scrupulously observed.
Now it happens that we find there a copy o f two extracts from
the Liber Diurnus made by Deusdedit— the protocol regulating the
announcement o f a new Pope’s election^ and the profession o f faith o f
the elected Pope (Lib. 11, n o ), which is identical with the text given
by the Cardinal; except that, instead o f the seven councils, it enumerates
eight,1*3 with the addition o f the Fourth Council o f Constantinople.
As it is unlikely that the author o f this compilation was able to consult
the Liber Diurnus, it may be assumed that he introduced the alteration
into the profession o f faith on his own initiative; and one can quite
understand w hy he considered the addition justifiable. At another place
he quotes, again in Deusdedit’s version, three passages o f the Eighth
Council in which it gives itself the title o f oecumenical.4 Surprised to
find that this Council should not be numbered, in the Pope’s profession,
among the oecumenicals, he joined its name with the others.
And yet, Ewald, Conrat and Fournier3 agree in pointing out that
the subject-matter o f the Britannica does not exactly correspond to the
source which Ivo used for his Decretum. The Tripartita also implies
a source similar to the Britannica but more extended in scope. Conrat
indicated the true solution o f the difficulty when, at the end o f his book,
1 Loc. cit. Neues Archiv, vol. v, p. 282.

3 Britannica, fols. 204, 204 a.
3 Britannica, fols. 205, 206: ‘ Sancta quoque octo concilia. . .et V III Constanti-
nopolitanum.. . . ’ Besides this alteration there are only two insignificant variants
that differ from Deusdedit’s text; towards the end of the profession: ‘ et vicem
intercessionibus tuis \om. Britannica] adimpleo’ ; and at the end: ‘ indictione quibus
ut \add. Britannica] supra.’
4 Varia 11, 21 ; 11, 81 ; 11, 107. These passages correspond to Deusdedit, 1, 47 (38);
in, 10 (9); IV , 17 (15). The copyist of the Britannica, however, erroneously attri
butes the first passage (fol. 148) to the Eighth Council. In fact the passage is from
the Seventh Council, as Deusdedit had rightly pointed out. It only shows that
the copyist is not quite accurate in the transcription of the Cardinal’s work. This
is important and needs emphasizing.
3 Cf. Ewald, loc. cit. (Neues Archiv, vol. v, chiefly pp. 294, 323, 350); M. Conrat
(Cohn), Der Pandekten und Institutionenauslug der Brit. Dekretalensammlung,
Quelle des Ivo (Berlin, 1887); M. Conrat (Cohn), Geschichte der Quellen und L it
teratur des Röm. Rechts im früheren Mittelalter (1891), vol. I, p. 372; Fournier, loc.
cit. vol. L V i i i , p. 53; Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 72 seq.
after comparing the extract o f the Pandects in the Britannica with the
extract o f the Pandects included in Ivo ’s work, and noting that Ivo ’s
extract is more lengthy than that o f the alleged source, he writes : ‘ Man
mag sich dies damit erklären, dass Y v o neben unserem Auszug noch
eine zweite Quelle excerpiert hat oder, was ich für wahrscheinlicher
halte, der letztere in der britischen Sammlung in einer unvollständigen
Gestalt vorliegt.5 A comparison o f the extracts from the pontifical
registers preserved in the Britannica and in Ivo ’s work clearly points
to the same conclusion.
Ivo therefore used a canonical Collection belonging to the class o f
‘ intermediary collections’, probably written in Italy, perhaps in Rome.
The Britannica Collection gives us a fair idea o f the character o f Ivo ’s
source, since it is simply a long extract from that original, anonymous
Collection, now lost. This original Collection also contained an extract
o f Deusdedit’s, which seems to have been copied by the scribe o f the
Britannica, and it was from this portion o f their source that Ivo and his
collaborators derived the Pontiff’s profession o f faith.
Thus the alteration in the number o f councils in the Sovereign
Pontiff’s profession o f faith was probably the work o f the copyists o f
Deusdedit’s Collection. Not being endowed either with the acumen
or the accuracy o f the Cardinal, they failed to understand why the
Eighth Council, which claimed to be oecumenical and supplied a good
weapon against lay Investiture and was called ‘ oecumenical’ even by
Deusdedit in his quoted canons, did not figure among the oecumenical
councils in the Pope’s profession o f faith. Accordingly, they added it
to the list on their own account. It was not Ivo, but one o f his sources,,
now untraceable, that was responsible for the addition.
There remains, however, an alternative. The author o f that original

Collection, the source o f the Britannica and o f Ivo, must apparently
be sought in Italy, perhaps in Rome. Had he been able to verify the
text o f the profession o f faith by the original, we should have to assume
that the Eighth Council was worked into the profession about 1090, and
at first sight this may seem quite possible. But let us look more closely..
If the profession was still in use,1 it would in all likelihood not have
been altered till the advent o f a new Pope. Pope Victor III died on
1 We note in this connection that Deusdedit himself calls the rules of the Pope’s
election and consecration, whose extracts he publishes, ‘ ordo antiquus’. Traces o f
the usage in the Liber Diurnus can be followed up only as far as Gregory’s ponti
ficate. See pp. 328, 440.
326
O E C U M E N I C I T Y OF THE E I G H T H C O U N C IL
1 6 September 1087 and Urban II could not be consecrated and enthroned

in Rome till 9 May 1088. Now for that period we possess the evidence
o f Deusdedit, who knew nothing o f a new edition o f the profession,
and it was about this time that his own Collection was completed. Had
the profession been altered, Deusdedit would have been the first to take
note o f it in his Collection and in other writings: and yet, as late as
1097, he seems still to be in doubt about the oecumenicity o f this council.
Urban II reigned till 1099, but the canonical Collection which Ivo
used had apparently been published before that date. In fact, the
Britannica presupposes its existence. The Britannica must have been
issued in either 1090 or 1091, when Deusdedit was still alive, so that
any official alteration in the Pope’s profession o f faith at this period
would be out o f the question.
Another query: Was the Eighth Council, when its popularity was
already widespread in the Western Church, officially added to the other
oecumenical councils by a special decree o f the Pontifical Chancellery?
O f such a decree we know absolutely nothing, though one thing is
certain— if the profession o f faith was still imposed on the newly
elected pontiffs in the twelfth century, then the Fourth Council o f
Constantinople was certainly included in it. This addition would in any
case, as stated before, have been prepared by the works o f the canonists
o f the eleventh century. But we know nothing about the persistence
o f this custom in Rome in the twelfth century and it could be established
only by the discovery o f a new official edition o f the said profession
giving the list o f eight oecumenical councils.
So far, there is only one known MS. copy o f a profession o f faith
for the use o f Sovereign Pontiffs (Cod. Bibi. Vaticanae, Latin 7160),
posterior to the profession used by Deusdedit, which enumerates eight
councils and could be offered as evidence that the Popes o f the twelfth
century were asked to subscribe to eight councils. But on closer
examination, this profession1 is discovered to be but another version
o f the notorious profession o f Boniface V III which, as is well known,
is a fourteenth-century forgery.
Everything considered, it is impossible to trace the existence o f a
new edition o f this profession o f the Sovereign Pontiffs after that o f
the eleventh century as it survives in Deusdedit’s Collection, nor is
there any satisfactory evidence that this profession was still imposed
on the Popes in the twelfth century. As some faint traces have brought
us as far as Gregory V IP s reign, it would not be surprising if it marked
1 See Appendix II, pp. 448 seq.
327
the terminus ad quem in the practice o f this venerable custom. Indeed,

this Pope’s conception o f the plenitude o f papal power, as outlined in
his Dictatus Papae, though not at variance with the usage, is hardly
compatible with it.
If, as I am explaining elsewhere,1 we admit that in Deusdedit’s
time, in the eleventh century, the Liber Diurnus was already to some
extent differentiated from the handbook as used at the Chancellery and
that the title came to be attached to what was left o f the primitive hand
book, which for the importance o f its contents was still held in great
honour at the Chancellery, it becomes easy to understand how this part
o f the regulations fell into desuetude under Gregory V II without
creating something o f a sensation at the Chancellery. As the notaries
had much more to do with the modernized handbook, the disappearance
o f the old-fashioned Liber Diurnus from circulation could easily escape
their notice. In G regory’s time there were many canonical documents
that fell out o f fashion and lost their importance in Rome, to be replaced
by others that better represented the Pontiff’s opinions on supremacy.
I f then we take into consideration the progress in canonical documenta
tion made under G regory’s inspiration, we shall find it easier to assume
that Gregory V II discontinued the procedure o f the ascent to the throne
as laid down in the old Liber Diurnus and that the first thing to be
suppressed was the profession o f faith. I f it may be assumed that this
pious practice was dropped by Gregory V II, we shall find here a new
illustration o f how the notion o f papal supremacy developed between
Leo IX , who merely modernized the formula, and Gregory V II.12
T o return now to the question o f the number o f councils in this
profession, Baronius quoted in his Annals as evidence o f the oecumenicity
o f the Eighth Council3 the profession o f faith I have demonstrated
to be a forgery o f the fourteenth century: therefore, Baronius’ only
argument in favour o f that oecumenicity is valueless. From all that has
been said we must conclude that the said Eighth Council was listed
among the oecumenical councils by an extraordinary error committed
by the canonists at the end o f the eleventh century.
1 See Appendix I, pp. 437 seq.

2 On the subsequent growth of the same notion and its influence over the usage
at the Papal Chancellery, cf. J. B. Sägmüller, ‘ Die Idee Gregors VII vom Primat
in der päpstlichen Kanzlei’, in Theologische Quartalschrift (Tübingen, 1896), vol.
Lxxviii, pp. 577-613— and the same author’s booklet, Zur Geschichte der Ent
wicklung des päpstlichen Geset^gebungsrechtes (Rottenburg a. N. 1937), pp· 16 seq.
3 Even Hefele followed Baronius. Cf. Hefele-Leclercq, loc. cit. vol. vi, p. 544;
Buschbell, ‘ Professiones Fidei’, in Rom. Quartalschrift (1896), vol. x, p. 279.
328
O E C U M E N I C I T Y OF TH E E I G H T H C O U N C IL
Yet those canonists can hardly be blamed. In their heroic campaign

for the freedom o f the Western Church, they had a perfect right to
use canons voted by a council where all the representatives o f the
patriarchates were assembled ; they were considered faithfully to express
the feelings o f the Church and could therefore be quoted, notwith
standing the decision by Pope John V III, who sanctioned the annulment
voted by the synod o f Photius in 879-80. Whereas this condemnation
fell upon the particular decision o f the Eighth Council against Photius,
the canons voted by the assembly were not expressly repudiated either
b y the Photian Council or by John V IlT s letter sanctioning the Photian
Council.1
It must, however, be admitted that the revival o f the Eighth Council
by the Western Church would never have taken effect, had it not been
for the severance o f the Roman and the Byzantine Churches, as contact
with the Greeks, so sensitive on this very point, would certainly have
acted as a powerful brake on the zeal o f the canonists o f the eleventh
and twelfth centuries. This control gone, they found it only too easy
to proceed unhindered.
Thus, at the end o f our investigations on the oecumenicity o f the
Eighth Council, we have arrived at results that may at first seem start
ling. The Eighth Council was not included among the oecumenical
councils by the Roman Church from 880 till the beginning o f the twelfth
century, and until that time the two Churches were in perfect agreement
on this important point. It was only as a result o f the canonists5 extra
ordinary oversight at the end o f the eleventh century that this Council
1 This can be ascertained from the Pope’s letter to Photius (M .G .H . Ep. v i i ,
p. 185), where he insists on the observance of the canon which forbids the elevation
of laymen to the episcopacy and had been voted at the Council of 869-70 (Mansi,
vol. X V I, col. 162) : ‘ iuxta kapitulum, quod super hac re in venerabili synodo tempore
scilicet decessoris nostri Hadriani iunioris papae Constantinopoli habita est con
gruentissime promulgatum.’ It should, however, be noted that the Pope does not
here call this Council ‘ Eighth Oecumenical’ as he did in another letter written in 875
{M .G .H . Ep. vu, p. 307), when the Council was still accepted in Rome as authentic.
Note also that this reference to the Council of 869-70 found in the Latin edition of
the letter is, in the Greek edition, made to the Seventh Council under Hadrian I.
This is followed by the statement that Hadrian II is said to have refused to sign the
Acts of the Council of 869-70 (Mansi, vol. xvn, col. 416). This bold assertion was
based on a passage contained in the Latin edition of John’s letter to Basil I {M .G .H .
Ep. vii, p. 171), where the Pope writes that Hadrian II’s legates had signed the Acts
with the saving clause ‘ usque ad voluntatem sui pontificis’. This Greek emendation
had the good fortune to be copied by Ivo of Chartres from the extract of the
Photian Council he was using {Deer, iv, 76; P .L . vol. 16 1, col. 285) and thus to be
assigned an important place in pre-Gratian canonical documentation. See supra,
Part II, ch. 1, p. 304.
THE PH O T IA N SCHISM . II. T H E L E G E N D
reappeared on the list o f the oecumenical councils. Canon X X II, for

bidding laymen to interfere in episcopal elections, ‘ discovered’ by the
canonists o f the Gregorian period, mainly contributed to the popularity
o f the Council in the West and facilitated the canonists’ misrepresenta
tion. Until the twelfth century at the earliest, no declaration had ever
been issued by the H oly See including this Council among the oecu
menical synods.1 That it should have figured as one o f the venerable
oecumenical councils must necessarily have influenced the Western
verdict on the Photian Affair and supplied an important factor in the
growth o f what we call ‘ the Photian Legend’ in the Western world.
1 Proof is supplied by Ivo of Chartres. As a conscientious canonist, he tries to

find authentic texts in support of the oecumenicity of the eight councils listed in
the profession of faith of the Liber Diurnus, and having found them, presents them
in Book iv of his Decretum. And yet he cannot, to support the oecumenicity of
the Eighth Council, quote a better document than {Deer, iv, cap. 133 ; P .L . vol. 161,
col. 296) the letter addressed by John VIII to the Salernitans and the Amalfitans,
in which he recommends the legates Eugene and bishop Donatus ‘ cuius laus est
in sancta synodo octava’ (M .G .H . Ep. vu, p. 307). Yes, but this letter was written
in 875, therefore at the time when the Council still possessed all its validity. Ivo
of Chartres overlooked this. It was perhaps that passage which helped to prompt
Ivo to number this Council among the oecumenicals, despite the Pope’s decision
annulling it which the canonist had quoted before.
330
C H A P T E R III
W ESTERN TRA D ITIO N FROM THE T W E LFT H TO

THE FIFTEEN TH CENTURY
The Eighth Council in pre-Gratian law Collections, influenced by Gregorian

canonists— Collections dependent on Deusdedit and Ivo— Gratian’s Decretum and
the Photian Legend— From Gratian to the fifteenth century: Canonists— Theo«
logical writers and Historians.
Such then is the result o f our research into the period when the Eighth
Council was given unmerited pride o f place among the oecumenical
councils in the West. At the same time we have been able to establish
— be it repeated once more— that the responsibility falls on the canonists
o f the eleventh and twelfth centuries, not on the Pontifical Chancellery.
We must now extend our inquiry further and examine the remaining
canonical Collections o f the period. What attitude to the Eighth Council
and to the Council o f Photius did their authors adopt? And did any
o f them follow the lead o f Deusdedit and Ivo o f Chartres in their
estimate o f the anti-Photian and Photian Councils? Clearly our thesis
will rest on more solid foundations, if we can throw more light on the
place this problem held in the minds o f the other canonists o f the period.
Certainly, we are venturing on a difficult and perilous undertaking..
For one thing, it is well known that many problems relative to the
evolution o f canonical legislation in the Middle Ages still await an
adequate solution and that few o f the canonical works o f that period
have yet been published. P. Fournier and his collaborator Le Bras have
drawn up a long list o f them in their excellent work on the canonical
Collections anterior to Gratian, but even their lengthy catalogue is not
exhaustive, though it may serve as a reliable basis, since it seems unlikely
that any Collection surpassing in importance the great Collections o f
that period remains to be discovered.
The canonical Collections o f the end o f the eleventh century down
to Gratian can be divided into two distinct groups: the first included
those compilations which show the influence o f the first handbooks o f
canon law revised and completed by the canonists o f the period o f
Gregory V II, namely, the author o f the Collection under 74 Titles,1
1 On this Collection, which offers nothing important on our subject, cf. P.
Fournier, ‘ Le premier manuel canonique de la Réforme Grégorienne’, in Mélanges
<TArchéologie et (ΓHistoire (Paris, 1894), vol. XIV, pp. 223, 285-90.
331
THE P H O T IA N SCH ISM . II. T H E L E G E N D
St Anselm o f Lucca and Burchard o f Worms. The other group includes

the Collections that were influenced by Ivo o f Chartres.
Let us now rapidly survey the principal Collections o f the first
group, with special emphasis on those we have been able to study at
first hand.
The influence o f Anselm, o f Burchard and o f the Collection under
74 Titles is particularly pronounced in the Collection in T w o Books
contained in MS. 3832 o f the Latin MS. section o f the Vatican Library.1
It dates from the end o f the eleventh, or from the beginning o f the
twelfth century, and the compiler has made good use o f the letters o f
Nicholas I, including a few on the Photian case, notably the Pope’s
famous reply to Michael III,* his reply ad consulta Bulgarorunfi and an
extract from his letter to Photius.4 The famous canon X X II o f the
Eighth Council is quoted, too, as a matter o f course.5
Though there is no definite statement about the number o f oecu
menical councils recognized by the Roman Church the compiler quotes
the profession o f faith which an elected archbishop (fol. 120) had to
make before his consecration, with its reference to the first four great
councils; but the formula is the same as that published by E. Rozière.67
A t the end o f the Collection (fols. 188-190) is found a copy o f Cardinal
Humbert’s bull o f excommunication against Cerularius, with its enu
meration o f seven oecumenical councils, but added to the Collection
in a different handwriting, so that it was not part o f the original C ol
lection.
The Collection in Five Books, contained in MS. 1348 o f the Vatican
Library, was studied by V. W olf von Gian veil.?
Though the compiler is indebted to the work o f Anselm, among
others, he omits nearly all the documents o f the ninth century, once so
highly appreciated by the archbishop o f Lucca, only canon X X II o f
the Eighth Council being quoted (lib. 1, cap. h i , 5).8
The most important Collection o f the group is the 4Polycarpus’,
1 See Fournier-Le Bras, op. cit. vol. 11, pp. 12 7 -31.

2 Fols. 34—45. 123 Fols, i i 6α, ιι8 α .
4 Fol. 1 17 a. 5 Fol. 88 .
6 Recueil Général des Formules Usitées dans VEmpire des Francs du Ve au Xe siècles
(3 vols.; Paris, 1859-71), vol. il, form. 1024, pp. 644, 645 ; and K. Zeumer, Formulae
Merovingici et Karolini Aevi, M .G .H ., Legum Sectio V, Formulae (Hanover,
1886), pp. 555, 556.
7 ‘ Die Kanonensammlung des Cod. Vatican. Lat. 1348’, in Sitiungsberichte der
Ak. JViss. Wien, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1897), vol. cx xxvi.
8 Fol. 13 a.
332
W ESTERN T R A D ITIO N FROM I 2 T H TO I 5 T H C E N T U R I E S
made by Cardinal Gregory between the years 1104 and 110 6 ,1 but even
in this Collection texts referring to the Photian case are few. We can
read there an extract from Nicholas5 letter123to Michael and two canons
o f the Council o f 869-70,3 but nothing on the number o f oecumenical
councils.
Nor is anything relevant to our thesis or to the number o f councils
to be found in the second recension o f ‘ Polycarpus5, included in
MS. 3882 o f the Latin MS. section o f the Paris National Library.
Much the same may be said o f some other Collections o f canon law
which borrow from ‘ Polycarpus5. The Collection in Seven Books o f
the Latin MS. 1346 o f the Vatican Library, which dates from the year
m 2 , 4 has, besides the extracts from the letter to the Emperor Michael,5
three canons o f the Eighth Council.67
The Collection in Three Books o f the beginning o f the twelfth
century quotes only canon X X I I .7 Even the Prague Collection,89o f the
middle o f the twelfth century, offers nothing o f interest here, apart from
a few quotations from letters o f Nicholas 1,9 and none o f these concerns
the Photian case, whilst the conciliar decisions did not attract the
compiler’s attention.10
The same applies to the other local canonical Collections studied by
P. Fournier-Le Bras: the Collection in Seventeen Books o f the Poitiers
and Rheims MSS., the Collection in Four Books o f the Tarragona and
the Bordeaux Collections, the Collection in Thirteen Books o f the
1 On this collection cf. P. Fournier, ‘ Les deux recensions de la Collection

Canonique Romaine dite le Poly carpus’, in Melanges d ’Archéologie et d 'Histoire
(19 18-19 ), vol. X X X V II, pp. 5 5 -10 1; ibid. pp. 58-60, where is to be found the list
of MSS. of this unpublished Collection. Cf. also P. Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit.
vol. π, pp. 169-85.
2 I have examined MS. 1354 of the Vatican Library, fol. 22 (lib. 1, c. 22).
3 Ibid. fol. 31 (lib. m) = canon X X II and fol. 63 a (lib. m ) = canon X V III.
4 P. Fournier-Le Bras, op. cit. vol. 11, pp. 185-92. The same Collection has
moreover been preserved in MS. 1346 of the Vienna National Library and in MS. 43
of Cortona.
5 Vat. Lib. Lat. 1346, fols. 25 <2, 26α.
6 Fol. 32a (lib. I, c. 33) = canon X X I, fol. 37 (lib. 11, c. 4) = canon X X II,
fol. 53= canon X V III. Nicholas’ letter to Michael III is quoted twice = fol. 25a
(lib. I, c. 11) and fol. 26 a (lib. 1, c. 14).
7 Vatic. Latin. 3831, fol. 19. The letter to Michael III is quoted, fol. 60.
8 Codex Membran. VIII H. 7. Cf. Schulte, ‘ Über drei in Prager Handschriften
enthaltenen Canonensammlungen’, in Sitzungsberichte der AL· Wiss. Wien, P h il-
Hist. K L (1867), vol. L V ii, pp. 175-221.
9 Fols. 27α, 28, 29cz, 55, 56.
10 Fols. 15, 15 α make a vague reference to the first five councils and fol. 37a
to the seventh.
333
Arras MS. 425, the Collection in Nine JBooks o f Saint-Victor.1 So far I

have been in a position to study only the Collections o f Tarragona,123
o f Saint-Victor3 and o f Bordeaux,4*but they offer nothing remarkable.
A certain number o f Collections o f the same class have unhappily
remained inaccessible to me: the Collection o f Lord Ashburnham’s
M S.,3 the Palermo Collection o f Santa Maria Novella, the Turin C ol
lection in Seven Books, the Assisi Collection, the St Peter’s Collection in
Nine Books, the Gaddiana Collection, the Vatican Collection 3829 and
the Turin MS. E .V . 44 (903),67but it appears that these Collections are
o f the same order as those we have been able to examine, and it is very
doubtful that they would provide anything fresh, since the sources o f
all o f them are practically the same.
Examination o f the canonical Collections belonging to the first group
has therefore yielded nothing new and at least we have been able to
ascertain that no new element has found its way into these compilers’
canonical documentation. With regard to the Photian case, we noticed
also that they attributed to it no special importance and that the scant
information they produce invariably derives from the same sources,
namely, the canon law Collections o f the first period o f the Gregorian
reform and, chiefly, the work o f St Anselm o f Lucca.
N ow let us turn to the second group. The Collections o f this category

are more interesting, as their compilers had access to more extensive
documentation. O f these Collections, the most important from our
point o f view is the one called Caesaraugustanaf originating, as the
1 See Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 230-61.

2 Paris, Lat. 4281 b , lib. 1, 47, fol. 18 a —canon X X II of the Council of 869-70,
lib. I, 85, fol. 22<2, Nicholas’ letter to Michael III. Fol. 187, Incipit praefatio:
canones generalium conciliorum, enumerates the first four councils. The passage was
inspired by Gregory the Great’s famous letter (cf. also lib. 1, ch. 173: ‘ de professione
archiep.’— four councils).
3 MS. 721 of the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal. This Collection is especially dis
appointing for our study.
4 MS. i i of the Bibliothèque Municipale de Bordeaux.
3 MS. 1554, the Laurentiana, Florence. According to Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit.
vol. π, p. 136, Ivo’s famous prologue was later added to the Collection by another
hand.
6 See description of these unpublished Collections, with their bibliographical
information: Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 150-218.
7 Cf. Fournier, ‘ Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres’,
loc. cit. vol. Lviii, pp. 416 seq.; Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 269-84, and
chiefly Fournier, ‘ La Collection Canonique dite Caesaraugustana\ in Nouvelle
Revue Historique de Droit Français et Étranger (1921), vol. X L V , pp. 53 seq.
334
W ESTERN T R A D IT IO N FROM I 2 T H TO 1 5 T H C E N T U R I E S
name implies, from Saragossa. Tw o recensions o f it are known: the

first dates from 1110 -2 0 , whereas the second must be anterior to 1143.
In both versions o f this Collection1 it is surprising to find the extract
from Ivo, condemning the Eighth Council.2 Further on, we also find
a canon o f the Photian Council, which is even designated here as
'quinta synodus Constantinopolitana c c c l x x x i i i patrum sub Johanne
papa: “ Apocrisiarii papae dixerunt. . . ”.’ 3 The author o f the Caesar-
augustana has also borrowed from the Acts o f the Eighth Council,
quoting three canons o f it,4 where the Chartres canonist quotes only one. 3
What is extraordinary is that the author o f the Caesaraugustana does
not reproduce in his Collection the Sovereign Pontiff’s profession o f
faith listing the eight oecumenical Councils; all the more so, as in the
first book o f his Collection he treats o f ‘ the councils to be admitted’ .6
He quotes Gelasius’ letter, that o f St Gregory the Great on the first four
councils, some texts on the confirmation o f the Sixth Council, Bede’s
passage on the six oecumenical councils and a few texts on the Seventh
Oecumenical Council, a number o f them being copied from the fourth
part o f Ivo ’s Decretum and showing that in preparing his compilation
the author had this writing o f Ivo lying on his desk. Strange, then,
that he should have omitted the pontifical profession with its eight
councils as well as Ivo ’s paragraphs purporting to prove the oecu-
menicity o f the Eighth Council. How is this to be explained?
P. Fournier 7 once drew attention to the fact that the editor o f the
Caesaraugus tana repeatedly corrected the texts produced by Ivo and
rectified his quotations and references, justifying the inference that he
was very judicious in his choice o f texts from the Decretum and that
he many times referred back to the originals, some o f which had been
inaccessible to Ivo.
The Caesaraugus tanas most important source is Deusdedit’s C ol
lection; here the author o f the Caesaraugustana could find material for
comparisons with certain texts o f the Decretum, his second principal
1 I have studied MS. 3875 of the Latin MS. section of the National Library
containing the first recension and MS. 3876 of the same Library containing the
second recension.
2 MS. 3875, fol. 9 and MS. 3876, fol. 6a: ‘ Damnatio synodi Constantinopolitanae
cui papa non subscripsit/
3 MS. 3875, fol. 70a, MS. 3876, fol. 62.
4 Canon XXII, MS. 3875, fol. 17a, MS. 3876, fol. 14; canon XXI, MS. 3876,
fol. 30; canon XV, MS. 3875, fol. 51, MS. 3876, fol. 47.
3 Deer. V, 122; Pan. Ill, 8.
6 MS. 3875, fols. 5-8, MS. 3876, fols, 20-50:.
7 ‘ Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres’, loc. cit. pp. 416-26.
335
T H E PH Ο T I A N S C H I S M . I I. T H E L E G E N D
source, and also a profession o f faith o f the Sovereign Pontiffs sub

stantially differing from the one he found in Ivo.
On the strength o f all we know about the working methods o f the
author o f the Caesaraugustana, we must admit that he was not without
some critical sense, and so perceived that Deusdedit’s text came nearer
to the original than the fragment quoted by Ivo. Did the difference
arouse any suspicions in the author’s mind about the passage concerning
the number o f councils, prompting him to omit Ivo ’s text from his
Collection and mention only the seven councils, without probing the
puzzle any further? What makes it difficult to conjecture what the
comparison o f the two texts suggested to the author is that he also
quotes three canons o f the Eighth Council. Certainly he did not do
what was done by most canonists who relied on Ivo and knew nothing
o f Deusdedit’s Collection— he did not include the impressive passage
o f the Decretum.
One may surmise that Ivo himself would have done the same as the
author o f the Caesaraugustana, had he been able to lay his hand on
Deusdedit’s work and to compare the text o f the profession handed
down by the Cardinal with the text o f the only source he knew. For
the bishop o f Chartres was also possessed o f some critical acumen and
would never have perpetrated the paradoxical blunder o f classing this
Council among the oecumenicals, whilst copying on another page the
pontifical decision declaring the same Council null and void.
The Collection called the Caesaraugustana served as a model for
another canonical Collection kept in a MS. o f the Naples National
Library (xn , A, 27), but unfortunately I have not seen it, and
A . Theiner’s 1 description o f it is too scanty to be o f any value for our
purpose.
The Collection o f the Saint-Germain-des-Prés Manuscript, which
to-day is to be found in Wolfenbüttel (Gud. Lat. 212) and was written
about 1 120 in the region o f Rheims, also bears traces o f Ivo o f Chartres’
influence; but Sdralek’s 12 description o f it is not satisfactorily complete,
except for the information that the MS. quotes a fragment o f the Pope’s
profession (fol. 376),3 which agrees with the text o f the Panormia, in, 4.
The author also copied an extract from the letter o f John V III to Basil,
announcing his intention to reinstate Photius in deference to the
1 Disquisitiones Criticae in praecipuas canonum et decretalium collectiones (Romae,

1836), p. 76.
2 ‘ Wolfenbüttler Fragmente’, Kirchengeschichtliche Studien i, i i (Münster in
Westphalia, 1891). 3 Sdralek, loc. cit. p. 28.
336
W E S T E R N T R A D I T I O N F R O M I 2 T H TO 1 5 T H C E N T U R I E S
Emperor’s wish— a paragraph which Ivo entered in his famous prologue.

There is also, in the Saint-Germain Collection, Anastasius’ comment
on the Eighth Council (fol. 53 a) and canon X X II o f the same synod,
which shows that the writer o f the collection certainly knew o f Photius’
reinstatement.
The same may be said o f another canonical Collection, called the
Collection in Ten Parts, still unpublished, which is in MS. 10743 ° f the
Paris National L ib ra ry ;1 where the compiler copied the whole o f Ivo
o f Chartres’ introduction to the Decretum with the paragraph on
Photius’ reinstatement under the heading: Tractatus de Concordantia
Canonum. It has three excerpts from the pontifical profession quoted
by Ivo in the Decretum and in the Panormia, with the passage relative
to the recognition o f the eight councils;12 but only its canon X X II is
mentioned.3 There are many letters o f Nicholas I in the Collection,
but they do not relate to the Photian case. O f the four texts attributed to
John V III, one runs as follows :4*Johannes papa V I I I : privilegia paucorum
communem legem non faciunt. The quotation is from John’s letter to Basil,
as found in Ivo ’s preface,3 and directly bears on Photius’ rehabilitation.
The Collection in Ten Parts found its summarist and his contribution
{Summa Decretorum Haimonis) has survived in several manuscripts.67
It was made between 1 1 3 0 and 11 35. The preface has a summary o f the
doctrine on the interpretation o f the canons mentioned in Ivo ’s long
prologue ,7 but the passage about Photius is not quoted, though the
compiler borrowed the text from the famous letter o f John V III as we
find it in the prologue.89 It contains no reference to the list o f eight
councils quoted in the Liber DiurnusS
1 On this MS. of the Collection see P. Fournier, ‘ Les Collections canoniques

attribuées à Yves de Chartres’, loc. cit. pp. 433 seq.; Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit.
vol. π, pp. 296 seq.
2 L. π, d. 49, fol. 104 of MS. 10743 —Decr. iv, 132 (eight councils); 1. ni, c. 2,
nn. i, 2, fol. 134: ‘ Profiteor diligenter. . .et abdicare’ = Pan. ni, 3; ‘ Nihil de
traditione. . . profiteor’ = Decr. iv, 197.
3 L. ni, c. 7, n. 8, fol. 139 (MS. 10743). 4 h. v, c. 1, n. 9, fol. 261.
3 P .L . vol. 161, col. 58: ‘ quoniam. . . Photium fratrem nostrum recipimus,
sicut et Adrianus papa Tarasium, nullus computet canonicum usum. Privilegia
enim paucorum communem legem non faciunt.’
6 P. Fournier, ‘ Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres’ , loc.
cit. pp. 442-4; Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 306-8.
7 Bibl. Nat. Lat. 4377, fols. 3 -4 a; Bibl. Nat. Lat. 4286, fols. 2 - 3 a.
8 Bibl. Nat. Lat. 4377, fol. 37; Bibl. Nat. Lat. 4286, fol. 82.
9 Bibl. Nat. Lat. 4286, fol. 24 æ, where only the extract from the Liber Diurnusy
identical to Pan. in, 3, is to be found. The two MSS. (MS. 4377, fol. 23 a, MS.
4286, fol. 25 a) summarize canon X X II of the Eighth Council.
DPS 337 22
THE P H O T IA N SCHISM . I I. T H E L E G E N D
We should also mention another summary o f the Collection in Ten

Parts found in MS. 14145 o f the Latin MS. section o f the Paris National
Library,1 though it is no more than a fragment (fols. 9 -15 ) containing
Ivo ’s prologue. Whatever may come after the reference to Marcellus’
case is summarized on one page (fol. 12). There is a suggestion o f the
Photian case in the words quoted verbatim and placed by Ivo after the
extract from John V III’s letter to Basil: Csic aliae dispensationes salubri
deliberatione admissae, cessante necessitate, debent cessare.’12
More explicit is the author o f the Collection in Sixteen Parts which
I found in a MS. o f the British Museum (B.M. Harleian 3090), also
dating from the twelfth century. Ivo ’s prologue which appears on the
first folios o f the MS. is abbreviated, but the main points relating to the
Patriarch’s reinstatement are duly quoted.3
The Collection contains many references to the letters o f Nicholas I,
and even o f John V III, but none o f them touches on Photius. The
Liber Diurnus is also omitted.
I have been able to consult the unpublished Collection preserved
in MS. 1361 o f the Vatican Library, dating from 1 1 3 3 - 7 , which merely
combines Anselm’s Collection and the Panormia, and contains Ivo ’s
famous prologue.4 An examination o f the Collection o f Sainte-
Geneviève in MS. 166 o f the Paris Sainte-Geneviève Library,3 a C ol
lection inspired by Ivo ’s work, was disappointing, as it contained not
a single relevant text. More interesting is the Collection o f MS. 47 o f
the Châlons Municipal Library, in which we read (fol. 20 a) the famous
extract from the Liber Diurnus on the eight councils, canon X X II o f
the Eighth Council (fol. 43 a), and immediately after this the canon
o f the Photian Council about bishops who returned to monastic
life:
E x actione quinta synodi Constantinopolitanae 383 patrum sub octavo
Joanne papa cui praesiderunt Petrus presbyter cardinalis et Paulus antioche-
nitanus episcopus et Eugenius episcopus: U t quicumque de pontificatu ad
monachorum descenderit vitam numquam ad pontificatum resurgat.. . .
Item praecepit sancta synodus.
1 L. Delisle, Inventaire des manuscrits Latins (Paris, 1863—71), vol. γ, p. 129.

This part of the MS. dates from the twelfth century.
2 Cf. P .L . vol. 1 61, col. 58.
3 Fol. 3 a: ‘ Sic Johannes papa octavus...et honorem patriarchatus restituamus’ ,
P .L . vol. 1 61, col. 56. The extract from the prologue ends on the same words.
4 Cf. P. Fournier, ‘ Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres’,
loc. cit. pp. 430—3; Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 225 seq.
3 P. Fournier, loc. cit.; Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 265-8.
338
W E S T E R N T R A D I T I O N F R O M I 2 T H TO 1 5 T H C E N T U R I E S
The same passages are also quoted in another Collection kept in the
same library (MS. No. 75) and also dating from the twelfth century.
Though the Liber Diurnus is not quoted, the Collection opens with
Ivo ’s prologue and gives the whole extract on Photius’ reinstatement
(fols. 8, 9 α). In the third part o f the Collection, which treats o f bishops’
rights, there is also the famous canon about the Patriarch o f Constanti
nople (fob 5 1): ‘ De honore Constantinopolitani episcopi. De synodo
Constantinopolitana: Constantinopolitanae civitatis episcopum habere
oportet primatus honorem post romanum episcopum propter quod sit
nova Rom a.’ 1
I have not yet found it possible to consult the Collection o f the
Chapter o f St Ambrose in Milan, composed after 110 0 .12
An examination o f the second group o f canonical Collections, ex
tending from the end o f the eleventh to the middle o f the twelfth
century, led to the conclusion that the compilers o f these Collections
had not discovered a single new source on the Photian case and that
their knowledge o f the case and o f the Eighth Council was derived from
the same source as the information provided by the compilers o f the
first group ; but their documentation has a wider range, since they could
draw on the Collections posterior to the reform period and chiefly on
the Collections attributed to Ivo o f Chartres. The author o f the
Caesaraugustana also makes use o f Deusdedit’s work. We have thus
been able to ascertain that the surprising ideas o f Ivo and his circle on
the Photian case, far from being the private opinions o f a single man
and his circle, so successfully survived the famous canonist that they
came to be adopted by a great number o f jurists and even, as we shall
have occasion to see later, by some historians as well.
We now come to the greatest canonist o f the twelfth century, Gratian.

It is unnecessary to repeat here what every canonist knows: it will be
enough to note that his work does not, on the whole, represent anything
very new in the history o f canon law. Not only did Gratian fail to
discover any new sources o f information, he did not even take the
trouble to verify those o f the canonical works which he pressed into
service for his own compilation, merely contenting himself with com
paring the texts, often divergent, o f those Collections and placing them
in order. And yet his work, known by its pompous title Concordantia
1 P. Fournier, ‘ Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres’, loc.

cit. vol. L V i i i , pp. 624 seq.; Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 308-13.
2 Fournier-Le Bras, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 222-4.
2 2 -2
33 9
THE P H O T I A N SCHISM. II. THE L E G E N D
Discordantium Canonum,1 after its publication about the year 115 0

succeeded, for all its shortcomings, in driving all previous canonical
Collections, including those o f Anselm o f Lucca, Deusdedit and Ivo,
into the background. Gratian’s work, to the exclusion o f all others,
remained in the hands o f canonists, historians and theologians for the
remainder o f the Middle Ages down to modern times.
It is not our concern here to examine to what extent Gratian’s work
deserved the reputation it enjoyed throughout the Middle A ges: suffice
it to state that from the second half o f the twelfth century onward,
Gratian’s Decretum must be considered to have been the main source
from which the Middle Ages gathered their knowledge about the
councils, the Popes’ decrees and even the writings o f the Fathers. It
will therefore further our inquiry to know what Gratian thought about
the controverted councils o f the ninth century and about the Photian
case.
In this respect, Gratian was implicitly dependent on his predecessors,
since, not being able to consult the original documents, he merely
copied what Anselm o f Lucca and Ivo o f Chartres had chosen to leave
him. It is important to remember that he did not take advantage o f
Deusdedit’s Collection, which was only used by his correctors, so that
he did not know o f the complete version o f the Popes’ profession as
handed down by the Cardinal. In fact, Gratian considered it enough to
copy the fragment o f the text as Ivo o f Chartres had it, with its list o f
eight oecumenical councils.2 As Ivo ’s canonical works were forced into
the background by Gratian’s Decretum, it was Gratian— not Ivo— who
was primarily responsible for the fact that this fragment o f the pro
fession has ever since been considered absolutely authentic and that it
has served for most theologians as the stock argument in support o f
the oecumenicity o f the Eighth Council in the Western Church.
In Gratian’s view, the extract from the Popes’ profession provided
the main argument in favour o f the oecumenicity o f the Eighth Council,
so popular among the canonists o f the period for its famous canon X X II,
and he considered it superfluous to quote the extract from the letter o f
John V III, which in Ivo ’s opinion served as 'evidence’ that a papal
1 I quote from the edition of E. Friedberg, Corpus Juris Canonici (Lipsiae, 1879).
See also P.G . vol. 187.
2 D. X V I, c. 8. Here is the correctors’ remark: ‘ Item ex Diurno: integram pro
fessionem fidei, quando quis in Romanum Pontificem promovebatur, refert Deus
dedit Cardinalis in collatione canonum, quae servatur in bibliotheca Vaticana.’
They therefore omitted to state that Deusdedit mentioned no more than seven
councils.
340
W ESTERN TR A D ITIO N FROM I 2 T H TO I 5 T H C E N T U R I E S
decision had classed that synod among the oecumenical councils.

Faithful to his principle o f ‘ reconciling the discordant canons’, Gratian
calmly suppressed Ivo ’s text, according to which the Eighth Council
should have been considered annulled by the same Pope. From his
point o f view this was simply a piece o f elementary logic. Consequently,
Gratian extracted as much as he could from the texts o f the Eighth
Council,1 which he knew only at second hand from quotations. And
yet, he does not for all that esteem the Photian Council any the less,
for he copies in his Decretum the canon o f this synod (the one utilized
by Ivo) on the bishops’ return to monastic life.2 In quoting this canon,
he also calls the Photian Council ‘ the Council o f Constantinople o f the
383 Fathers’, and elsewhere ‘ nona synodus’ . We are here referring to
the two texts o f the twentieth causa o f the Decretum, and both, as is well
known, are misquotations. The first (C. x x , 9, 1, c. 1) is really a quota
tion from the rules o f St Basil, chapter x v , and the second (C. x x , 9, 1 1 ,
c. 4) comes from chapter v m o f the same work by Basil.
But the references are doubtful and Gratian’s correctors even remarked
that some MSS. had ‘ synodus octava’ instead o f ‘ synodus nona’ .3
Whether the confusion was or was not a mistake due to slovenliness,
the fact remains that the Photian Council did somehow impress Gratian.
Gratian’s Decretum represents therefore a very important stage in
the evolution o f what I call ‘ the Photian Legend’ . As he dispelled
the very last lingering doubts about the oecumenicity and the authority
o f the Eighth Council, the hesitations we noted in Deusdedit and Ivo
yielded to absolute certainty and the Popes’ profession closed the debate
for ever. At the same time, Gratian still shared his predecessors’ opinion
on the Photian case, the Photian Council being in his view a great
Council, whose authority was incontestable: this makes it clear that
like Ivo, his principal authority, he knew o f Photius’ rehabilitation by
this Council.
By omitting the text quoted by Ivo on the suppression o f the anti-
Photian Council, Gratian did indeed ‘ reconcile the discordant canon’ .
1 C. X I I , qu. 2, c. 13 = canon X V of the Eighth Council; C. xvi, qu. 3, c. 8
= canon X V III; D. 22, c. 7 = canon X X I ; D. 63, c. i=canon X X ; D. 63, c. 2
= Ivo’s Deer, v, 122; Pan. in, 8.
2 C. vu, qu. i, c. 44: ‘ Unde in quinta actione Constantinopolitanae sinodi 383
Patrum, sub VIII. Joanne Papa, cui praefuit Petrus presbiter cardinalis, et Paulus
Anchonitanus episcopus et Eugenius Hostiensis episcopus, apocrisiarii Papae
dixerunt: (C. vu, qu. 1, c. 45) “ Hoc nequaquam apud nos habetur.. . Mansi,
vol. X V II, col. 504. ‘ Item praecepit sancta synodus’ = canon II.
3 Cf. Antonii Augustini De Emendatione Gratiam (Opera omnia, Lucae, 1767,
vol. in), pp. 127 seq.
341
Viewing events in a better perspective than those canonists who had

the Acts themselves, or long extracts from the Acts o f this Council,
under their very eyes, he cut the Gordian knot after his own fashion:
only, by so doing, he unwittingly opened the way to a misrepresentation
o f the Photian case : from his time onwards the anti-Photian synod has
usurped a place among the oecumenical councils, whose authority is
a law unto the whole o f Christendom, and this has made it only too
easy to assume that whatever that Council had said against Photius
must be true and that the Papacy never went back on the anathemas
hurled against him by the Fathers and endorsed by Rome. The Photian
Council could then be allowed quietly to slip into oblivion. The only
canon o f this synod quoted in the Decretum is o f minor importance and.
has been seldom appealed to, since during the Middle Ages few Western
bishops who returned to monastic life had any wish to resume their
discarded dignity.
But it is a pity that the Photian Council did not vote some other
canons o f a more practical and useful nature, as this would have secured
it a prominent place in the canonical legislation o f the Western Middle
Ages and made it difficult for the ‘ Photian Legend5 ever to see the
light.
But let us pursue our investigations and inquire how the old tradition
concerning the Photian case, a tradition which Gratian still knew and
respected, ever came to be forgotten in the West. First o f all, to remain
within the limits o f canon law, we shall confine ourselves to Gratian’s
most important commentators of the second half o f the twelfth century:
Pancapalea, Rolandus, Rufinus and Stephen o f Tournay, whose Summae
provide all canonical activity for the rest o f the Middle Ages with its
main basis and authority. As Gratian’s Decretum was destined to-
become the common starting-point, it will suffice to examine how those
canonists commented on the passages o f the Decretum that bear on our
subject-matter.
Pancapalea5s Summa reveals nothing interesting,1 and the short com
mentaries that accompany the passages o f the Decretum we are con
sidering are totally irrelevant. The same is true o f Master Rolandus5
Summa? In the introduction to his book, Stephen o f Tournay writes12
1 J. F. V . Schulte, Die Summa des Pancapalea über das Decretum Gratiani

(Giessen, 1890; written between 1144 and 1150), pp. 18, 19, 21, 39, 74, 80, 87.
2 F. Thaner, Die Summa Magistri Rolandi, nachmals Papstes Alexander I I I
(Innsbruck, 1874), pp. 6, 9, 23, 46, 47.
342
WESTERN TRADITION FROM I 2 T H TO 1 5 T H C E N T U R I E S
about the oecumenical councils and insists on the first four o f them, but
his comments on Gratian’s dicta that are o f interest to us have no
historical value.1 The same criticism holds for Rufinus5 Sum m a? It is
the commentaries which those jurists offer, for instance, on the Liber
Diurnus, that make it clear how hopelessly unfamiliar they were with
the original sources and how they gradually lost all insight into the
historical implications o f the documents they handled. Here is Pan-
capalea’s misinterpretation o f the Liber Diurnus : 3 4Item ex libro diurno,
prof. R . potest intelligi beati Gregorii registro.5 Stephen writes : 4 4Liber
Diurnus dicitur, qui vel una die factus est vel una die totus legi potest.5
More curious still is Rufinus5 comment:5
E x L .D ., i.e. illo historico libro, in quo de unius diei tantum gestis agitur.
U t enim ait Isidorus in libro etimilogiarum: triplex historiarum genus est,
annales, kalendaria et ephemeria. Annales, ubi agitur de rebus singulorum
annorum; kalendaria appellantur, quae in menses singulos digeruntur;
ephemeris dicitur de unius diei gestis. Hoc apud nos diarium sive diurnum
vocatur. Namque latini diurnum, graeci ephemerida dicunt.
It is evidently hopeless to seek in these 'definitions5 any remnants o f

a critical and historical sense.
Useless also to look for anything more definite in John Faventinus,
who published a Summa on the Decretum after the year 1 1 7 1 . His work
rests entirely on the Summae o f Rufinus and Stephen o f Tournay,6
though it is well known that John’s performance obtained a wider
circulation than, and even supplanted, the works o f his forerunners.
As for the canonists o f the thirteenth century, their writings offer
nothing interesting on the subject; it is, moreover, common knowledge
that after the publication o f the Gregorian Decretals the canonists5
interest shifted mainly to this new source o f canon law,7 and that the
study o f the Decretum was consequently abandoned. Am ong the
canonists who continued to study the Decretum, we must cite John
Semeca, alias Joannes Teutonicus, who wrote his glosses about 12 2 0 ;8
1 J. F. V . Schulte, D ie S u m m a d es S teph an u s T orn a cen sis (Giessen, 1891), pp. 2,

25, 26 (eight councils), 32, 89, 205, 206, 214-16 , 222-9.
2 H. Singer, D ie S u m m a D ecreto ru m d es M a g ister R u fin u s (Paderborn, 1902),
PP· 37? 3 8? 49 ? 154, 155? 285~ 95 ? 312 35? 363·
3 Loc. cit. p. 19. 4 Loc. cit. p. 26.
5 Loc. cit. (ed. Singer), pp. 37, 38.
6 J. F. V . Schulte, D ie G esch ich te d er Q u ellen u. L itt. d. ca n . R ech ts (Stuttgart,
1875), vol. I, pp. 137 seq.
7 Cf. A. Tardif, H istoire d es S ou rces du D roit Canon. (Paris, 1887), p. 186.
8 Schulte, loc. cit. vol. 1, pp. 172 seq.
343
THE P H O TIA N SCHISM. II. THE L E G E N D
Bartholomaeus Brixensis, a professor in Bologna, who died in 12 5 8 ,1

and Guido de Baysio, also called Archidiaconus, belonging to the end
o f the thirteenth and the beginning o f the fourteenth century.12 While
John Teutonicus, in commenting on the passages that concern us,
generally limits himself to the notes o f his forerunners, Bartholomew
somewhat expands his commentary on Ignatius’ deposition and
on Photinus’ (sic) elevation— one o f many indications that the
Photian Legend is gradually taking root among the scholars o f the
period.3
In reading the meagre comments on canon II o f the Photian Council
(C. v u , qu. I, c. 45), it does not take one long to perceive that the
canonists have by this time completely lost sight o f the history o f the
Council, being at a loss where to place it and how it came to be sum
moned. A striking illustration o f their embarrassment is afforded by
the greatest Pope o f that time, Innocent III, who in his letter written
in 1208 to bishop Hubaldus, newly elected archbishop o f Ravenna,
actually said : 4
Verum postulationi hujusmodi videbatur concilii Constantinopolitani
capitulum prima facie obviare, in quo statutum esse dignoscitur ut quicumque
de pontificali dignitate ad monachorum vitam et poenitentiae locum descen
derit, nequaquam ulterius ad pontificatum resurgat. Unde contra dictum
concilium, cum sit unum ex quatuor principalibus, quae sicut quatuor evangelia
catholica Ecclesia veneratur, nullatenus videbatur eadem postulatio admit
tenda. . . .
1 Schulte, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 83-6.

2 Ibid. vol. π, pp. 186 seq.: ‘ Rosarium super Decreto.’
3 I have used the 1772 edition of John Fenton and the Venice edition of 1495
of the Archdeacon. We may quote here, according to the Venice edition (1514) of
the D ecretu m G ratiani, which includes all the glosses o f our three authors, some
comments by Bartholomew on Ignatius: ‘ P. 105 (Ad. D. l x iii , c. i ) Ignatius pair.
Const, injuste fuit depositus et Fotinus [î] loco eius substitutus. Quam prohibi
tionem Nicolaus voluit removere sed morte preventus non potuit. Sed Hadrianus,
successor eius, misit nuntios tres in C/polim ad Basilium imperatorem et filios eius,
cum quibus fuit cancellarius romanae sedis. Et ibi octava syn. congregata duo
fecit: primo Fotinum [!] deposuit et Ignatium restituit. Secundo constituit ut
clericorum sit electio.. . . P. 155 a (Ad. D. xcvi, c. 7 = letter from Nicholas to
Michael III): Ostendit hic Nicolas quod Ignatius ratione Michaelis imperatoris
deponi non potuit et hoc probat duobus exemplis.. . .P . 201a (Ad. C. iv, qu. 1,
c. 2): Ignatius patriarcha Const, anathematizavit quosdam subditos suos qui
eumdem Ignatium postea accusaverunt ad quorum accusationem depositus fuit.
Sed Nicolas probat, quod anathematizati eum accusare non potuerunt. Et hoc
ostendit auctoritate concilii C/politani in quo statuit quod heretici a sacris electi,
etc.. . . ’
4 P .L . vol. 215, ep. 249, coi. 1553, cf. coi. 1592.
344
W ESTERN TR AD ITIO N FROM I 2 T H TO I 5 T H C E N T U R I E S
Innocent III evidently had only the vaguest notion about the Photian
case, and his opinion on this Council was probably shared by several
o f his contemporaries.
With regard to the canonists o f the fourteenth century, it is almost
useless to look in their works for anything pertaining to our topic,
although the Western Schism let loose a flood o f polemico-juridical
writings for and against Urban; but their authors drew most o f their
arguments from recent legislation and neglected the Decretum and the
decisions o f the oecumenical councils, as these did not provide suitable
material for their controversies. The same is true o f other writings o f
the same class at that time, when we only find a few vague references
to the eight councils in Gulielmus Durandus junior,1 but nothing in
Nicholas de dém anges,2 John Carlerius de G e rso n ,3 John o f Paris,4
Marsilius o f Padua,5 Augustinus Triumphus o f Ancona,6 to mention
only such writers as one might expect to yield such information.
William o f O ckh am 7 alone has a few references, insignificant though
they be, to Gratian’s Decretum.
It is curious to observe that in the controversies between Greeks and

Latins during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, very little was said
about Photius and the number o f councils. Thus, for instance, Anselm
o f Havelberg,8 in his 'disputatio’ with Nechites (Nicetas) in Constanti
nople in 113 5 , does not even mention Photius, though he argues about
the procession o f the Holy Ghost, the primacy and the Azymes, in fact
about every problem that was once raised by Photius. Nor does his
opponent father these differences on the unfortunate Patriarch, but
rather presents them as topics o f controversy that had always existed.
1 T ra cta tu s de M o d o G en eralis C oncilii C elebrandi (Paris, 1671), pars 1, tit. 11, p. 8.
2 D e co rru p to E cclesia e sta tu , ibid.
3 T ra cta tu s de P o te sta te E cclesia stica , M. Goldast, M on a rch ia S .R .I. (Harroviae,
16 11- 14 ) , vol. ii, pp. 1384-1404 and the other writings by the same author, ibid,
pp. 1425—1526. See also Gerson, O pera O m n ia, Paris (1606), vol. 1, pp. 110-45.
4 T ra cta tu s de P o te sta te R eg ia e t P a p a li, ibid. vol. Ii, pp. 108-47.
3 T ra cta tu s d e T ran slation e I m p erii, ibid. pp. 147-53; D efen so r P a c is , ibid.
PP* 154 3 1 2·
6 S u m m a de E cclesia stica P o te sta te (Coloniae Agrip. 1475).
7 O cto Q u aestion u m D ecisio n es su p er P o te sta te S u m m i P o n tificis , Goldast, loe. cit.
vol. II, pp. 3 13 —46 (nothing); D ia lo gu s de P o te sta te I m p e r a to r is , ibid. pp. 469, 645,
936. Cf. L. Baudry, G uillelm i de O cca m B reviloq u iu m d e p o te s ta te P a p a e (Paris,
1937). At the end of this treatise Occam expresses doubts concerning the authen
ticity o f the D on atio C onstantini.
8 Dialogi, P .L . vol. 188, cols. 1139-1248. The dialogues were written fourteen
years after the controversy had subsided. Cf. J. Dräseke, ‘ Bischof Anselm von
Havelberg’, in Z eitsch rift f ü r K ir ch e n g e sch ich te , vol. χχΐ, pp. 160-85.
345
In regard to the number o f councils, Anselm still follows the old

Western tradition and mentions only six councils.1
Another theological work that might be relevant to our problem is
the treatise o f Brother Bonacursius o f Bologna, found, with a Greek
translation, in a MS. o f the Paris National L ib rary:12 but it is a scholastic
treatise, which totally disregards the historical evolution o f the schism,
never mentions Photius and never raises the question o f the number o f
councils.
Only one ecclesiastical and canonical writer o f this period treats o f
the councils with more freedom— Humbertus de Romanis, who in 1273
issued a memoir for the use o f the second Council o f Lyons. In the
second part o f his Opusculum Tripartitum, Humbert devotes several
chapters to the Greek schism, yet refers to the councils only once.3 In
reviewing the Greeks5 objection against the supreme power o f Rome,
he states among other things that, according to the Greeks, the very fact
that the first seven councils met in the East proves that in the earlier
days o f the Church the supreme power belonged to the Orientals. The
curious thing is that Humbert is in no w ay alarmed by the mention o f
seven councils and does not feel tempted to add the eighth. Elsewhere,
Humbert recapitulates certain causes o f the schism as well as the liturgical
and disciplinary differences between the two Churches, but nowhere
does he mention Photius, though he had some knowledge o f a mis
understanding in the ninth century; but in his opinion it was over
nothing but the Bulgarians5 baptism.4
Hugo Etherianus, another Latin controversialist, is far more pro
vocative. In 117 7 Hugo sent to Pope Alexander III a book on the
Greek errors, in which he already fathers the Greek doctrine about the
Holy Ghost on Photius and apostrophizes him in one place in a passionate
plea.3 More significant still is another work against the Greeks, which
may, it appears, be attributed to Hugh, or better still, to his brother
1 Dialogi, P .L . vol. 188, cols. 1225-8.

2 Cod. Paris. Gr. 1251, fourteenth-century on parchment, fol. 145. Cf. B.
Altaner, ‘ Kenntnisse des Griechischen in den Missionsorden während des 13 u. 14
Jh .’, in Z eitsch rift f ü r K ir ch e n g e sch ich te (1934), vol. L i n , p p . 457, 471.
3 Ed. Crabbe, C oncilia O m n ia . . . (Coloniae, 1551), vol. π, pp. 990, 991, c. 3.
4 Ibid. c. 12, 18, pp. 993, 998. About Humbert, see F. Heintke, ‘ Humbert von
Romans, der fünfte Ordensmeister der Dominikaner’, in H istor. S tu d ien , Heft 222
(Berlin, 1933). Cf. also Karl Michel, D a s O pus T rip a rtitu m d. H u m h ertu s d es
R om a n s, 2. umgearb. Auf!. (Graz, 1926). Cf. B. Altaner, ‘ Kenntnisse des Grie
chischen . . . ’, loc. cit. p. 446.
3 De Haeresibus Graecorum, P .L . vol. 202, lib. 11, cc. 15 -18 , cols. 322-6; c. 19,
cols. 328, 334, lib. ni, c. 15, col. 370.
346
WESTERN TRADITION FROM I 2 T H TO I 5 T H C E N T U R I E S
Leo Tuscus.1 It has a reference to the general councils as admitted by

the Greeks. After enumerating the seven councils, the writer ad d s:2
It should also be stated that besides these seven universal Councils there
was another, universal indeed, but as it did not deal with any articles o f faith,
it is not numbered b y the ancient Greeks among the universal Councils,
but only among those called Local. But the modern Greeks, being schismatics,
have excluded it from all Councils and refuse to hear o f it, because it was at
that synod that their Patriarch Photius, the heresiarch, was once deprived
o f his patriarchal dignity which he had illegally usurped.. . . 3
That is how a Western scholar o f the twelfth century tried to reconcile

the Greek and Latin attitudes on the number o f councils. Leo Tuscus,
the probable author o f this extract (or his brother Hugh), was well
aware that according to Gratian, whose authority he, like everyone else,
accepted, there were eight oecumenical councils. But in Constantinople,
where the brothers arrived under Manuel Comnenus, no more than
seven councils were admitted. As the Emperor’s interpreter, Leo had
many opportunities for getting entry into the city’s libraries, and Hugh
himself writes in his book that he devoted all his leisure hours in
Constantinople to a search for Greek and Latin theological books.4
That was how they succeeded in discovering the notorious anti-
Photianist Collection, which gave them the clue they were seeking,
the summary o f the Acts o f the Eighth Council, prefaced by the life o f
Ignatius and written by the Paphlagoniam Armed with this document,
they erected to their own satisfaction the hypothesis that the Greeks
once acknowledged the Eighth Council, although their canonists did
not class it among the oecumenical councils, numbering it instead
1 R. Léchât, ‘ La patristique Grecque chez un théologien Latin du X lle siècle,.
Hugues Ethérien’, in M éla n g es <THistoire o fferts à Ch. M o e lle r (Louvain, 1914;.
Recueil de Travaux de P Université de Louvain, v, 40), pp. 492 seq. Cf. Hergen-
röther, P h o tiu s, vol. in, pp. 175 seq.
2 J. Basnage, T h esa u ru s M on u m en toru m E cclesia st. e t H ist, s iv e H en rici C anisii
L ectio n es A ntiquae (Antverpiae, 1725), vol. iv, p. 1. Cf. P .G . vol. 140, cols. 487
seq.: T ra cta tu s C ontra E rrores G ra ecoru m , composed by Dominicans in Constan
tinople (1252), attributed wrongly to Pantelemon and followed, cols. 541 seq.,
by extracts from Etherianus. The passage in question, col. 557.
3 4Dicendum quoque, praeter istas septem universales synodos, fuit et una alia,
universalis quidem: sed quia non agit de articulis fidei, non ponitur in numero
universalium synodorum ab antiquis Graecis, sed inter alias quae locales nomi
nantur. Moderni vero Graeci, schismatici cum sint, ab omni numero illam exclu
serunt, et nomen eius audire subticuerunt, eo quod eorum patriarcha Photius^
Heresiarcha, fuit in ipsa dignitate patriarchali, quam sibi injuste usurpaverat, nuper
destitu tus.’
4 Loc. cit. P .L . vol. 202, coi. 230.
347
among their local councils, as it had issued no dogmatic decision. But

since the time the Greeks had become schismatics, they had decided to
discard this council altogether, since Photius5 condemnation was con
tained in its Acts.
This is the first time we come across Nicetas5 notorious pamphlet
about Photius in the Latin tradition. Its discovery produced on the
Westerners the impression one might have expected and naturally
affected their attitude to the authenticity o f the Photian Council, for
we read farther down in the same book, after the list o f the local synods
endorsed by the Greeks : 1
But the Patriarch Photius, who was a heresiarch, held two Councils in
succession in the C ity o f Constantinople. The first in the church o f the H oly
Apostles, and the other, which was sanctioned b y Pope John, as they assert,
in the church o f St Soph ia.. . . But the synod o f Photius, which, as they
insist, Pope John approved, made 17 canons, the last o f which seems to be
very favourable to the Latins.
T o any reader o f Nicetas5 pamphlet, which could only confirm a
twelfth-century Westerner in his conviction that the Eighth Council
was really oecumenical, it must have been evident that the author could
scarcely admit the Photian Council to have been sanctioned by a Pope,
as the Greeks pretended.
The chief interest o f the production lies in its being merely a transla
tion o f a Greek treatise on the councils. The Greek original seems to have
been related to the group represented by the treatises o f the Paris.
Graec. 1335, Paris. Graec. 425.* The translation is literal, only a few
passages having been added ; but the seventeen canons mentioned were
not voted, as the translator asserts, by the Council o f 879-80, but by
the Photianist Council o f 861.3
The treatise against the Greeks,4 written in 1252 in Constantinople
by the Dominican Brothers, also discovers in Photius the principal
author o f the schism and (it is alleged) Michael Cerularius— the
treatise calls him Circularios!— only follows his example in his revolt
against the Pope.
The treatise supports the Pope’s primacy with many arguments and
the spurious Donatio Constantini is given pride o f place— and no wonder,
since no one in the West was in the least doubt about the authenticity
1 Loc. cit. p. 73. Cf. P.G . vol. 140, col. 559.
2 See Appendix III, pp. 452 seq.
3 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 548. Canon X V II forbids the election of a layman to the
episcopacy.
4 Basnage, loc. cit. vol. iv, pp. 50, 60-2. Cf. P.G . vol. 140, col. 540.
348
WE S T E R N T R A D I T I O N FROM Ί2ΤΗ TO I 5 TH C E N T U RI E S
o f this document. This sort o f ‘ argument’ must, however, have made

a curious impression on the Greeks. The Dominicans certainly knew
o f the writings o f Hugh in their Latin, and perhaps also in their Greek,
edition, so that they may have felt his influence, although we find no
other instance o f Hugh’s (or his brother’s) writings exercising such
fascination on his contemporaries.
We should also mention the controversies between Cardinal Benedict,
legate o f the Pope Innocent III, and the Greeks in 1205 in Thessalonica,
Athens and Constantinople. Nicholas o f Otranto, who acted as his
interpreter, summarized the discussions and published them in Greek
and in Latin; unfortunately, I have been unable to gain access to the
edition o f the three discussions made by the Metropolitan Arsenii after
a Greek MS. o f the Moscow Synodal Library. But I found in the
Paris National Library a MS. written in Greek and in Latin, which has
the discussions as they were reported by Nicholas o f Otranto. This
interesting MS. (Paris. Graec. Suppl. 1232) is mainly a palimpsest, but
partly written on parchment and bombycine material (165 fols.); it is,
moreover, contemporary, being written in the thirteenth century. It
certainly looks more interesting than the copies o f Moscow and F lorence,
as described by Baudinus in his Catalogus Codic. M anuscript. Biblioth.
Laur. (vol. 1, pp. 60 seq.).
Fols. 1 - 1 2 have a dialogue on the procession o f the Holy Ghost;
fols. 12 - 14 , an 'Opusculum de Barbis’ ; fols. 15 -16 5 , a synopsis o f
discussions on the Holy Ghost, the Azymes and some other contro
versial points that divided the Greeks and the Latins, and fols. 25 α, 26,
a history of these discussions, which deserve a study to themselves.
Arguments are freely drawn from conciliar decrees (chiefly fols. 28 a—
38 a), and it is surprising to read the cardinal’s emphatic declaration
(fob 38): ‘ facta est tunc et septima synodus, quae a nobis Latinis non
tenetur’ ; a sure sign that the Franks’ disbelief in the Seventh Council
prevailed among some people as late as the thirteenth century. Photius
is mentioned, as his arguments against the Filioque were turned to
account by the Greeks (fol. 64), but there is no reference to the Eighth
Council. The discussion certainly makes it evident that the Greeks o f
the time admitted no more than seven oecumenical councils.1
The theological writings between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries
I have been able to consult tell us nothing definite about either
councils or Photius. Thus, for instance, Petrus Abelardus2 does not
1 Cf. about Nicholas and Cardinal Benedict, W. Norden, Das Papsttum und
B yiani (Berlin, 1903), pp. 182 seq. 2 P .L . vol. 178, cols. 105-8, 375, 376.
349
even mention the councils in his Confession, nor does St B ru n o ;1

St Bruno de Segui, in his reply to abbot Leo o f St Mary’s in Byzantium
on the affair o f the Azymes, written between 110 7 and m i , mentions
neither councils nor Photius;2 St Bernard3 only speaks o f the four
councils and his example is followed by Hugh de Saint V icto r;4 all
these authors dealt with Greek errors and in their controversies with
the Greeks never referred to Photius as the author o f that heresy.
The same may be said about the conciliar documents. Paschal II,5
in his profession o f faith at the Council o f the Lateran ( 1 112 ) , only
mentions the first four Councils, in accordance with the old and fast-
declining usage; and the Acts o f the Council o f Lyons o f 1274 have
nothing to say about the Photian incident.
There is no mention o f Photius either in the letters o f Pope John X IV
to the Emperor and to the Patriarch, or in the Emperor’s reply to the
P o p e ;6 and the Emperor’s profession refers to the councils only in
general terms.7 The oath taken in the Emperor’s name by the Logo-
thete George Acropolites has no reference to the councils, nor has the
profession o f faith imposed on the Greek Metropolitans.8 Nothing in
the letter from the Patriarch John Beccos to the Pope, though it has
the Patriarch’s profession o f faith ; 9 and nothing in the Acts o f the
Synod o f Constantinople held about 1280,10 in which John Beccos
proved that the opponents o f the Union had tampered with Gregory
o f Nyssa’s text on the Procession o f the H oly Ghost. The Council o f
the Armenians for union with Rome says nothing about the number
o f oecumenical councils and mainly emphasizes the Council o f Chal
cedon, which is only natural;11 but the point is interesting, as the Greeks
acted quite differently on a similar occasion, when one o f the conditions
they imposed on the Armenians who wished to unite with them was the
recognition o f the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Councils. Such lack o f
veneration— if we may put it so— for ecclesiastical tradition, observed
at least to some extent in the Acts o f the Council, was characteristic o f
the new theological method in the West, where scholasticism favoured
1 P .L . vol. 153, cols. 571-2. 2 P .L . vol. 165, cols. 1087-90.
3 Epist. 194, Rescriptum D. Innoc. papae contra Haereses Petri Abel., P .L .
vol. 182, col. 360.
4 Eruditiones Didascalicae Libri Septem, P .L . vol. 176, cois. 785 seq.
3 P .L . vol. 163, cois. 471 seq. 6 Mansi, vol. x xiv, cois. 37-136.
7 Loc. cit. coi. 72. 8 Loc. cit. cois. 73-7.
9 Loc. cit. cois. 183-90. 10 Ibid. cols. 365-74.
11 Mansi, vol. xxv, cois. 118 5—1270. Cf. also the decisions of the synod of Melfi
(1284) (Mansi, vol. x xiv, cols. 569 seq.) purporting to regulate relations between
Greeks and Latins in Sicily. There the question of councils is not even hinted at.
35°
WE S T E R N T R A D I T I O N F ROM I 2TH TO 1 5 TH C E N T U R I E S
theological speculation rather than the historic method. Scholastic

theologians also concentrated their efforts on the definition o f the
Catholic doctrine o f the sacraments,1 a section o f Catholic dogma to
which the first councils had given least attention. Even the prince o f
scholastic theologians, St Thomas Aquinas, disregards the historic
method and in discussing the Procession o f the Holy Spirit and the
Greek errors limits himself to theological speculation 2 and ignores the
origin o f the errors he desires to confute.
One document, issued by the Papal Chancellery, reflects the vague
notions that were current in the thirteenth century on Photius5 responsi
bility for the Oriental schism. In his letter o f 14 September 1267, to the
deans, chapters and suffragans o f Sens, Pope Clement IV w rites:3
Ancient and authentic writings attribute this schism to a certain incumbent
o f the see o f Constantinople. Stripped o f his patriarchal dignity b y a fair sen
tence o f the H oly See, he gave so many signs o f sorrow, devotion and reform
after the death o f his substitute that the H oly See graciously restored him to
favour, or rather allowed him to resume his patriarchal functions. Eventually
he proved ungrateful for the favour, regarded as injustice the justice o f his
deposition, raised heresies that had been condemned and provoked schisms,
seduced the emperor o f Constantinople and thus was the cause o f the schism.
It shows what hazy notions about the history o f Photius were current
in the West in the thirteenth century and what little importance was
attached to his person, since the Pope did not even know his name. The
Photian Legend, making Photius responsible for the Eastern schism, was
growing. However, the Pope apparently knew nothing about a second
condemnation o f Photius by Rome, or at least, says nothing about it.
The examination o f the main theological writings, which could have

been expected to deal with our problem, has shown that remembrance
o f Photius5 rehabilitation was gradually receding into the background
1 A classical instance of the method, as used by local synods, too, is found in
the Acts of the Council of Lavaur (in the Tarn), summoned in 1368 by the arch
bishop o f Narbonne. We read there (Mansi, vol. x xvi, cols. 484-93) a lengthy
exposition of the Catholic faith— the Blessed Trinity, the sacraments, the theo
logical virtues, sin, etc.— made with full array of scholastic erudition, yet not a
word about the general councils and their number.
2 Summa Theol. qu. x x x v i, art. i-iv (Rome ed. 1888), vol. iv, pp. 375-86. Cf.
‘ Contra Errores Graecorum5 and F. Reusch, ‘ Die Fälschungen in dem Tractat des
Thomas von Aquin gegen die Griechen5, in Abh. Hist. Kl. hayr. Akad. (1889),
Bd X V III.
3 E. Jordan, ‘ Les Régistres de Clément I V 5, in Bibi, des Écoles Franc, d 'Athènes
et de Rome (Paris, 1893), série π, vol. xi, p. 203.
351
with the Western theologians o f the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth

centuries and that the authority o f the Photian Council, which was still
respected in Grattan’s time, was almost forgotten. Still, this does not
mean that the tradition so carefully fostered by Ivo and his jurists till
Gratian’s days was completely lost. Ivo ’s writings, chiefly his intro
duction to the Decretum, though supplanted by Gratian, never lost
credit entirely.1
It was saved at this period by some historians who were gifted with
a finer flair than Gratian’s interpreters. The first was the Dominican
Martinus Opaviensis (1278), mistakenly called— for he was really o f
Czech origin— Polonus. Martin o f Opava was at the same time a good
canonist and in his M argarita Decreti, which proved so popular in
the Middle Ages, he included— o f course with Gratian— the Eight
Councils.^ In his Chronicle he also came, as stated before, under
Bonizo’s influence, but in another place he speaks o f the Fifth Council
of Constantinople o f the 383 Fathers.3 It is true he does not specifically
mention Photius’ rehabilitation, but on the other hand he does not refer
to his excommunication by Nicholas.
Martinus Polonus’ example is followed by Ptolemaeus Lucensis
(1327) in his Historia Ecclesiastica.4
Another important reference to the Photian case is found in the
interpolation o f the Chronicle o f the monk Albrich (d. after 1252),3
1 An indirect hint of his introduction is found in an anonymous writing of about
m i , in the course of the struggle against lay Investiture (Sdralek, 4Wolfenbüttler
Fragmente’, in Kirchengeschichtl. Studien, 1, 2 (Münster i. W. 1891), p. 5; Abschnitt,
p. 1 51). In order to prove to the 4Nicholaites’ that they could not appeal to the
fact that the Pope had sometimes granted dispensation from celibacy, the author
quotes the same case as Ivo, Pope Gregory I5s dispensation to the English clergy,
using terms reminiscent of Ivo (P .L . vol. 161, col. 58). The illustration is, however,
not convincing.
2 Deer. X V I. 4Margarita Decreti seu Tabula Martiniana, edita per fratrem
M ar tinum (ed. Peter Drach, Spire, 1490 (?)), p. 10.
3 M .G.H . Ss. X X I I , p. 429: 4Sub hoc [Johannes VIII] celebrata fuit V. synodus
C/poli 383 patrum, cui praefuit Petrus presbiter cardinalis et Paulus Antiochenus
episcopus et Eugenius Hostiensis episcopus, apocrisiarii papae.5
4 Historia Ecclesiastica, Muratori, Ss. R. I., vol. X I, p. 1019 (c. X X I): 4Sub hoc
etiam Johanne papa, ut Martinus scribit, celebrata est Synodus in C/poli 383 patrum,
cui praefuit Petrus presbyter cardinalis, et Paulus Antiochenus episcopus et Eugenius
Ostiensis episcopus, et apocrisiarius Domini Papae.5
5 Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium a monacho Hoiensi interpolata,
M .G .H . Ss. X X II I , p. 740. 4Ad. ann. 870: Secundum quosdam octava synodus
celebrata est hoc anno. Vide in Gratiano dist. 63. Sine dubio ista octava synodus
congregata fuit in urbe C/poli et in auctoritatem recipitur, sed post istam nulla
Greca sinodus a Latinis recipitur.5 The first clause is from the Chronicle of the
monk Helinandus (d. 1277), P .L . vol. 212, col. 868.
352
WE S T E R N T R A D I T I O N FROM I 2TH TO 1 5 TH C E N T U RI E S
where the writer treats first o f the Council o f 869 and quotes Gratian’s
Decretum as his source. About the Photian Council he w rites:1
Idem papa Joannes patriarcham Constantinopolitanum nomine Photium

neophitum a papa Nicolao quondam depositum in sede sua restituit, inter
ventu Basilii imperatoris et filiorum ejus Leonis et Alexandri, sicut in libro
qui Canones inscribitur plenius continetur. Idem Joannes papa regi Bul-
garorum Michaeli nomine scripsisse in eodem codice invenitur.
Mention o f the Fifth Council o f Constantinople also occurs in Flores

Temporum? again under Martinus5 inspiration.
Lastly, in the fourteenth century, we obtain from D a n d o lo 123 fuller
information on the excommunication o f Michael III (!) as a result o f
Ignatius5 deposition, and about the Councils o f 869-70 and 879-80,
the same writer being also the first to point out the disagreement on this
subject between the Latins and the Greeks. Writers living far away from
regions like Venice, where Greek and Latin interests crossed and clashed,
were not aware o f this difference.
Writing about the Eighth Council, Dandolo adds: ‘ Hanc synodum
Graeci inter generales non accipiunt quia in ea de articulis fidei non est
actum, et etiam propter Photii depositionem.5 This is what he writes
about the Photian Council: ‘ Sub isto [Joanne VIII] celebrata est
synodus Constantinopoli 383 patrum, cui praefuit Petrus, et Paulus
Antiochensis episcopus et Eugenius episcopus Ostiensis, papae apo-
crisiarius. Photius enim patriarcha prius ibi duo concilia celebraverat.5
Thus we reach the conclusion that between the twelfth and the four
teenth centuries any just estimate o f the Photian incident was beginning
to disappear, although there are some historians who have a modicum
o f knowledge not only o f the existence, but also o f the validity o f the
Fifth Council o f Constantinople. It goes without saying that even at
this period absolutely nothing was known o f Photius5 second excom
munication.
1 Ibid. p. 742 ad ann. 881.

2 Flores Temporum. Pontifices. M .G.H. Ss. x x iv , p. 244: 4Johannes V III sedit
annos 10. Constituit ut nullus iudex secularis placita secularia tractet in edibus
consecratis. Item quod ibi non hospitentur nisi ex Grecia. Sub isto fuit quinta
synodus C/politana.’ The author of the Chronicle was a Minorite of Suabia who
wrote between 1292 and 1294.
3 Muratori, Ss. R. I., vol. x i i , 1. vm , c. iv, pars x l , col. 181, c. v, part, xi, xvi,
cols. 184, 185. On Dandolo’s sources, see H. Simonsfeld, Andreas Dandolo u. seine
Geschichtswerke (München, 1876), pp. 54 seq.
DPS
353 23
C HA P T E R IV
FIF T E E N T H C E N T U R Y T IL L TH E M O D ERN PER IO D
The Eighth Council among opponents and supporters— Sixteenth-century writers—

The Centuriae— Baronius’ Annals— Catholic and Protestant writers of the eighteenth
century— Hergenröther and his school.
T h e fifteenth century ushered in a new period o f conciliar tradition:

it was the century o f the great Western Schism, which was responsible
for the 'conciliar notion’ or the primacy o f the councils over the Popes.
It was natural that in this century a new fashion for the first councils,
including the Eighth Oecumenical Synod, should be introduced.
T o turn first to the Acts o f the Councils o f Constance and Basle, it
is well known that the Council o f Constance again, and this time
officially, fixed the number o f oecumenical councils, when the conciliar
commission charged with the task o f formulating reforms rediscovered
the notorious profession o f faith o f Bonifice V III and advised the revival
o f this pious custom in the ceremonial o f papal elections.1 The Council
agreed to the proposal, and in its thirty-ninth session the Fathers drew
up a new profession o f faith for the Pope, after the pattern o f the so-called
profession o f Boniface V III.12 For the first time since the end o f the
1 Mansi, vol. xxvm , document 31, cols. 268-70: ‘ Avisamenta per X X X V car
dinales, praelatos et doctores, in loco reformatorii Constantiensis.’ Cf. Finke,
Acta Concilii Constantiensis (Münster i. W. 1923), vol. II, pp. 616, 618, 621.
2 Mansi, vol. xxvn , col. 116 1 : ‘ Forma de professione Papae facienda. Quanto
Romanus Pontifex eminentiori inter mortales fungitur potestate, tanto clarioribus
ipsum decet fulciri fidei vinculis, et Sacramentorum ecclesiasticorum observandis
ritibus illigari: Eapropter, ut in futurum Romanis Pontificibus in suae creationis
primordiis et singulari splendore luceat plena fides, statuimus et ordinamus, quod
deinceps quilibet in Romanum Pontificem eligendus, antequam sua electio publi
cetur, coram suis electoribus publice confessionem et professionem faciat infra-
scriptam: In nomine sanctae et individuae Trinitatis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti, Amen. Anno a nativitate Domini millesimo etc. ego N. electus in Papam,
omnipotenti Deo, cuius Ecclesiam suo praesidio regendam suscipio, et beato Petro
Apostolorum Principi corde et ore profiteor, quamdiu in hac fragili vita constitutus
fuero, me firmiter credere, et tenere sanctam fidem catholicam, secundum tradi
tionem Apostolorum, generalium Conciliorum et aliorum sanctorum patrum,
maxime autem sanctorum octo Conciliorum universalium, videlicet primi Nicaeae,
secundi Constantinopolitani, tertii Ephesini, quarti Chalcedonensis, quinti et sexti
Constantinopolitanorum, septimi item Nicaeni, octavi quoque Constantinopolitani,
nec non Lateranensis, Lugdunensis et Viennensis generalium etiam Conciliorum.
Et illam fidem usque ad unum apicem immutilatam servare et usque ad animam
3Î4
F I F T E E N T H C E N T U R Y T I L L THE MO D E R N P E RI OD
ninth century the number o f oecumenical councils was officially deter

mined, those o f the Lateran, Lyons and Vienne being added to the first
eight councils; but the fathers o f Constance did not take their inspiration
from the original formula o f the Popes5 profession o f faith, but from the
spurious profession o f Boniface.
That is how the famous Popes5 profession reappeared, this time with
'an anti-papal flavour5, illustrating the manner in which the Fathers of
Constance revived the custom. This tendency took shape at the Council
o f Basle, which in its second stage is known to have bodily joined the
opposition, the profession o f faith which it imposed on its Pope Felix V
being inspired by the conciliar notion o f the council being above the
Pope.1
One would have expected this Council to rehearse the arguments in
support o f its opinions 2 by taking fuller advantage o f the Acts o f the
first councils, instead o f leaving it to some jurists and theologians,
sectarian partisans o f the conciliar notion, to do it on their own account.
A few o f these may be quoted. Peter d’Ailly, to prove that the Pope’s
supreme power may be restricted by the authority o f the oecumenical
council 'ad excludendum abusum5, quotes, among other things, the
ancient usage o f exacting from the Pope a profession o f orthodox faith.
He writes : 3 ‘ Ideo antiquo iure institutum est, quod papa professionem
faceret. . . et eiusmodi professio per lapsum temporis ampliata est, ut
patet ex professione Bonifacii V I I I .. . . 5 And later,4 he quotes in
support o f his contention such phrases used by the councils as ‘ Placuit
sacro concilio; concilium deffinit5, etc.
Pope Gregory V II then clearly scented the danger which this practice
et sanguinem confirmare, defensare et praedicare, ritum quoque pariter Sacra

mentorum ecclesiasticorum Catholicae Ecclesiae traditum, omnimode prosequi et
observare. Hanc autem professionem et confessionem S.R.E. me jubente scriptam,
propria manu subscripsi, et tibi omnipotenti Deo pura mente et devota conscientia
super tali altari etc. sinceriter offero in praesentia talium, etc. Datum, etc.’
1 Mansi, vol. x x ix , sessions 29, 32, cols. 112 , 1x3, 189; session 40, cols. 202, 203.
Cf. the footnote below.
2 Only a few references to the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon are found in the
Acts (J. Haller, Concilium Basiliense (Basel, 1896), vol. I, p. 185; (1900), vol. m,
pp. 500 seq.; (1903), vol. iv, p. 299; (1914, G. Beckmann, R. Wackernagel),
vol. V , p. 232; (1926, G. Beckmann), vol. vi, p. 366. The Pope’s profession (1910,
H. Herre), vol. vu, pp. 220, 221. Cf. also J. Döllinger, Beiträge zur pol., kirchL u.
Culturgesch. der letzten 6 Jh . (Regensburg, 1863), vol. 11 : ‘ Informationes Pilei archiep.
Januensis super reformatione Ecclesiae’, p. 304.
3 Petrus de Alliaco, ‘ De Ecclesiae et Cardinalium Auctoritate’, in Gersonis Opera
(Paris, x6o6), vol. v, pars 11, c. 3, p. 918.
4 Ibid, pars ui, 2, p. 925.
355 23-2
spelt for his idea o f the plenitude o f papal power and it was he who, as
mentioned before, very probably suppressed this venerable custom.1
The Aureum Speculum Papae 2 also quotes the famous saying o f
St Gregory on the first councils, 'which must be as highly esteemed as
the four Gospels’, to prove that the Pope’s power is limited by the
councils. Nicolaus Siculus Panormitanus3 (d. 1453) was still more
explicit in the long speech he addressed to the Fathers4 and inferred
from the Pope’s profession which mentions the eight councils 'quod
papa non possit de aliquo mutilare, violare, seu mutare statuta uni
versalium conciliorum’ . Jacobatius, Cardinal o f the titular church o f
St Clement 5 (d. 1527), and chiefly John de Torquemada6 (d. 1468),
outstanding champion o f the Pope’s supreme power and o f the opinions
o f the Roman Curia, show us how the followers o f the conciliar school
made capital o f the Acts o f the Eighth Council to strengthen their
view s; and as we know from their writings, from the fact that Photius
had been condemned by the Eighth Council they inferred that the
council was above the Pope.7 In their view, the speech o f the Metro
politan o f Tyre, Thomas (actio I), was evidence that a council could be
summoned by the Emperor without pontifical intervention.8
Canon X X I is appealed to as proof that a council has the right to
pass sentence even on the Popes ,9 and the case o f Photius is made to
prove that a Pope’s judgement is subject to revision by a council, which
shall decide in the last instance.10 Sayings by Zachary, Photius’ cham
pion, at the sixth session are also quoted in support o f the conciliar
view .11
A ll these objections are met by Cardinal John de Torquemada, who
counters them by quoting other extracts from the Acts o f the same
1 See pp. 327 seq., 440.

2 Ed. E. G. Brown, Fasciculus Rerum Expetendarum et Fugiendarum (London,
1690), vol. π, Appendix, p. 83.
3 Cf. Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen...d. can. Rechts, vol. Il, pp. 312, 313.
4 ‘ Pro Honore et Conservatione Concilii Basiliensis,, Mansi, vol. x x x , cols.
1123 seq.,. and chiefly col. 1169. In his speech, he makes many false or erroneous
claims for the councils.
3 Schulte, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. 342, 343.
6 Ibid. vol. π, pp. 322 seq.
7 Joannes de Turrecremata, Summa de Ecclesia (ed. Card. Vitellius; Venetiis,
1561), 1. ni, c. 29, p. 306. Cf. c. 35, p. 315.
8 Ibid. c. 30, pp. 314a, 315. Cf. Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 30, 31.
9 Loc. cit. 1. ill, c. 45, p. 325 a. Cf. Jacohatii card. Tractatus de Concilio Domini.
Ed. Tractatus Univ. Jur., loc. cit. vol. xm , pars 1, p. 389.
10 Joannes de Turrecremata, loc. cit. p. 326. Jacobatius, loc. cit. p. 363.
11 J. de Turrecremata, loc. cit. p. 327; Jacobatius, loc. cit. p. 363.
356
F I F T E E N T H C E N T U R Y T I L L THE MO D E R N P E RI O D
Council,1 where he also finds constructive arguments in favour o f his

own views on the plenitude o f pontifical power,123and makes it evident
that he was not content with quoting from Gratian’s Decretum, as had
been done by the writers o f the fourteenth century and many o f his
contemporaries. The Cardinal knew the Acts themselves in their trans
lation by Anastasius, and some objections made against the curial thesis
suggest that the partisans o f the conciliar notion had also direct access
to the Acts o f the Council, this being the first time since the eleventh
century that this source was directly used and that scholars were no
longer content with copying extracts from Gratian.
Torquemada’s comments on Gratian’s Decretum yield nothing o f
importance to our subject.3 To our surprise, he omits to quote the
Eighth Council in another treatise o f his on the power o f Pope and
councils,45and neglects to turn the Photian case to profité In his Summa
de Ecclesia, published in 1450, the great canonist o f this period devotes,
however, some space to the Greek doctrines and draws his inspiration
from Manuel Calecas, whose L ib ri I V adversus Errores Graecorum had
been translated into Latin in 14 21. In this passage ( 1. 11, p. 93) Tor-
quemada also writes on the Photian Council o f 879-80, but merely
reflects the ideas o f Calecas, whose grave doubts he shares concerning
the authenticity o f the Council’s Acts.
Nicholas de Cusa also knows the Eighth Council w ell6 and at the
end o f his book D e Concordantia even makes the Emperor Sigismund
the ‘ successor o f Basil I ’ and compares Sigismund’s energetic action at
the Council o f Constance with Basil’s performance at the Eighth
Council. In his treatise De Auctoritate Presidendi in Concilio Generali,
1 Loc. cit. 1. in, c. 31, pp. 309 seq.; c. 36, pp. 316 seq.
2 Loc. cit. 1. π, c. n o , p. 255 ; 1. in, c. 9, p. 284; c. 22, p. 298 a; c. 25, pp. 3000:,
3 0 1; c. 32, pp. 310a, 3 1 1 ; c. 33, pp. 3 11a , 3 12 ; c. 34, pp. 3 12a seq. (note that
Turrecremata, in adducing arguments to prove that all councils need confirmation
by the Pope, knows nothing of the confirmation of the Eighth Council); c. 37,
pp. 318 seq.; c. 38, pp. 319 seq.; c. 44, pp. 324 seq.; c. 45, pp. 325 seq.; c. 62,
pp. 349 -51; c. 63, pp. 351 seq.
3 Commentaria. . .in Decretum (ed. de Bohier; Lugduni, 1519).
4 De Potestate Papae et Concilio Generali Tractatus Notabilis (ed. J. Friedrich;
Oeniponti, 1871).
5 There is also a reference to the Eighth Council in his ‘ Responsio in blas
phemantem et sacrilegam invectivam congreg. Basileensium’ (Mansi, vol. x x x i,
coi. 95). About Turrecremata, see Schulte, loc. cit. vol. ιι,ρρ. 322 seq. and S. Lederer,
Der Spanische Kardinal Johann von Torquemada (Freiburg i. B. 1879).
6 De Concordantia Catholica, libri III, S. Schardius, Syntagma Tractatuum de
Imp. Iuris diet., auct. et praeeminentia ac potest. Cath. (Argentorati, 1609), pp. 306,
3 0 , 322, 325, 329-31, 333, 343, 377, 378.
3Ï 7
THE P H OT IA N SCH ISM . II. TH E L E G E N D
Nicholas de Cusa frequently quotes passages from the Acts o f the

Eighth Council in support o f his own thesis. He knows, however, no
argument in favour o f the oecumenicity o f this Council other than the
famous passage in Gratian’s Decretum}
The right to summon councils is discussed, among other writers, b y
Petrus de Monte Brixiensis, but in the treatise he devoted to this subject,,
written after 1447,2 he never once mentioned the Eighth Council.
Now for a rapid survey o f the other works, whose subject-matter
holds promise o f interesting discoveries.
For instance, Cardinal Alexandrinus (d. 1509) wrote a commentary
on the Decretum ,3 and he is as disappointing as James de Paradiso4 and
John F. Poggio o f Florence.5 John Capistranus (d. 145 6) reveals himself
in his treatise on Pope and councils as a third-rate historian: his account
o f the transfer o f the Empire from Greece to Rome is confused; he
knows Gratian only for his authority and alludes to the councils in very
general terms.6 Nor does the Spanish bishop Andrew give evidence o f
any deep knowledge o f the history o f the councils in his Gubernaculum
Conciliorum, written in Basle in 1435 and dedicated by the author to
Cardinal Julian Cesarini.7 He offers nothing o f interest and refers to*
the Eighth Council in terms too vague to be useful.
Neither Peter d’A illy’s work on the authority o f Church and Car
dinals,8 nor the main juridico-religious writings o f J. Gerson yielded
any results.^ And yet, the problems raised by the Eighth Council
deeply interested the scholars o f that period, as is shown by a letter
1 G. Kallen, ‘ Cusanus-Texte II, Tractate 1: De Auctoritate Praesidendi in Con
cilio Generali’, in Sitzungsberichte der Akad. in Heidelberg, Phil.-H ist. K l. (1935),
pp. 10, 14, 22, 24, 26, 30.
2 Monarchia , sive Tractatus Conciliorum Generalium. I consulted the Lyons ed..
1512. In the Tractatus, vol. χ ιιι, 1, pp. 144-54.
3 Commentarius super Decreto (Mediolani, 1494).
4 Jacobus de Paradiso, De Septem Statibus Ecclesiae (ed. E. G. Brown), Fasciculus-
Rerum Expetendarum et Fugiendarum (London, 1690), vol. ii, Appendix, pp. 102—12.
3 Johannis Francisci Poggii Florentini De Potestate Papae et Concilii Liber
(J. Beplin: Rome, 15 17 (?)).
6 Tractatus de Papae et Concilii S. Ecclesiae Auctoritate, Tractatus, loc. cit..
(1584), χ ιιι , i, pp. 32-66.
7 Ed. H. von der Hardt, Const. Concilii Acta et Decreta (Frankfurt and Leipzig,
1699), vol. i, cols. 139-334.
8 Petri de Alliaco card. De Ecclesiae et Cardinalium Auctoritate, Joannis Gersonii
Opera (Paris, 1606), vol. I, cois. 895-934.
9 De Potestate Ecclesiastica, De Auferibilitate Papae ab Ecclesia , De Modo se
Habendi Tempore Schismatis, Tractatus de Schismate, De Unitate Ecclesiastica,
D e Concilio Unius Obedientiae, Trilogus in M ateria Schismatis, ibid. vol. I,
pp. 110 -3 15 .
358
FIFTEEN TH C EN T U R Y T IL L THE M O DERN P ER IO D
addressed by Nicholas de dém anges to a Paris professor, asking him

for explanations on the first four councils.1
What has now become o f the Council o f Photius? Was its existence
completely forgotten in the fifteenth century? The writers just men
tioned say nothing about this, with the sole exception o f Cardinal
Jacobatius, titular o f St Clement,2 who after referring to the eight
councils writes :
It should be noted [he quotes Gratian, c. vu, g. I, c. 45] . . .that a synod

was held in Constantinople under Pope John V III with 383 Fathers present
and presided over b y .. . . O f this I find no mention in his L ife; only o f the
Council held in T ro yes; which makes one seriously doubt, as he [John]
succeeded Hadrian II who held the last Council o f Constantinople. But it
might be answered that this same eighth synod o f Constantinople was begun
in the time o f Hadrian II and concluded under John V III.
This is some explanation; but Jacobatius proceeds: ‘ And some say that
at this Council o f John Photius was reinstated and that therefore it is
recorded that whatever had been written or said against the saintly
Patriarchs Ignatius and Photius be anathema.5
This is a curious afterthought on the Photian affair and, unfortunately,
the only one, at least in canonical literature, though I should draw
attention to the Latin MS. no. 12264 ° f the Paris National Library,
which has a long study on the councils. It was copied at the request o f
Thomas Basin, bishop of Lisieux, later archbishop o f Caesarea in Pales
tine, in 1459, as suggested by a remark on the last page o f the volume.
The MS. is on parchment, in a neat handwriting, and it contains a
‘ Liber Sententiarum Beati Gregorii, auctore Taione, Leonis Aretini
Liber de Sapientia5 (fol. 129α), ‘ Liber de Sectis Hereticorum5 (fol. 158)
and a study ‘ de X X II Conciliis cum suis Expositionibus5 (fols. 17 2 a -
219).
After a list o f the twenty-two synods mentioned by the Greek
canonical books (fob 172<2), we read: ‘ Hue usque Graecorum concilia.
Constantinopolitanum tercium et Nicaenum secundum hic non ponitur.
Quidam putant quartum fuisse Constantinopolitanum concilium .5 And this
is all the treatise has to say about the Eighth Council, after which it
deals with the local synods o f Africa, Gaul and Spain. On fol. 174 a the
writer returns to the first seven councils and the chief local synods,
insists, after the Historia Tripartita, on the authority o f the first
1 H. von der Hardt, loc. cit. vol. 1, p. 1, col. 53.

z Loc. cit. p. 194 a.
359
Council o f Nicaea and gives us a translation o f a Greek treatise on the

Councils :
There exists a treatise in Greek on the seven Greek General Councils,
which I recently caused to be translated into Latin. In this treatise this is
what is said about the Nicene Synod. From the treatise on the Seven Synods.
E v ery Christian ought to know that there have been held seven general
synods. The first was held in Nicaea under Constantine, who is now among
the saints, the great King, and under Sylvester, the Pope o f Rom e, under
Mitrophanes and Alexander, the Patriarch o f Constantinople.. . . (‘ Exstat
tractatus graecus editus de septem conciliis generalibus graecis, quem ego
nuper in latinum transferri feci. In eo autem tractatu de nicena sinodo sic
habetur. E x tractatu septem sinodorum. Oportet scire omnem christianum
quod septem et generales factae sunt synodi. Prima quidem facta est in
Nicea sub Constantino, in sanctis, magno rege et Silvestro papa Rom ae et
Mitrophane et Alexandro patriarcha Constantinopolis.. . . ’)
Evidently, the Greek original was a treatise akin to that published by

Ch. Justellus,1 with the addition o f a summary o f the Seventh Council.
After the translation o f the summary o f each council, the MS. gives
a long explanation, o f some importance in the history o f dogma, o f the
dogmas defined by the various synods— a valuable document witnessing
to the influence o f Greek mentality on the Latin theologians o f the
fifteenth century. It should be noted that except for the short reference
quoted above, the treatise has absolutely nothing to say about the
Eighth Council.
Besides this important Latin treatise on councils, I have found two
dissertations o f the same class, probably belonging to the fifteenth or
sixteenth century, in the Paris National Library. A t least one o f them
is a translation from the Greek. The first MS., no. 2448 (sixteenth cen
tury, on paper, 103 folios), is o f unusual interest. It contains a trans
lation o f the Greek essay on the councils which Photius included in his
letter to Boris-Michael (fols. 1- 16 ) , followed by an ‘ Epitome Celeberri
morum et Clarissimorum Conciliorum’ (fols. 17-48), which is a sum
mary o f the first four councils. On fols. 48-83 there is a memoir on
the Councils o f Constantinople, Basle and Ferrara, and lastly, on fols.
1 0 1 - 3 : ‘ Psellus de Septem Sacris Synodis. . .usque ad Michaelem Im
peratorem Constantinopolitanum.’ It is known that Psellos wrote a
short poem on the orthodox faith and on the seven councils that defined
it. It is dedicated to the Emperor Michael Ducas.2 It has often been
1 At the end of his book, Nomocanon Photii (Paris, 1615).
3 P .G . vol. 122, cols. 812 seq.
360
FIFTEEN TH C EN T U R Y T IL L THE M O DERN PER IO D
copied independently and I found it in the Paris. Graec. 1277

(thirteenth-century, bombycine, 309 folios), fob 196.
The translator may have misunderstood the dedication, for even
when the poem was made into a separate copy, the dedication to
Michael Ducas used to be copied as well. The MS. I consulted also
dedicates the poem to Michael, but a reader o f the MS., who was a little
more familiar with Byzantine history, thought that the poet meant the
Emperor Michael III, as he noted in the margin, probably to correct
the o rig in al:4Octava universalis synodus sub Basilio Macedone eiusque
filio Leone Sapiente fuit peracta, teste Nicephoro Calisto in sua chrono-
logica historia.5 We know that Nicephorus Callistus here meant the
Photian Council o f 879-80,1 and the writer o f the marginal note probably
thought o f the Council o f 869-70, which at that time was mistaken in
the West for the Eighth Oecumenical Council.
The same monograph by Psellus is also found in the Latin MS.
10. 589 (seventeenth-century, on paper, 243 fols.), fols. 208-12, where
the copyist has also copied the reader’s note in MS. 2448: ‘ Octava
universalis sub Basilio Macedone eiusque filio libris [sic! instead of
Leone] Sapientiae [sic! instead o f Sapiente] fuit peracta teste Nicephoro
Calisto in sua dialectica historia.5 On pp. 2 13 -4 3 the copyist has also
transcribed the Latin translation o f the extract from Photius5 letter to
Boris-Michael on the councils.
Among the historians, the little to be found is not without interest.
The most popular textbook on ecclesiastical history at that period was
the L ives o f the Popes, written by B. Platina, where we read the edifying
story o f Pope Joan,123whose name is placed before that o f Nicholas I;
also the history o f the Eighth Council under Hadrian II, but with the
Photian Council left out, as Platina merged it with the Eighth Council,
which he credits with a considerable number o f attending prelates,
borrowed in reality from the Council o f Photius. About a second
excommunication o f Photius there is o f course nothing.
But it is curious that H. Schedel (14 4 0 -15 14 ), who in his Chronicle
frequently plagiarized Platina, appears to have more knowledge. O f
the Eighth Council he writes : 3 ‘ Hadrian. . .also allowed a synod to
meet in Constantinople at which the rebel Photius was dethroned, and
1 P .G . vol. 145, col. 620.

2 B. Platinae Historia de Vitis Pontificum Rom . a D .N .J . Christo usque ad
Paulum I I (Venice ed. 15 11) , pp. 94-8.
3 Hart. Schedel, Registrum hujus operis libri cronicarum cum figuris et ymaginibus
de Initio Mundi (Nuremberg, 1493), Sexta aetas mundi, fo. clxx.
361
THE P H O T IA N SCHISM . II. THE L E G E N D
Ignatius, who had been unfairly dethroned, was reinstated.’ He then

credits John V III, whose reign is related in Platina’s terms, with the
conversion o f the Bulgars, but unlike Platina attributes to John V III
the Latin translation o f the Acts o f the Eighth Council. On the Photian
Council we read : 1
Fifth synod o f Constantinople. John V III, Roman Pontiff, sanctioned the

fifth synod o f Constantinople. He brought about the union o f the Greeks
with the Latins, which seemed the best w ay to defeat the Saracens. O ver
380 delegates attended the Council. T o gather what good w ork it did in
defining articles o f the Christian faith, read the canons. Since, as far as w e
know, no alliance between the Greeks and the Latins followed b y which
resistance could be offered to the Saracens.. . .
This version of the Photian Council suggests that the writer had some
vague knowledge o f a reconciliation between the Pope and the Greeks
for no other purpose than a combined struggle against the Saracens.
The truth, however, is that John V III was apprehensive about the Arab
menace and that there was at the back o f his kindly treatment o f Photius
a desire to secure Basil’s naval assistance in protecting southern and
central Italy against the raids o f the Arab pirates.
Whilst all these fifteenth-century documents belong to a purely Latin
environment, in which a faint influence o f Greek tradition is scarcely
discernible, there occurred at this time an event which forced Greek
and Latin traditions to come to grips on the very point we are dealing
with: that was the Council o f Florence.
A t its fifth session, use was made o f the Acts o f the first councils12
to elucidate the true doctrine o f the Filioque, and at the opening o f the
sixth session, Cardinal Julian Cesarini again begged the Greeks to
lend him the book containing the Acts o f the Eighth Council. T o this
the metropolitan o f Ephesus replied :
A s regards this book, we find it difficult to lend it to y o u ; but even were

it in our possession, we could on no account be asked to number among the
oecumenical councils a synod which not only was never approved, but was
even condemned. F or the synod mentioned b y Y o u r Holiness drew up A cts
against Photius in the days o f Popes John and Hadrian, but another synod
was subsequently held which reinstated Photius and abrogated the first synod.
1 Ibid. fol. clxxi. On H. Schedel see R. Stauber and O. Hartig, ‘ Die Schedelsche
BibliothekJ (Studien u. Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte, Bd vi, H. 2, 3;
Freiburg i. B. 1908).
2 Mansi, vok xxxi, cols. 528-51.
362
FIFTEEN TH C EN T U R Y T IL L THE M O DERN P E R IO D
This Council, also called the Eighth, met under Pope John and we even
possess letters addressed b y the same Pope Joh n to Photius. It also dealt
with the question o f additions [additamentum] to the Sym bol, deciding that
nothing should be added. W e are convinced that you are not ignorant either
o f this Council or o f Pope Jo h n ’s letters. Since then the A cts o f that Council
were annulled, it is not these, but rather the Acts o f the subsequent Council,
that should be looked for. Since that time to this day the great Church o f
Constantinople has held that whatever was said and written against the
saintly Patriarchs Photius and Ignatius be anathema.
The poor Cardinal must have been staggered by this Greek impromptu,
which suddenly raised a new difficulty that might wreck all the efforts
made towards an understanding with the Greeks; but he quickly rallied,
made up his mind and, beating a hasty retreat, said: ‘ I will relieve your
anxiety. Never fear; nothing will be read from the Eighth Council.. . . 51
But this did not close the incident. Five days later (25 October), in
the course o f the seventh session, the archbishop o f Rhodes, spokesman
for the Latins, returned to the attack. He too had obviously been shocked
by what the Greek had said, for though he rose to speak immediately
after the Cardinal at the sixth session, he said nothing at that moment
about the objection so forcibly presented by the Metropolitan o f
Ephesus. But he must have made some researches in the meanwhile
with the following result:2
A s at the last session you mentioned the Eighth Council, we shall say a
few words about the objections you made on that subject. A s to the first
point, we maintain that Photius, who was an enemy o f the Roman Church
and wrote many unfriendly things about Nicholas and Hadrian, yet never
accused them o f having made additions to the Sym bol, though it was the
very thing he should have don e.. . . Also, in the course o f the Eighth Council,
they passed sentence on Photius and in favour o f Ignatius.. . . A s to what you
recently affirmed, namely, that a synod was summoned later and condemned
the Eighth Council, I say that this seems ve ry unlikely. It will not do to
come forward with any doubtful argument to prove the contrary, [i.e.J that
the synod did pass such a condemnation, for neither the Pope nor his repre
sentative were present. I f things happened as you say, some remembrance
o f it would have survived among the Latins ; for it would be surprising that
the Roman Church, which in other matters displays such accuracy and care
in the recording o f past events, should have overlooked an occurrence o f
such gravity and im portance. . . therefore, the council you mentioned never
took place; and if it did take place, it never mentioned it [the Filioque] .. . .
1 Mansi, vol. x x x i, cols. 551, 553.

2 Ibid. cols. 596, 597.
363
This shows that the archbishop o f Rhodes anticipated in 1438 the

famous Allatius, who also tried to argue that the Photian Council never
took place. Yet the Fathers o f Florence refused to make o f this con
troversy about the Eighth Council a ‘ matter to haggle about’ ; despite
contradictory premisses, the question was left open; the Greeks con
tinued to reckon only seven councils1 and in the drafting o f the
Council’s definition every reference to the Eighth Council was scru
pulously omitted,12 none but dogmatic issues, which so far had kept the
two Churches apart, being mentioned, particularly the Filioque, the
primacy and Purgatory. Even the proposals for reunion with the
Armenians referred to the number o f councils in purely general terms.3
On the whole, then, it may be said that the fifteenth century had not
wholly forgotten the Photian Council and that the writers who happen
to touch on the subject invariably betray a feeling o f embarrassment.
This brings us to the sixteenth century, a period full o f feverish activity

in every theological domain, when humanism invaded all centres o f
religious studies that had been the strongholds o f the scholastic method
and the progress o f modern philology made itself felt even in the field
o f theology. Gradually, the writings o f the Greek Fathers come into
prominence; minds grow more critical, more keenly interested in the
purity and the origin o f their sources; Christian antiquities provoke a
curiosity that is further roused by the lively discussions between
Catholic theologians and rising Protestantism. In 1523 James Merlin
publishes his book on the councils in Paris, and in 1538 Crabbe in
Cologne leads us to expect a new stage in the growth o f Western
tradition on the Photian incident.
The discussions around the Council o f Florence and the problem o f
the Eighth Council continued unabated and caused some excitement
among specialists o f this and the following period, the impulse being
given by the Latin translation o f the Acts o f the Florentine Synod.
Though the Council had its official Latin and Greek scribes or secre
taries, charged to take down the Acts o f the Council, the Latin Acts
were lost and only a Greek version was preserved. At the invitation
o f the archbishop o f Ravenna, the Greek bishop Bartholomew Abraham
o f Crete then translated the Greek Acts in an abridged form, as he
explained in a preface addressed to the archbishop.4
1 Cf. session xxv, ibid. col. 893 and Emperor’s declaration.

2 Ibid. cols. 1026-34. 3 ibid. col. 1054.
4 Reprinted in Mansi, vol. xxxi, cols. 1796 seq.

364
FIFTEEN TH C E N T U R Y T IL L THE M O D ER N P E R IO D
But in this preface the Greek calls the Council o f Florence the Eighth
Oecumenical Council, incidentally showing that the Greek Uniates
continued, as before, to number only seven councils. The confusion
which this categorical attitude created among the Latins is apparent
from the fact that when Abraham o f Crete asked Pope Clement V II
(1523-34 ) for permission to proceed with the publication o f his work,
the Papal Chancellery approved also the designation1 o f Eighth Oecu
menical Council conferred by the translator on the Council o f Florence.
When in 1567 Laurence Surius published in Cologne his edition in
four volumes o f the Councils (Concilia Omnia tam Generalia quam
Particularia), he left the designation o f Eighth Council given to the
Florentine Synod and contented himself with the brief remark:
Learned men are puzzled b y what possessed the Greeks [quid Graecis in
mentem venerit] to call this Florentine synod the Eighth Council. W e could
have suppressed the figure, but to avoid a charge o f rashness [ne id temeritati
tribueretur] we have preferred to leave it and considered it enough to warn
the reader that this synod is not rightly called the eighth, as some important
General Councils followed the second o f Nicaea, which is called the seventh.12
Another editor o f the Councils, S. Bini (Concilia Generalia et Pro

vincialia,, 5 vols., Cologne, ist ed. in 1606), considered such discretion
to be completely out o f place. This is his commentary on the subject:
Though Laurentius Surius refused, for fear o f I do not know what rashness,
to suppress and discard in his short preface addressed to the reader, as quoted
below, the spurious title o f Eighth Council which Bartholom ew Abraham
o f Crete prefaces to the Acts o f the Council, I, urged b y the encouragement
o f some men whom I quoted previously in m y notes o f the Eighth Council,
have come to the conclusion that the designation ‘ Sixteenth’ [Council]
should be substituted for ‘ E igh th ’, not only in the title but in the Acts o f the
Council themselves.3
Naturally, Bini’s correction became law for all editors o f the Acts
and when I. Simond published his edition o f the Conciliar Acts (Con
cilia Generalia, 4 vols., Rome, 1608—12), called Collectio Romana and
published by order o f Pope Paul V, the 'erro r’ committed by the
1 Cf. the interesting remarks by Pagi in his commentary on Baronius’ Annals ,

ann. 809, c. l i x , ed. of Lucca, 1744, vol. xv, p. 180. Pagi copies the commentary
of Alexandre Noël (Alexander Natalis) on the subject.
2 Reprinted by Mansi, vol. xxxi, col. 1798.
3 Ibid. col. 1796. Cf. also the remark in Janus (J. Döllinger), The Pope and the
Council (London, 1869), p. 324.
365
THE P H O T IA N SCH ISM . II. THE L E G E N D
translator and first editor o f the Florentine Conciliar Acts was duly
corrected and the designation o f Eighth Council given to the Ignatian
Council o f 869-70. This closed the incident and the other editors of the
Conciliar Acts— Ph. Labbe and G. Cossart (Paris, 16 7 1-2 ), I. Hardouin
(Paris, 17 15 ), Coletti (Venice, 1728-33), D. Mansi (Florence, Venice,
1759-98)— had but to follow in the wake o f the Western tradition set
once for all by the canonists o f the eleventh and twelfth centuries and
by the Council o f Constance.
An interesting echo o f the incident is found in Alexandre Noël’s
(Alexander Natalis) Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris et N ovi Testamenti,
published for the first time in Paris, 1660. This learned historian con
sidered it necessary to devote a special paragraph to the problem o f the
Ignatian Council’s oecumenicity. The erudite Dominican was well
acquainted with all the documents related to the problem and accessible
in his days, but he was very hard on Bartholomew Abraham o f Crete.
The passage is worth reproducing as it stands:1
Abraham o f Crete, interpreter and first editor o f the Florentine Council,
gave it the title o f Eighth Council, the same being accorded to it in the
Privilegium Editionis or permission to publish, which Clement V II Medici
granted, as John Launoi states in the 8th Part o f his Letters, i.e. in the letter
addressed to Claudius Amelius. But the Cretans were always liars: nor is
Abraham truthful in this or commendable, since neither the Acts and Decrees
o f the Florentine Synod nor the Diplomata o f Pope Eugene IV ever gave it
the name o f Eighth Council, The permission to publish granted b y the Pontiff,
whose name is given, was non-committal, the title as supplied b y the editor
being sim ply copied b y the person who granted permission to publish.
Furthermore, that in this matter the Sovereign Pontiff was taken o ff his guard
m ay be inferred not only from the old profession o f faith which recently
elected Pontiffs used to make in the ninth century, but also from the profession
o f faith which the General Council o f Constance in its 39 th session laid dow n
for Pontiffs to be elected in the futu re.. . . Clement V II would certainly have
observed this tradition, if he had seriously considered the privilege he gave
to the edition o f the Florentine Council published b y Abraham o f Crete.
But it was obtained b y surprise, and in the Roman edition o f the Council
published under Paul V the designation was withdrawn.
1 Vol. vi, Saeculum ix—x, pars 11, Dissertatio 11, par. 24 (ed. of 1660), p. 267.
The tradition started by Abraham of Crete was followed by Cardinal Pole in his
Reformatio Angliae , where the Council of Florence is put down as the eighth
oecumenical (ed. Rome, 1562, fol. 184) and by Cardinal Contarini in his treatise
on the most celebrated councils, which he dedicated to Paul III in 1553 (published
in 1562, Opera Omnia (Paris, 1571), p. 563). Cf. A. H. Rees, The Catholic Church
and Corporate Union (London, 1940), p. 19.
366
FIFTEEN TH C EN T U R Y T IL L THE M O D ERN PE R IO D
On turning to the canonists o f the period, we shall find them less

interesting. Jacobus Almainus, for instance1 (d. 15 15 ), in his reply to
Thomas Caietanus de Vio, brings out the old arguments dear to the
partisans o f the conciliar notion and allots the councils a very limited,
though more generous, space than his antagonist.2 Silvester de Prierio
(d. 1523) does not seem to know more about our subject than Gratian 3
and Thomas Stapleton4 (d. 1598) has not yet shaken himself free from
scholastic dialectics.
Thomas Campegius Bononiensis (d. 1564) is more interesting, as his
knowledge o f the Acts o f the Eighth Council is more extensive, though
he gets no further than Torquemada .5 Much the same may be said o f
Laelius Jordanus (d. 1583).6 Cardinal Stanislas Hosius makes only a
slight reference to the Eighth Council 7 and Joannes Hieronymus Albani
is not more explicit.8 But F. Bartholomew Carranza Mirandevius, in
his Summa Conciliorum et Pontificum a Petro usque ad Paulum Tertium,
gives a minute account o f the Eighth Council and all its sessions ; 9
before summarizing its canons, however, he complains that the manu
script he is using is in a very bad state o f preservation and regrets that
he has looked in vain for a Greek MS. to collate with the Latin. We o f
course know the reason w hy he did not find his Greek MS., but his
summary o f the Eighth Council was destined to be a favourite with sub
sequent writers. It naturally makes no reference to the Photian Council.
1 De Auctoritate Ecclesiae et Concilii contra Thomam de Vio, Gersonis Opera
(Paris, 1606), 1, cols. 707-49.
2 De Auctoritate Papae et Concilii, Bibliotheca (Romae, 1699), vol. χιχ,
pp. 445 seq. Idem, De Divina Institutione Pontificatus Romani Pontif. (1521),
Corpus Catholicorum (Münster i. W. 1925), vol. x, ed. F. Lauchert.
3 De Irrefragabili Veritate Rom. Eccl., Bibliotheca (Romae, 1699), vol. xix,
pp. 265, 269, 272.
4 De Conciliis, ibid. vol. xx, pp. 107-23.
3 De Auctoritate et Potestate Romani Pont. (Venice, 1555), pp- 36α, 43, 55, 8ια,
88, ιιοα, 1 1 5. In his Tractatus de Auctoritate Conciliorum ( Tractatus, loc. cit.
vol. X I I I , i, pp. 3980-474) Thomas Campegius often refers also to the Eighth
Council (dis. ui, ix, x, xxm, xxxv, pp. 401, 404a, 405, 410a, 412). In ch. x
(p. 405) he alludes to the Photian Council, but the passage, quoted after Gratian,
is confused and presents a good illustration of the embarrassment felt by the
canonists at Gratian treating the Photian Council as a genuine and authentic synod.
6 De Romanae Sedis Origine et Auctoritate, Tractatus, vol. x iii , p. 1 (Venice,
1584), a long account on Photius, pp. 6 seq.
7 De Loco et Auctoritate Rom. Pont, in Eccl., Bibliotheca (Romae, 1699),
vol. xix, pp. 385 seq., and chiefly p. 415.

8 De Potestate Papae, Tractatus, vol. xm, 1, pp. 79 seq.
9 (Salmanticae, 1549), pp. 537— 53. Cf. also idem, Quatuor Controversiarum de
Auctoritate Pontificis et Conciliorum Explicatio, published in A d Sacros. Concilia a
Ph. Labbeo et G. Cossartio edita apparatus alter (Paris, 1672), pp. ci seq.
367
T H E P El O T I A N S C H I S M . II. THE L E G E N D
Far more interesting is Antonio Agustin (15 17 -8 6 ),1 archbishop o f

Tarragona, the greatest canonist o f his day and one who undoubtedly
deserves a place o f honour in the history o f canon law. On several
occasions he dealt with the Eighth Council and that o f Photius: first,
in his corrected edition o f Gratian’s Decretum, on which he began
working in 1543 and whose first edition appeared in Tarragona in 1557.
He several times refers there to the Photian Council and some o f his
observations are worth noting. After commenting on the famous
D. XV I, c. 8 (on the eight oecumenical councils) Agustin goes on to
discuss %‘ de duplici octava synodo5 and states that whereas some anti-
Latin Greeks called the Photian Council the eighth, others numbered
neither the Ignatian nor the Photian Council among the oecumenicals,
but made the Council o f Florence the Eighth. When asked by his
interlocutor— the work is written in the form o f a dialogue— which
council should be listed as oecumenical, he replies:
In a Greek book that once was brought to me from Italy I find many things
that the Rom an Pontiffs did against Photius after these two Eighth Councils,
and they easily convince me that John did not approve the synod held in
Constantinople b y his legates. B : But John states that the first synod was
not approved b y Hadrian. A : And what if this is untrue and was invented
b y Photius, who was convicted b y the synod o f forging signatures and reports
on the Patriarchs? A dd to this that if we repudiate the whole synod o f
Hadrian, we shall seem to approve whatever Photius did against Pope
Nicholas and the Patriarch Ignatius. There is more consistency and likelihood
in what previous Popes such as Nicholas and Hadrian, Leo IV and Benedict III
did and wrote against Photius and G regory o f Syracuse, the bishop who
consecrated Photius; and the acts and writings were approved b y Joh n V III,
Marinus, Hadrian III and Stephen V I, as I found recorded in Greek in the
very words used b y those Pontiffs. T o this, add again the letters o f John I X
to Stylianos o f Neocaesarea, who wrote many things against Photius to Pope
Stephen V I, though afterwards he apparently changed his mind in other
letters addressed to the same John. In the letters he wrote to Stephen he
stated that bishops Paul and Eugene, who were sent b y Joh n to Ignatius,
had been deceived.. . .
The above passage amply demonstrates that the great canonist had
found in the Vatican Library the anti-Photian Collection, which con
vinced him that the Ignatian Council was ‘ the genuine Eighth Council’,12
1 Schulte, loc. cit. vol. hi, pp. 723 seq.

2 De Emendatione Gratiani Dialogus , Ant. Agustini Opera Omnia (Lucae,
1767), vol. in, pp. 122 seq.
368
F IF T E E N T H C E N T U R Y T IL L THE MO DERN P E R IO D
that the Photian Council had not been confirmed by John V III and that
all the excommunications o f Photius attributed by the writer o f the
Collection to the various Popes were genuine and authentic.
Agustin often quotes the Acts o f the Photian Council, a copy o f
which, he states somewhere,1 was found in the Vatican Library. In
other writings o f his, particularly in his book on ancient pontifical law,12
he frequently designates the Photian Council as ‘ synodus nona’,3 though
he points out in one place that ‘ this synod was condemned by the
Roman P o n tiff’ ; and lastly, he mentions in his excellent handbook
on the synods the Eighth Council as well as other councils held in
connection with the Ignatian and Photian case.4*
It is only fair to state that the famous canonist never gives his opinion
on Photius in very categorical terms and it is hard to resist the impression
o f considerable hesitation on his part in passing an adverse judgement
on the Photian Council; but in the end he did give an unfavourable
verdict, completely misled as he was by the anti-Photianist Collection.
It is interesting to note that whenever a Western scholar came upon this
document, he went through the same process.
The Lateran Council (1514 ), although its Acts refer to older councils
more frequently than did the Acts o f councils immediately preceding,
provides nothing new about the Eighth Council.3 But in the Acts o f
the Council o f Trent we find a well-known retrospective survey o f
our subject in the speech o f Paul Quidellus,6 though he does not seem
to be very familiar with the history o f that period. Another disappoint
ment comes from the Bull o f Pius IV ‘ super forma juramenti professionis
fid e i ’,7 which gives no definite decision about the number o f councils.
However, everything is changed when we turn to ecclesiastical
history. This period must, o f course, be regarded as the starting-point
1 Loc. cit. p. 129.

2 Juris Pontificii Veteris Epitome, Opera Omnia (Lucae, 1770), v o l . V . It is a
posthumous work, and Baronius consulted the MS. in the Vatican Library to
borrow from it the Popes’ profession of faith.
3 Loc. cit., pars 1, lib. i, tit. x x, c. x, p. 63; lib. 11, tit. 11, c. ix, p. 72; lib. 11, tit.
X X I I I , cc. π, in, p. 89; lib. iv, tit. vi, c. 1, p. n o ; lib. iv, tit. l x x x v i i , c . i v , p. 197;
lib. V , tit. x, cc. vu , X V III, pp. 209, 210; lib. v, tit. x x v i, c. l i v , p. 212 (Popes’
profession of faith); lib. v, tit. x l i i i , p. 255 (‘ de synodis damnatis’); lib. vi, tit. vu,
c. I, p. 268; lib. ix, tit. X X X , c. 1, p. 386; lib. xi, tit. x x , c. x ix , p. 469; lib. x n ,
tit. X X IV , c. i, p. 524; vol. vi, pars 11, lib. xiv, tit. x x v i, c. 1, p. 287.
4 De Synodis et Pseudosynodis, Opera Omnia, lo c . cit. v o l . V , pp. x x i x , l x x i x , l x x x .
3 Mansi, vol. x x x n , cols. 891, 967, 968.
6 Mansi, vol. x x x m , col. 516. 7 Ibid. cols. 220-2.
DPS 369 24
for modern ecclesiastical historiography, o f which the Centuriae M agde-

burgenses and Cardinal Baronius5 Annals are notable examples.
Flacius, with his collaborators, began publishing the Centuriae in
1559 and the whole work (thirteen volumes folio), for all its short
comings an epoch-making achievement, was completed in 1574.
Leaving on one side all other problems raised by the Centuriae, we have
only to examine how the first Protestant historians presented the
Photian case.
It should be borne in mind that this was the first time since the
ninth century that the Photian case was studied in Western literature
in all its bearings. No longer content with copying their predecessors5
opinions, the writers o f the Centuriae went to the original sources, as
far as they were accessible, and with regard to the Photian incident,
these sources were first the Liber Pontificalis (Life o f Nicholas and
Hadrian II), the letters o f Nicholas and the history o f Zonaras. The
writers do not quote the Acts o f the Eighth Council among their
primary sources, but apparently rely on the work o f B. Carranza; but
among the historians, they quote Martin o f Opava, the Flores Tem
porum, John de Oppido, Platina, Schedelius, sources that help us to
forecast what view they will take o f the Photian case.
The origin o f the quarrel between Ignatius and the Government is
attributed to Bardas, who had repudiated his wife, lived in incestuous
concubinage with his daughter-in-law and deposed Ignatius for cri
ticizing his immoral life. Thereupon, the legates o f the Roman Pope
summoned a council in Constantinople— the Council o f 861— which
ruthlessly (!) condemned the iconoclasts. Bardas was punished by Basil
for the murder o f Theoktistos and for persecuting the just, i.e. the
iconoclasts, and the same punishment overtook Michael, for restoring
the impious worship o f images.1
The chapter on the government o f the Church,^ following the Liber
Pontificalis, refers to Photius5 outbreak against Nicholas5 misdeeds, the
convocation o f his Council (867) and the reluctance o f the bishops
attending the Council o f 869 to sign the Libellus. Strange to say, in
trying to explain the origin o f the schism under Michael III in chapter
v in 3 the authors father the divorce and the incest with a daughter-in-
law on Michael and state in two different places4 that Photius forbade
Basil, after he committed his murder, entry into the church.
1 M. Flacius, Nona Centuria Historiae Ecclesiasticae (Basileae, 1565), cap. in,

De Persecutione et Tranquil, eccl. col. 25.
a Ch. vu, cols. 340 seq. 3 Col. 353. 4 Cols. 353, 425, 426.
370
FIFTEEN TH C E N T U R Y T IL L THE M O D ER N P E R IO D
The councils o f the ninth century are reported in the chapter ‘ De

synodis’ 1 and the Photian synod is placed first on the list, contrary to
chronological order:
Tem pore Ioannis V III, Constantinopoli synodus habita est ad quam 383
episcopi convenerunt. Romani pontificis vicem ibi sustinuerunt Petrus
presbiter cardinalis, Paulus Antiochenus episcopus et Eugenius Hostiensis.
Actum est de coniunctione ecclesiarum Orientis et Occidentis, quo animis
et viribus associati, ad Saracenorum impetus sustinendos et propulsandos
paratiores essent.
They then mention the two synods o f Photius o f 859 and 861, and
the Roman synod o f Nicholas I which condemned Zachary, Radoald
and Photius. Photius, it is stated, then wrote a book against the Pope’s
tyranny and had it signed by a number o f bishops as though it were a
conciliar decree; a synod o f Constantinople, summoned by Basil,
deposed Photius, when the Roman synod o f Hadrian II decided to
summon a new council. There follows a description o f the Eighth
Oecumenical Council with an analysis o f its various sessions.
The Centuriae writers evidently lacked accurate information on the
Photian Council, whose Acts they naturally did not know, and they
had at their disposal only those sources which were derogatory to
Photius; yet, in spite o f this handicap, the history o f Photius began to
improve in clarity and order under their treatment, and had they but
known the Acts o f the Photian synod, might have carried conviction.
The Annals o f Cardinal Baronius (158 8 -16 0 1), which were meant to
provide the Catholic answer to the Centuriae, are no doubt a remarkable
work, superior in many respects to that o f Flacius and his associates.
As Baronius’ sources were far more numerous and the Cardinal made
the best o f the treasures o f the Vatican Library, his documentation on
the Photian incident and the Eighth Council is strikingly rich— a deci ded
advance on the Centuriae. Over and above the sources at the disp osai
o f the Magdeburg writers, Baronius consulted the history o f J ohn
Curopalates, Cedrenus,and Glycas and had access not only to the letters
o f Nicholas, the Liber Pontificalis and the Acts o f the Eighth Council,
but also to Photius’ letters; he even discovered the ‘ Greek equivalent’
o f these sources, the anti-Photian Collection, with its biography o f
Ignatius by Nicetas, the Greek summary o f the Acts and the appended
documents; he also found the Greek Acts o f the Photian Council, which
1 Ch. ix, cols. 413 seq.
371 24-2
for the first time since the eleventh century were turned to profit by
a Western writer.
O f these sources, the most important find was o f course the anti-
Photianist Collection, in which, without a suspicion o f its true character,
Baronius and his followers saw a number o f valuable and independent
sources, chiefly the so-called biography o f St Ignatius, considered to
be o f special value, since it confirmed and even went beyond anything
the Eighth Council had said against Photius. Till then, Hugh Etherianus,
Leo Tuscus and Antonio Agustin had been the only Western writers to
know o f the existence o f this notorious Collection and we know what
an impression it made on them : but it staggered Baronius.
In his account o f Photius, Baronius exclusively follows Nicetas and
the data o f the Collection as completed by Anastasius’ story, long
extracts from Nicetas’ pamphlet adorning the narrative and giving it a
picturesque touch. Here are some o f Baronius’ reflections on Photius’
misdeeds: after telling the story, according to Nicetas, o f Photius’
accession to the throne and o f his persecution o f Ignatius, the good
Cardinal exclaim s:1
Y o u have heard what butchery this eunuch was preparing for the de
struction o f the Church, making his persecution stand comparison with any
o f those that schismatics, heretics, or even pagans ever raised against the
C hu rch.. . . In m y opinion, no persecutor worse than Photius so effectively
struck down the Eastern Church, since besides those cruelties he moved
heaven and earth to tear her away from communion with the Church o f
Rom e, with disastrous results that have afflicted the unhappy Orientals with
ever-increasing gravity to this day.
He also follows Nicetas in describing the Photian synod and the legates’
despatch to Rome, quotes Photius’ letter to Nicholas and the Pope’s
letter to Michael III, then lets Nicetas tell the events o f 861 in Con
stantinople. Theognostos’ letter is also exhibited for the first time and
Nicholas’ letters, long extracts from which are cited to illustrate the
events o f the year 863, announce the final and harsh verdict against the
legates and Photius. Even Photius’ letters to Bardas are published and
the responsibility for the offensive letter o f Michael (ad ann. 865) is
naturally put on Photius. There follows, also for the first time, a detailed
account o f the Bulgarian issue based on original sources and o f the
sensation created in the West by the Photian affair and Nicholas’
1 Annales Ecclesiastici, auctore Caesare Baronio Sorano . . . una cum critica historico-
chronologica P . Antonii P agii (Lucae, 1743), vol. x iv, ad ann. 858, capp. 49-54,
pp. 492-6.
372
FIFTEEN TH CENTURY TILL THE M O DERN PER IO D
alarmist letters. Photius is o f course the author o f the Procession o f

the Holy Ghost from the Father only: 'T h e unhappy Photius was the
first (let this sculptured pillar o f ignominy serve him in lieu o f glory),
he was the first, I say, to use this pretext to sever connection and cut
himself adrift from the Roman Church.. . . 5 Proceeding with the story
o f Photius, Baronius also produces reports from Greek historians : 'but
the best o f all is Nicetas who recorded the doings o f Ignatius; as a
contemporary he wrote what he had seen with his own eyes and
explained how it was divulged, so that events o f such importance should
have the support o f every possible proof and witness.’
Baronius vigorously attacks Zonaras who alleged that Photius, after
the murder o f Michael,1 refused to let Basil into the church:
Such is the report b y Zonaras, a schismatic and the supporter o f a schismatic,
out to trump up a new and unheard-of reason for Photius’ expulsion. But
there is no p ro o f for his assertion that Photius was expelled for upbraiding
the Em peror for the murder; rather was he dethroned because he had been
condemned three times b y Pope Nicholas. This is attested b y the pontifical
letters, b y the Acts o f the Eighth Council, b y Nicetas and lastly b y all the
other ancient Greek historians, leaving no room for any possible doubt.
Zonaras lived long after the events, and being him self a schismatic he
favoured Photius, the promoter o f a schism, praising him and concealing his
crimes, patent though they were to the whole w o rld .. . .
Notwithstanding his crime, Basil is according to him 'G o d ’s chosen

instrument. . . having been called by Him to exalt the humble and put
down the proud’. Photius is nothing but a eunuch swollen with pride
and temerity,12 which Baronius proves by quoting the alleged letter o f
the Patricius John to Photius; the Acts o f the Eighth Council are
naturally emphasized, and the oecumenicity o f the Council is established
by the famous profession o f faith published by Antonius Augustinus,3
after which Baronius viciously turns on those who would refuse to
range this council among the oecumenicals. Mark o f Ephesus, who at
the Council o f Florence had denied its oecumenicity, is severely taken
to task, while Cardinal Julian is roundly scolded for failing to correct
'the lie o f that Greek slanderer’, but Andrew o f Rhodes is 'v ir doc
tissimus aeque ac maxime pius. . . qui omnino negavit per Ioannem V III
abolitam esse octavam synodum oecumenicam. . . ’.4
1 Ann. 867, c. 10 1, pp. n o , 118 (loc. cit. vol. xv).

2 Loc. cit. ann. 868, n. 46, p. 153.
3 Loc. cit. ann. 869, n. 59, p. 180.
4 Loc. cit. ann. 869, nn. 51-63, pp. 180-3.
373
A ll that followed the Council o f 870 is told in the light o f the docu
ments o f the anti-Photian Collection, so that Baronius was the first to
introduce into history the garbling by Photius1 o f the Acts o f the
Council o f 879-80, Marinus’ second legation, and the second excom
munication o f Photius by John V III.12 Marinus was elected Pope,
Baronius alleges, because he was Photius’ bitter enem y;3 all the con
demnations o f Photius catalogued by the Breviarium are maintained
and the story of Stylianos is told in the version best known.4
At last we have now discovered, after long search, who was responsible
for the final shaping o f the Photian Legend: no other than Baronius.
And yet, we need not be too hard on the Cardinal, for it will be remem
bered that he had some forerunners. Since the Eighth Council had
been, thanks mainly to the canonists o f the eleventh and twelfth cen
turies, replaced in the West among the oecumenical councils and gained
popularity, the ground was ready for the Photian Legend to arise at
any time, and as the medieval climate favoured this kind o f growth, it
gradually began to take root and to break to the surface. A t a time
when the power and weight o f the Papacy were steadily rising, a man
known to have once withstood the Pope could expect little sympathy;;
for the Council by which his condemnation had been made absolute
was regarded as oecumenical and its canons had rendered signal service
to the Western Church. Moreover, Baronius must have felt more
strongly about it than his forerunners, since it was his duty to defend
the authority o f the Sovereign Pontiff against the scornful attacks o f
the Protestants. His critical sense was crushed under the avalanche o f
hitherto unknown documents, the bulk o f which seemed to authenticate
the severe condemnations o f the Eighth Council. Only the Acts o f the
Photian Council had a good word to say for Photius, but these were
discredited by the discrepant version o f the pontifical letters which they
reproduced.
Thus the seed sown by the eleventh century in the fertile soil steadily
irrigated by the canonists flourished only too well: after five centuries
the plant reached maturity and bore fruit under Baronius.
The verdict o f Baronius, apparently based on a formidable array o f

documents, must have made a deep impression on his contemporaries..
1 Loc. cit. ann. 879, nn. 53, 61-72, pp. 356-60.

2 Loc. cit. ann. 880, nn. 10 -13 , PP· 366.
3 Loc. cit. ann. 882, n. 10, p. 384.
4 Loc. cit. ann. 886, nn. 5 seq., pp. 451 seq.; ann. 905, nn. 9 -12, pp. 339-541..
374
He made, o f course, many mistakes, some o f them glaring, as was

inevitable at a time when historical criticism was still in its infancy, and
many o f his errors have been corrected; but with regard to Photius’
history, his opinion has held the field in the Catholic world to this day.
Baronius’ most important editor, A. Pagi, not only substantiated what
the Cardinal had written about Photius, but on several occasions
improved upon his account o f the whole incident. Having access to
a larger documentation, and being able to draw on the famous Ignatian
Synodicon, the books o f Leo the Grammarian, Simeon the Logothete,
George the Monk, the Porphyrogennetos and a certain number o f
Greek canonists, and to complete the quotations from the sources which
Baronius had used, it is small wonder that Pagi gave the Photian Legend
a new lease o f life.1
When in 1604 the Jesuit M. Raderus published the anti-Photian
Collection with the Greek Acts o f the Ignatian Council, it was natural
that on the authority o f Baronius he should adopt the opinion o f the
entire Middle Age and regard the Council as one o f the most important
and those documents as reliable; but when the Acts o f the Photian
Council were published by Hardouin, it was described as ‘ pseudo-
synodus’ and this designation has survived in Catholic circles to our
own day. The treatise by F. Richerius12 on the councils was o f course
written entirely under the influence o f Baronius, the learned author
going even so far as to copy in the introduction to his work the Popes’
notorious profession o f faith as Baronius had it.
Henceforth, the story of Photius and o f the Eighth Council is treated
even in canonical writings after Baronius’ pattern. Dominic o f the
Blessed Trinity (d. 1687), for instance, in his treatise on the Papacy,
repeatedly argues from the Eighth Council and the Photian case,
quoting the Cardinal’s w o r k ;3 and the same is true o f Eugene the Lom
bard (d. 1 684).4 Laurentius Bracatus de Laurea speaks o f the suppression
not only o f the Acts o f the 'synodus prima et secunda’, but also o f the
1 For instance, he adds (loc. cit. ann. 857, vol. xiv, p. 473) that Photius had
taught the doctrine of the two souls, completes the account of Ignatius’ deposition
(ibid. ann. 859, p. 491), the Cardinal’s attack on Zonaras (ibid. ann. 868, vol. xv,
p. 1 16) and his criticism of Mark of Ephesus (ibid. ann. 869, p. 180).
2 Historia Conciliorum Generalium (Coloniae, 1683), ch. xii, pp. 666—752,
‘ History of the Eighth Council’.
3 Dominicus a Ssa Trinitate, De Summo Pontifice, de Sacris Conciliis, in Bibliotheca,
vol. X, pp. 364-77, 512-34, 575.
4 Eugenius Lombardus, Regale Sacerdotium , Bibliotheca, vol. xi, pp. 409—13,
420, 457, 481.
375
THE PH O TIA N SCHISM. II. THE L E G E N D
Photian Council o f 879-80.1 Don Rodrigo da Cunha, archbishop o f

Lisbon (d. 1643), comments on various passages in Gratian’s Decretum
bearing on the Eighth Council, but confuses the Photian Council with
the Eighth.2
The same notions also filter into various histories o f ecclesiastical
literature, like those o f L. Ellies du Pin ,3 Robert Bellarmine,4 Phil.
Labbe,5 and Trithemius as enlarged by Miraeus.6
From all these authors one important passage concerning the Eighth
and the Photian Councils should be quoted: it is written by Cardinal
Bellarmine in his book De Conciliis et Ecclesia,, which has been used as
a classical handbook o f the Catholic doctrine on councils Until the
modern period. In the first b ook 7 the Cardinal writes:
The eighth synod is the fourth o f Constantinople, held under the pontificate
o f Hadrian II and under the Em peror Basil, in the third year o f his reign.
The first session, as it was understood in the synod itself, was held in a . d . 870.
It was attended b y 383 bishops, one o f whom was Photius and the other
Ignatius o f Constantinople, the others being represented b y their delegates.
It should be noted here that three synods were held in Constantinople on
the Photian case. One met at the time o f Pope Nicholas I and the Em peror
Michael, when Ignatius was deposed and Photius was consecrated. It is
recorded b y Zonaras in his Life o f Michael and, as is evident from the letters
o f Nicholas I and Alexander II, the profane character o f this synod is beyond
all doubt.
The second synod is the one we have called the Eighth Council, which is
recorded, however imperfectly, in books on the councils— when Photius was
deposed and Ignatius was reinstated. This synod is mentioned b y Zonaras
in his Life o f the Em peror Basil.
The third is the one which was held in the reign o f the same Basil b y the
successor o f Hadrian, John V III, represented b y his legates, when again,
1 Laurentius Bracatus de Laurea, De Decretis Ecclesiae , Bibliotheca (1698), vol. xv,
pp. 20, 40.
2 Commentarii in Primam Partem Decreti Gratiani (Bracharae Augustae, 1629),
pp. 1 12 -14 , i4 L 154 seq·, 847. Cf. also the Protestant jurist Gerhard von Mastricht,
Historia Iuris Ecclesiastici et Pontificii (Halae, 1705), pars. 238, 239, 405 (‘ octo
concilia’), who naturally is more discreet, though influenced by Baronius and
Bellarmine.
3 Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1698), vol. in, ch. ix,
pp. 80—103, 109-“ 1 2.
4 Rob. Card. Bellarmino, D e Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis (Coloniae, 1684), p. 156.
3 Dissertationes Philosophicae de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis quos attigit Em .
S. R . E . Card. Bellarminus (Parisiis, 1660), vol. II, pp. 221—4.
6 Trithemius, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis (ed. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Eccle
siastica,, Hamburg, 1718), Auberti M iraei Auctarium , pp. 46, 47.
7 Ch. V, Opera omnia (Coloniae Agrippinae, 1619), torn. 11, pp. 8, 9.
376
FIFTEEN TH C E N T U R Y T I L L THE M O D ERN P E R IO D
after Ignatius’ death, Photius was reinstated and, if the statement o f the Greeks
at the 6th session o f the Council o f Florence and the record o f Francis
Turrianus in his book on Acts 6, 7 and 8 o f that Synod are true, all the Acts
o f the preceding Council under Hadrian were rescinded and it was even
decreed that that w ord \Filioque\ was to be taken out o f the Sym bol, which
is altogether unlikely.
Hence I am very much inclined to think either that whatever is said about
John V III is pure fabrication, as St Antoninus teaches in his historical Summa,
p. 3, title 22, ch. 13 , para. 10 ; or that it is certain that Photius was reinstated
on the throne o f Constantinople after Ignatius’ death b y John V III through
his legates; or that the whole story is uncertain, untrue, fictitious and was
invented b y the Greeks, as Turrianus shows on the authority o f Manuel
Callecas in the book quoted above. W hat confirms me in m y opinion is that
Zonaras did record Photius’ reinstatement, but had not a word to say about
the abrogation o f the Eighth Council and the removal o f the word [Eilioque]
from the Sym bol; and also, that at the 6th session o f the Florentine Council
the Greeks did not regard the Council held under John V III as an Oecu
menical Synod, though it would have greatly helped them, had that Council
been legitimate and genuine.
Some Catholic historians went even further than the Cardinal, for
instance, the celebrated Greek Leo Allacci, whose life and work would
claim a special study. He certainly deserved credit for his encourage
ment o f Greek studies in the Western Church, but his keen desire to
see the Greek Church reunited with the Latin Church led him astray
in the study o f the Photian case. Through Baronius’ eyes, he naturally
saw in Photius the principal mischief-maker in the schism and con
sidered it his duty to expose the guilt o f the prominent culprit whose
villainy did so much harm to the whole o f Christendom in general, and
to Greece in particular. That is how he speaks o f him in his scholarly
work on the union between the two Churches in matters dogmatic,1
but he goes much further in his work on the Photian Council, where
he tries to prove that the Acts o f this council were forged from begin
ning to end by Photius and that this council never took place.2 The
book on the schism written by L. Maimbourg 3 is less scholarly, but in
some places more violent than anything ever written on this subject
in the West.
1 Leo Allatius, De Ecclesiae Occidentalis atque Orientalis Perpetua Consensione
(Coloniae Agrippinae, 1648), lib. 11, chs. iv, v, vi, vu, pp. 544, 552 seq., 566 seq.,
577? 587 seq., 591 seq., 600 seq. Cf. also idem, De Libris et Rebus Eccl. Graecorum
(Parisiis, 1646), pp. 147 seq.
2 De Octava Synodo Photiana (Rome, 1662).
3 Histoire du Schisme des Grecs (Paris, 1680).
377
Writings so unfair to Photius, and all from Catholic writers, neces

sarily provoked reactions among Protestant historians. J. H. Höttinger1
undertook Photius5 defence by trying to put his case in a more con
ciliatory light, supporting Zonaras5 assertion that Photius had banned
Basil from the church in punishment for a murder— for which Allatius
viciously attacked him in his reply.2 The same treatment was meted
out to R . Creighton, who also dared to defend Photius in his edition
o f the Council o f Florence.3 Another attempt in the same direction
was made by W. Beveridge.4
But the most substantial study o f Photius o f that period which marks
a decided advance on Baronius came from M. Hanke, who was able to
refute Baronius on many points, for instance: Hanke affirmed that even
Metrophanes o f Smyrna submitted to Photius after his election to the
patriarchate;3 he makes short work o f the assertion that Photius was
a eunuch;6 he shows that Asbestas was excommunicated neither by
Benedict nor by G regory; 7 he believes that Photius had really no desire
for patriarchal honours, as he stated in his letter to B ardas;8 he repeatedly
charges Nicetas with partiality and maintains that Photius did keep
Basil outside the c h u r c h ; 9 he also places the incidents that accompanied
the Eighth Council in a different light, as the Patriarchs5 representatives
were only Arab ambassadors on a visit to the E m p ero r;10 he puts
another complexion on the relations between Basil and Photius after
his fall, when Basil acknowledged his m istake;11 he defends the authen
ticity o f the Photian Council against Allatius,12 but he believes in Photius5
1 J. H. Höttinger, Historiae Ecclesiasticae N ovi Testamenti Enneas I (Tiguri,
ï 65 ï ),
p. 673.
2 Leo Allatius, D e Octava Synodo , loc. cit. pp. 244 seq.
3 Leo Allatius, De Octava Synodo, pp. 274 seq. and his answer to R. Creighton’s
translation of the Acts of the Florentine Council. (Leonis Allatii In Roberti
Creyghtoni Apparatum , Versionem et Notas ad historiam Concilii Florentini Scriptum
a Silvestro Syropulo, de Unione inter Graecos et Latinos Exercitationes (Romae,
1665), Exerc. x m -x vm .)
4 W . Beveridge, Συνοδικόν sive Pandectae Canonum S S . Apost. et Conciliorum
(Oxonii, 1672), vol. 1, pp. xxiii, 331 seq.
3 M. Hankius, D e Byzantinarum Rerum Scriptoribus Graecis (Lipsiae, 1677),
p. 264.
6 Loc. cit. pp. 270, 272. This alleged disablement of Photius also plays a curious
part in the controversy about Pope Joan: S. Maresius, Joanna Papissa Restituta
(Groningae Frisiorum, 1658), p. 47; N. Serarius, Moguntiacarum Rerum ab Initio
usque ad. . .hodiernum Archiepiscopum. . .libri V (Moguntiae, 1604), pp. 213—18.
8 Loc. cit. pp. 284-8.
9 Loc. cit. pp. 336 seq. 10 Loc. cit. pp. 344 seq.
11 Loc. cit. pp. 334-58. 12 Loc. cit. pp. 378 seq.
378
second excommunication by John V III and accepts Baronius’ statement

about the second Photian schism.
Another Protestant ecclesiastical historian, J. Basnage,1 followed the
same line as Hanke; and with regard to the letters from John V III to
Photius, he was of the opinion that they had been tampered with by the
Latins after the Council. Basnage was not alone in being embarrassed
by the existence o f two different versions o f the same letters.
F. Spanheim was also strongly influenced by Baronius, though he
concurs with Hanke and Basnage on a few points, as for instance when
he defends the authenticity o f the Photian Council and denies the
falsification o f the Commonitorium which John V III gave his legates.2
The two conflicting tendencies in the accounts o f the Photian incident

which we had noted in the seventeenth century survived in the
eighteenth, though B aro n iu s’ influence remained paramount; indeed,
Photius’ name has degenerated into a sort o f shibboleth dividing
Catholics and Protestants, the Catholics vilifying him as the historical
enemy o f the Papacy, and the Protestants glorifying him for his opposi
tion to Rome.
Thus, for instance, J. M. Heinecke3 and Gottfried Arnold4 both
adopt Nicetas’ account as the starting-point for their history o f Photius,,
merely trying to attenuate it in some details. L. T . Spittler3 shares their
opinion in thinking that in Photius’ case the Papacy had stepped beyond
its rights. J. G. W alch6 even upholds the authenticity o f John’s letter
to Photius on the Filioque. Chr. E. Weismann7 seems to have been
influenced by Hanke’s balanced judgement, but believes that the letters
o f Pope John V III to Photius were doctored by the Latins. Ch. W. F.
Walch,8 in his historical essay on the councils, also tries his best to be
1 Histoire de VEglise (Rotterdam, 1699), vol. i, livre ix, ch. ix, pp. 572 seq.
2 F. Spanheim, Opera (Lugd. Batav. 1701), vol. i: Historiae Christianae s. I X r
c. XI, par. 4 (De Schismate Photiano), pp. 1387—93.
3 J. M. Heineccius, Eigentliche und Wahrhaftige Abbildung der Alten und Neuen
Griechischen Kirche (Leipzig, 17 11), vol. I, cap. 3, part. 17-27, pp. 147-67.
4 Unparteyische Kirchen und Ketzer Historien. . . (Schaffhausen, 1740), Th. I,,
Buch ix, c. IV, pp. 329 seq.
3 Cf. his summary in the Grundriss der Geschichte der Christi. Kirche (Göttingen,
1785), pp. 201 seq.
6 Historia Controversiae Graecorum Latinorumque de Processione Spiritus S.
(Jennae, 1751), pp. 32 seq., 40-4.
7 Introductio in Memorabilia Ecclesiastica Historiae Sacrae N ovi Testamenti
(Halae Magdeburgicae, 1745), vol. 1, pp. 788-803.
8 E ntw urf einer Vollständigen Historie der Kirchenversammlungen (Leipzig, 1759),
vol. IV, pp. 552-83.
379
fair to the Patriarch. J. M. Schröckh1 occasionally displays a very shrewd

critical sense, as when he persistently points out the obvious partiality
o f Nicetas and other Ignatian sources and refuses to repeat Baronius’
assertion that the Patriarch Sisinnios had re-edited Photius’ famous
encyclical, though in this, he only followed the monks o f Saint Maur.a
W . C ave3 is very restrained in his judgement on Photius, but to this
English scholar’s w ay o f thinking the vehemence o f the Popes’ inter
vention against the Patriarch was uncalled for ('in Photium ad ravim
usque debacchantes. . . ’).
One o f the first monographs to deal with Photius from the Catholic
side was written by Ch. Faucher,4 and the solemn and impassioned
preface shows in what spirit the monograph is written: the writer is
entirely dominated by Baronius, whose severe verdict he can only
repeat and endorse. Nor does the first history o f the Greek schism
written at this time by Laur. Cozza3 mark any progress on Baronius.
One detail deserves noting: in trying to explain how a canon o f the
Photian Synod found its way into Gratian’s Decretum and was even
quoted by Innocent III, Cozza writes: ‘ Evidently, Gratian was in the
habit o f quoting many apocryphal documents.’ As to Innocent III, he
merely made a mistake.
M. Le Quien6 was mainly concerned to deny the authenticity o f the
letter from John V III to Photius and in the Panoplia dwells at length
on the Photian case, but always with Baronius as his guide. Among
ecclesiastical historians we should mention first Alexander Natalis
(Alexandre Noël),7 L. Ellies du Pin,8 and Claude F l e u r y ; 9 the last-
named dealt fully with the history o f Photius and had the advantage
o f using a copy o f the Acts o f the Photian Council lent to him by
Baluze, but even Fleury, like the rest, had to borrow from Baronius.
1 Historia Religionis et Ecclesiae Christianae (ed. P. Marheineke; Berlin, 1828),
p. 178. Idem, Christliche Kirchengeschichte (Leipzig, 1797), vol. x x iv , p. 160.
2 D A r t de Vérifier les Dates (1783), p. 288.
3 W. Cave, Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria (Oxonii, 1743), vol. π,
PP· L 2, 47 seq., 79 seq.
4 Histoire de Photius, Patriarche Schismatique de Constantinople (Paris, 1772).
3 Historia Polemica de Graecorum Schismate (Rome, 1719), vol. π, pp. 1—162,
chiefly p. 147.
6 Panoplia Contra Schisma Graecorum (Paris, 1718), cent. IX , cap. I, pp. 159—85;
De Processione Spiritus S . (Venetiis, 1762), pp. 302 seq.
7 Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris et N ovi Testamenti (Paris, 1699). Cf. his
Dissertations in Thesaurus Theol. (Venice, 1762), vol. in and M. Sesavniczky, E x
Hist. Eccles. P . Nat. Alex. D e Schismate Graecorum (Vienna, 1780).
8 Histoire de VÉglise en Abrégé (3rd ed. Paris, 1719), vol. ni, pp. 12 seq.
9 Histoire du Christianisme, Livre 50 (ed. Paris, 1836), vol. ni, pp. 378 seq.
380
F I F T E E N T H C E N T U R Y T I L L THE M O D E R N P E R I O D
Though his Gallican tendencies sometimes break through his account

o f Photius5 history, he yet gives evidence o f critical sense and his study
is far more moderate in tone than that o f Baronius. He admits among
other things the authenticity o f the letter o f John V III to Photius on
the Filioque.
So, thanks to the authority o f Baronius and that o f his followers, the
fate o f Photius seemed to be sealed for ever and Baronius5 account o f
him was accepted as strictly accurate. Even the Ruthenes, who wished,
in 1720, to unite with the Roman Church, were handed a special oath
proclaiming among other things: ‘ Suscipio. . . Constantinopolitanam
[synodum] quartam, octavam in ordine, ac profiteor in ea Photium
merito fuisse damnatum, et sanctum Ignatium patriarcham restitutum.51
Having now reached the modern period, we might close our examina
tion o f Western writers on Photius and refer the reader to a summary
o f Western Catholic opinion o f Photius from the sixteenth century to
the middle o f the nineteenth, which is to be found in the works o f
Photius5 second Catholic biographer, the Abbé J. N. Ja g e r ;12 but we
must do justice to another courageous writer who made a valiant
attempt to deal more fairly with the Patriarch— A . Pichler.3 Though
his effort was not made altogether in vain, he found very few followers.
His opinions did not invariably tally with those o f Photius5 great
historian, Cardinal Hergenröther, but one cannot read without a feeling
o f sorrow Pichler’s self-defence4 against the severe, and sometimes
exaggerated criticisms o f the great scholar, however much his authority
towered above that o f all other historians o f the Church in the second
1 Mansi, vol. x x x v , pp. 1437 seq.

2 H istoire de P h o tiu s e t du S ch ism e d es G recs d 'a p r ès les M on u m en ts O rigin a u x ,
la p lu p a rt e n co r e in con n u s (Paris, 1844). Some efforts, not always successful, to
discover a position that was fairer to Photius were made by V. Gutté, H istoire d e
VÉ g lise (Paris, 1889), vol. vi, ch. iv, pp. 238—50.
3 G esch ich te d er K irch lich en T ren n u n g (München, 1865).
4 An m ein e K ritik er (München, 1865). We may mention a few more ecclesiastical
historians of the nineteenth century who preceded Hergenröther and wrote the
history o f Photius more or less in imitation of Baronius: H. J. Schmitt, D ie M o rg e n
lä n d isch e G riech isch -R u ssisch e K irch e (Mainz, 1826), pp. 378—419; E. B. Swalue,
D isp u ta tio A ca d em ica I n a u g u ra lis d e D issid io E cclesia e C hristian ae in G raecam e t
L a tin am P h o tii A u ctorita te M a tu ra to (Lugduni Batavorum, 1829), chs. I-m ;
A. Neander, A llgem . G esch ich te d er C hristi. R elig io n u. K irch e (Hamburg, 1836),
vol. IV , pp. 590-633; A. F. Gfrörer, A llgem ein e K ir ch e n g e s c h ic h te (Stuttgart, 1844),
vol. ill, pt I, pp. 234—304; J. G. Pitzpius Bey, D ie O rien ta lisch e K ir c h e , ü b ersetz t
bei H . S ch iel (Wien, 1857), pp. 24-36; J. P. Bojarski, H isto rya F o cyu sp a . . . (Lwow,
1895). About Hergenröther’s work, see W. Drammer, ‘ Der Werdegang Hergen-
röther’s P h o tiu s ', in O rien talia C hristiana P erio d ica (1941), vol. vu, pp. 36—90.
381
THE P H O TIA N SCHISM. II. TH E L E G E N D
half o f the nineteenth and the beginning o f the twentieth centuries.

Hergenröther certainly did revive interest in the history o f the Greek
Patriarch and his work will never lose its value as an indispensable
introduction to Photian studies. He also, like his great predecessor
Cardinal Baronius, was inspired by the honourable motive o f defending
the pontifical primacy against the Protestant and rationalist attacks o f his
day, but he also went too far, and, strangely enough, failed to discover
in the history o f his subject such materials as would have served his
purpose much better. His great contemporary Hefele was similarly
misled.
Before the revival o f Byzantine studies in recent times, the Western
history o f Photius and the Eighth Council remained in the blind alley
into which Baronius had driven it. Faced with the high walls o f con
troversy, students were tempted to conclude that the path o f research
had come to a dead end. A few clear-sighted men could have shown the
Westerners the mistake they were making— a few critics o f Hergen
röther in Russia, chiefly the Hieromachos Yared: but did Cardinal
Hergenröther ever suspect that an obscure Syrian had been daring
enough to answer him?
382
CHAPTER V
P H O T I U S A N D T H E E I G H T H C O U N C I L IN T H E
EA STERN T R A D IT IO N TILL THE
TWELFTH CENTURY
Unpublished treatise on the Councils by the Patriarch Euthymios— Other con

temporaries— Photius’ canonization— Historians o f Constantine Porphyrogennetos’
school— Polemists of the eleventh and twelfth centuries— Michael of Anchialos—
Twelfth-century chroniclers.
A f t e r our analysis o f Western tradition on the subject o f Photius

and the Eighth Council, we must now extend our inquiry to Eastern
literature, since it is important to know the Greeks’ verdict at different
periods on their great Patriarch. Did the Greeks always look upon
Photius as the principal agent o f the severance o f their Church from
Rome, as it was the general tendency in the West to assume? Was
Photius always regarded as the author o f the Latin heresy on the
Filioque? What tradition was preserved in the long history o f the con
flicts between Latins and Greeks throughout the Middle Ages o f his
personality and his work? W e must also take into account the Greek
tradition on the controverted Councils o f the ninth century and verify
at what particular time the Greeks began to number the Photian Council
among the oecumenical synods.
Attestations on Photius are not wholly lacking in the ninth and tenth
centuries but they are not as many as might be expected. Some o f those
bearing on the adjustment o f the Photian schism have already been
mentioned; and we have now to consider the short treatise on the
councils attributed to the Patriarch Euthymios (907-12), which I
discovered in a Greek MS. o f the British Museum. The Manuscript
(Arundel 528) offers a curious collection o f thirty-eight short patristic
writings, polemical and otherwise, including a homily by St Basil and
two fragments in old Slav, all copied out in different hands. The MS.
is on parchment, size 18 (in quarto minori); it contains 192 leaves and
the writing is o f the second half o f the fifteenth century. On pp. 1 1 1 - 1 7
we find a short tract entitled 1 Treatise written at the patriarcheion o f
St Sophia hy the saintly patriarch Euthymios o f blessed memory. On1
1 του της μακαρίας λήξεως Ευθυμίου του αγιωτάτου πατριάρχου άτινα εγράφησε
εν τω ττατριαρχείω τής αγίας Σοφίας.
383
closer examination, we find that it resembles the work on the councils

attributed to Neilos, Metropolitan o f Rhodes,1 anti-Latin controver
sialist o f the fourteenth century, and edited by Justellus,2 though there
are some fundamental differences between the two tracts.
Neilos’ tract records nine oecumenical councils, the Eighth being
that o f Photius, and the Ninth the synod against Barlaam under the
Emperor Andronicus. After a summary o f the proceedings o f the
Photian Council, Neilos inserts an extract from the famous letter o f
John V III to Photius in connection with the Filioque incident, whilst
Euthymios’ tract only mentions seven oecumenical councils and merely
designates the Photian Council as ‘ the Union Synod’ . On the face o f
it, Euthymios’ work represents a much older tradition than that o f
Neilos, a supposition borne out by one further detail: Euthymios’ tract
includes, together with a summary o f the proceedings o f each synod,
the definition o f the faith o f the five first and the seventh councils with
the addition o f a homologia ton pateron, or the Fathers’ approval o f the
dogmatic definitions, o f the first four synods. Collation o f the two texts
suggests that Neilos’ pamphlet is only a later edition o f Euthymios’
tract, revised, abbreviated and adapted to the needs o f the fourteenth
century.
What bears out this deduction is that the Greek MS. no. 968 o f the
Paris National Library (fifteenth-c., 395 fols., on paper) contains a
similar dissertation (fols. 392-5 a) which on careful examination is
found to represent an intermediate tradition in the growth o f the tractate.
First o f all, it is anonymous; indeed, this time it could not be attributed
to Euthymios, a writer o f the tenth century, since its new editor, though
following a tradition different from that o f Neilos’ pamphlet, has added
a summary o f the Council o f Barlaam. It is curious that the new editor
remains loyal to the old tradition, so well established by Euthymios, in
conferring the title o f oecumenical on the first seven councils only. The
Councils o f Photius and o f Barlaam are therefore not reckoned as the
Eighth and the Ninth.
Moreover, the treatise o f the Paris MS. copies the profession o f faith
o f the first five councils and o f the seventh o f Euthymios’ tract, but
omits the Fathers’ approval o f these definitions. Even in other minor
details it bears a greater similarity to Euthymios’ work and the com
parison o f the three productions supports the conclusion that the tractate
attributed to Neilos o f Rhodes is merely a third edition, adapted to the
1 Krumbacher, loc. cit. pp. 109, 205, 560.
2 Chr. Justellus, Nomocanon Photii (Paris, 1615), pp. 175—79.
384
EASTERN TRADITION TILL THE TWELFTH CENTURY
mentality o f the fourteenth century, o f a short study on the Councils

by the Patriarch Euthymios o f the tenth century.
The treatise under discussion could in fact have been written by
Euthymios, though the MS. which attributes it to him is the only one
o f its kind and dates from the fifteenth century. Euthymios5biographer1
himself assures us that the Patriarch had left to his disciples several of
his writings, and we know three homilies o f his composition in honour
o f St Anne and another on the Virgin’s holy girdle.2 Now the opening
words o f the homily in honour o f St Anne’s conception 3 are only a
short dogmatic excursus on the Trinity and the Incarnation, strangely
recalling in style and sometimes in words the definitions o f the first
oecumenical councils, as summarized in Euthymios’ book and also by
the anonymous Greek dissertations bn the councils. Nothing then
precludes the possibility o f the Patriarch being the author of this treatise,
which was later copied by an anonymous scribe o f the fourteenth
century and again circulated in a new edition over the name o f Neilos
o f Rhodes.4
Tw o inferences o f some importance can be drawn from this short
study: first, that the Patriarch Euthymios knew the Acts o f the Photian
Council in the version that has come down to us and that the Acts he
may have consulted had the protocol o f the sixth and seventh sessions as
we know it, so that these versions must be absolutely authentic. Since
Euthymios quoted them some ten years after the Council, they could
not possibly have been falsified, as some would have us believe, in the
fourteenth century. Second, this short study provides evidence that
the Byzantine Church did not officially confer on the Photian Council
the title o f Eighth Oecumenical Council. Even when the memory o f that
Council was still fresh, the Greeks continued to number only seven oecu
menical councils, the Photian Council being ranked immediately after the
first seven great councils. St Euthymios even gives it the designation
which the Council itself had claimed, o f fiholy and oecumenical synod’ ;
but it is not termed the Eighth— it merely remains the 'Union Synod’.
Corroboration o f this is found in another document, also unpublished,

the profession o f faith o f a disciple o f Photius, Nicholas Mysticos, which
1 De Boor, Vita Euthymii, p. 30.
2 M. Jugie, ‘ Homélies Mariales Byzantines’, in Patrologia Orientalis (Paris,
1922, 1926), vol. X V I , p p . 499-514; vol. X I X , p p . 441-55.
3 Loc. cit. vol. X V I, pp. 499-502.
4 See Appendix III, pp. 456, 457, the edition of an extract from Euthymios’
treatise concerning the Photian Synod.
DPS 385 25
he made after his elevation to the patriarchate and is preserved in the

Vatican MS. Ottob. η. 147.1 The new Patriarch there declares (fol. 440)
that he accepts the decisions o f the seven oecumenical councils, which
he enumerates by name, an attestation which, coming from a disciple
o f Photius, is especially valuable, since he must have felt inclined
more than anybody else to add the Photian Council to the oecu
menical councils; and yet, he too clung to the old tradition o f his
Church.
As regards the person o f Photius, we should in the first place note
what was said about him by John, author o f a biography o f St Joseph
the Hymnographer, a work o f special value, since it accurately reflects
the feelings towards Ignatius and Photius prevailing at the end o f the
ninth century. Writing o f Ignatius and o f how much he thought o f
the Patriarch Photius, John calls him 2 4the godly Ignatius, distinguished
by many virtues and full o f zeal for Christ, mounted not long ago to
the helm o f the patriarchate’. O f Photius he writes: ‘ [after him] the
patriarchal throne fell to Photius, who was president o f the Supreme
Council [senate?]123 and excelled by his gift o f eloquence, his knowledge
and the rectitude o f his character. For his skill in organization and
administration,4*he reached the primacy o f the priesthood; into other
things concerning him we need not enter, nor allow calumnies to
distract us.’ Here one is made to feel the changed atmosphere that
prevailed in Byzantium after the settlement o f the quarrel between
Ignatius and Photius. The other biographer o f the Hymnographer,
Theophanes, is not so explicit in his references to the two rival Patriarchs,
but he is true to the same feeling when he describes Photius as ‘ ever-
remembered ’ Patriarch.3 Arethas o f Caesarea, a disciple o f Photius, goes
still further in his veneration for his master, when he places him in
paradise next to St Chrysostom and St Nicephorus.6 On another occa
1 Mentioned by A. Mai, S p icilegiu m R om a n u m (Rome, 1839-44), vol. x,

p. ix.
2 S. Joseph! Hymnographi Vita, auctore Joanne Diacono, P .G . vol. 105, cols.
968-9.
3 τής συγκλήτου βουλής.
4 προς τό συνθεϊναι και σκευάσαι πράγματα επιτήδειον.
3 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, M on u m en ta G raeca e t L a tin a a d P h o tii H ist,
p ertin en tia (Petropoli, 1901), vol. ii , p. 10: Ιγνατίου δηλαδή του θείου άρχιερέως
όσίως πατριαρχουντος.. . . Photius. . . άείμνητος πατριάρχης.
6 Epitaphius in Euthymium Pair, republished by M. Jugie, P a tr . O rien t, of
Graffin-Nau, vol. xvi, p. 498: μετά του χρυσου Ίωάννου εν εξορία συνθανα-
τούμενε, μετά Νικηφόρου και Φωτίου των αοιδίμων τοΐς διωγμοΐς και θανάτοις
συνδοξα^όμενε.
386
sion, Arethas replies in unrestrained terms to the Arm enians:1 'Am ong
them there was recently found one holy by his family ties and holier
still for his wisdom, both human and divine. Who is he? Photius, the
one raised to-day to the highest in heaven.’ This is frank canonization,
and another disciple o f the Patriarch, Nicholas Mysticos, goes still
further in his letter to the Emir o f Crete: 'T h e most eminent o f G od’s
high priests and the most famous, Photius, m y father in the Holy
Ghost, has likewise written to Your Excellency’s f a t h e r . . . . ’ 2 In
another letter, this time addressed to a Christian king, the ruler of
Armenia, Nicholas calls Photius 'the very saintly patriarch ’.3
To these attestations should be added a saying by the biographer o f
St Euthymios, Basil, archbishop o f Thessalonica, whom I have quoted
elsewhere.4 The leading passage is worth quoting:
It was the blessed Photius who, as his name suggests, enlightened the
whole world with the fulness of his wisdom; who from his infancy had been
devoted to Christ, suffered confiscation and exile for venerating His image
and was from the outset associated with his father in struggles for the faith.
Hence his life was wonderful and his death agreeable to God and sealed by
miracles.
This at any rate is how I render the passage; but even if the last words
refer not to Photius but to his father St Sergius, the main idea o f the
sentence would stand, since Photius is here 'associated’ with a saint
whose holiness was sealed by his miracles, and therefore is likewise
looked upon as a saint. Besides, as Photius is the subject o f the sentence
and his father is mentioned only casually in a subordinate clause, it
would only be logical to apply the concluding words to Photius.
There is another point in favour o f the above reading. Photius’ father

has his commemorative notice in the Greek Synaxarion o f 13 March,3
but while he is recorded as confessor ([homologetes), without any miracle
being attached to his name, Photius is called the thaumaturgos6 in a
1 Preserved in the Synodal Library of Moscow, cod. 441, fols. 433-4, quoted
by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus: Ό πατριάρχης Φώτιος ώς Πατήρ άγιος τής όρθ.
Εκκλησίας, By%. Z eitsch r. vol. vili, 1889, ρ. 662: μεθ3 ών και ό χθες τε και πρώην
ιερός μεν τό γένος, ίερώτερος δε την σοφίαν, όση τε θεία και όση τής κατ3 ανθρώπους
?^ογί3εται* τίς οϋτος; ό τοΐς ουρανίοις άδύτοις τανυν εγκατοικ^όμενος Φώτιος.
2 P.G . vol. ill, cols. 36, 3 ? : Ό εν άρχιερευσι θεού μέγιστος και αοίδιμος Φώτιος
ό εμός εν Πνεύματι άγίω Πατήρ προς τον πατέρα τής υμών ευγενείας__
3 Loc. cit. col. 365·
4 Cf. my L es L égen d es de C onstantin e t de M éth o d e, p. 144.
3 H. Delehaye, S yn a x a riu m C on stan tin opolitan um (Brussels, 1902), A.S. Nov.,
col. 682. 6 Cod. Paris. Gr. 1594.
38 7 25-2
Synaxarion o f the twelfth century. A miracle, remarkable enough in

the eyes o f posterity, signalized his life, namely the defeat of the
Russians in their attack on Constantinople in 860. Whatever one may
think about the miracle,1 it remains none the less true that the Byzan
tines considered the event as such and the Continuator o f Theophanes
endorsed their opinion.* It is true that the account by Simeon the
Logothete123 assumes the miracle to have been performed by the Virgin,
but still through the intercession o f Photius. All these attestations
point to the fact that Photius was venerated shortly after his death, at
least by a section o f the people. It is true that the depositions come
from the circle o f his students and admirers, but is the cult o f any hero
ever inaugurated otherwise?4
It remains to inquire whether and at what period the cult o f Photius
was approved by the Byzantine Church. In this inquiry, we need not
attach too much importance to the evidence o f Papadopoulos-Kerameus,
as his zeal for his hero’s glorification was somewhat extravagant and
he apparently did not succeed in proving that Photius was canonized
soon after his death. Similarly I refuse to accept his statement, until
further evidence be forthcoming, that the Athos MS. containing the
Patriarch’s 'replies to Amphilochus’ and representing Photius with a
halo dates from the tenth century;5 though it would be more difficult to
dismiss his assertion that the Patriarch’s name figures in the Synaxarion
(Cod. 40) o f the Holy Cross monastery o f Jerusalem, which dates from
the tenth to the eleventh century.6 It is stated there that his feast was
celebrated in the monastery o f John the Baptist o f the Eremia District,
while similar references appear in eight other manuscripts whose dates
range between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries.? It is true that his
1 Cf. what I said about the Russian danger in my book, Les Légendes de
Constantin et de Méthode, pp. 176 seq.
2 (Bonn), p. 196. 3 Loc. cit. p. 674.
4 See p. 272 on what Nicetas the Paphlagonian says about the cultus of Photius
after his death.
3 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, loc. cit. p. 664. 6 Idem, loc. cit. p. 662.
7 Cod. 219 o f the Berlin Royal Library (i2th -i3th c.); Cod. Paris. Gr. 1594
(12th c.); Cod. Ambrosianus C. 101 (12th c.); Cod. 227 of the Petrograd Imperial
Libr. (12th c.); Cod. 354 of the Syn. Libr. of Moscow (13th c.); Cod. 163 of the
Messina Univ. (12th c.); Cod. 239 of the Imp. Libr. of Moscow (14th c.); Cod.
A. in, 16 of the Basle Libr. (15th c.). Papadopoulos-Kerameus (By^. Zeitschr.
pp. 668 seq.) adds two more MS. of eleventh- and twelfth-century pericopes con
taining readings for the feast o f Photius. Cod. 266 of the monastic library of St John
the Evangelist of Patmos (ioth c.); Vatican Menologion Gr. 1613 ( n t h c .) ; Cod.
Mediceo-Laurent. San Marco 787 (n th c.); Cod. Paris. Gr. 1590 ( n t h c .) ; Cod.
Paris. Gr. 1589 (12th c.).
388
name is missing in some very important MSS., for instance, in the

Menology o f Basil II, yet it remains beyond dispute that Photius5 name
began to appear in Byzantine Synaxaria as early as the end o f the
tenth century and the beginning o f the eleventh, so that Photius must
have been canonized in the second half o f the tenth century at the latest.
We may then subscribe to the opinion o f M. Jugie,1 who thinks that
Photius’ name was added by the usual process o f acclamation to the
other names o f saintly Patriarchs, to the tomos tes Henôseôs, under the
Patriarch Sisinnios (996-8), at a time when the last traces o f the schism
provoked by the fourth marriage o f Leo V I had been obliterated.2. For
the present, we have no solid justification for moving the date back to
an earlier period.
Whatever views may be held o f this canonization, it cannot be gain
said that it did take place. Whether the cult o f Photius was widespread
or not, or whether St Ignatius was a more popular saint than Photius,
is another question altogether, and this is no place for wearying the
reader with details. Photius5 canonization was at least no more unusual
than that, say, o f Constantine the Great, who was baptized by an Arian
bishop, or than the canonization o f the Empress Irene, who certainly
could not be held up as a model for Christian mothers to copy. Now
two considerations should not be omitted: first, if all that we have said
about Photius5 ‘ schism5 is true, then the Byzantine Church was, at the
time that Photius was canonized, in normal communion with Rom e;
and second, that in the tenth century canonizations were not yet reserved,
even in the Western Church, to the decision o f the Pope alone, but
could be promulgated by an ordinary bishop.
We may then conclude that Photius5 name was held in great esteem by
most Byzantines in the tenth century, and o f this indirect signs can be
found in some historical works. About the middle o f the tenth century
a certain number o f historical writings, inspired by Constantine Por-
phyrogennetos, were published in Byzantium and we know the main
purpose that prompted all this literary output within the learned
Emperor’s circle:3 it was necessary, for the glorification o f Basil I,
founder o f the new dynasty, to disparage his predecessor Michael III
1 ‘ Le Culte de Photius dans l’Église Byzantine’, in R ev u e d e V O rient C hrétien
(1922-3), 3rd ser., tom. h i , pp. 109 seq. Note that this study, though out of date,
has not lost its value.
2 Cf. also A. Michel, H u m bert u n d K eru lla rio s (Paderborn, 1930), vol. II, pp. 13 -18 .
3 Cf. Rambaud, L ?E m pire G rec du Xe s iè cle (Paris), pp. 51 seq., 137 seq.;
Krumbacher, loc. cit. pp. 252 seq.
389
as much as plausible propaganda could bear. Hence arose the legend

o f Michael as a drunkard, an atheist, a mocker o f the sacred liturgy,
who cared for nothing but pleasure and sport and let his reign take care
o f itself and the Empire go to pieces; Basil, on the other hand, was the
providential tool in God’s hands for the chastisement o f an impious
unbeliever and the salvation of the Empire. B y the same token, Ignatius
was placed by the writers o f the Porphyrogennetos school in a brighter
and more sympathetic light than his rival, since Ignatius had made a
stand against the blasphemies o f Michael and Bardas, suffering persecu
tion for his pains; but it was under Basil’s reign and by Basil’s orders
that he was set free. A ll this political propaganda did no good to
Photius’ reputation.
And yet, what is surprising is that the best o f these writers are very
discreet with regard to Photius. Joseph Genesios, who wrote a history
in four volumes o f the Emperors reigning between the years 813 and
886, is, in fact, very partial to Ignatius, but he dare not speak ill o f
Photius. In his opinion, the misfortunes that befell Ignatius were
brought on him by Michael and Bardas, as has been pointed out already,
and only in one place does he directly refer to Photius in connection
with Ignatius’ deposition, when he w rites:1 'Bardas put in his place
Photius, who excelled in a certain number o f good things, but was
inferior in others.’ This is not a very flattering compliment, but we
should not forget that Joseph Genesios’ father, Constantine, was a keen
partisan o f Ignatius, whom he visited even in prison, so that the family
tradition o f the Genesios was decidedly Ignatian. Under the circum
stances, one would have expected Constantine’s son to be more emphatic
in his dislike o f Photius, but even he had to reckon with the fact that
Photius’ reputation had considerably improved during his second
patriarchate. More characteristic still is the w ay Porphyrogennetos
deals with Photius. In his biography o f Basil 12 he o f course transforms
Ignatius’ reinstatement into a meritorious deed of Basil’s, who thereby
restored peace in the Church and, as behoved an Emperor, repaired the
damage done to a prelate. He had to give the fact a slight twist; other
wise it would have been difficult to glorify the blessed memory o f the
founder o f the new dynasty. Again, in telling the story o f Photius’
reinstatement after Ignatius’ death, he does his best to colour Basil’s
treatment o f Photius in exile as flatteringly to Basil as public credulity
could stand : 3
1 (Bonn), 1. iv, p. 100.
2 Theoph. Cont. c. 32 (Bonn), p. 262. 3 Ibid. c. 44, p. 276.
390
He handed back the government of the Church in a regular manner to

one who previously had wished to conduct it in an irregular manner. He
gave the succession to the learned Photius. . . canonically and lawfully. But
even before that, he never ceased to treat him generously and with honour,
in deference to his great learning and virtue, and when he deprived him of
his throne, wishing to do no more than justice demanded, omitted nothing
that would soften the blow, placed apartments in the palace at his disposal
and appointed him teacher and tutor of his children.
The Continuator of Theophanes, who wrote mainly under Genesios5

inspiration, proceeds in the same w ay: all Ignatius5 trials are attributed
to Bardas; Photius is ‘ renowned for his learning5; it was Bardas who
forced priests to rally to Photius; Photius5 prayers are credited with the
divine intervention against the Russians in 860. Now it is my con
viction that the testimony o f the Porphyrogennetos school o f historians
is o f exceptional importance, since despite its tendentious character
they dared not make a frontal attack on Photius, whose memory was
cherished and venerated by the majority o f their contemporaries; at the
same time, their testimony was a contributory factor in the growth o f
the ‘ Photian Legend5, since it further explained away the sober and
laconic statements by the Continuator o f George the Monk,1 whose
narrative can be called an expurgated edition o f Pseudo-Simeon5s
‘ history5 o f the unfortunate Patriarch.
The writings o f the ‘ imperial historians5 moreover predisposed
posterity to place its confidence in the historical efforts o f Pseudo-
Simeon, Photius5 bitterest critic, certain statements o f whom strangely
recall the tone o f the anti-Photianist Collection. No matter what one
may think o f the character o f this anonymous ‘ historian5, one thing is
certain: he belonged to the camp o f the oft-mentioned die-hards, who,
even after the reunion o f most o f the Ignatians with the official Church
and after Stylianos5 capitulation, obstinately persisted in their hatred
o f Photius, and it is quite possible that this faction survived till the
beginning o f the second half o f the tenth century, the time when that
chronicle was written. In fact, the record goes as far as 963, the year
o f Romanos5 death,* so that the party possibly vanished for good at the
end o f the tenth century, at the final adjustment o f the quarrels over the
fourth marriage o f Leo V I— which would explain better why Photius5
name was then added by acclamation to the names o f the other
Patriarchs.
1 (Bonn), pp. 826, 829, 831, 841.
2 Krumbacher, loc. cit. pp. 358 seq.
391
One thing at least should not be overlooked: none o f the historians

o f the tenth century see in Photius the main author o f the schism or the
champion o f the national Byzantine Church against Roman authority.
Pseudo-Simeon frankly detests him, it is true, but the dominant motives
o f his hatred were either personal or confused with Byzantine issues o f
a political nature. The historians do not even credit Photius with cham
pioning the Byzantine faith on the Filioque against the Latin ‘ heresy’
and, what is worth noting, Nicholas Mysticos’ profession o f faith makes
no reference to the issue.
One would at first have expected Photius to grow in popularity in the

Greek literature o f the eleventh century, chiefly after the schism o f
Michael Cerularius; but here again we shall be disappointed. One o f
the first «anti-Latin controversialists, the Russian Metropolitan Leo, for
instance, breaks off the controversy on the Filioque started by Photius
to confine himself to the discussion on the Azymes. Nowhere does he
quote Photius;1 and when he attacks the Frankish bishops, Leo o f
Achrida never once appeals to Photius as the patron and leader o f these
practices.12
Nicetas Pectoratus, who had the distinction o f rousing Cardinal
Humbert to anger, battles against the Azymes, the celibacy o f the clergy
and chiefly the Saturday fast, but all on his own initiative; for, had he
harked back to Photius in this matter, we should probably have found
in the impetuous cardinal’s writings some explosive outburst on the
Patriarch o f Constantinople; but Humbert apparently does not even
know the name o f Photius, and his silence in this respect speaks volumes.3
More curious still is Cerularius’ procedure: he certainly borrows
from Photius’ writings, but nowhere does he credit him with having
taken the lead in the anti-Latin campaign, though he mentions him in
his homily on the restoration o f images, when he quotes the acclama
tions in honour o f the holy Patriarchs and places Photius next in rank
to Ignatius.4
Nor is any mention o f Photius to be found in the correspondence
1 Ed. Pavlov, Προς ‘Ρωμαίους ήτοι προς Λατίνους περί των άζυμων, K ritich esk ie
O puitui ρ ο I st. d rev. G rek o-R ussk oi P olem ik i (St Petersburg, 1878), pp. 115 -3 2 .
2 Epistola de Azymis et Sabbatis, P .G . vol. 120, cols. 836-44.
3 Contra Nicetam, P .G . vol. 120, cols. 10 11- 2 1, 1021-38. Cf. A. Michel,
H u m b ert u n d K eru lla rio s, vol. il, pp. 371 seq. Cf. K. Schweinburg, ‘ Die Text
geschichte des Gespräches mit den Franken von Nicetas Stethatos’, in B y {. Z eitsch r.
(1934), vol. x x x iv , pp. 313 seq.
4 Homilia in festo Restitutionis Imaginum, P .G . vol. 120, cols. 729, 732.
392
between Michael Cerularius and Peter, Patriarch o f Antioch,1 a feat o f

discretion that seems significant. And yet, Michael lays every possible
blame at the Latins’ door, and had there been at the time any disagree
ment between Greeks and Latins on the Photian question and the ninth-
century councils which concerned Photius, Michael and his partisans
would undoubtedly have referred to it. Michael knew all about the
Photian Council and even quoted one o f its decisions in his Panoplia,
if we suppose that this work was really his. The passage is taken from
the sixth session:12
In the Acts of the holy and oecumenical synod, presided over by Photius,
the very saintly Patriarch of Constantinople, the following was written : ‘ If
any one should, as stated before, venture so far in his madness as to propose
another symbol and call it a definition, or dare to make additions to, or
omissions from, the symbol as handed down to us, let him be anathema.’
Nor does the writer here call the council ‘ Eighth Oecumenical5: it
is ‘ the Council o f Photius5, the designation o f ‘ Union Council5 being
reserved to the synod o f 995-6.3
Theophylactus, archbishop o f Bulgaria, does not mention Photius,4
but in the Life o f St Clement attributed to him he makes St Methodius
a keen opponent o f the Filio que.
Much to the point also is the study on the Greek schism attributed
to Nicetas, chartophylax o f Nicaea, whose pamphlet has this reference
to the Photian schism:
Under Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, there was a great schism,

when the Romans were charged with numerous transgressions, as stated in
his encyclical letter. When union between the Churches had been restored,
as evidenced by the synod which Photius summoned, and John of Rome had
canonically recovered his most ancient privileges, no one thought of
examining the Romans’ transgressions which the Sixth Council and Photius
himself, so we are told, had laid to their charge. 108 years elapsed between
the Sixth and the Seventh Councils, when the Churches remained united
and Roman errors were never once mentioned, with the exception of the
iconoclastic heresy over which they separated again. But ever since the
Seventh Council— even previous to it— till Photius, no one had a word to
say about those Roman errors, which Photius and the Sixth Council had
made so much of; and when after all these troubles and rumours Photius
1 Ibid. cols. 781-816.

2 A. Michel, loc. cit. p. 218. 3 Michel, loc. cit. p. 242.
4 Liber de iis quorum Latini incusantur, P.G . vol. 126, cols. 221-49.
3 Ibid. cols. 1201, 1205.
393
T H E P H ΟΤΙ A N S C H I S M . II. THE L E G E N D
reunited with the Romans without the slightest difficulty, peace reigned
undisturbed between the Churches.
But under Sergius, who ruled at the time of the Bulgaroctonos, we are told
that there arose a schism— for what reason I do not know, but the quarrel
was apparently over some sees. Well, if the Romans’ errors had so far remained
unknown, nobody could put the blame on that communion this time; but
since they were known at the Sixth Council, and better still under Photius,
the responsibility should lie with the union, as it was then that what was
considered to be amiss should have been discarded and corrected— at least in
words, if the evil was beyond human strength. If the complaints were really
serious— which seems incredible, as we are driven to infer from the fact that
the bishops left them so long unheeded— then what did the Greeks blame the
Romans for? Hence you see that the schisms mentioned were brought
about by our own people. Photius, who had fallen out with Nicholas.. . . 1
This extract shows first o f all that in the eleventh century part o f
the clergy were not in favour o f the new rupture between Rome and
Byzantium provoked by Michael Cerularius, Photius5complaints against
the Latins, repeated by Michael, being considered insufficient ground
for a schism. The Emperor’s policy, which favoured an entente with
Rome, could therefore depend on support in the ranks o f the clergy.
Furthermore, the writer o f this study considered the rupture between
Photius and Rome to be a purely personal matter, and therefore,
although not particularly friendly, did not look upon Photius as the
symbol o f anti-Roman tendencies.
We may also indirectly conclude from the text that the writer did
not rank the Photian Council among the first oecumenical councils,
for it is because he marks the different periods by their councils that he
happens to mention the sixth and the seventh; but when he reaches the
period o f Photius, he merely mentions the Patriarch’s name. The text
also warns us not to make too much o f the misunderstanding that arose
between Rome and Byzantium under the Patriarch Sergius, since the
author, who wrote some ten years after the event, reports it from hearsay
and confesses ignorance o f its motives; a rather surprising admission.2
1 κατά πόσον καιρόν και ποια αιτιάματα εσχίσθη άφ’ ημών ή 'Ρωμαϊκή Εκκλησία.
P .G . vol. 120, cols. 717 seq.
2 Pavlov, Kriticheskie Opuitui (St Petersburg, 1878), pp. 132—7, has published
a treatise almost identical, taken from a manuscript of the Synodal Library (no. 368,
fols. 248 seq., no. 207, fols. 314 seq.), attributed to the Patriarch Photius. It omits
the schism of Cerularius. The treatise attributed to Nicetas of Nicaea is apparently
of older date. Writings of this class have so often been recopied and recast that they
deserve little confidence. Cf. Grumel, Regestes, vol. Il, pp. 241 seq., Échos d ’
Orient (1935), pp. 129-38, and Hergenröther, Photius, vol. in, pp. 843 seq.
394
EASTERN TRADITION TILL THE T W E L F T H CENTURY
We are also in possession o f two other official documents proving

that the Byzantine Church o f the eleventh century did not number the
Photian Council among the great oecumenical councils. The first is the
letter written by the Russian Metropolitan John II (1080-9) to anti-
Pope Clement III (10 8 0 -1100) ; this is interesting, because it illustrates the
Byzantine mentality of the period in matters concerning Rome. Before
detailing for the Pope’s benefit all the errors that were imputed to the
Latins, John II outlined the foundations o f the true Catholic faith,
namely, the oecumenical councils. One passage is so typical that it
deserves full quotation : 1
All profess that there are seven holy and oecumenical Councils, and these
are the seven pillars of the faith of the Divine Word on which He erected
His holy mansion, the Catholic and Oecumenical Church. These seven
venerable, holy and oecumenical Councils have been treated with equal
respect by all the bishops and doctors of the See of Peter, the standard-bearers
of the Holy and Blessed Apostles.
They even attended these councils and spoke there the same language,
some being personally present, commendably identifying themselves with
what was done and associating themselves with what was said ; others dele
gated their most intimate friends with equal commendation, to offer their
collaboration, and they confirmed all matters by the authority of your
apostolic and divine See. The first holy and oecumenical Synod was attended
by Sylvester; the second by Damasus, the third by Celestin. The blessed
and renowned Pope Leo laid the foundation of the Fourth holy and oecu
menical Synod and the saintly letter, so full of wisdom, which he wrote to
Flavian was called the pillar of orthodoxy by all who graced the Synod by
their presence. Vigilius was present at the Fifth Synod, while the Sixth was
attended by Agathon, a venerable man, full of godly wisdom, and the Seventh
by the very saintly Pope Hadrian, who spoke through the mouth of the
saintly and God-fearing [theoforon] men he delegated, Peter, archpriest of the
very Holy Church of Rome, the priest Peter and the Abbot of the monastery
of St Sabbas in Rome.
Important as this letter is, it never once alludes to Photius and his
Council.
The second document is the report o f the synod held in 1089 in
Constantinople at the request o f Alexis I Comnenus, who was then
working for reunion with Rom e; in this synod it was decided to
request the Pope to send to Constantinople his profession o f faith,
1 Pavlov, loc. cit. pp. 58 seq.
395
which was to include his acceptance o f the first seven oecumenical

councils.1
The Latin embassy sent to Constantinople in 1 1 1 2 , o f which the
archbishop o f Milan, John Grossolanus, was a member, became the
occasion for lively discussions between Latins and Greeks on the subject
o f the dogmatic and disciplinary differences between the two Churches,
and seven Greek theologians were asked to reply to their Latin opponent;
unfortunately, not all their writings have so far been published,123 but
what little there is provides a fairly comprehensive view o f the debate.
The fragments o f Grossolanus5 speech,3 the short studies by Eustratios
o f Nicaea4 and the contribution by John Phournes5 make no reference
either to Photius or to his Council. The Filioque, however, was the
main topic o f the discussion, in the course o f which Eustratios even
quoted the councils, but always in general terms, without referring to
them by name. He probably also made use o f Photius5 M ystagogy.
As far as we are able to judge to-day, Euthymios Zigabenos, who
possibly also took part in the debate, was the only one to show that
Photius was not forgotten by the Greek theologians in those days. In
fact, Euthymios embodied Photius5 treatise on the Procession o f the
Holy Ghost in his Panoplia and added at the end o f his work a fragment
o f Photius5 letter to Boris-Michael, with the Patriarch’s essay on the
oecumenical councils.6 One would not wish to overrate the implication
o f the compliment— some would discover there the promotion o f
Photius to the rank o f a Doctor o f the Church— but it is none the
less significant.
I have had occasion to refer to another Graeco-Latin dispute in
Constantinople in 1 1 35 between Anselm o f Havelberg and Nicetas o f
1 W. Holtzmann, ‘ Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexis I und Papst

Urban II im Jahre 1089 ’ , in B y ç. Zeitschr. (1928), vol. x x v i i i , pp. 50-62. One
may add the profession of faith of the Russian prince Vladimir in the Russian
Lietopis, which also gives the seven councils. Cf. A. Pavlov, loc. cit. pp. 5-26.
2 See the list of these writings in V. Grumel’s ‘ Autour du Voyage de Grosso
lanus à Constantinople’, in Échos d Orient (1933), vol. x x x n , pp. 22-33.
3 P.G . vol. 127, cols. 9 11- 1 9 ; Bibliotheca Cassinensis (Monte Cassino, 1880),
vol. IV , pp. 351-8.
4 Published by A. Demetrakopoulos, Εκκλησιαστική βιβλιοθήκη (Leipzig,
1866), pp. 47-71 (see p. 68, a fine chapter on Popes Damasus, Celestin, Leo,
Vigilius, Agathon, Gregory the Great and Zachary), pp. 71-84, 84-99, 100-21,
151-60 , 161-98.
3 Ibid. p p . 36-47.
6 P .G . vol. 130, tit. X I II, cols. 876, 1360 (appendix). Cf. tit. x x i v , col. 1189,
an extract from Photius’ writings against the Paulicians. Photius there is called
ό μακαριότατος πατριάρχης.
396
EASTERN T R A DI T I O N TILL THE T W E L F T H CENTURY
Nicom edia;1 but it was not the only theological disputation in which
this German bishop engaged in the East, for in the course o f his second
journey he arranged another debate on 2 and 3 October 1 1 54 in Thessa
lonica, this time with Basil o f Achrida,^ the archbishop o f that city.
According to the Dialogue published by the latter, the name o f Photius
did not come up in the discussion at all.3 We may note in passing that
the letter this same Basil wrote to Pope Hadrian IV (115 4 -9 ) was very
deferential to the bishop o f Rome.1234
Among other Greek controversialists we should first mention Nicholas
o f Methone, an outstanding theologian in his day, who in his books,
most o f them published by Demetrakopoulos,5 gives evidence o f a fair
knowledge o f Photius5 writings, but nowhere quotes him by name.
Only once does he quote a canon o f the Photian Council o f 861,
canon X V I, in his plea for the Patriarch Nicholas IV Muzaton.67 The
case o f this Patriarch presented a curious similarity to that o f Pope
Formosus. It is known that Nicholas had resigned his see o f Cyprus
and retired to a monastery; but his rivals pretended that Nicholas had
in so doing renounced episcopal honours and had ceased to be a bishop.
Thereupon the bishop o f Methone, at a synod summoned to settle the
dispute and in the presence o f the Emperor, made a great speech in
defence o f the validity and legitimacy o f the election, but to little effect,
since Nicholas IV was called upon to resign in 1 1 5 1 . Hergenröther?
registers surprise that Nicholas o f Methone should on that occasion
have failed to quote the canon o f the Council o f 879-80, forbidding
prelates who reverted to monastic life to resume their episcopal func
tions; but there is nothing surprising about it, since by quoting it the
bishop o f Methone would have played into the hands o f the opposition,
the canon o f the Council o f 879-80 being far more explicit and emphatic
than canon X V I o f the Council o f 861.
1 See p. 345.
2 Cf. V. Grumel on when the theological controversy between Basil of
Achrida and Anselm o f Havelberg in Salonica took place, Échos d 'Orient (1930),
vol. X X X I I I, p. 336.
3 Jos. Schmidt, Des Basileus aus Achrida. . .unedierte Dialoge (München, 1901).
4 P.G . vol. 119 , cols. 929-33.
5 Νικολάου έττ. Μεθώνης λόγοι δύο, loc. cit. pp. 199—380. Cf. also the Latin
edition of two of his writings: Nicolai Methonae episcopi Orationes Duae contra
Heresim Dicentium Sacrificium pro nobis Salutare non Trisypostatae Divinitati sed
Patri soli allatum esse (Lipsiae, 1865).
6 Loc. cit. pp. 284, 285.
7 Photius, loc. cit. vol. in, p. 805. Cf. also what he says (ibid. pp. 806 seq.) on
the letter of Basil of Achrida to Hadrian IV.
397
No mention o f Photius is made either by John o f Jerusalem in the

second half o f the twelfth century1 or by John o f Claudiopolis,12,3the
only polemists o f this school whose writings have been published.
One polemical work by Michael o f Anchialos, the bitterest enemy o f

the union between the two Churches that was then being prepared
under Manuel Comnenus, deserves special attention. It is written in
the form o f a dialogue between the Patriarch Michael o f Anchialos and
the E m p e r o r , 3 who after vainly trying various arguments to convince
the obstinate Patriarch o f the urgency o f reunion finally appealed to
the example o f Photius, who also had made peace with the same Latins
he had fought. T o this the Patriarch retorted:4*
Even granting that Photius sinned by this action, they [the Latins] were
not thereby justified, for it is not transgressions that make good law, and it
is not in evil but in good deeds that we should imitate and follow others.. . .
The fact is, however, that no such fault is to be found in relation to the case
we are dealing with in that very godly man, 3 whose life offers no example
of greater strength than his behaviour in this case; strength, I say, to crush
and refuse to have anything to do with those atheistic and impious Italians,
although here as elsewhere calumny may have its own way and some people
have not hesitated to call him 6a good divider and a bad uniter’. The reverse
is the truth. As a matter of fact, this very saintly Photius, after his formidable
attack, far from unconditionally readmitting those he had cast off to unite
with him and the Church, first imposed proper guarantees that they would
be orthodox in future and recant the blasphemies they should never have
uttered. They then addressed to him their symbol of faith, which they worded
in orthodox terms, whereby they agreed to remain steadfast in that faith, to
add or to subtract nothing, to number among the enemies of truth and the
champions of mendacious error any who should dare to do so; they then
followed the same procedure with the three other Patriarchs, according to
the ancient custom by which one honoured with patriarchal and supreme
dignity should send to his brothers and co-Patriarchs his encyclical letters
of appointment to inform the whole world of his personal orthodoxy and
agreement in faith with the Fathers who preceded him and were orthodox.
This, to my way of thinking, was what was fully meant by the canon on
1 Dositheos, Τόμος αγάπης (Jassy, 1698), pp. 504-38.

2 Pavlov, loc. cit. pp. 189-91.
3 Published by Chr. Loparev with a commentary in Viiantiiskii Vremennik
(1907), vol. X IV , pp. 334 - 57·
4 Cf. V. Grumel, £Le Filioque au Concile Photien de 879-880’, in Échos d'Orient
(1930), vol. X X I X , pp. 252-64.
3 τον θειότατον τούτον άνδρα.
398
EASTERN TRADITION TILL THE T W E L F T H C E N T U R Y
whose terms he readmitted the Italians, for we find there the following:
4Let the Pope as well as ancient Rome and the communion under him hold
as rejected and likewise reject whosoever is considered rejected by the very
saintly Photius, and through him by our Church in fulfilment of their duty.’
Now it is evident from this that this man acted like those wise doctors wrho
skilfully forestall future diseases and administer preventive remedies to those
suspected of being threatened with a possible affection, and in this sense
deserved no blame but acted for motives of prudence, however changeable
he may have seemed to be, when he meant and intended to obtain but one
thing— that the Italians had no right to add in writing anything as truth to the
Symbol, knowing full well that they were in duty bound never to do anything
in disagreement with the feelings of the Greeks and their spiritual leaders in
connection with the Divinity and what touches religion; and that if they
should be so daring, they would, by their own previous admission, fall under
the anathema.
Here is evidence that Michael o f Anchialos knew the same version

as is known to-day o f the Acts o f the Photian Council. He first men
tions canon I o f the Council, voted by the Fathers during the fifth
session as 4the true guarantee that they [the Latins] would be orthodox
in future and recant blasphemies which they should never have uttered5.
Their worst blasphemy was, to his mind, the addition o f Filioque to
the Symbol. So, after accepting canon I, 'they addressed to him their
symbol o f faith, which they worded in orthodox terms, whereby
they agreed to remain steadfast in that faith, to add or to subtract
nothing, to number among the enemies o f truth and the champions o f
mendacious error any who should dare to do so. . . . 5 The last words
recall the solemn declaration1 read by the protonotary Peter after the
recitation o f the Symbol o f Nicaea without the addition o f the Filioque.
This was the only occasion under Photius5 patriarchate when Rom e’s
delegates presented to Photius and to the other Patriarchs the Symbol
o f Nicaea without the Filioque. In the same passage, there seems also
to be an open hint o f Photius5 disclosure in his M ystagogia that
Hadrian III had sent him his synodical letter containing the Nicene
Symbol without the Filioque. This also was the only known instance
under the same patriarchate.
Canon I does not mention the addition to the Symbol and Michael
is quite aware o f it, since he states that the canon was really meant as
a manoeuvre to bind the Romans to the faith without the Filioque as laid
down in the Nicene Symbol. He therefore does not appeal to the canon
1 Mansi, vol. xvn, p. 516.
399
as conclusive demonstration;1 it only embodied2 the promise which

the Latins were asked at the sixth session o f the synod to keep. The
passage in question can therefore be taken as additional evidence that
the Acts o f the Photian Synod were known to the Greeks o f the twelfth
century in the same version as we know them to-day.
We may in this connection recall the attitude o f another contem
porary o f Michael Anchialos, Nicetas o f Maronea, a partisan o f the
union, who in his Dialogues, only a few fragments o f which were
published by Hergenröther, defended the truth o f the Latin doctrine
o f the Holy Ghost, but strongly demurred to the addition o f the
Filioque to the Sym bols He also must have had the decision of the
sixth session o f the Photian Council before his eyes, for he seems on
the whole to have shared the opinion o f the pontifical legates who were
present at that session.
There is nothing s u r p r is in g 4 in the w ay Michael Glycas, another
contemporary o f Michael o f Anchialos, deals with the General Councils,
when in defence o f the Greek position on the Filioque 5 he appeals to
the authority o f the Oecumenical Councils, insisting on the Popes’
participation in those councils, but says nothing about the Photian synod.
This is sufficiently explained by the fact that the Greeks did not rank the
Photian Council among the great oecumenical councils, so that its
decision had not the same authority for them as the decrees o f the seven
oecumenical Councils. Besides, in the twelfth century, Photius himself,
as we have pointed out already, was not yet a topic o f controversy:
his case was closed and full agreement had been reached on the con
flicting issues between Photius and Ignatius. This at least partly explains
w hy his Council was not quoted as often as might have been expected.
Photius’ popularity, however, was to grow in proportion to the
gradual recrudescence o f anti-Latin polemics, when all the great con
troversialists o f the second half o f the twelfth century borrowed most
o f their arguments from Photius’ writings; for instance, Andronicus
1 V. Grumel misunderstood it in this sense (‘ Le Filioque au Concile Photien
de 879-880’, in Échos d'Orient (1930), vol. x x ix , pp. 252-64. M. Jugie (‘ Les
Actes du synode Photien’, ibid. (1938), vol. x x x v i i , pp. 96 seq.) rightly dissociates
himself from that line of argument.
2 Leo Allatius, in his De Ecclesiae Occid. et Orient, Perpetua Consensione, col. 557?
correctly translates the passage as follows : ‘ Hoc enim acute satis innuere existimo,
cum in Canone, quo Italos admisit, continetur.’
3 P , G. vol. 139, cols. 165-221. Nicetas also appeals to the decision of oecumenical
councils, but his reference is too brief. 4 V. Grumel, loc. cit. p. 264.
5 Κεφάλαια εις τάς απορίας της Γραφής, edited by S. Eustratiades (Athens, 1906),
pp. 341, 342, but I have not been able to come across the work.
400
EASTERN TRADITION T I L L THE T W E L F T H C E N T U R Y
Camateros1 and Nicetas Acominatos,2 to cite only the best. We should

also note in particular that the Fathers o f the Council of 1156, held in
Constantinople, also borrowed texts from Photius5 writings for their
own p u r p o s e s 3 and quoted him next to the Fathers o f the Church: not
that they ranked him among the Fathers, but their opinion o f him
illustrates at any rate the authority Photius5 writings and personality
wielded in Byzantium in the twelfth century.
We may also mention as belonging to the same period some treatises
on the Azym es; two short productions o f this class were recently
published by Leib.4 Their anonymous authors display unvaried deference
to the Latins and a sincere desire for union, but completely ignore
Photius and the Greek Councils o f the ninth century.5
To turn now to the Chroniclers o f the twelfth century, whose works

also touched on the period concerned, only five can be quoted: John
Skylitzes, George Cedrenus, John Zonaras, Constantine Manasses, and
Michael Glycas. The sources used by John Skylitzes, Cedrenus and
Zonaras were, for our period, the Continuators o f Theophanes and
George the Monk, but their references to Photius are brief, briefer still
than their sources, and they dwell chiefly on Bardas5 incest and on
Michael’s orgies. Zonaras is still more laconic than his two colleagues,
but all o f them make Bardas responsible for the persecution o f Ignatius
and none is favourable to Photius, though they acknowledge his
renown. They also dwell at some length on the second deposition by
Leo the W ise.6
1 Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. h i , pp. 8 10 -15, materials of his unpublished
treatise; and P .G . vol. 141, cols. 396-613.
s Thesaurus, P.G . vol. 140, col. 173. For other borrowings, cf. col. 289.
3 Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, vol. x, pp. 38 seq.
4 ‘ Deux inédits Byzantins sur les azymes’, in Orientalia Christ. (1924), no. 9,
p. 3. Cf. what the writer says (ibid. p. 153) on the treatise attributed to Nicetas-
David.
3 Examination of a treatise on the Azymes by John of Claudiopolis which I
found in a MS. of the British Museum (Harl. 5657, fols. 1280-36, on fifteenth-
century paper) also yielded negative results. Nor was anything relevant to be found
in two unpublished letters of John Camateros, Patriarch o f Constantinople,
addressed to Innocent III (Bibl. Nat. Cod. Paris. Graecus 1302, on parchment,
thirteenth century, containing 296 fols., fols. 2700-5) and in two other short
theological writings of the same class in the same MS. (Responsa Theologica,
fols. 27 5-8 1; Orationes Catecheticae Duae, fols. 281-95), the latter MS. being
unfortunately in a very bad condition and scarcely legible in places.
6 Skylitzes-Cedrenus (Bonn), pp. 161, 172-3 (Photios άνήρ ετπ σοφία γνώριμος),
205, 2 I 3? 24b seq. Zonaras, Epitome Histor. (Bonn), lib. xvi, caps. 4—11, pp. 403
(Photios έν λόγοις όνομαστότατος), 404, 405, 418, 422, 438 seq.
DPS 401 20
Mariasses and Glycas are the only chroniclers to father Ignatius’

ill-treatment on both Bardas and Photius, Manasses1 following Photius’
bitterest enemy, the Pseudo-Simeon, and on two occasions giving
Photius some very uncomplimentary titles. Michael G lycas2 is the
least independent and the shortest o f all; he simply plagiarizes his
immediate predecessors, Skylitzes, Zonaras and Manasses, and is the
only one to make Photius responsible for Ignatius’ trials. In conclusion,
the writings o f the chroniclers o f that period bring out what harm was
done to Photius’ good name by the writers o f the Porphyrogennetos
school and chiefly by the Pseudo-Simeon.
1 Compendium Chronicum (Bonn), pp. 218, 219, 220 (Photios κακούργος), 224,
226 (ό βαθύγνωμων Φώτιος άει διψών του θρόνου). P.G . 127, cols. 412 seq.
2 Annales (Bonn), pars iv, p. 544.
402
C H A P T E R VI
FROM THE T H IR T E E N T H C E N T U R Y TO T H E
M O DERN PER IO D
Unionists of the thirteenth century: Beccos, Metochita— The Photian Council in

writings of the thirteenth century— Calecas and the champions of the Catholic
thesis— Anti-Latin polemists and theologians of the fourteenth century: the Photian
Council promoted to oecumenicity— Treatment o f Photius and his Council by
supporters of the Council of Florence— Unpublished Greek treatises on the
Councils and opponents of the Union— Greek and Russian literature from the
sixteenth to the nineteenth century. Influence of Baronius and Hergenröther on
the Orientals.
It will have been noted that while Photius’ name came gradually to be
quoted more frequently in the polemical writings o f the twelfth century,
it was not until the thirteenth century that his personality and his
unfortunate anti-Latin venture became favourite topics o f dispute
between the partisans and the opponents o f reunion. Sufficient evidence
will be found in the debates that preceded and followed the Council o f
Lyons, when the friends o f reunion opened fire by trying to convince
their opponents that first Photius’ example was not one to be followed,
and second, that he had no serious excuse for causing a rupture and that
in any event he disowned his anti-Roman campaign by his reconciliation
with Rome.
The first Greek champion o f the Catholic doctrine on the Procession
o f the Holy Ghost, Nicephorus Blemmydes,1 restricted himself to
dogmatic arguments, but the Patriarch John Beccos was not satisfied
with the sort o f reasoning that had all but exclusively prevailed until
his time: he was the first to use the historic method by trying to establish
that no attempt to create a schism ever had a truly dogmatic cause
behind it. He also directly attacked the first Greek controversialists.
It was natural that Beccos should single out the Photian case for
special attention and he made Photius responsible for the whole trouble.
From the way he continually harped on this topic through all his
writings, it was clear how much importance he attached to what Photius
had to answer for, and as in Beccos’ days Photius had become a hero
to all who hated the Latins and a Father o f the Church representative
o f Greek doctrine, and as his example and his writings were the object
1 P.G . vol. 142, cols. 533-84.
403 2 6 -2
o f the highest praise, it was necessary to tackle the evil by striking at

its roots.
Beccos1 dealt more fully with the Photius incident in his works on
the reunion o f the Churches, in which he aimed at showing that it was
not the Filioque or any other alleged abuse o f the Roman Church that
was the cause o f the Photian schism, and that Photius5 history proved
that he did not fall out with Rome over these ‘ abuses5, though he
knew them well, as long as he remained uncertain whether his ascent
to the patriarchal throne would receive Rome’s approval or not. This
contention was borne out by the facts in the conflict between Photius
and the Popes.
When Ignatius2— fia man o f so exalted a degree o f sanctity that his
memory has been venerated to this day by the Church, the reward o f
all those who please G o d 5— was Patriarch, Photius, ‘ a man o f great
learning and wisdom, cast his eyes upon the See5 and yearned for its
possession. He dethroned Ignatius, who appealed to Rome. Pope
Nicholas summoned Photius to return the See to the legitimate Patriarch,
but Photius tried to bring the Pope over to his side, and in a lengthy
letter pleaded on his own behalf and detailed the issues that divided
the two Churches. This passage o f the letter is quoted by Beccos at full
length, which proves, so the Patriarch asserts, that Photius was per
fectly aware o f all the characteristic customs that differentiated the
Roman from the Greek Church. But, as long as there remained any
prospect o f Nicholas deciding in his favour, Photius refrained from
making a grievance o f any o f these customs, altering his tactics when
he was excommunicated by Nicholas and his successor Hadrian; then
only did he bitterly reproach Rome with various customs as though
they were grave abuses. Beccos quotes the most striking passages from
the letter, and as his two quotations must have caused surprise, he
concludes: ‘ This makes it clear that the schism was not brought about
by any eagerness for truth [true doctrine] but by Photius5 own wilful
ness.5 As though this were not enough, Beccos goes on:
A s Pope Joh n, who followed Hadrian, Nicholas’ successor, on the apostolic
throne, did not feel the same aversion to Photius and received him with
kindness after his reinstatement on the patriarchal throne, Photius summoned
a synod o f over three hundred bishops in Constantinople, promulgated some
canons and anathematized whatever he had said at the time o f his quarrel
1 On his writings, see V. Laurent, ‘ Le Cas de Photius dans l’Apologétique du
Patriarche Jean XI Beccos (1274-82) au Lendemain du Deuxième Concile de Lyon’,
in Échos d'Orient (1930), vol. xxix, pp. 396-407.
2 P .G . vol. 141, cols. 928-42 seq.
404
F R O M T H I R T E E N T H C E N T U R Y TO T H E M O D E R N P E R I O D
with the Roman Church. Then, at one o f the sittings o f the Reunion Synod,
het hus addressed John, who then governed the Church which Photius had
so violently abused in his previous speeches.
Here Beccos quotes a few extracts from the opening speech o f welcome
addressed to the papal legates and other similar passages, all in praise
o f the Pope. ‘ Photius also said some flattering things in the course o f
this Reunion Synod, making it obvious, as we have been trying to prove,
that whatever Photius had said or done against the Roman Church was
merely an outlet for his ill-feeling and petulance.5 A ll this is perfectly
clear, says the Patriarch, and no other document is needed to prove it:
to make sure, however, he also quotes the letters which Photius sent
after his reconciliation to Marinus, Gauderich and Zachary o f Anagni.
In the third book o f his treatise, dedicated to Theodore,1 bishop o f
Sugdea, Beccos returns to the subject and repeats the same argument;
he quotes some passages from the letters o f Nicholas and Hadrian to
Photius, refers to the latter’s reply and concludes by repeating word for
word the extract o f the Reunion Synod; he then adds a quotation from
the M ystagogy, which pays homage to Pope John and recalls the fact
that he made his legates sign the Symbol o f the Faith at the Reunion
Synod. cOur enemies5— so Beccos goes on— ‘ would have it that Photius
made peace with the Romans only because John had sanctioned the
Symbol without the Filio que; but no one in his senses will ever believe
that things happened this way, and this because no dogmatic decision
was issued by a synod that had only been summoned to restore peace
in the Church.5 Photius, as soon as he found a Pope willing to sanction
his appointment, merely wished to cover his true motives and screen
himself behind soft and apologetic words to soothe those who might
have criticized his sudden volte-face. Photius only wanted an excuse to
make his peace with John and found his chance when John made his
legates sign the Symbol without the Filioque?
Beccos returned to this theme in his refutation o f the M ystagogy,
where he sharply criticizes Photius for his instability, so unworthy of
a Prince o f the Church, and insinuates that Photius had prepared some
sort o f an apology, pretending that John had appreciated the compli
ments addressed to him by the Patriarch. He then goes on: £I refuse
to admit that Photius shifted from hostility to peace just because Pope
John had signed and approved the Symbol, since we profess the same
without the addition.53 This is not all. The zealous champion o f
Catholic doctrine and reunion also mentions Photius in a sermon on
1 Ibid. cols. 326 seq. 2 Ibid. cols. 852 seq. 3 Ibid. col. 853.
405
his deposition,1 when Beccos recalls the demonstration he once pub

lished to the effect that Photius had been roused against the Church
not by any breath o f divine zeal, but by sheer perversity. However
that may be, the scandal was short-lived, as the culprit himself removed
it; he summoned ‘ a great and all but oecumenical synod5,123 when he
healed the sore o f the scandal by applying the remedy o f correction.
Then again, more than 160 years elapsed between Photius and Ceru-
larius, when the Church lived in perfect peace.
Beccos5 method o f presenting the Photian Council is quoted 3 to
justify the assertion that the Acts o f that Council were falsified at the
end o f the thirteenth century or the beginning o f the fourteenth, on
the ground that Beccos knew a version o f the Acts totally different from
the version known to-day, Beccos5 Acts containing a solemn anathema
undoing all that Photius had said and written against the Roman Church,
and a statement that he intended to meet John V IlT s written recom
mendation to humble himself and apologize to the Council.
This is an overstatement o f the case, as there is nothing to justify
such an interpretation o f Beccos5 words. We only need to recall what
he said in his book on the reunion o f the Churches : to prove his allega
tion that Photius had anathematized whatever he had said and written
against the Church o f Rome, Beccos merely quotes the compliments
which the Patriarch o f Constantinople addressed to the legates o f the
Holy See and to Pope John. This— Beccos contends— is sufficient
proof o f his statement, and he quotes, as additional support to his argu
ment, the three letters addressed by Photius to some Italian bishops.
N ow these letters and compliments did show that Photius had com
pletely veered round in his attitude to Rome, but not that Photius had
uttered the anathemas attributed to him by Beccos. As Beccos is always
looking for conclusive arguments and omits nothing that serves his
purpose, he would have been only too delighted to quote the famous
anathemas uttered in the presence o f a council against all Photius5 anti-
Latin writings, if they had in fact been uttered. I f he could not quote
them, it was only because there were none to quote.
We are forced, then, to fall back upon canon I o f the Reunion
Council, since the anathemas which Beccos utilizes to the utmost are
found nowhere else. Controversialists naturally make mountains o f
mole-hills and the Patriarch did find some justification for reading into
1 P.G . vol. 1 41, Oratio 11, col. 980.

3 διά μεγάλης και άντικρύς οικουμενικής συνόδου.
3 V. Laurent, ‘ Le Cas de Photius. . loc. cit. pp. 407-15.
406
Photius’ action the actual recantation o f his words and deeds against
Rome. Beccos also admits that the legates o f John V III signed the
Symbol o f the Faith. According to the Acts o f the Photian Council,
this was done during the sixth session, and as we know of no other
suitable occasion, we must conclude that Beccos knew the same version
o f the Acts as we do.
Beccos’ writings on the Photian schism are supplemented by the inter

pretation which his disciple George Metochita gives to the unionist
Patriarch’s opinion on Photius. Metochita dealt with the Photian schism
in the first book of his history o f dogma,1 where he recalled, after the
manner o f his master and often using the same phrases as Beccos, the
origin o f the quarrel between Ignatius and Photius and Rome’s inter
vention.
Such behaviour on the part o f Photius [he writes later] might with some
show o f reason be called satanic; but since Photius controlled him self and
displayed his better feelings, we need not attribute it to anything but common
human aberration. For once the skilful pilot came to the helm o f the Roman
barque, he who was so gracious to Photius in w ord and deed, directed him
to quieter waters and offered him the anchor o f reconciliation, Photius took
in sail and sang, as we say, the palinode,2 as he followed the straight course
indicated to him. After his rancour had subsided, he set to w ork as best he
could for reconciliation. He ceased to act as carelessly as he had done during
the conflict; nor was he alone this time as he was known to be when he
worked for the schism, but followed a definite plan and on canonical lines.
A t a synodical conclave o f more than three hundred bishops gathered from
many places he set everything right, decided that the Pope should keep for
ever his age-long privileges and applied to the evil a remedy so strong as to
make people say rightly: W here hatred once abounded, the grace o f peace
has abounded more.
[Chapter v ii ] But let none be so perverse as to object that Photius and
his synod settled nothing until the Sym bol had been publicly read without
its addition, as though im plying that the Romans implicitly consented to its
suppression. Granted that the Sym bol was read in that form (I am not
questioning that, for I know that the Romans, at some definite date, recited
with or without us the Sym bol minus the Filioque in accordance with ancient
tradition) ; but what I ask is whether the Romans, as a result o f dogmatic
discussions or otherwise, acquiesced in its suppression, as though they had
been reprimanded for the addition and confessed to their mistake. But I find
1 Georgii Metochitae Diaconi Historiae Dogmaticae Lib. I et I I ; A . Mai, Patrum
Nova Bibliotheca (Roma, 1854-1905), vol. vm , lib. 1, chs. V l-ix, pp. 9 seq.
2 και παλινωδίαν ήσε κατά τον φάμενον.
407
THE PH O TIA N SCHISM. II. TH E L E G E N D
no evidence of such a surrender and nobody after reading the books on the
subject will dare to affirm such a thing, unless some recent writers have
altered, or are trying to alter, the case, a common practice with those who are
out to back up schism, as happened recently and in the more remote past.1
The truth is exactly the reverse. Anybody can see for himself that the
oft-mentioned Photius consigned to fire and anathema, without any hesitation
or discussion,2 and in token of his clear and genuine reprobation, all he had
said and written against the Roman Church in connection with the addition
of words which he had considered to be wicked and absurd and which had
prompted a series of blasphemies and charges against the Roman Church for
the most horrible crimes. The Romans then did what I know they are still
doing to-day: they approved, held dear and considered as orthodox all those
who recite the Symbol as it has always been recited, and with them they
wished to be at peace. For the Romans also, as I have stated before, openly
recite the Symbol on certain days in the same manner, with full knowledge
of the tradition of the Fathers.
[Chapter vm] But. . . no one capable of judging these matters and reading
the account of them would admit that the reading of the Symbol in full
Council implied the Romans’ consent to the suppression of the additional
words. . . and it would surely be easy to find in the records of that time that
whatever has been said and written against the Roman Church in connection
with these words was disowned and wiped out.. . .
Neither can it be said that the Romans consented to the suppression
‘ o f those oft-repeated w ords5, since ‘ they were weary o f the protracted
struggle5, or ‘ because they showed themselves too obliging, since at
that time the Greeks were anxious to conciliate the Roman Church5.
Both assumptions are preposterous.
Photius knew all this [Metochita goes on] and he knew that he had to make
up for his invectives against the Roman Church and against true peace, the
results, as I said, of human weakness ; and by thinking thus, he only did what
was owing to the legates who had shown him such kindness and acquitted
themselves of their mission so well. Their mutual affection was no more than
one would expect.
They had brought him liturgical presents from the Holy See— a phelonion,
an omophorion, with a sticharion and sandals, which he received with great
joy, paying homage to the Pope who had sent the gifts and overwhelming
the legates with praise: and that is how things happened, as far as Photius
and the entente between the two Churches were concerned. The result was
a greater stability, further guaranteed by a conciliar decree, which increased
as time went on and the Patriarchs succeeded each other for many years.
1 όποια πλεΐστα toîç τό σχίσμα κρατύνασι και κρατύνουσι, και νυν και πρότερον
πέπρακται. 2 δίχα πολυπραγμοσύνης τινός.
408
T h ey numbered sixteen after Photius, all shedding lustre on their patriarchal

dignity b y the splendour o f their many charismata, their eloquence and their
wisdom, and all o f them bent on keeping the laws o f union and harm ony with
daily increasing diligence, and on persevering in concord.
Now what is one to make o f these words o f George Metochita?1

They certainly do not warrant the conclusion that either Beccos himself
or George Metochita knew any other edition o f the Acts o f the Photian
Council than the one we possess to-day. Metochita first throws light
on his master’s words about the reading o f the Symbol at the Council,
when he states that the Symbol was read at the Council, but without
the Filioque; but this can only refer to the sixth session. In mentioning
the Roman custom o f reciting the Symbol ‘ in accordance with ancient
tradition’, Metochita also follows his master, who on two occasions
quotes such a custom in his works,2 while taking Photius to task for
exploiting the fact that Leo III had had the Symbol engraved on two
tablets to be placed on the tomb o f St Peter.
Metochita also makes reference to the anathema pronounced on all
that Photius had said or written against the Roman Church in con
nection with the Filioque, but his words can only be explained in the
same w ay as those o f Beccos, since both embody an interpretation o f
canon I o f the Photian Council. Metochita states that everything was
‘ consigned to fire and anathema without any hesitation, without dis
cussion’, but ‘ as implying a clear and unmistakable condemnation’.
These were, after all, the contents o f the Acts as we know them, and
if they are to be credited no notice was taken o f what Photius had
previously said or written; not a word was said about it: the implicit
condemnation in the anathemas o f canon I seemed to be all that mattered.
We also note that Metochita, exactly like his master, flatly denied
that any dogmatic question was raised at the Photian Council :
W hat I should like to know [he exclaims] is whether the Romans, as a
result o f dogmatic discussions or otherwise, acquiesced in its [i.e. Filioque]
suppression, as though they had been reprimanded for the addition and had
confessed to their mistake. But I find no evidence o f such a surrender and
nobody after reading the books on the subject will dare to affirm such a thing.
1 Metochita also mentions Photius in three other places of his long treatise:
ibid. 1. i, ch. X I I I , p. 18, ch. x x x i, p. 44, and he tells of Beccos’ efforts to get at the
truth: De Historia Dogmatica , Sermo ni, ch. 67-9; A. Mai, ibid. vol. x, Sermo ni,
p. 353, ch. 67—9; and in his treatise Contra Manuelem Cretensem (ed. L. Allatius),
Graecia Orthodoxa (Rome, 1652, 1659), vol. π, pp. 1068 seq.
2 De Unione Ecclesiarum , loc. cit., col. 112 ; Refutatio Photiani Libri de Spir . S.
loc. cit, cols. 845 seq.
409
This is exactly what happened according to the Acts in our possession,

and were we to think that Photius acknowledged the hollowness o f his
attacks and even apologized to the Council, we should have to assume
a dogmatic discussion at the same Council, and contradict Beccos5 and
Metochita5s emphatic assertion that in the course o f the Council,
according to the Acts they had in their possession, no such theological
discussion ever took place.
A t the end o f his exposition, Metochita, like his master, offers no
other argument in support o f his contention, i.e. that Photius had
anathematized and committed to the flames all his anti-Roman invec
tives, than the Patriarch’s own kind words to the legates and to
John V III, but nothing o f this proves that the Acts o f the Photian
Council had been tampered with at that time. Beccos and Metochita
assert on the contrary that they knew o f no other account o f what took
place at the Photian Council than the one we read in the Greek Acts
we possess to-day, and in their examination o f the Photian case they
came to the same conclusion as Nicetas o f Nicaea had reached in the
eleventh century. He also discovered that Photius5 schism was without
any foundation in fact, and with the Acts o f the Photian Council before
his eyes noted that no mention whatever was made there o f Roman
errors, concluding, like Metochita, that if those errors were at all
reprehensible, they should have been dealt with at that Council.
The writings o f these two champions o f the cause o f unity also cor
roborate the fact that in their days the Photian Council, for all its great
reputation, was not classed among the oecumenical councils. Metochita
calls it δalmost oecumenical5: 1 the first Graeco-Catholics therefore
admitted the validity o f this synod, whereas they did not admit the
validity o f the Ignatian Council o f 869-70; logically enough, since it
had been annulled by the Council o f 879-80. For all the esteem they
professed for St Ignatius, they shared in this respect the opinion o f
their opponents.
Note also that Nicetas o f Nicaea had a vague remembrance o f having
heard o f a quarrel between the two Churches under Patriarch Sergius,
but Metochita knows nothing about it; on the contrary, he emphatically
states, complementing his master’s words, that from Photius to Ceru-
larius the two Churches lived in perfect peace and even gives the number
o f Patriarchs who succeeded each other in the interval. O f any dis-
1 De Historia Dogmatica, Sermo ni, ch. 67; Mai, loc. cit. vol. x, p. 353: διά
μεγάλης και σχεδόν οικουμενικής συνόδου, τά της προτέρας ενοτικης....
410
agreement arising between the two Churches under Pope Formosus he

knows nothing, and as the Photian incident should have been recalled
in this connection, a champion o f the Catholic side might at least have
been expected to say a word about it. But he did not.
The verdict o f these ardent Unionists on Photius and his relations
with Ignatius is also interesting in other respects : the Byzantines were
beginning to lose completely the true notion o f what happened in
Byzantium in 859; and no wonder, if we remember how the writers o f
the Porphyrogennetos school mishandled the facts. A t the time when
Beccos and Metochita were writing, it was scarcely possible for anybody
to verify the facts as reported by nearly ail the chroniclers— which may
also explain w hy the name o f Photius is missing from some Byzantine
Synaxaria o f this period. Evidently, the name o f Photius had by this
time become a symbol o f division between the unionists and the
orthodox,1 the clash between the two affording the opportunity to
hasten the growth o f the Photian Legend, even in the Eastern world.
Confirmation o f what we have said about Beccos and his disciple
comes from a work— unpublished, unfortunately— by Job Jasites,
though its most interesting passage has been made public by Cardinal
Hergenröther.2 In a book written against the Latins at the suggestion
o f the Patriarch Joseph, Job writes: ‘ The sixth session o f the Council
summoned at the time gives us clear evidence o f the manner in which
Photius received the Latins.5 After quoting a long portion of the session,
Job proceeds: ‘ Do not come and tell me that the Roman Church made
no innovations later.. . . 5 Now Job Jasites makes it evident that he
knows exactly the same version o f the Photian Council as that used
by his opponents, for he uses the same argument as Metochita attempted
to refute, namely, that the Romans, by signing the Symbol without the
Filioque, had ‘ abjured5 their heresy, and that therefore Photius was
quite consistent in making peace with the Latins. In another Greek
code o f the Munich Library, again on Hergenröther’s information ,3
there is another quotation from the sixth session made by the Bulgarian
archbishop Gennadios.
1 A curious parallel is found in the Synodicon of the Church of Rhodes (N.
Cappuyns, ‘ Le Synodicon de l’Église de Rhodes au X IVe siècle’, in Échos d9Orient
(1934), vol. X X X I I I , pp. 196-217). Photius’ name appears in three different places
of this document, is scored out and later replaced. Cappuyns (pp. 212, 213) is of
opinion that the name figured in the original composition and was scored out
perhaps at a time when the Church of Rhodes had moved towards Rome, i.e.
about 1274. There is a good deal to be said for the conjecture.
2 Photius, vol. π, pp. 525, 526, Cod. Monac. Gr. 68, fols. 45-520:.
3 Loc. cit. vol. II, p. 536, Cod. Monac. Gr. 256, fob 28.
4II
THE PH O TIA N SCHISM. II. THE L E G E N D
In the present stage o f research in this field, this is almost all we can
find about Photius in the controversial writings o f the thirteenth cen
tury. A rapid survey o f the works I have been able to consult will
facilitate the verification o f our statements.
Nicholas Mesarites, one o f the first polemists o f that period,1
Nicephorus Blemmydes,2 George Acropolites3 have nothing to say
about either Photius or the councils; Manuel Moschopulos4 and
the other students o f Beccos, Constantine the Meliteniot,3 George
o f Cyprus,6 John Chilas,7 Theoleptos o f Philadelphia,8 the Patriarch
Anastasius Makedon9 and Maximos Planudes10 are all silent on the
subject.
Other writers discuss the oecumenical councils, but leave Photius
out; the Patriarch Gregory o f Alexandria, for instance, who in the
profession o f faith he submitted to John, Patriarch o f Constantinople,
declared his acceptance o f the seven oecumenical councils.11 A very
1 A. Heisenberg,4Die Unionsverhandlungen vom 30 August, 1206. Patriarchen

wahl und Kaiserkrönung in Nikaia, 1208’, in Siqpmgsber. d. bayr. A kad ., Phil.-H ist.
K l. (1923), pp. 15-25. Cf. J. Pargoire, ‘ Nicolas Mésaritès, Métropolite d’Éphèse’,
in Échos d ’ Orient (1904), vol. vu, pp. 219-26. I have not been able to consult
the edition of Nicholas’ three works by Arsenii (Novgorod, 1896). Cf. also Janin,
‘ Au lendemain de la conquête de Constantinople’, in Échos d ’ Orient (1933),
vol. X X X I I , pp. 5-21, 195-202.
2 De Process. S. Spir., P .G . vol. 142, cols. 533-84; Lämmer, Graeciae Orth.
loc. cit. pp. 108-86.
3 Λόγος περί της Έκπορεύσεως, in Demetrakopulos, Έκκλ. βιβλ. pp. 39 5 -4 11.
4 Διάλεξις προς Λατίνους, Cod. Parisinus Graecus 969 (14th c.), fols.
3 15 -19 .
5 De Process. S. Spir., P .G . vol. 141, cols. 1032-1273.
6 Scripta Apologetica, P .G . vol. 142, cols. 233-300. Beccos’ reply to these
writings, P .G . vol. 14 1, cols. 864 seq.
7 Libellus de Process. S. Sp., P.G . vol. 135, cols. 505-8. A few of John’s letters
preserved in Cod. Paris. Graec. 2022 (14th c.), fols. 150-7 provide no information
on the subject.
8 Tractatus de Operatione in Christo, P .G . vol. 143, cols. 381-404 (only a
fragment).
9 P .G . vol. 142, cols. 480-513 (Letters to the Emperor, Cod. Paris. Graec. 137,
fols. 16 -113 ).
10 Tria Capita, refuted by G. Metochita, P .G . vol. 141, cols. 1276-1308. Another
work against the Latins, Cod. Vindob. Theol. 269, fol. 77, only I have not made a
thorough study of it. M. Laurent, ‘ La Vie et les Œuvres de Georges Moschabar’,
in Échos d ’ Orient (1929), vol. xxvm, p. 135 mentions a debate between the monk
Hierotheus and the Latin bishop of Crotone, who had entered the service of
Michael Palaeologus: preserved in the Marc. Gr. 153.
11 P .G . vol. 152, cols. 1102, 110 3 : ούτως ομολογώ ούτως κηρύττω, δεχόμενος
και στέργων και άσπα^όμενος εκ μέσης ψυχής τάς άγιας και οίκουμενικάς επτά συνόδους,
έτι δε και τόπους όρθοδόξως γεγενημένας.
412
curious and important reference to the councils is to be found in a work

by the Emperor Theodore II Lascaris against the Latins and on the
Procession o f the Holy Ghost,1 where the imperial writer proves his
point with quotations from Holy Scripture and the Fathers, maintains
that all the councils approved the Symbol as drawn up by the Councils
o f Nicaea and Constantinople, and finally enumerates the seven councils
with a few particulars on each. It may be noted that while omitting
most o f the names o f other Patriarchs, he always places the Pope or
his representative at the head o f each list. None but the Emperor has
the right to summon councils; the Photian Council is not mentioned,
as it was not classed with the oecumenical councils, but the Emperor’s
list o f the councils is borrowed from one o f those pamphlets on the
councils which were very widespread at the time.12
But it is useless to prolong our search through the works o f the
historians and chroniclers of the period : George Acropolites and George
Pachymerus, as we know, do not deal with the period we are concerned
with; Joel’s chronicle offers nothing interesting, as Photius and his case
receive only scant treatment; and all he has to say is that the Patriarch
Ignatius was forcibly dethroned and that Photius was expelled from the
patriarchate for having reproved Basil for his crime. A single sentence,
and very vague at that, summarizes Photius’ second deposition.3
Equally scant and unimportant is the information to be found in the
anonymous history published by Sathas,4 a chronicle which lightly
1 H. B. Swete, Theodorus Lascaris Junior de Processione Spiritus Sancti (London,

1875), Aoyos προλογητικός προς επίσκοπον Κοτρύνης κατά Λατίνων περί του
Α γίου Πνεύματος, ρρ. 17-20. Note also the writings of an anonymous con
troversialist of the period published by C. Simoniades, Όρθοδ. Ελλήνων θεολογικαι
γραφαι τέσσαρες (London, 1859)? and attributed by him partly to Nicholas of
Methone (cf. Krumbacher, loc. cit. p. 87). Reference is there found to the first
six councils (pp. 36-8) but not to Photius. The same is true of a treatise by George
Coressios, published in the same work (pp. 91-108).
2 The Patriarch Germanos II (1222-40), in his second letter to the Cypriots,
lists seven Oecumenical Councils (Epistola 11 ad Cyprios), J. B. Cotelerius, Ecclesiae
Graecae Monumenta (Paris, 1681), vol. il, ch. vil, p. 479. So does the Patriarch
Arsenios‘(i267) in his Testament (Testamentum Ss. Arsenii archiep. Const., ibid,
vol. i i , p. 169). Cf. ibid. vol. m, pp. 495 seq., Criminationes adversus Ecclesiam
Latinam, written after the conquest of Constantinople ; and Norden, Das Papsttum und
B y ia n i, loc. cit. pp. 204 seq., on the pourparlers between the Greeks and the Latins.
On the same subject, A. Heisenberg, ‘ Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Lat.
Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion’, in Sitpmgsber. d. hayr. A kad ., Phil.-H ist. K l.
(1923), part il : ‘ Die Unionsverhandlungen vom 30 August 1206.’
3 (Bonn), pp. 55, 56.
4 C. Sathas, Bibliotheca Graeca M edii A evi (Paris, 1894), vol. vil, pp.
14 2 -51.
413
runs over the principal events o f Photius5 history and also attributes
to Bardas Ignatius5 deposition and the unjust treatment meted out
to him.
It should now be clear that it was the unionist writers and contro
versialists who in the thirteenth century began to make a more sys
tematic use o f Photius, while the orthodox copied their opponents5
tactics by trying to turn to their own advantage the facts connected
with Photius5 schism and his reconciliation; and so the Photian Council
came into prominence for the first time. The Photian litigation was also
turned to controversial profit in the fourteenth century and there again,
after the example o f Beccos and his students, it was the Catholics who
took the initiative. O f all the unionists, the writer who ventured farthest
in this direction was Manuel Calecas, who more than any o f his pre
decessors had been influenced by the Latin point o f view and shared
with the Western theologians o f his day an exalted notion o f the
Papacy.
Take for instance the interesting passage on the Pope’s power in the
fourth book o f his work against the Greeks,1 where Calecas takes his
cue from the notorious Donatio Constantini and faces the problem:
Who has the right to summon councils?
We saw just now how the Emperor Theodore Lascaris claimed this
right for the Emperors exclusively by quoting the precedent that all
general councils had in fact been summoned by them. The notion was
general among the Greeks, but the question was how to reconcile it
with the rights o f the Papacy. To the great relief o f the unionists,
Manuel Calecas set out to solve it, stoutly upholding the Dictatus Papae
to prove that the right belonged to the Pope alone, endeavouring to
explain the convocation o f the first councils in this sense and supporting
his position with many quotations from St Basil and St Gregory o f
Nazianzus.
Calecas betrays the debt he owes to the Latin theology o f his time
even in his references to Photian polemics,2 when he re-echoes the
Patriarch Beccos and Metochita and emphasizes the injustice done to
Ignatius and throws the whole responsibility on Photius, who was
craving for the patriarchal throne ‘ quem adipisci non poterat, nisi per
mittente Romano Pontifice; necesse enim erat, ex more, ab eo auctori
tatem confirmationemque v e n i r e . . . 5. Calecas, like his forerunners,
1 Adversus Graecos Libri iv, P.G . vol. 152, cols. 243 seq.
2 Ibid. lib. IV , cols. 205 seq.
414
then describes how Ignatius appealed to Rome and how Nicholas I and
Hadrian II intervened ; but his tone is far more aggressive than that o f
the Patriarch or Metochita. After describing the reconciliation made
under John V III, he attacks the claim that Photius was reconciled with
the Latins because they had condemned the addition o f the Filioque to
the Symbol, though it is true, he adds, that there is a reference to the
Filioque in the sixth session, but ‘ it should be known that this was later
added by synodal decisions purporting to show that such additions are
prohibited; it is evident, however, that this is not reasonable5. Calecas
then recalls as his main argument the fact that the Commonitorium, in
outlining a procedure for the legates to follow, said nothing about the
Filioque. Since the main object o f the Council was the recognition o f
Photius, there was no call for him to raise the Filioque scare, for he
would have risked the Pope’s recognition. No, he concludes, it was
not the Filioque that caused the schism: only Photius5 pride. Calecas
also wrote a work on the Procession o f the H oly Ghost which has long
been erroneously attributed to Demetrios Cydones,1 but it makes no
reference to Photius.
Calecas5 line o f argument has o f course its weaknesses, and given the
Greeks5 mentality at the time he could not expect to rally much sym
pathy among them towards the Pope’s supreme power. It was only
too easy to deny an inconvenient historical fact and it takes more than
emphasis to make a denial convincing.
The other champions o f the Catholic position do not appear to have
gone the length o f Calecas. Maximos Chrysoberges takes his cue from
Beccos in telling the story o f the origin o f the schism,123but in his opinion
Ignatius was not ill-treated by Photius, as Calecas asserts, but only by
the Government. Unfairly raised to the patriarchal throne and unable
to obtain Rom e’s recognition, Photius trumped up the Latin heresy o f
the Filioque ; and this is all he has to say about the incident in his treatise,
which is unfortunately too short.
A study by another unionist, Manuel Chrysoloras, still remains
unpublished ,3 but I was able to consult it in a MS. o f the Paris
1 P.G . vol. 154, cols. 864-958. See G. Mercati, ‘ Notizie di Procore e Demetrio
Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della
teologia e della litteratura Bizantina del secolo X I V ’, in Studi i Testi (Città del
Vaticano, 1931), vol. lv i , pp. 62 seq.
2 De Process. S. Spir., P.G . vol. 154, cols. 1224 seq.
3 Paris. Graecus 1300 of the sixteenth century on paper. Manuel contents himself
with quoting Fathers of the Church who, he thinks, favour the Filioque, says very
little of the councils and mentions neither Photius nor his synod.
4M
National Library, only to find that it entirely neglects the historical

problems under discussion. His published letters provide no informa
tion.1 Demetrios Cydones123never once alludes to Photius in his long
apology in which he explains to his countrymen how he was driven to
the conviction that the Catholic doctrine is true and why he had trans
lated some Latin theological works into Greek.
The anti-Latin controversialists and theologians have little to say about

Photius : Barlaam 3 merely notes in his treatise against the Latins that
the origin o f the schism is connected with the name o f Photius; Nilus
o f Thessalonica45has nothing about Photius in his published writings,
though he wrote about the schism and about the Pope. Joseph Bryen-
nios is more definite and refers in his work about the Trinity 3 to the
sixth session o f the Photian Council, which he interprets in an anti-
Latin sense, quoting in support the letter o f John V III to Photius,
the authenticity o f which remains very doubtful— the first occurrence,
as far as I know, o f this document in the polemical writings about the
Filioque. One may regret that Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulos did
not complete his Ecclesiastical History, as he announced in his intro
duction 6 that he would deal with the history o f Ignatius and Photius
in the twenty-second chapter, but the book stops short at the
year 6io.
In order to gather a clear idea o f the place Photius and his Council
occupied in the writings o f the anti-Latin controversialists and theo
logians o f the fourteenth century, I have consulted a number o f
treatises, some o f them unpublished, but found to my surprise that
1 P .G . vol. 156, cols. 24-60.

2 G. Mercati, ‘ Notizie di Procore e Demetrio Cidone’, loc. cit. pp. 359 seq.
Cf. M. Jugie, ‘ Demetrius Cydonès et la Théologie Latine à Byzance aux X lV e et
X V e siècle’, in Échos cTOrient (1928)., vol. x x x i, pp. 385-402. G. Mercati also
discovered some letters by Demetrius Cydones, published by M. Cammelli,
but I have not seen them. Cf. G. Mercati, ‘ Per l’Epistolario di Demetrio
Cidone’, in Studi Bibamini e Neoellenici (1930), vol. h i , pp. 203-30; V. Laurent,
‘ La Correspondance de Demetrius Cydonès’, in Échos d ’ Orient (1931), vol.
x x x iv , pp. 338—54. Cf. G. Cammelli, ‘Personnaggi Bizantini dei secoli X IV — X V
attraverso le Epistole di Demetrio Cidonio,’ in Bessarione (1920), vol. x x iv ,
pp. 77-108. ^
3 Pro Latinis, P .G . vol. 15 1, col. 1266 (written when he became a partisan of
the union). Few of his anti-Latin writings have been published.
4 De Dissidio Ecclesiarum et de Papa, P .G . vol. 149, cols. 683-729.
5 ΤΤερι της αγίας Τριάδος Λόγος (8th ed. by E. Bulgaris; Leipzig, 1768), vol. 1,
pp. 138 seq.
6 Ecclesiastica Historia, P .G . vol. 145, col. 617.
4 16
Photius5 case is never mentioned.1 On the other hand, Simeon, arch

bishop o f Thessalonica, in his treatise O f Heresies,2 refers several times
to the Latin 'heresy5 o f the Filioque, as well as to other 'abuses5, but
without mentioning Photius by name. He only alludes to his Council.
More interesting is the observation on Photius found in the biography
o f Anthony Cauleas, attributed to Nicephorus Gregoras, where the
author tells us that the troubles o f which his hero was to remedy the
consequences were the sequel o f the iconoclastic struggles. He is full
o f praise for Photius, but in the same breath severely blames him for
his pride and the lust for power that roused him against Ignatius.
Photius is there alleged to have drawn the young Emperor Michael, or
rather Bardas, into his scheme, the author here evidently taking his cue
from the historians and chroniclers who since the tenth century had
misrepresented Photius5 accession in that manner. His appreciation is
none the less worth considering.3
1 Paris. Graecus 1303 (i4th-i5th c., on paper), fols. 176: Arsenii monachi
Scholia in Sanctorum Patrum Loca, quae Latinorum Doctrinae Favent, ibid,
fols. 35 seq.; Gregorii Cyprii Expositio fidei adversus Beccum, fols. 36 £2-490;
ejusdem Apologia, fols. 50-64; ejusdem confessionis excerptum, fols. 65cz—69cz;
ejusdem ad Andronicum imp. epistola, fol. 70; Theodosii mon. tract, de process.
Spiritus S., fols. 71 α—
ηηα\ Arsenii mon. Nicolai Methonensis et Anonymi fragmenta
de eodem, fols. 78-1440; only the Treatise of Nicephorus Blemmydes, fols. 145-62,
makes mention of the Seventh Council (fols. 161 £2-1620); the pamphlet by the
monk Philarges (Paris. Graecus 1295, i5th-i6th c., on paper, fols. 85 £2-98); the
short letters by Demetrius Chrysoloras (Paris. Graecus 119 1, 15 th c., on paper,
fols. 39£2-45). The letters are interesting for the personal information they supply
on the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, whose trusted confidant Chrysoloras was;
but his correspondence has nothing about Photius (Legrand, Lettres de VEmpereur
M anuel Paléologue, Paris, 1893); nothing in the treatise by the hieromonachus
Macarius Macres (Προς Λατίνους, ed. Dositheos, Τόμος Καταλλαγής (Jassy, 1692),
pp. 4 12 -21). There is a treatise by another Macarius in the Paris. Graecus 1218
(15th c.), but I have not seen it. There is no mention of Photius in the short
study by Isaias of Cyprus {P .G . vol. 158, cols. 971-6).
2 P .G . vol. 155, cols. 33-176.
3 This biography is found in the Munich MS. 10, fols. 87, 88 and is quoted by
Hergenröther, Photius , vol. 11, pp. 697, 719 and 720: σοφός μέν γάρ ήν ό άνήρ
[Φώτιος] και ττολλήν την εν λόγοις επλουτει σύνεσιν, και μέντοι και των πραγμάτων
των γενομένων και των γινομένων πολλήν αύτω και ούκ αγενή την εμπειρίαν ό χρόνος
εχαρίσατο--- Δόλοις κακομηχάνοις περιελθών την του τηνικαΰτα βασιλεύοντος
Μιχαήλ νηπιώδη κουφότητα και παιδικήν απειρίαν, ή μάλλον συμμάχω χρησάμενος
τή του Βάρδα χειρί.. .καθεϊλεν επ’ ούδεμια προφάσει τον πατριάρχην Ιγνά τιο ν...
και παραχρήμα καθάπερ ληστής τον πατριαρχικόν άδίκως επέβη θρόνον, καί αυτόν
μακραις και ποικίλαις κολάσεσι περιέβαλε τον Ιγνάτιον__ Μ. R. Guilland, Essai
sur Nicéphore Gregoras (Paris, 1926), vol. xxvi, pp. 174, 175, was unaware of this
passage and attributes to Gregoras another biography of Cauleas {P .G . vol. 106,
cols. 181-200) written by a certain Nicephorus. I must see the MS. before
attempting a definite solution of this problem.
DPS 417 27
This is o f course not all that was written on Photius in the fourteenth
century and more than one interesting remark could be found in other
works. Cardinal G. Mercati, for instance, in discussing the writings o f
Isaac A rgyros,1 gives two quotations very complimentary to our
Patriarch. Unluckily, the works o f many controversialists and theo
logical writers o f that age are still patiently waiting for publishers to
rescue them from the dust o f their libraries : so long is the list,2 that it
is still impossible to obtain a full picture o f what the Byzantines o f the
fourteenth century thought about their great Patriarch; nevertheless
the works that have come to light give us a fair notion o f it.
We also possess fairly definite information on the growth o f Byzan
tine opinion about the Photian Council in the fourteenth century, as
the anti-Latin controversialists often quoted its sixth session in order
to support their opinions and naturally tried to make the most o f its
authority. Manuel Calecas tells us, for instance, in the quotation on
Photius, that some people were calling that synod the Eighth Council,3
and Simeon o f Thessalonica substantiates the report. After giving the
names o f the seven great oecumenical councils and commenting on their
decisions regarding the Symbol, he adds in chapter x ix o f his Dialogue
against Heresies the following words : 4
A fter the Seventh Council, no other oecumenical council was held with
the exception o f the one called the Eighth, o f which even the Latins make
mention. Its A cts are fairly well known and they tell us what innovations
the Latins have made and how that Council anathematized those who would
presume to say that the D ivine Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Neilos o f Thessalonica 3 also states that the Latins knew o f that Council:
The oecumenical Synod that follows the Seventh Council, summoned b y
three hundred and eighty Fathers, as the Latins say in their canons, aimed at
the restoration o f peace between the two Churches, removed from the Sym bol
the additional article on the Spirit being from the Son and condemned it as
a source o f scandals. This oecumenical Synod was attended b y the Pope’s
representatives, the bishops Paul and Eugenius, and the Cardinal-priest Peter,
who led all the debates. Even Pope John, in whose reign all this happened,
1 Loc. cit. pp. 231, 232: ώς 0 πολύς εν σοφία και συνέσει Φώτιος εν τη πονηθείση
παρ’ αύτου βίβλω απορίας και λύσεις περιεχούση των εν τη θεία εμφερομένων γραφή__
Vatic. Graec. 1102, ρ. 290, ibid. fol. 13 : ό σοφώτατος εν πατριάρχαις Φώτιος.
a Cf. A. Demetrakopoulos, Όρθ. Ελλάς, loc. cit. pp. 9 1-8 ; Krumbacher,
loc. cit. pp. n o , 114.
3 P .G . vol. 152, col. 206. 4 P .G . vol. 155, col. 97.
5 Passage quoted from an unpublished work against the Latins by L. Allatius,
De Octava Synodo, loc. cit. pp. 162, 163.
approved b y letters and decrees whatever had been done, after due explana
tions. This is denied b y the Latins, though I do not know w hy, but as they
never revoked the decision, the matter remains authentic.
The passage is curious and may suggest that the Greek controversialists
knew Gratian’s Decretum and had found there the famous canon o f the
Photian Council. No other explanation would properly meet the case.
Nicholas Cabasilas, like his uncle and predecessor in the see o f
Thessalonica, Neilos, mentions the same Council, but goes a step
further by calling it the Eighth Oecumenical Council.1
Joseph Bryennios also deals with this synod without, however, calling
it the Eighth Oecumenical Council:
Seventy-five years elapsed after the Seventh Council when another council
was summoned in the imperial city in the reign o f Basil the Macedonian. The
purpose o f this convocation, due to the Pope’s approval and the Em peror’s
effort, was as follow s: to bring about Photius’ restoration to the see o f
Byzantium, to condemn and to excommunicate those who would have the
daring and the perfidy to state that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. This it
accomplished satisfactorily, and the synod was approved through his repre
sentatives b y the very saintly Pope John himself who then governed the
Church o f Rom e. He anathematized whoever should in future add anything
to, or subtract from, the Sym bol, and the pontifical legates duly signed this
declaration in their own Roman fashion, or rather, he him self signed it
through his legates, whose signatures have been preserved to this day in the
Great C hu rch.. . . 2
The account by Neilos Damylas is very confused:

In the days o f Photius, a synod o f over three hundred Fathers, called the
H oly and Oecumenical first and second Synod, was summoned in Constan
tinople b y order o f the pious Em peror Basil the Macedonian. . . for the pur
pose o f excommunicating Nicholas who had been the first in his time to make
the addition to the Sym bol. But after a warning, he confessed his error for
fear o f being expelled, sang the palinode and denied through his legates
present at the Synod having made the innovation, protesting that he thought
and argued about the Procession o f the H oly Ghost exactly as was thought
1 P.G . vol. 149, col. 679: ‘ . . . ’Από των πρακτικών τής οικουμενικής όγδοης
συνόδου* δι5 ών φαίνεται κοινήν γενέσθαι δόξαν τής Εκκλησίας άπάσης, τό Πνεύμα
τό άγιον εκ μόνου του Πατρός την υπαρξιν εχειν. Έ π ί γάρ βασιλεία του Μακεδόνος,
και Φωτίου πατριάρχου, και πάππα Ίωάννου, οικουμενικής κατά την Κονσταντίνου
πόλιν συγκροτηθείσης συνόδου, και κοινή περί τής έκπορεύσεως του αγίου Πνεύματος
σκεψαμένης άνεφάνη, την προσθήκην των Λατίνων άτοπον είναι, και αναθέματος,
και των τοιούτων αξίαν.. . . ’
2 Loc. cit. pp. 140, 141· Bryennios only counts seven oecumenical councils in
his Διάλεξις περί του άγ. Πνεύμ. (Ibid. pp. 420, 42 1·)
27-2
419
THE PH ΟΤΙ AN S CH ISM . II. THE L E G E N D
and professed b y the first and second universal Synod and b y the H oly Sym bol
which he had received from other oecumenical Synods. Such being the
opinion o f the Synod, he was not severed from communion.1
Damylas, not having taken the trouble to read his documents, evidently
confused here the three synods that were held under Photius.
Unimpeachable evidence proving that the Photian Council was at
that time beginning to be reckoned among the oecumenical synods by
some anti-Latin controversialists has been handed down to us by Neilos
o f Rhodes,2 probably the new editor o f the short study on the councils
written by St Euthymios. Not content with calling this synod the
Eighth Oecumenical Council, he added the Council against Palamas to
the list as the Ninth.
But this promotion o f the Photian Council was, as has been demon
strated, neither official nor general and the Greek Church continued to
reckon seven oecumenical councils only. O f this evidence is found,
among other places, in the Acts o f the synod o f 1350 against Palamas,
Barlaam and Akyndinos, as in the profession o f faith administered to
Palamas only seven oecumenical councils were named.3 On the other
hand, not all the works on the councils written at that time follow the
example o f Neilos o f Rhodes, as is shown by the publication attributed
to Matthew Blastares which he appended to his short pamphlet against
the Latins and in which he gave the names o f all the councils with the
figures o f their attendance.4 After remarking on the Seventh Council,
he merely adds a general observation.3
T o proceed with our inquiry into the Greek writings o f the fifteenth
century, we may begin with the Catholic writers who championed the
union and the Council o f Florence; and foremost among them is
Cardinal Bessarion,6 who mentions Photius in his encyclical to the
1 Fragment published by L. Allatius, loc. cit. pp. 166, 167. Cf. Paris. Graec.
1295 (i5th-i6th c., on paper, 342 fols.), fols. 62*2-85.
2 Ed. Justellus, Nomocanon Photii, loc. cit. p. 177.
3 Mansi, vol. x xv n , cols. 203-6. The profession names the synods held against
Barlaam but volunteers no information on Photius.
4 Κατά Λατίνων (ed. Dositheos), Τόμος Καταλλαγής (Jassy, 1692), pp. 444-8.
3 ότι yap ώς δυσσέβειαν τούς Λατίνους νοσοϋντας διά την των ττροειρημενών
απάντων άθέτησιν ή καθολική και άγία του Θεού εκκλησία τω άναθέματι παραπέμπει,
ίκανώς μεν δε τά φθάσαντα μαρτυρεί, ουχ ήττόν γε μην δείξει και τα ρηθησόμενα. Ή γάρ
άγία και οικουμενική σύνοδος. Εϊ τις φησι πάσαν παράδοσιν εκκλησιαστικήν
έγγραφόν τε και άγραφον αθετεί άνάθεμα.
6 On the Cardinal, see L. Möhler, ‘ Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist
und Staatsmann’, in Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte (Pader
born, 1923), vol. XX.
420
Greeks. In defending the Pope’s sovereign power, Bessarion recalls the

story o f Photius in the following terms:
Then the Pope excommunicated Photius for usurping the See o f C on
stantinople and for unjustifiably expelling the very saintly Ignatius, and him
he reinstated; evidently, because he wields power over all. Later, when the
godly Ignatius had migrated to God and the Emperors continued pleading
in favour o f Photius in numerous memorials, is it not a fact that John, who
succeeded to the government o f the Church after Nicholas and Hadrian,
replaced him on the patriarchal throne b y sending him the pallium (sic)
through the good offices o f bishop Paschasius (sic)? N o w what does all this
mean but one thing, that the great Roman Pontiff rules supreme over the
whole C h u rch ?1
The learned Cardinal’s lack o f knowledge about Photius is indeed

surprising.
The same line o f argument in support o f the Pope’s supreme power
is followed by Joseph, bishop o f Methone, in his treatise in defence o f
the Council o f Florence.2 In chapter x m , where he deals with the
primacy, he states: 4Nicholas I, at the time o f Photius, excommunicated
even the Greeks, not one iota being missed out o f the excommunication.
But like the Jews, the Greeks, as he stated in his own words, are like
captives among the nations.. . . ’ Later, he w rites:3 ‘ Nicholas I himself
went to Constantinople, there to put an end to a schism; and as they
refused to receive him, he excommunicated them all.’ Naturally, Joseph
makes use o f the Donatio Constantini.4 In his refutation o f the writings
o f Mark o f Ephesus, he unhesitatingly attributes the authorship o f the
schism to Photius, and Mark o f Ephesus, another agent o f the schism ,5
is made to join the coryphaeus o f schismatics. The unionist Patriarch
o f Constantinople, Gregory Mammas, specifically dealt with Photius,
when he refuted Mark’s profession o f faith, and in his writings there is
to be found the notorious passage in which he denies the canonization
o f Photius.6 No matter how much Mark insisted that Photius had
taught the Procession o f the H oly Ghost, Gregory retorts:
Observe well that Photius was not numbered among the saints, although
Photius and Ignatius were living at the same time: whereas the latter is
honoured among the saints and has his place in the Synaxaria on October 23,
1 Encyclica ad Graecos, P.G . vol. 16 1, cols. 477, 490.
2 Pro Concilio Florentino, P .G . vol. 159, col. 1365 ; Mansi, vol. x x x i (supplem.),
1214.
3 Ch. X V , col. 1376. 4 Ch. IV , cols. 1321 seq.
3 P .G . vol. 159, cols. 1040, 1092.
6 Contra Ephesium, P.G . vol. 160, col. 76.
421
Photius has fallen far short o f the ideal o f sanctity. But we had better say no
more about him, since whatever is written against St Ignatius and Photius
falls under anathema from this ambo.
The above words o f Mammas have often been quoted against the
fact that Photius was the object o f a cultus in Byzantium long before
the fifteenth century; but they prove nothing more than that the Greek
unionists had ceased to number Photius among the saints. Now we
understand still better why the name o f Photius is missing in a number
o f Greek Synaxaria; it is because the unionists made the Patriarch
mainly responsible for the schism, an extraordinary development o f the
Photian Legend among the Greek unionists. We were able to observe
that in the tenth century, when the canonization took place, the Photian
Legend had not yet developed in this direction.
Later,1 the unionist Patriarch dealt with the profession o f faith itself,
and whilst Mark had acknowledged the seven oecumenical councils,
with the Photian Council added as the Eighth, Mammas makes the
eighth synod that o f the Ignatian Council. The verdict o f this synod
against Photius, he continues, was backed by Cedrenos, Manasses,
Glycas, Skylitzes and the Life of St Ignatius written by Nicetas. And
yet, strange to say, the author adds: ‘ But we accept even the Acts
produced by Mark o f Ephesus as those o f the Eighth Council.5 The
letter o f John V III to Photius rouses his suspicions, but he accepts it
nevertheless and proceeds to tell how the reconciliation between Photius
and the Pope during the sitting o f the Council came about, repeats that
he accepts that Council as oecumenical and quotes a long extract from
the letter o f John V III to the Emperor Basil I to prove to his opponent
that a synod can revoke the decisions o f another synod. A ll this is most
interesting, but it is curious to find the ideas once expressed by Ivo o f
Chartres in his Prologue, in a Greek writing o f the fifteenth century.
Lastly, to meet Mark’s objection to the Latins re-ordaining con
verted Greek priests, he states that the Latin bishops did so sometimes,
but only conditionally, as was the case in Bulgaria with Photius5 Greek
priests, who had been excommunicated by the Latins for having been
ordained by him.*
Mammas5 opinion on the two Councils o f Ignatius and Photius is
quite unexpected. So far, we have been accustomed to see the Greek
1 Contra Ephesium, P.G . vol. 160, cols. 86 seq.

2 Loc. cit., col. 165. We should add that in another place, col. 157, Mammas,
referring again to the Photian incident, proves that the addition to the Symbol was
not the cause of the schism.
422
Catholics not only refusing to acknowledge the oecumenicity o f the

Photian Council, but sometimes even questioning its authenticity, or,
at least, that o f the sixth session (in fact I gave the names o f a few
writers who, in opposition to the schismatics, adopted the Council of
Lyons as their eighth, and even Joseph o f Methone1 goes so far as to
state that the Council o f Lyons should be called ‘ the Eighth Oecu
menical Council’), but never had we come across any Catholic Greek
writer who admitted the oecumenicity o f the anti-Photian Council of
869-70. It only proves, to my mind, that the Photian Synod, despite
opposition, was held in the highest esteem among the Greeks : no one
could gainsay the hard fact that this Council had rehabilitated Photius
and that its verdict never lost its validity.
An anonymous and unpublished treatise on the councils well illus
trates the confusion on this topic in Byzantium in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries. The author is a unionist and his work occurs in a
single MS. o f the Paris National Library (Paris. Graec. 171 2, i4th-c.
on parchment, 430 fols.). On folios 4-6 there is a section on the ten
oecumenical councils with a summary o f the first seven councils, to
which the writer adds the Councils o f Lyons, ratified by the Council
o f Constantinople under the Patriarch Beccos, and the Council of
Florence, these three synods being reckoned as the Eighth, Ninth and
Tenth Councils.
There is another class o f Greek theological literature that claims atten

tion as setting the Greek tradition on the number o f oecumenical
councils accepted by the Byzantine Church in the right light— the
treatises on the councils. On this subject, Greek works are many and
would claim a study to themselves; they are also interesting in many
other ways, as for instance on the tradition o f Eastern Christianity with
reference to the councils, the infallibility o f the Church and the position
attributed to the patriarchs, especially the Patriarch o f Rome. Here
I can only express the hope to see this class o f writing evaluated by
specialists interested in the evolution o f Christian dogma. The MSS.
I have been able to study12 make it clear that officially the Byzantine
Church counted only seven oecumenical councils and that neither the
Ignatian Council o f 869-70 nor the Photian Council of 879-80 were
numbered among them.
1 Disceptatio pro Concilio Florentino, P.G . vol. 159, col. 969.

2 In Appendix III, pp. 452 seq. will be found a survey of the treatises on councils
which the author was able to study in Paris, Brussels, Vienna and London.
423
To turn now to the opponents o f the union, I have already quoted

the speech by Mark o f Ephesus at the Council o f Florence in defence
o f the validity o f the Photian Council and I also mentioned his
writing on the Procession o f the Holy Ghost with its refutation by the
Patriarch Gregory Mammas. In other polemical writings, Mark is less
profuse about the great Patriarch,1 but he twice returns to the subject
o f his council and writes towards the end o f his Dialogue on the Addi
tion to the Sym bol:12 ‘ After the seventh Synod, another, summoned by
Photius, the very saintly Patriarch, met in the reign o f Basil, Emperor
o f the Romans: this synod is called the Eighth and was attended also
by the legates o f John, blessed Pope o f ancient R o m e . . . . ’ After
quoting the decree o f this Council on the addition, he adds: ‘ Pope
John, too, said the same in clear and unambiguous terms, when he
wrote to the very saintly Photius on the said addition to the Sym bol.’
Mark says much the same in his profession o f faith, calling the Photian
Council the Eighth Oecumenical and also quoting the letter o f John V III
to the Patriarch.3 These passages leave no room for doubt upon Mark’s
opinion about Photius and his Council.
Mark’s brother, John Eugenicos, wrote a pamphlet against the union
decree, in which he severely reproves those who attribute to the Council
o f Florence the title o f Eighth Oecumenical, there being another synod
to claim that distinction, the Council summoned under Basil by Photius.4*
George Gemistos Plethon, on the other hand, in his short tractate
(the only one published) says nothing about it.3 George Scholarios finds
some very hard things to say about Photius, blaming him for splitting
the Church to serve his own conceit and ambition,6 though on other
occasions he refers to him with respect and appeals to his authority.
Thus, for instance, in his second treatise on the Procession o f the Holy
Ghost, he quotes the decree o f the Eighth Oecumenical Council— as
1 Nothing is found in his encyclical epistle, published by A. Norov (Paris, 1859),

pp. 27-43 and by Mgr Petit, Patrol. Orientalis, vol. xvii, pp. 449-59, nor in the
other short tractates published by A. Norov (ibid. pp. 44-66). An examination o f
his Επίλογος προς Λατίνους, which I found in the British Museum MS. Add.
34,060, i5th-c., fols. 348 seq., has also been unproductive of results.
2 Mgr Petit, ‘ Documents relatifs au Concile de Florence’, in Patrol. Orientalis,
vol. x v i i , p. 421.
3 Ibid. p. 440.
4 Dositheos, Τόμος Καταλλαγής, loc. cit. pp. 210 seq., 256 seq.
3 P .G . vol. 160, cols. 975-80.
6 De Process. S. Spir., Tractatus /, c. 3 (ed. by M. Jugie), Œuvres complètes de
Gennadie Scholarios (Paris, 1929-38), vol. 11, pp. 11 seq. Cf. Hergenröther,
Photius, vol. Il, p. 526.
424
he describes the Synod o f 879-80— and the letter o f John V III to

Photius on the Procession;1 he returns to the subject o f the Synod in
his short A pology of the Anti-Unionists12 and in his polemical writings
against the Union o f Florence.3
Theodore Agalianus, in the three short writings which have seen
the light,4 avoids touching our topic. The history o f the Council o f
Florence, written by Sylvester Syropulos, has nothing o f interest
regarding our inquiry;3 and Macarios Macres6 is also silent about
Photius. The anonymous treatise published by Dositheos (probably
belonging to the fifteenth century)7 is interesting for revealing Greek
feelings, in particular towards the Papacy; it contains a vague reference
to the Synod o f Photius, summoned under Basil the Macedonian, the
author saying in effect that Photius had condemned Nicholas I at a
synod o f a thousand Fathers.8 To these witnesses we may add the
great rhetorician Manuel, who in his book on Mark o f Ephesus and the
Council o f Florence unaccountably calls this council the eighth, as
the unionists called it at the time.9
Finally, two more attestations from the Emperor John Palaeologus.
In his letter to Martin V on the summoning o f a council for union, the
Emperor expressly says on two occasions that the new council should
meet ‘ secundum ordinem et consuetudinem sanctorum septem univer
salium conciliorum5.10 He thus admits that in his time only seven
oecumenical councils were officially recognized. The second attestation
from the same Emperor is more surprising. The MS. containing it
belongs to the fifteenth century, and on fols. 73 a and 74 there is a copy
1 Ed. by M. Jugie, vol. 11, pp. 323 seq.

2 Apologia syntomos (ed. by M. Jugie), vol. ill, pp. 88, 89.
3 Letter to Demetrius Palaeologus against the Union of Florence, loc. cit. p. 127.
4 Refutatio Argyropuli, P .G . vol. 158, cols, io n - 5 2 ; Συλλογή published by
Dositheos, Τόμ. Καταλ., loc. cit. pp. 432 seq.
3 Vera Historia Unionis Non Verae (ed. by R. Creighton; Hagae-Comitis,
1660). Only in Sectio ix, cap. 4, p. 254 the Emperor John Paleologus’ speech,
quoted by Syropulos, makes it clear that the Emperor knew only seven oecu
menical councils: ‘ Ego quidem arbitror hanc synodum generalem nullatenus infra
dignitatem aliarum septem Generalium subsidere, quae eandem antevertunt. Quare
volo ut haec illis par in omnibus succedat, nec aliud quidpiam ab illis diversum in
hac gestum prodeat.. . . ’
6 Dositheos, loc. cit. pp. 413 seq.
7 Loc. cit. pp. 1-204.
8 Loc. cit. p. 40.
9 Manuelis Magni Rhetoris Liber de Marco Ephesio deque Rebus in Synodo
Flor. Gestis (ed. by L. Petit), Patrol. Orientalis, vol. xvn , p. 491.
10 Mansi, vol. xxvm , coi. 1069.
425
o f a profession o f faith,1 recalling that o f Pseudo-Anastasius, which the

Emperor had read engraved on the doors o f the church o f St Peter in
Rome. This profession, so far unpublished, enumerates the seven
oecumenical councils.
From these investigations we may now draw some important con
clusions. First o f all, we have been enabled to see that Photius was not
considered in Byzantium to be the principal actor in the schism till much
later than has been generally believed; the Photian Legend arose in the
thirteenth century and it was the partisans o f the union who contributed
most to its development, even in the East. But, while their account o f
Photius5 advent to the patriarchal throne was not based on fact, they
always professed a certain respect for his great erudition. Certainly,
they never believed in Photius5 second excommunication, nor have we
found in the tradition o f the Byzantine Church any trace o f such a
belief. On the contrary, it was generally held that the peace between
the two Churches, once sealed by the Council o f Photius, lasted without
a single break till the patriarchate o f Michael Cerularius. No hint o f
any quarrel between the two Churches did we find under Pope Formosus,
though at least some traces o f it should have been left in tradition, had
the two Churches fallen into schism in his reign. The oldest treatise on
the schism, attributed to the chartophylax of Nicaea and dating from the
eleventh century, knows nothing o f any split under Formosus, though
he vaguely mentions some quarrels under Sergius III ; and the unionists
o f the thirteenth century seem to be no wiser.
With regard to the Photian Council, we may take it that it was never
officially classed among the oecumenical councils as the Eighth Council
by the Church o f Byzantium and that, officially, it never admitted more
than seven oecumenical councils, the reason being that in the Byzantine
conception o f canon law the Council o f Photius did not issue any
doctrinal decisions and was only summoned for the restoration o f peace
in the Church.
Yet the Greeks always professed the highest veneration for that
Council, and even the Greek Catholics, with the exception o f Calecas,
who as a Dominican could not emancipate himself from Western
influence, never denied the validity and the importance o f that synod
1 Paris. Graec. (Bibliothèque Nationale) 119 1. The MS. is on paper and
contains 141 fols. Examination of an anonymous opuscule De Azymis adv. Latinosy
found in the Paris. Graec. 1295 (i5th-i6th c., on paper, fol. 342), fols. 22-6, and
of another pamphlet (Paris. Graec. 1286 16th c., on paper, 318 fols.), fols. 47-56a,
has given no result. George Koresios in his Έγχειρίδιον περί της Έκπορεύσεως
(ed. by Dositheos), loc. cit. pp. 276-410, has nothing to say about Photius.
426
and continued to respect it even after the fourteenth and fifteenth cen
turies, when their opponents promoted it to the rank o f eighth oecu
menical council. They protested against the promotion, but they treated
its Acts with respect. A t the same time, the writings o f the friends of
the Union in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are evidence that
even the unionists never classed the Ignatian Council among the oecu-
menicals. Having been annulled by the synod o f 879-80, the Council
that condemned Photius remained in the estimation o f the whole
Church non-existent. In the eyes even o f the Greek Catholics, only the
decisions o f the Council of Photius kept their full legal value. A few
o f the unionists made the Council o f Florence the Eighth Oecumenical
Council, but none o f them ever designated the Council o f Ignatius
oecumenical; this is clear evidence that in this respect the Eastern Church
remained to the end faithful to the tradition o f the universal Church,
a tradition forgotten in the West at the beginning o f the twelfth century
for reasons I have explained.
We shall now close our review o f Eastern literature between the sixteenth
and the nineteenth centuries, dealing only with the output of the principal
Eastern writers and drawing an appropriate parallel with the contem
poraneous development o f Western literature during the same period.
The first o f the modern Eastern writers to stand comparison with his
Latin brothers o f the pen is the Patriarch o f Jerusalem, Dositheos. We
have had occasion to appreciate his erudition and his scholarly editions
o f Greek texts; he also wrote a more detailed history o f Photius in his
Tomos Charas, in which he published among other things the Acts o f
the Photian Council and several o f Photius’ letters for the definite
purpose o f defending the Patriarch’s memory against Baronius and
more particularly against Allatius, the writer who denied even the
existence o f the Photian Council. His book was not published till 1705,
at Jassy, after his death, by the good offices o f the Metropolitan
Anthimos. Though the Patriarch, in his summary o f the history of
Photius, often contradicts Catholic historians, Baronius in particu
lar, even he must have yielded to the Cardinal’s fascination. D osi
theos presents the story o f Photius’ elevation in a manner unlike that
o f Baronius and follows the old tradition o f his Church, nearly for
gotten, that Ignatius had duly resigned; he defends the authenticity o f
the Acts o f the Photian Council and disproves the libel that Photius
was a eunuch, but with regard to the second schism o f Photius
Dositheos completely capitulates to the Cardinal.
427
But he was not the only modern orthodox writer to allow himself to
be led astray by the great Roman historian. Baronius5 prestige left its
mark on the East, and as a Russian translation, naturally expurgated,
o f his Ecclesiastical Annals was published in Moscow in 1719, his main
findings found ready favour with the Orthodox East.
This is important, for it explains how Eastern scholars came to
abandon the sound tradition o f their Church, a tradition which, as we
have seen, had maintained itself almost intact from the ninth century
down to our modern era. Had they but taken the trouble to examine
with some care the works o f those Greek writers who dealt with the
history o f Photius, they would perhaps have withstood the rush o f
documents and new arguments that came upon them from the Eccle
siastical Annals. But Baronius triumphed in the orthodox Eastern world,
to the lasting detriment o f the memory and the history o f Photius.
It is easy to trace the Cardinales influence in nearly all the Eastern
writers, whether Greek or Russian, from the seventeenth century
onward; for instance, Elias Menâtes, a contemporary o f Dositheos, and
bishop o f Cercyra (16 7 9 -17 14 ). In his book, The Stone o f Scandal,
published in Leipzig in 1 7 1 1 , Menâtes frequently endeavours to correct
Baronius, but at other places succumbs to the force o f the Cardinal’s
dialectics, so that even in the opinion o f this orthodox bishop Photius5
case is taken to be one o f the most important issues that divide the two
Churches.1
The Photian case is also a leading topic in the polemical work o f the
Patriarch Nectarios o f Jerusalem.^
Sophocles Oikonomos, who edited Photius5 Amphilochia,3 and123
1 Unable to consult the original of this rare work, I have used an unpublished
Latin translation kept in the British Museum (Harl. 5729): ‘ Elias Menatas, Cepha-
lonis, Cernicae et Calavritae in Peloponeso episcopus, Petra Offensionis, sive de
origine causaque schismatis inter ecclesiam orientalem atque occidentalem deque
quinque illis circa quos dissident sententiis, dilucida narratio. Edita a Rev. Do.
Francisco Meniata archiepresb. Cephaloniae Athoo Patre, atque ad certiorem
plenioremque rei notitiam, omnibus qui Vetera apost. et synodica sectantur dog
mata, sive episcopi fuerint sive presbyteri, sive principes laici, sive orthodoxi
christiani, ab eodem dedicata, rogatu atque hortatu splendidissimi doctissimique
viri, Domini Jacobi Pilarini Cephalonii, Medicinae doctoris.’
2 Περί της αρχής του Πάπα (Jassy, 1672). Cf. the English translation by
P. Allix, Nectarii Patr. Hierosolymitani confutatio imperii Papae in Ecclesiam
(Londoni, 1702). Cf. the Catholics’ replies to Patriarch Dositheos: A. Andruzzi,
Vetus Graecia de Sancta Sede Romana praeclare sentiens (Venice, 17 13 ); idem, Con
sensus tum Graecorum tum Latinorum Patrum de Processione Sp. S. ex Filio (Romae,
1716). On Le Quien’s Panoply see p. 380.
3 Athens, 1858; cf. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur, p. 77.
428
J. Valetta,1 the editor o f his letters, also bear traces o f Baronius’ influence,
though both try to rectify some o f his mistakes, and the same is true
o f the Greek Ecclesiastical H istory, the first great work o f its kind,
published by Meletios, the Metropolitan o f Athens.12 Andron. K.
Dimitrakopoulos3 also adopts Baronius5 opinions; and Filaret
Vafeidos4 mostly follows Neander and Schröckh in his account o f
Photius.
Equally marked is the influence o f Dositheos, Meniates,3 Baronius
and the Protestant historians on the first modern Russian historians.
The works dealing with our subject that I have been able to consult
are the following: the Manual o f Ecclesiastical History, by the archi
mandrite Innokentis (I. Smirnov),6 the works o f A . N. Muraviev,7 o f
Filaret,89archbishop o f Tchernigov, and o f P. A . Lavrovskii? (on St Cyril
and St Methodius).
Western scholars had since the sixteenth century monopolized the
entire field o f Photian studies and Eastern scholars could only follow
their lead, at most contenting themselves with discarding some o f their
opinions; then in the middle o f the nineteenth century another Roman
scholar, Cardinal Hergenröther, came on the scene, bringing to light
an imposing number o f new or little-known documents in evidence o f
his theory on Photius, and the influence which he exerted upon orthodox
scholars was similar to that o f Baronius. N. I. Kostomarov,10 the first
Russian critic o f Hergenröther’s work, accepted nearly all the Cardinal’s
postulates and could scarcely disguise his embarrassment in some o f his
controversies with the German scholar. Golubkov’s critique o f the
1 Φωτίου επιστολαί (London, 1864), Prolegomena, pp. 1-98.

2 Εκκλησιαστική ιστορία (Wien, 1783), 4 vols., vol. il, pp. 272-80, 299—302,
306-24.
3 Ιστορία του σχίσματος τής Λατινικής εκκλησίας από τής ορθοδόξου ελληνικής
(Leipzig, 1867), ρρ. ι- 2 ΐ .
4 Έκκλησιατική ιστορία (Constantinople, 1886), vol. π, pars. 110 - 13 , ΡΡ·
4 8 —64»
3 His book was translated into Russian and published at St Petersburg in 1783
(Kamen Soblapna).
6 Nachertanie Tserkovnoi I stor'd (St Petersburg, 1817).
7 Pravda Vselenskoi Tserkvi 0 Rimskoi i Prochikh Patr. Kaf. (St Petersburg,
1849), pp. 124-81.
8 Istoricheskoe Chtenie ob Ottsakh Tserkvi (St Petersburg, 1859), vol. in, pars.
281-6, pp. 219-46.
9 K iril i Mefodii (Kharkov, 1863), pp. 39-182. For other works, scarcely
accessible in the West, see bibliography of Ivantsov-Platonov, loc. cit. pp. 175-7.
10 ‘ Patriarkh Fotii i Pervie Razdyelenie Tserkvei,’ published in Vyestnik Evropui
(1868), books I and 11, pp. 120-68, 591-636.
429
Cardinal’s first volum e1 displayed a minimum o f originality; only A. P.

Lebedev could summon more courage and critical sense.
T o the credit, however, o f Oriental scholars, it must be admitted
that the great Catholic historian found among their ranks an antagonist
worthy o f his steel, an obscure Syrian hieromonachus, educated in
Russia, Gerazim Yared. Reference has been made to some o f his
opinions and criticisms, and in spite o f many reservations to be made,
I must again insist that the work o f this humble scholar was the real
reply which Hergenröther deserved. It is a matter o f regret that the
Cardinal probably never knew that a hieromonachus had boldly answered
him, and that Yared’s deductions, often well founded and unanswerable,
passed unnoticed in the West. Even so, Yared could not remain wholly
immune from the influence o f Baronius and Hergenröther, particularly
with regard to Photius’ second schism.
What is more extraordinary is that Yared’s findings met with such
a poor response, even in the East. He found his severest critic in the
person o f A .P . Lebedev, professor at the Moscow Theological Academy,
and this famous scholar’s 12 criticisms on the Syrian’s conclusions were
partly justified. Yet, on many points, the Syrian had a finer flair than
his critic. A . P. Lebedev3 was not so original in his inferences as
appeared at first and though he often crossed swords with Hefele and
Hergenröther, he was indebted to the latter more than he would have
cared to confess; lacking a deeper knowledge, he succumbed to the
superficial cogency o f the Cardinal’s logic. As Lebedev’s ideas held the
field in Russia and the Eastern world, their influence can be traced in
the Russian literary output on Photius published about 18904 to com
memorate the millennium o f Photius’ death. It was then that a new
period in Photian studies in Russia was inaugurated by Ivantsov-
Platonov, in the speech he addressed on 12 January 1892 to the assembled
Moscow University. His lecture, completed and enriched with numerous
critical observations and discussions, is a masterpiece o f original and
well-balanced judgement; but, I regret to say, not even this study has
so far come to the knowledge o f our Western Byzantinist scholars. The
1 ‘ Novuiya Izsledovaniya o Vremeni i Lichnosti Pair. Fotiya/ published in

Pravoslavnoe Obo^ryenie (May 1868), pp. 54-89.
2 Chteniya Obshchestva Lyubitelei Dukhovn. Prosvyeshcheniya, 1873, no. 1.
3 Chiefly in his two works: Rimskie Papui v Otnosheniakh k Tserkvi V'vymtiiskoi
y IX —X. v. (Moscow, 1875) and Istoriya Konst. Soborov IX . v. (Moscow, 1880).
4 The list of these studies, most of which were published in Russian theological
reviews and which Westerners would find it difficult to get at, is found in Ivantsov-
Platonov, loc. cit. pp. 183 seq. I have only been able to consult Platonov’s book.
430
upshot o f it is that though the influence o f the two cardinal-historians

has not vanished altogether, it has certainly, in this particular study,
come upon evil days. Some o f Ivantsov-Platonov’s conclusions were
completed and corrected by Th. A. Kurganov.1
Rosseikin’s book, published in 1913, merely marked time and failed
to carry Ivantsov-Platonov’s work further to any appreciable extent.
So much for the growth o f what we call the ‘ Photian Legend’ in
the Eastern world. Its history has had its ups and downs in the
East no less than in the West, though not to the same extremes; but
even in the orthodox world the true notion o f the history o f the great
Father o f the Eastern Church has been sadly dimmed and blurred in
the course o f centuries. The remarkable thing is that the Eastern point
o f view o f Greek and Russian scholars so affected the Photian incident
that when the two traditions met on the threshold o f the modern era
in the sixteenth century, they found themselves in agreement on one
important item o f the Photian Legend, the so-called second schism o f
Photius.
1 CK Izsledovaniyu o Patr. Fotiye,’ Khrist. Chtenie, 1895, vol. 1, pp. 192 seq.,
286 seq.
43*
CO NCLUSIO N
We have now reached the end of a long journey and have concluded
our researches on the Photian Schism. Many additional details might
have made the picture more attractive and the argument more con
vincing; nevertheless, it may be hoped that none o f the essential aspects
o f the problem have been overlooked. I f our inferences are right, we
are justified in saying that the Photian problem is one o f the most com
plex yet the most enthralling o f the causes célèbres bequeathed to us by
the Middle Ages. The way the whole case has been handled, clouded and
misinterpreted in the West illustrates the less agreeable kind o f medieval
mentality and shows the prejudices and misunderstandings that may
arise from a lack o f critical sense and from historical misinterpretation.
From m y researches it would appear that the person o f Photius, the
great Patriarch and Father o f the Eastern Church, has for centuries
been treated by the whole o f the West with unmerited scorn and
contempt; and it is the historian’s task not merely to correct misinter
pretation, but also to rehabilitate the historical figures who have suffered
from it. O f this Photius is a notable example and history owes him repar
ation for the calumnies that have for centuries darkened his memory.
I f I am right in m y conclusions, we shall be free once more to
recognize in Photius a great Churchman, a learned humanist and a
genuine Christian, generous enough to forgive his enemies and to take
the first step towards reconciliation. On the literary and scholastic side,
Photius has always ranked fairly high amongst those scholars who have
studied his writings ; in this field his name always commanded respect,
as his contemporaries, friend and foe alike, unanimously testified.
Scholars familiar with his literary work were not inclined to believe all
the stories brought up against him by his opponents; they were true
to the scholar’s instinct which prompted them to feel that a man who
had spent his best days amongst books, in the company o f the best
representatives o f the classical period and in daily contact with many
devoted disciples, was not likely to descend to such meanness and petty
ambition as were imputed to him by his enemies; and it was a right
instinct which led them to honour a scholar who has been prominent
in transmitting Hellenistic culture to posterity. At the same time, the
firm conviction which prevailed among the simple orthodox that their
Church could not be wrong in crowning its leader with the halo o f
sanctity for setting an example o f Christian virtue was bound to find
its justification.
432
CO N CLUSIO N
My researches have also demonstrated that Photius had, like every

human being, his weak moments. The worst mistake he made was his
loss of self-control in 867, when instead o f waiting for better days he
went out o f his way to launch a futile attack on the Patriarch of Old
Rome. Events were to show that the lapse was inconsiderate, hasty
and big with fatal consequences. It precipitated Basil’s change o f policy
towards the Extremists and the Pope, whilst it strengthened the position
o f the anti-Byzantine party in Rome at a moment when it was losing
its influence after the death o f Nicholas. It not only contributed to
Photius5 downfall, but widened the gap between East and West. The
excited clamours against the great Pope o f the ninth century uttered
by the Eastern bishops at the synod o f 867 re-echoed over East and
West for many years afterwards.
Did Photius ever realize his mistake? There are many signs to show
that he did: his obvious endeavours to make peace with prominent
Roman personalities, especially Marinus, his willingness to compromise
on the Bulgarian issue which had been the occasion o f his outburst in
867, his tardiness in pressing his case, his silent acceptance o f Pope
John’s words in which he could read traces o f bitterness even after the
reconciliation. He evidently hoped that time would heal the wound
and obliterate the past.
I f he did so, events were to show that he was wrong. The cloud
that hung over the synod of 867 was never dispelled from the minds
o f the Romans: it blinded them to the brighter aspects o f Photius’
history, affected all religious and cultural contacts between East and
West and raised problems that were to poison the relations between the
two Churches and influence the whole course o f Christian development
for centuries. We may well reflect how differently certain events would
have shaped, if the Photian case had been judged from the beginning
in the spirit we have outlined: both Western and Eastern Christianity
would have run along different lines.
One may also regret that the Acts o f the Photian Synods o f 861 and
879-80 escaped the notice o f the Western canonists and were completely
obliterated by the Ignatian Synod o f 869-70. At a time when the
medieval West was framing its conception o f universality and its
political philosophy, it would have helped the framers to have before
their eyes the solutions arrived at in the East when the Eastern Church
was in communion with the West. As a result, her de facto acceptance
o f the right o f recourse to the Patriarch o f Rome as the highest court
o f appeal, even in disciplinary matters, as implied in the Acts o f the
DPS 433
28
THE PHO TI AN SCH ISM . II. THE L E G E N D
861 Synod, was overlooked by the Western canonists. The same hap
pened to the stipulation o f the other Photian Synod to the effect that
each Church should follow its own practices. It was not in this broad
minded spirit that East and West fought each other throughout the
Middle Ages. And there lies the true significance o f the history and
legend o f Photius.
The time has now come to reconsider in the light o f history both the
vital period o f the ninth century and the trail o f misconceptions it has
left behind, and this in the best interests o f Christianity; and if such
a recension should lead to a better understanding between the two great
Churches that have drifted apart for so many centuries to the obvious
injury o f the human race, the result should be widely beneficial.
It is therefore fitting at the end o f this long and laborious research
to evoke the conciliatory atmosphere that prevailed in Byzantium at
the end o f the tenth century, when the last echo o f the struggles round
Photius and Leo V i’s tetragamy died down and was stilled by the
decisions o f the synods o f 920 and 991. After reading the declaration
o f a final reconciliation between the parties in opposition— the famous
Tomus Unionis1— the Fathers closed all previous dissensions and
schisms by their acclamation and the dramatic scene o f final pacification
so impressed the faithful that the Orthodox Church commemorated
for centuries, in the office o f Orthodoxy,123 the victory o f the Eastern
Church over the last heresy, iconoclasm and its aftermath. The walls
o f every cathedral church re-echoed the words, as they were repeated
three times by the deacon and the faithful, recalling the struggles o f the
ninth century:3 4Eternal memory to Ignatius and Photius, the Orthodox
and renowned Patriarchs! Whatever has been written or said against
the holy Patriarchs Germanos, Tarasios, Nicephorus and Methodius,
Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, Anthony and Nicholas, be for ever
a n a t h e m a ! a n a t h e m a ! a n a t h e m a !’
1 Mansi, vol. xvm , cols. 341 seq. See Grumel, Regestes, loc. cit. pp. 169-71, 231.
2 Th. J. Uspenski, ‘ Sinodik v nedyelyu Pravoslaviya’, in Zapiski Imp. Novo-
rossiiskago Universiteta (Odessa, 1893), vol. Lix, pp. 407-502. On the date when
the name of Photius was entered into the Synodica read on Orthodoxy Sunday,
see A. Michel, Humbert undKerullarios, loc. cit. vol. π, pp. 13 seq. Cf. also Hergen-
röther, Photius, vol. ill, pp. 725 seq.
3 Uspenski, loc. cit. pp. 415 seq.: Ιγνατίου και Φωτίου των ορθοδόξων και
αοιδίμων πατριάρχων, αίωνία ή μνήμη.., ."Απαντα τά κατά των άγιων πατριάρχων
Γερμανού, Ταρασίου, Νικηφόρου καί Μεθοδίου, Ιγνατίου, Φωτίου, Στεφάνου,
Αντωνίου καί Νικολάου γραφέντα ή λαληθέντα, ανάθεμα, άνάθεμα, άνάθεμα.
434
APPENDIX I
New Edition of the Liber Diurnus (eleventh century) and the

Number of Councils listed as Oecumenical
T h e problems raised b y the Popes’ profession o f faith and contained in the

L iber Diurnus call for a more thorough examination. W ithout attempting to
trace the evolution o f the Liber Diurnus or to quote the enormous biblio
graphy bearing on the subject, I m ay refer to the study made b y the late
Pope Pius X I ,1 who as Librarian o f the Milan Ambrosiana must have dealt
with this document with exceptional care: indeed, o f the three manuscripts
that are known, one is preserved in Milan and was in course o f publication
under the supervision o f Mgr Ratti.12
The Liber Diurnus in the edition o f Th. E. von Sickel3 is based on the
Vatican manuscript and contains 99 formulas. N ext to those regulating the
composition o f letters on various occasions, the presentation o f the pallium
and the granting o f pontifical privileges, there are found seven formulas on
the procedure to be followed at the election and the consecration o f a new
Pope (ff. 5 7 -6 3 ); four other formulas deal with the announcement o f the
Pope’s election and the routine prescribed for the new Pope on taking
possession o f the throne (f. 82 decretum pontificis, f. 83 indiculum pontificis
1 A. Ratti, ‘ La Fine d’una Leggenda ed altere Spigolature intorno al Liber

Diurnus Rom. Pont.’ (R . Istituto Lombardo di Science e Littere (Milano, 1913),
ser. π, vol. x l v i , pp. 238-52).
2 Only a facsimile edition was published in 19 21: L. Gramatica, G. Galbiati,
‘ 11 Codice Ambrosiano del Liber Diurnus Roman. Pont.’ (.Analecta Ambrosiana,
vol. vu, Milan-Rome, 1921). See the more recent bibliography, ibid. pp. 7-8.
Cf. also the exhaustive article written on this subject by H. Leclercq in his Diction
naire d ’Archéologie Chrétienne (Paris, 1930), vol. ix, 1, cols. 243-344. The latest
study on the Liber Diurnus was published by L. Santifaller, ‘ Die Verwendung des
Liber Diurnus in den Privilegien der Päpste von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des
II Jh .’ (Mitteilungen des Instit. f Öster. Geschichtsf. (1935), vol. x l i x , pp. 224—366,
especially pp. 225-333). Idem, ‘ Neue Forschungen zur älteren Papstdiplomatik.
Über den Liber Diurnus\ Forschungen und Fortschritte (1938), vol. X IV , p. 41.
Idem, ‘ Zur Liber Diurnus-Forschung\ in Hist. Zeitschr. (1940), vol. c l x i , pp. 532-8.
In the last study, Santifaller wrongly doubts the results of his own researches
on the strength of some criticisms of Peitz’s recent publications. See supra,
P*3l8\
3 Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum (Vindobonae, 1889). Cf. also Rozière’s
ed., Liber Diurnus, ou Recueil des Formules Usitées par la Chancellerie Pontificale
du Ve au XIe siècles (Paris, 1869), which is based on Garnière’s edition and repro
duces the Clermont manuscript that was lost, but was recovered at the Dutch
Abbey of Egmond-Binnen.
2 8 -2
435
APPENDIX I
and formulas 84 and 85), formula 83 containing the profession o f faith which
the Pope is expected to read out and sign. It enumerates every one o f the
six oecumenical councils.1
Sickel2 had already proved that the Liber Diurnus, as we know it, was
the result o f a lengthy evolution,3 the three versions (in the Vatican, Clermont
and Milan) representing the stage o f its development at the time o f Hadrian I,
from the end o f the eighth century to the beginning o f the following, possibly
also the period o f Leo III, with the pontificate o f G regory the Great to
represent a very important period o f its grow th.4
The Jesuit W . M. Peitz3 went further, too far even, b y alleging that many
letters o f G regory the Great had been composed after certain formulas o f the
Liber Diurnus, thus making this book the oldest witness o f the procedure o f
the Pontifical Chancellery.
It would be interesting to know whether this important handbook o f the
Pontifical Chancellery was still in use after the ninth or at the beginning o f
the tenth century. The existing manuscripts bear witness to its utilization
b y the Chancellery at that period, but we find traces o f it in the centuries that
followed, and the question is raised whether the formula o f the Pope’s pro
fession o f faith prior to his ascent to the throne was still used in the eleventh
century. A s we may reasonably assume that the handbook and its various
formulas were subjected to such modifications as may have been dictated by
changing practice at the Chancellery, new rules and regulations, and the
modernization o f pontifical office routine, it would be interesting to discover
whether the formula o f the Pope’s oath underwent corresponding alterations
and whether the computation o f Councils wras brought up to date.
The problem o f later transformations o f the Liber Diurnus has not yet
been cleared up, but important progress has been made b y scholars who
have traced the use o f some formulas in documents issued b y the Pontifical
1 Sickel, loc. cit. p. 91. Six councils are also enumerated in formula 84 (loc. cit.
pp. 93-103), which contains the draft of the first pastoral letter a newly elected
Pope is expected to send to his bishops and the faithful. This document is of particular
interest to students of the evolution of dogma in the Church, and illustrates what
the Roman Church thought of the councils and their convocation. Many sentences
remind one of the old Greek treatises on the Oecumenical Councils, which the reader
will find discussed in Part 11, Chapter vi, and Appendix III.
2 Sickel, loc. cit. pp. xvii seq.
3 See the excellent summary of all the problems raised by the growth of the
Liber Diurnus, in H. Breslau’s Handbuch der Urkundenlehre fü r Deutschland und
Italien (Berlin, 2nd ed. 1931), vol. 11, pp. 2 4 1-7 ; and in E. Caspar, Geschichte des
Papsttums (Tübingen, 1933), vol. 11, pp. 782-5. Cf. also H. Steinacker, ‘ Zum Liber
Diurnus und zur Frage nach dem Ursprung der FrühminuskeP, in Studi e Testi,
vol. X L (Miscellanea Francisco Ehrle, vol. iv, Rome, 1924), pp. 105-76.
4 Cf. Breslau, loc. cit. vol. 11, p. 243.
3 ‘ Liber Diurnus’, in Sitpungsber. der Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phil-H ist. Kl. (1918),
vol. 185, pp. 55-93. See the critique by M. Tangi, ‘ Gregor. Register und Liber
Diurnus’, in Neues Archiv (1919), vol. x l i , pp. 740-52.
436
APPENDIX I
Chancellery as far back as the reign o f G regory V II and Alexander V .

A detailed study o f the use o f the Liber Diurnus formulas in the papal
privileges till the end o f the eleventh century made b y L. Santifaller1 has
brought some significant facts to light: for instance, that the handbook used
b y the papal notaries was given a form substantially different from that o f
the Liber Diurnus as we know it. From the second half o f the ninth century
to the second half o f the eleventh, the handbook used b y the Pontifical
Chancellery contained only nineteen formulas on papal privileges out o f all
the formulas contained in the Liber Diurnus. Besides these, the handbook
offered other formulas which were either new or variants o f the Liber Diurnus
formulas. This is o f special importance to our subject, since it establishes the
fact that the Liber Diurnus, or at least some portions o f it, was used b y the
Chancellery in the eleventh century, whilst the existence o f another hand
book would also appear to be confirmed.
Interesting, too, are the conclusions which L . Santifaller2 draws from his
own and his predecessor’s researches. According to him, the Liber Diurnus,
as we know it from Sickel’s edition, was not the handbook used b y the
Pontifical Chancellery, but only a school textbook for the training o f future
pontifical notaries, which included many formulas copied from the official
handbook, together with some documents issued b y other Chancelleries
and addressed to the Popes. It would, o f course, be helpful to the can
didates for the Pontifical Chancellery to get acquainted with the style and
the formulas o f other Chancelleries, but these could scarcely be assumed
to have their place in an official handbook designed to supply forms and
regulations for the dispatch o f letters from the Papal Chancellery.
This textbook was given the same title as the official handbook— L ib er
Diurnus— since it was only a selection o f documents mainly copied from it.
A s it is unlikely that an educational book would remain in use long after
much o f it had become out o f date and as on the other hand the Pontifical
Chancellery must have adopted from the second h alf o f the ninth century a
handbook differing substantially from the old edition that served as the
original for the school-book, it seems reasonable to infer that the latter was
1 cÜber die Verwendung des Liber Diurnus in der päpstl. Kanzlei von der Mitte
des 8. bis in die Mitte des n . Jh s’, in Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der mittleren
und neueren Geschichte und ihrer Hilfwissenschaften, Eine Festgabe zum 70. Geburts
tag Prof. H. Finke gewidmet (Münster, 1925), pp. 23-35. Idem, ‘ Die Verwendung
des Liber Diurnus in den Privilegien der Päpste von den Anfängen bis zum Ende
des i i . Jh .’, loc. cit. pp. 225-366. In this study, see on pp. 231 seq. a brief but
comprehensive summary of different studies dealing with the subject. Cf. M. Tangl,
‘ Die Fuldäer Privilegienfrage’, in Mitteil. d. Institut, f . Osterr. Geschichtsforsch.
(1899), vol. X X , pp. 212 seq.; Breslau, loc. cit. vol. 11, p. 245. It is to be regretted
that death prevented Sickel from publishing the third part of his Prolegomena,
where he intended to provide evidence for the use of the Liber Diurnus’
formulas.
2 Loc. cit. (1935), pp. 289 seq.
437
APPENDIX I
dispensed with b y the tenth century: only up to the end o f the ninth century,
or the beginning o f the tenth, would it have remained o f any use.
It is admitted that the Pontifical Chancellery had been using special hand
books ever since the end o f the sixth century, and that they were constantly
being altered, new formulas being added and old ones suppressed, as the
need arose. It was the oldest handbook that received the name o f Liber
Diurnus and, judging from the school-book bearing the same name and
preserved in three M SS., it mainly contained important regulations on the
appointment o f bishops, papal elections and some diplomatic formulas. Thus
it is quite possible that while the title Liber Diurnus was reserved for the
oldest part o f the handbook and the new form ulary in circulation at the
Chancellery was regarded as a separate handbook, the Liber Diurnus was
treated with veneration as a valuable document o f canon law.
This explanation, at the present stage o f research, seems to be the most
acceptable, and confirmation can be found in Deusdedit's collection o f canon
law ; for as we have seen, the Cardinal often quotes from the Liber Diurnus,
which he him self used at the Chancellery, and he always gives the correct
title o f his sources. In only one instance does he quote formula 1 1 5 o f the
Liber Diurnus as found in the MS. o f Milan,1 but in quoting it he does not
give the Liber Diurnus as his reference, but the Regesta o f Honorius I and
G regory II. A s the formula was current at the Chancellery in the second
h alf o f the eleventh century, and, judging from Deusdedit's Collection, was
not included in the copy o f the Liber Diurnus he used, it seems fair to con
clude that it came from another form ulary in use at the Chancellery, but
different from the old Collection o f the Liber Diurnus (a reference-book now
differentiated from the new Kanileibuch).
Cardinal Deusdedit’s Collection also provides other information o f the
greatest value on the ultimate fate o f the L iber Diurnus. From it we learn
not only that the original Liber Diurnus was doing service during the eleventh
century, but that before the Cardinal's time it had been subjected to radical
revision. A s already mentioned, Deusdedit copied ten formulas out o f the
L iber Diurnus ,1 23but used a version substantially different from those that
survived in the three manuscripts. The alterations made in the old version
o f the Liber Diurnus are very thorough, several formulas o f the old edition
being welded into one ,3 besides numerous revisions in the text itself,4
1 Lib. h i , cap. 118 , 119 , W olf v. Glanvell, loc. cit. p. 327.

2 W olf v. Glanvell, loc. cit., Lib. 11, io9 = Sickel, f. 82; Lib. 11, n o = Sickel,
f. 83; Lib. π , m = S ic k e l, f. 74; Lib. 11, ii2 = Sickel, f. 75; Lib. HI, i46 = Sickel,
f. 52; Lib. in, i47 = Sickel, f. 53; Lib. in, i48 = Sickel, f. 54; Lib. in, i49 = Sickel,
f. 56; Lib. h i , i5o = Sickel, f. 10; Lib. iv, 427 = Sickel, f. 76.
3 Lib. π , i09 = Sickel, if. 61-82-60; Lib. 11, m = Sickel, ff. 83-73-4; Lib. h i ,
i48 = Sickel, ff. 54-5.
4 See detailed analysis of all these alterations in Peitz, ‘ Liber Diurnus', loc. cit.
pp. 30-53.
438
APPENDIX I
though the older formulas, which even in the school Liber Diurnus that
survives in the three MSS. have an antique flavour, were more substantially
altered.
These alterations cannot, however, be credited to the ninth-century editors.
There are unmistakable signs that this new edition was brought out in the
eleventh century: first, the invocation ‘ in nomine sanctae et individuae
Trinitatis’, which in pontifical documents prevailed only at this perio d;1
secondly, the dating is not after the indictions, but after the computation o f
years since the L o rd ’s Incarnation, a practice, as is well known, which the
Pontifical Chancellery did not adopt till the eleventh century.2 Several
formulas, instead o f ‘ anno ill. . . ’ sim ply put ‘ anno milesimo ill. . It is
a well-known fact that the Cardinal was exceptionally meticulous in copying
the texts he used for his collection ,3 faithfully quoting his sources, taking
good care not to supply dates where the originals gave none and finally
pointing out all the lacunae in the documents he utilized. W e must therefore
suppose that here also the Cardinal altered nothing, but scrupulously copied
out the formulas as he found them in the new edition o f the Liber
Diurnus.4
It is difficult to assign any exact date to this edition, though everything
points to the date o f its issue as prior to 1059. A s a matter o f fact, that same
year Nicholas II issued his famous rules on pontifical elections, investing
Cardinal-bishops with preponderant influence in the elections, a privilege to
which, as is well known, Cardinal-priests and deacons never assented, and
as a result o f their opposition, the Pope’s decree was never enforced .5 It was
probably to this decree that Cardinal Deusdedit referred in his preface in
justification o f his extracts from the Liber Diurnus,6 It all suggests the name
1 Buschbell, ‘ Professiones Fidei der Päpste’, in Rom, Quartalschrift (1896),
vol. X , pp. 280 seq.
2 Cf. A. L. Poole, Studies in Chronology and History (Oxford, 1934),
p. 179·
3 He says so himself in the preface of his work, Glanvell edition, p. 4: ‘ et omni
modis opera impendi, ut essent plenissima auctoritate quae hic congessi, quoniam
sicut aliquos, quibus haec placerent, ita non defuturos quosdam, qui his inviderent,
non ignoravi.’
4 Cf. Sickel, loc. cit. pp. Hi, liii. After noting that these changes could not have
taken place till the eleventh century, he concludes: ‘ Negaverim vero hoc ipsum
cardinalem Deusdedit novasse; aliis enim operis sui locis eam temporis significandi
rationem quam eius exemplar propositum exhibuit, retinuit.’ Peitz, ‘ Liber Diurnus’,
loc. cit. pp. 30-2, is still more explicit on the point.
3 P. Scheffer-Boichorst, Die Neuordnung der Papstwahl durch Nikolaus I I
(Strassburg, 1879), pp. 14 -18 ; I. B. Sägmüller, Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der
Kardinale bis Papst Bonifai V I II (Freiburg i. B. 1896), pp. 128 seq.
6 Glanvell, loc. cit. pp. 4-5 : ‘ Praeterea antiquum ordinem electionis seu con
secrationis Romani Pontificis et cleri eius huic operi inserere libuit. Nam quidam
olim in Dei et sanctorum sanctionibus contemptum et ad sui scilicet ostentationem
et adscribendam sibi ventosam auctoritatem, quae nullis canonicis legibus stare
439
APPENDIX I
o f Leo I X , who displayed such remarkable activity in the reorganization o f

the Pontifical Chancellery .1
H aving said thus much, let us examine the profession o f faith as prescribed
for the Sovereign Pontiff in the new edition o f the Liber Diurnus. Though
even this formula (Deusdedit, lib. n, n o ) bears palpable traces o f recent
recasting, it is satisfactory to note that the new editor o f the Liber Diurnus
does not expect the Pope to acknowledge the Eighth Council, for the new
Pontiff must swear, among other things, that he admits seven oecumenical
councils :2
Sancta quoque VII universalia concilia, id est Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum,
Ephesinum primum, Chalcedonense, V quoque et VI idem Constantinopolitanum
et VII item Nicenum usque ad unum apicem inmutabilia servare et pari honore et
veneratione digna habere et quae predicaverunt et statuerunt, omnimodis sequi et
praedicare, quaeque condemnaverunt, ore et corde condemno.
The words are very plain and leave no room for doubt; and yet Buschbell,
who specially dealt with the Popes’ professions o f faith, is reluctant to admit
the significance o f the fact, declaring that this profession o f faith must have
been drawn up in the first half o f the ninth century; otherwise, he maintains,
the Eighth Council would have been mentioned. In his opinion, this formula
o f the Liber Diurnus ceased to be used after 787.3 But the same writer,
curiously enough, demonstrates in his book, with full array o f arguments,
that this formula underwent a thorough transformation in the eleventh
century, and makes Deusdedit responsible for it.
Buschbell’s opinion on the use o f the formula has been indirectly invalidated
b y the researches o f other experts, proving that many formulas o f the Liber
Diurnus remained in use at least till the pontificate o f G regory V I I .4 In that
potest, scripserunt sibi novam ordinationem eiusdem Romani pontificis, in qua
quam nefanda quam Deo inimica statuerunt, horreo scribere; qui legit intelligat.’
In my hypothesis Deusdedit makes the Cardinal-bishops responsible for this
prescription. Cf. Fournier-Le Bras, Histoire des Collections Canoniques, loc. cit.
vol. II, p. 47.
1 Cf. Peitz, loc. cit. p. 33. The learned Jesuit would also attribute to Leo IX
a new edition of the Ordo Romanus, on the strength of one passage in the Ordo
which makes a reference to Pope Leo. Mabillon and Germain, Musei Italici tom.. //,
Complectens antiquos libros rituales S .R .E . (Paris, 1724), pp. 89 seq.; P .L . vol. 78,
cois. 1003 seq. On the activities of Leo IX in the reorganization o f the Pontifical
Chancellery see Poole, loc. cit. pp. 179, 181.
2 Ed. V . Glanvell, loc. cit. vol. 11, pp. no, 236. The reader will find at the end
of the appendix, pp. 445-7, the Professio Fidei of the Liber Diurnus as edited by
Th. E. von Sickel and preserved in Deusdedit’s Collection.
3 Buschbell, loc. cit. p. 279.
4 R. Zoepffel, Die Papstwahlen und die mit ihnen im nächsten Zusammenhang
stehenden Ceremonien in ihrer Entwicklung vom 11. bis qum 14. Jh . (Göttingen, 1871),
p. 228, cites some indications to the effect that the formula on the Pope’s election
was still in use in the eleventh century. Cf. chiefly Santifaller’s study (in Abhand
lungen. . . ) .
440
APPENDIX I
case, w h y should the papal profession alone make exception? W h y should

it alone clash with the time? F or i f Deusdedit altered it to bring it into line
with certain usages in force at the Pontifical Chancellery o f his day, w h y then
did he leave untouched the old version about the seven councils?1 F o r if
he really meant thereby to lend the formula an archaic flavour in order to
support his view o f the exclusive rights o f Cardinal-deacons and priests in
the election o f new Pontiffs, w h y did he not leave other archaic phrases
untouched, instead o f modernizing them? If, in order to emasculate the
decision taken in 1059 by Nicholas II on the rights o f Cardinal-bishops, he
wished to quote here ‘ the ancient w ork regulating the election and con
secration o f the Roman pontiff and o f his cle rgy 5, as he him self puts it,2 he
surely should give the correct text o f it; for the slightest variation on his part
would have been detected and denounced b y the Cardinal-bishops, who also
had access to official documents and could verify their colleague’s quotations.
Unfortunately, Buschbell examined this document on its own merits,
without the least regard to other extracts borrowed b y the Cardinal from the
same source ; a detailed comparison o f all the extracts with the edition o f the
Liber Diurnus o f the eighth and ninth centuries would certainly have made
him more cautious in his speculations. He had but to read the formula
(Lib. II, h i ) that follows. This formula, which bears the title Cautio Episcopi,
was radically reversed. The new version is made after formulas 83, 73 and
74 o f the old recension o f the Liber Diurnus as published b y Sickel, and it
is precisely the beginning o f the formula that has been completely revised:3
In nomine Domini Dei et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, anno incarnationis
eius ill. mense ill. die ill. indictione ill. Promitto ego ili’ episcopus sanctae
Ecclesiae ili’ vobis domino meo beatissimo ilF summo pontifici et universali papae
et per vos beatis apostolis Petro et Paulo et sanctae catholicae, apostolicae Ecclesiae
Romanae devota mentis integritate et pura conscientia, illam fidem et religionem
* semper tenere et predicare atque defendere, quam ab apostolis traditam habemus
et ab eorum successoribus custoditam. Sancta quoque VII universalia concilia
immutilata servare et pari honore et veneratione habere, et quaeque predicaverunt
et statuerunt sequi et predicare.. . .
Later, the bishop promises to invite the clergy to common life and to see
that sub-deacons, deacons and priests shall keep chastity. He promises also
to attend the synods that are summoned and to receive with honour the
legates o f the H oly See. There is also found in this profession a reference to
simony, which the bishop promises to eschew. N o w most o f these passages
were missing in the old version o f the formulas,4 which suggests that they
1 Even H. Breslau, loc. cit. vol. 11, p. 246, rem. 2, is very sceptical about Buschbell’s
deductions.
2 Glanvell, loc. cit. p. 4. See p. 439.
3 Glanvell, loc. cit. pp. 237-9; cf. Sickel, loc. cit. pp. 74-8.
4 The formula 73 (Sickel, loc. cit. pp. 69 seq.) begins with these words : £Promissio
fidei episcopi. In nomine domini et cetera.— Promitto ill. ego tal. episcopus sanctae
441
APPEN D IX I
were inserted in the eleventh century, when notions o f ecclesiastical reform

had definitely prevailed at the pontifical court. One detects there at the first
glance the reforming ideas that inspired the reign o f Leo I X , who also extended
the practice o f sending pontifical legates to various dioceses to help in the
reform o f the clergy.
N ow i f Deusdedit were responsible for all these changes, it would be
impossible to understand w h y he introduced the passage on the seven
councils; for, having been completely modernized, the formula was in no
w ay archaic, and it was the passage about the seven oecumenical councils
that was most ruthlessly altered. The statement on the seven councils not
being in the old formula, which only mentioned six, was therefore introduced
in the eleventh century. Then w h y did the editor not proceed to add the
Eighth Council?
But a more thorough examination o f this profession o f faith shows that
the number o f councils in the formula had been frequently altered, councils
being added as they happened to be officially recognized b y the Church o f
Rom e. The Jesuit Peitz1 claims to have discovered in this profession the key
to the evolution o f Catholic dogma from apostolic times, a theory which is
perhaps too beautiful to be true. But those who refuse to follow him so
far must at least admit that no more than four councils were mentioned
in the original profession, others being added later, one after another, as
their oecumenicity was admitted b y the H oly See.2 Moreover, the addition
was not always made immediately after recognition ; and it is understood that
the original handbook Liber Diurnus was not always copied out at the advent
o f every new Pope: it could remain in use even after several formulas had
grow n out o f date, a new edition being issued only when the number o f
ecclesiae ill. vobis domino meo sanctissimo et ter beatissimo ill. summo pontifici
seu universali papae et per vos sanctae vestrae catholicae ecclesiae et apostolicae
sedis devota mentis integritate et pura conscientia (et iureiurando corporali ut.)
oportet proposito, quae pro firmamento sive rectitudine catholicae fidei et ortho
doxae religioni conveniunt, me profiteri. Et ideo promitto atque spondeo vobis
cui supra beatissimo domino meo papae et per vos beato Petro principi apostolorum
eiusque sanctae ecclesiae illam fidem tenere predicare atque defendere quam ab
apostolis traditam habemus et successores eorum custoditam, reverendam Nicenam
sinodum trecentorum decem et octo patrum, sancto spiritu sibi revelante, suscipiens
redegit in sym bolum .. . . ’ The profession then enumerates all the six councils and
their principal decisions in matters o f faith.
Formula 74 (loc. cit. p.74) begins with the words: ‘ In nomine domini dei salva
toris nostri Iesu Christi, imperante et cetera.— Inter cetera salubris instituta doc
trinae quibus me ill. episcopum domine ille beatissime atque apostolice papa, ad
accipiendum regendumque episcopatum ecclesiae ill. perducere atque informare
dignatus es, hoc me quoque ammonuistis ut sacerdotium nullo premio concedi,
excepto officiis quibus antiqua consuetudine dari solet, quia dignum est ut quod
gratis accepi, gratis debeam, deo adiuvante, conferre.. . . 9
1 Loc. cit. p. 120. Cf. M. Tangl’s critique, loc. cit. p. 752.
2 Cf. H. Steinacker, loc. cit. pp. 116 seq.
442
APPEN D IX I
antiquated formulas was considerable. On those occasions, the number o f

councils was brought up to date in the formulary.
W e note, however, a curious point which at first would seem to contradict
our contention: the Ambrosian manuscript o f the Liber Diurnus, repre
senting probably the more recent version o f the form ulary and dating from
the second half o f the ninth century, mentions only six oecumenical councils
in the formula o f the elected Pope’s profession o f faith. This sounds para
doxical, as the oecumenicity o f the second Council o f Nicaea seems to have
been admitted in the Roman Church long before the new transcription o f
that formulary.
This is easily explained, if we remember what has been said about the origin
and the nature o f the Liber Diurnus. I f the collection o f formulas which has
survived in three manuscripts and goes b y the name o f Liber Diurnus was
only a school textbook for the use o f would-be notaries, it is probable that
since a school-book had not the official character o f a handbook for the use
o f the Chancellery, the copyist, writing in the ninth century, contented
him self with copying the old formula as he found it in his source. This would
explain w h y the Ambrosian M S., though it dates from the end o f the ninth
century, enumerates only six councils in the professio fid ei.
But such an explanation is not really necessary. Strange to say, even this
version o f the Liber Diurnus perfectly reflects the tradition o f the Roman
Church concerning the oecumenicity o f the Seventh Council, which was not
officially added to the other universal synods before 880. Here are the proofs.
In 863, Pope Nicholas I, together with the Fathers o f the Rom an Council,
condemned Photius in the name o f the six Councils,1 and the Acts o f the
synod were appended to Nicholas’ letters addressed to the Church o f C on
stantinople and to the oriental Patriarchs,123and written in 866.3 Hadrian II,
his successor, still followed the same tradition in 872, as is shown in his letter
to Charles the Bald.4
In June 880, ten years after the meeting o f the Eighth Council and some
1 Mansi, vol. x v , cols. 180, 661. Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, vol. 1, p. 520,
footnote 51. Cf. Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. ΐν, p. 32%. Cf.
Baronius, Annales, ad ann. 863, ed. Pagi, vol. x iv , p. 581. Note the curious
conjecture by J. F. Damberger, Synchronistische Geschichte, vol. n i : Kritikheft
(Regensburg, 1850-63), pp. 206 seq., on the interpolation o f this passage by Photius
to enable him to accuse the Romans o f refusing to acknowledge the Seventh
Council.
2 M .G.H . Ep. vi, pp. 520, 558.
3 Cf. also the letter o f Nicholas I to Ado o f Vienne, in which the Pope asks the
bishop to recognize the six Councils, though the authenticity o f the letter is doubtful
{M .G .H . Ep. V I, p. 669). Cf. C. A . Kneller, ‘ Papst und Konzil im ersten Jahr
tausend’ , in Zeitschrift für Kath. Theologie (1904), vol. x x v iii, p. 702.
4 M .G .H . Ep. V I, p. 743: ‘ Sed de his nihil audemus iudicare quod possit Niceno
concilio et quinque ceterorum conciliorum regulis vel decretis nostrorum ante
cessorum obviare.’
443
A PPEN D IX I
months after the Council o f Photius, John V III, in his letter to Svatopluk,
the Moravian prince, approved the orthodoxy o f St Methodius b y assuring
the prince that the Moravian archbishop’s teaching was conformable to the
doctrine o f the six oecumenical councils;1 which makes it plain that Photius’
complaint about the recognition o f the oecumenicity o f the Seventh Council
was well founded.
A s far as the Church o f Rom e was concerned, it is certain that the Frankish
Church’s opposition to this Council did delay official and universal recogni
tion o f the oecumenicity o f the Seventh Nicaean Council and a similar case
might be quoted in connection with the Filioque, when to spare the feelings
o f the Greeks, Leo III energetically prohibited the addition o f this formula
to the Sym bol, though the Rom an Church did in practice profess the doctrine
o f the Procession o f the H oly Ghost from the Father and the Son.12
The Seventh Council was therefore not officially added to the profession
o f faith till after 880. The new translation o f the Acts o f this Council, made
b y Anastasius the Librarian b y order o f John V III, was at that time sufficiently
known in the W est to dissipate the last m isgivings about the Council, whilst
the complete reconciliation o f John V III with Photius and his Church
certainly accelerated its acceptance. Thus there was nothing to prevent the
demand formulated b y Photius concerning that Council being met.
It was then, very probably, that the Seventh Council was added to the
preceding ones, even in the new ly elected Pontiffs’ profession o f faith. The
new edition o f the Liber Diurnus o f the end o f the ninth century, whose
existence seems to have been established b y Santifaller’s research, probably
included the list o f the seven councils.
From the end o f the ninth century to the middle o f the eleventh, there
were various opportunities for the completion o f the list. Is it then not
strange that the third edition o f this valuable handbook o f the Pontifical
Chancellery, issued towards the middle o f the eleventh century, should have
listed no more than seven oecumenical councils?
But this is not so. N o plausible explanation o f the anomaly will ever be
forthcoming unless it be frankly admitted that the Papacy did not, until the
time o f Deusdedit, number the Eighth Council among the oecumenical synods.
And this was perfectly consistent, since the Pontifical Chancellery did nothing
more than com ply with the decision o f John V III, who annulled the anti-
1 M.G.H. Ep. V II, p. 223. The author o f the Vita Methodii, which was written at
the end o f the ninth century, probably in Moravia, follows this tradition, too, though
he may have been influenced by the official tradition o f the Western Church. See my
translation o f the Vita in my book, Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, p. 384.
2 A similar attitude is also found in John V III, though on a less solemn occasion,
one less ‘ official’, he also speaks o f ‘ sancta synodus octava’ in his letter to the
Neapolitans, Salernitans and Amalfitans {M.G.H. Ep. v u , p. 307). Note that this
letter was written in 875, i.e. at the time when the Eighth Council was still con
sidered valid by the two Churches.
444
A PPEN D IX I
Photian Council. B y enumerating only seven oecumenical councils, Popes

Marinus II and Leo I X only followed the tradition o f the Church they ruled.
F o r purposes o f comparison, we may quote here the text o f the profession
o f faith recorded in the Liber Diurnus, Sickel, loc. cit. pp. 9 0-3, formula 83:
Indiculum Pontificis.— In nomine domini dei salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi et

cetera, indictione ill. mense ill. die ill.— 111. misericordia dei diaconus et electus,
futurusque per dei gratiam huius apostolicae sedis antistes tibi profiteor, beate Petre
apostolorum princeps, cui claves regni coelorum ad ligandum atque solvendum in
coelo et in terra creator atque redemptor omnium dominus Iesus Christus tradidit,
inquiens : quaecumque (ligaveris) super terram, erunt // ligata et in coelo, et quaecumque
solveris super terram, erunt soluta et in coelis, s a n c t a e q u e t u a e e c c l e s i a e
q u a m h o d i e tuo praesidio regendum suscepi, quod vere fidei rectitudine, Christo
auctore tradente, per successores tuos atque discipulos usque ad exiguitatem meam
perlatam in tua sancta ecclesia repperi, totis conatibus meis usque ad animam et
sanguinem custodire temporum difficultate cum tuo adiutorio tolleranter sufferre;
tam de sanctae et individuae trinitatis misterio quae unus est deus, quamque de
dispensatione quae secundum carnem facta est, unigeniti filii dei domini nostri Iesu
Christi et de ceteris ecclesiae dei dogmatibus, sicut universalibus conciliis et con
stitutis apostolicorum pontificum probatissimorumque doctorum ecclesiae scriptis
sunt // commendata, id est queque ad rectitudinem vestrae nostraeque orthodoxe
fidei a te traditae respiciunt, conservare; sancta quoque universalia concilia:
Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum, Efesenum primum, Calcedonense et secundum
Constantinopolitanum quod Iustiniani piae memoriae principis temporibus cele
bratum est, usque ad unum apicem inmutilata servare, et unam cum eis pari
honore et veneratione sanctum sextum concilium quod nuper sub Constantino piae
memoriae principe et Agathone apostolico praedecessore meo convenit, medullitus
et plenius conservare, quaeque vero praedicaverunt, praedicare, queque condemna
verunt, ore et // corde condemnare; diligentius autem et vivacius omnia decreta
predecessorum apostolicorum nostrorum pontificum, queque vel synodaliter vel
specialiter statuerunt et probata sunt, confirmare et indiminute servare, et sicut ab
eis statuta sunt, in sua vigoris stabilitate custodire, quaeque vel quosque condemna
verunt vel abdicaverunt, simili auctoritatis sententia condemnare; disciplinam et
ritum ecclesiae, sicut inveni et a sanctis praedecessoribus meis traditum repperi,
inlibatum custodire, et indiminutas res ecclesiae conservare et ut indiminute custo
diantur operam dare; nihil de traditione quae a probatissimis predecessoribus meis //
servatum repperi, diminuere vel mutare aut aliquam novitatem admittere, sed
ferventer, ut vere eorum discipulus et sequipeda, totis (mentis) meae conatibus quae
tradita comperio, conservare ac venerare; si qua vero emerserint contra disciplinam
canonicam, emendare sacrosque canones et constituta pontificum nostrorum ut
divina et celestia mandata custodire, utpote tibi redditurum me sciens de omnibus
quae profiteor districtam in divino iudicio rationem, cuius locum divina dignatione
perago et vicem intercessionibus tuis adiutus impleo, si prêter haec aliquod agere
presumpsero vel ut presumatur permisero, eris autem mihi in illa terribili die divini
iudicii de//propitius. haec conanti et diligenter servare curanti adiutorium quoque
ut prebeas obsecro in hac vita corruptibili constituto, ut inreprehensibilis appaream
ante conspectum iudicis omnium domini nostri Iesu Christi, dum terribiliter de
445
A PPEN D IX I
commissis advenerit iudicare, ut faciat me dextre partis compotem et inter fideles

discipulos ac successores esse consortem, quam professionem meam, ut supra con
tinet, per ill. notarium et scriniarium me mandante conscriptam propria manu
subscripsi et tibi, beate Petre apostole et apostolorum omnium princeps, pura mente
et conscientia devota corporali iureiurando sinceriter optuli.— Ego qui supra ill.
indignus // diaconus et dei gratia electus huius apostolicae sedis Romanae ecclesiae
hanc professionem meam, sicut supra continet, faciens et iusiurandum corporaliter
offerens tibi, beate Petre apostolorum princeps, pura mente et conscientia optuli.
V . W o lf von Glanveil, D ie Kanonensammlung, loc. cit., pp. 235 seq.

( 1. π , cap. n o ) : E x Libro Diurno. Professio futuri pontificis, antequam
consecretur.1
In nomine sanctae et individuae trinitatis. Anno dominicae incarnationis ill. die ili.
mensis ill. indictione ill. ego ili. sanctae Romanae ecclesiae presbiter et electus, ut fiam
per dei gratiam humilis huius sanctae apostolicae sedis antistes, profiteor tibi beate Petre
apostolorum principi, cui claves regni coelorum ad ligandum atque solvendum in
coelo et in terra creator atque redemptor omnium dominus noster Ihesus Christus
tradidit inquiens : “ quaecumque ligaveris sjuper] tjerram] erunt ligata et i [n] c[oelo],
et quaecumque solveris sjuper] tjerram], erunt soluta et in coelis” sanctaeque tuae
ecclesiae, quam hodie tuo praesidio regendam suscipio, quod verae fidei rectitu
dinem, quam Christo auctore tradente per te et beatissimum coapostolum tuum
Paulum, per quem discipulos et successores vestros usque ad exiguitatem meam per
latam, in tua sancta ecclesia repperi, totis conatibus meis usque ad animam et
sanguinem custodire tam de sanctae et individuae trinitatis misterio, quae unus est
deus, quamque de dispensatione, quae secundum carnem facta est, unigeniti filii
dei unigeniti domini nostri Ihesu Christi et de coeteris ecclesiae dei dogmatibus,
sicut universalibus conciliis et constitutis apostolicorum pontificum probatissi-
morumque doctorum ecclesiae scriptis commendata. Idest, quaeque ad rectitudinem
vestrae nostraeque orthodoxae fidei a te traditae respiciunt, conservare. Sancta
quoque V II universalia concilia, idest Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum, Ephesinum
primum, Chalcedonense V quoque et V I item Constantinopolitanum et V I I item
Nicenum usque ad unum apicem immutilata servare et pari honore et veneratione
digna habere et quae praedicaverunt et statuerunt, omnimodis sequi et predicare,
quaeque condemnaverunt, ore et corde condempnare. Diligentius autem et vivacius
omnia decreta canonica precessorum apostolicorum nostrorum pontificum, quaeque
vel sinodaliter statuerunt et probata sunt, confirmare et indiminuta servare et sicut
ab eis statuta sunt, in sui vigoris stabilitate custodire; quaeque vel quosque con
demnaverunt vel abdicaverunt, simili sententia condemnare et abdicare. Disciplinam
et ritum ecclesiae, sicut inveni et a sanctis predecessoribus meis canonice traditum
repperi, illibatum custodire et indiminutas res ecclesiae conservare et indiminute,
ut custodiantur, operam dare. Nihil de traditione, quam a probatissimis predecesso
ribus meis traditam et servatam repperi, diminuere vel mutare aut aliquam novitatem
admittere: sed ferventer, ut eorum vere discipulus et sequipeda, totis mentis meae
conatibus, quae tradita canonice comperio, conservare et venerari. Si qua vero
1 Changes in, and additions to, the profession o f faith as published by Th. E. von
Sickel are printed in italics.
446
APPEN D IX I
emerserint contra canonicam disciplinam, filiorum meorum consilio emendare aut

patienter, excepta fidei aut christianae religionis gravi offensione, tua et beatissimi
coapostoli tui P[auli\ patrocinante intercessione tolerare sacrosque canones et canonica
constituta pontificum ut divina et celestia mandata, deo auxiliante, custodire, utpote deo
et tibi redditurum me sciens de omnibus, quae profiteor districtam in divino iudicio
rationem, cuius sanctissimae sedi divina dignatione te patrocinante presideo et vicem
intercessionibus tuis adimpleo. Eris autem mihi in illa terribili divini iudicii die
propitius haec conanti et diligenter servare curanti. Adiutorium quoque, ut prebeas,
obsecro in hac corruptibili vita constituto, ut irreprehensibilis appaream ante con
spectum iudicis omnium domini nostri Ihesu Christi, dum terribiliter de commissis
advenerit iudicare, ut faciat me dextrae partis participem et inter fideles discipulos ac
successores tuos esse consortem. Hanc autem professionem meam per ill. notarium
et scriniarium S\anctae\ R\omanae[ ecclesiae, me iubente conscriptam propria manu
conscripsi et tibi beate apostole P[etre] et apostolorum omnium princeps pura
mente et devota conscientia super sanctum corpus et altare tuum sinceriter offero.
Actum Romae anno, mense die et indictione quibus supra.
447
A PPEN D IX II
Popes’ Profession of Faith in Cod. Bibl. Vat. Lat. 7160 and

the Profession of Boniface VIII
A m a n u s c r i p t o f the Vatican Library (Cod. Bibl. Vat., Lat. 7160) has

rescued a profession o f faith o f the sovereign Pontiffs which differs in many
respects from all the versions we have so far studied in this book. Com
paring this formula with that o f Deusdedit, we note the follow ing discre
pancies: at the beginning, we read after the w o rd s1 ‘ ego diaconus vel
presbyter’ : ‘ vel episcopus cardinalis.’ A fter the clause ‘ quam hodie tuo
praesidio suscipio ’, the new formula adds : ‘ quod quamdiu in hac misera vita
constitutus fuero, ipsam non deseram, non relinquam, non abnegabo, non
abdicabo aliquatenus, nec ex quacumque causa, cuiuscumque metus, vel
periculi occasione dimittam, nec me segregabo ab ipsa, sed verae fidei.. . . ’
The number o f councils listed is naturally the same as in the Britannica,
and on two occasions emphasis is placed on the fact that the Pope may never
abandon his See: after ‘ diligentius et viva ciu s’ is added ‘ quamdiu v ix ero ’ ,
and after ‘ traditum’, ‘ quamdiu mihi vita in istis comes fuerit’. After the
words ‘ res ecclesiae conservare’, a new insertion is made: ‘ neque alienare
seu in feudum, censum, vel emphyteusim dare quomodolibet ex quacumque
causa, et ut indim inute.’ Instead o f ‘ filiorum meorum consilio emendare’,
we read: ‘ ex communicatione filiorum meorum S. R . E. Cardinalium, cum
quorum consilio, directione et rememoratione ministerium meum geram et
peragam, em endare.. . . ’ Between ‘ quae profiteor. . . districtam ’ is inserted
‘ et quamdiu vixero, egero, vel obliviscar’ .
This profession, such as we find it in the Vatican MS. no. 7160, was
published b y Antonius Augustinus in his luris Pontificii Epitome ,3 and
reprinted b y Baronius in his Annals .3 H ow is this formula to be dated?
It could not have been composed before either 115 9 or u d o ,4 for it was
not until this period that the controversy between the Cardinal-deacons and
priests on the one hand, and the Cardinal-bishops on the other, on their
respective rights in the papal elections was definitely settled, and not until
then that the word ‘ episcopus’ cardinalis was added to the words ‘ Cardinal-
deacons and priests’ at the opening o f the formula.
1 Fol. 380. Cf. G. Buschbell, ‘ Die Römische Überlieferung der Professiones
fidei der Päpste’, in Rom. Quartalschrift (1900), vol. x iv , pp. 1 3 1 —6.
2 (Tarragona, 1587), pars 1, lib . v, tit. x , cap. l i v , pp. 288, 289.
3 Annales, ad ann. 869 (Pagi ed.), p. 18 1. Cf. Rozière, Liher Diurnus (loc. cit.
cap. IV , form. 118 , p. 265).
4 See J. B. Sägmüller, Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle bis Papst
Bonifiai V I II (Freiburg i. B. 1896), pp. 12 3 -3 7 .
448
A PPEN D IX II
But this new version o f the profession could not in any event have been
composed in R om e; one single argument, provided b y William de Nogaret
and his jurists in their Rationes quibus probatur quod Bonifacius legitime
ingredi non potuit Celes tino vivente, is decisive. This bitter opponent o f
Boniface V III had collected and presented to his successor Clement V all the
possible arguments calculated to prove that Celestinus could not abdicate
and that the election o f Boniface V III was null and void.
T o prove his contention that a Pope once elected is elected for life and that
he may not abdicate Nogaret quotes, among other arguments, the elected
Pope’s profession o f faith. H ow eagerly he would have quoted the solemn
promise made b y the Pope never to abdicate if the passage had been found
in the profession that was in his collaborators’ hands. Y e t instead o f quoting
the passage as it stands Nogaret loses him self in general considerations,
endeavouring to prove that the Pope’s profession is comparable with a vo w ,
tacitly made and binding.1
A s Nogaret’s plaidoyer was presented in 1303 the statement which so
boldly precludes the possibility o f a Pope’s abdication could only have been
forged after that date. Even the words ‘ quamdiu v iv e t’ quoted b y Nogaret
must have been interpolated, since they were not in the profession which
Nogaret had before him when his plea was written. It was but a slight
exaggeration, a very natural one, and not the only one in his piece o f writing.
One might even explain the words ‘ totis conatibus meis usque ad animam et
sanguinem custodire’, found in Deusdedit’s profession, in the sense o f
‘ quamdiu v iv e t’ as read in Nogaret’s interpretation. His discretion at this
1 P. Dupuy, Histoire du Différend. . . (Paris, 1655), Preuves, p. 459: ‘ Vigesimo

quarto, quia annexa est statui Papatus professio, quae habetur in libro Diurno,
cuius etiam professionis pars habetur in Canone, et in illa professione habetur
expresse quod profitetur et promittit Deo et Principi Apostolorum Petro, quod
quamdiu vivet curam gerit gregis Dominici sibi commissi, et gubernabit Ecclesiam
secundum decreta et canones sanctorum conciliorum, et Patrum, et de consilio
Cardinalium sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae: ergo obligatus est ad curam gerendam
quamdiu vivit ex voto et professione astrictus. Illud autem notorie constat, quod
votis et professionibus, et iis ad quae quis voto et obligatione obligatur, secundum
omnes, nemine contradicente renunciari non potest, et sic nec Papa renuntiare
potest, obligatus quamdiu vivit ex voto et professione astrictus. Et sic dicatur
quod ita profitebantur antiquitus Romani Pontifices, sed hodie non profitentur de
facto verbaliter: responsio manifestissime patet, quia recipientes nunc Papatum
tacite vovent et profitentur haec omnia : nam statui professio est annexa, et secundum
omnes votum interpretativum ita obligat, sicut expresse emissum: quod est videre
in sacris ordinibus, Subdiaconatu, Diaconatu, et Sacerdotio, ex quorum susceptione
perinde interpretative in Occidentali Ecclesia obligantur, sicut si profitentur expresse
castitatem : sic dicendum est hic in voto et professione summi pontificatus. E t sic
patet manifestissime quod renundare non potest. Vigesimo quinto, quia iis per
quae quis Deo et homini, voto, professione, vel promissione, contractu vel quasi,
obligatur secundum veritatem notoriam, quae per nullum negatur, renuntiare non
potest/
DPS 449 29
A PPEN D IX II
particular place proves precisely that in the profession whose original he

consulted the impossibility o f a Pope’s abdication was not expressly men
tioned, otherwise Nogaret would have adopted a more confident and truculent
tone. Hence it is quite unnecessary to assume the existence o f a new edition
o f the profession, dating from the twelfth century, differing from Deusdedit’s
and from that o f the Latin MS. no. 7160 o f the Vatican Library and forbidding
Popes to abdicate.
In this profession the clause on the Cardinals needs closer examination.
A n y interference b y Cardinals in the administration o f the Church, such as
the profession assumes, would have been unthinkable in the Rom an Church,
at any rate before the twelfth century; but it would accord better with the
mentality that prevailed in the Church in the fourteenth century.1
This new edition o f the famous profession was therefore undoubtedly
forged after 1303. Furthermore, it has survived only in one M S., where it is
followed b y the notorious profession o f Boniface V III,z with which it is
nearly identical, and the profession o f faith attributed to Boniface V III is
generally regarded as apocryphal:3 this will be evident i f we take into con
sideration what has been said about the interpolations found there.4
This consideration may have proved useful in the solution o f some prob
lems that have puzzled these scholars who have dealt with Boniface V III’s
1 Souchon, Die Papstwahlen von Bonifai V I II bis Urban V I (Braunschweig,

1888), p. 204, goes still further, asserting that such pretensions on the part o f the
cardinals in the administration o f ecclesiastical affairs admit o f no explanation before
1352.
2 Fol. 385 o f the MS.
3 Cf. chiefly Buschbell, ‘ Professiones fidei der Päpste’, in Rom. Quartalschr.
vol. x , pp. 421 seq.; M. Souchon, loc. cit. pp. 19 2-20 5; H. Finke, Aus den Tagen
des Bonifai V I II (Münster i. W . 1902), pp. 54-65.
4 One more detail may be quoted in support o f this statement. Boniface’s
alleged profession adds after the word ‘ consilio’ the phrase ‘ et consensu’ (car
dinalium, etc.). This claim by the Cardinals, so evidently limiting the Pope’s
supreme power in the Church, could never have been sanctioned b y the Chancellery
o f the H oly See. Moreover, the interpolation could apparently not have been
introduced into Boniface V III’s profession before 1303. In fact the Colonnas, who
towards 1303 addressed a letter to Philip the Fair to complain about Boniface’s
persecution, seem to know nothing about such a privilege, though they try hard
to define the Cardinals’ rights and to give them as wide a connotation as possible.
This is what they say (D upuy, Histoire du Différend.. . , loc. cit., Preuves, p. 226):
‘ Cardinales instituti sunt ad assistendum Romanum Pontificem propter stilum
veritatis. Item, cardinales positi sunt ad resistendum in faciem Romano Pontifici,
cum reprehensibilis. Item, cardinales sunt coniudices Romani Pontificis et sunt
membra, non tantum corporis Ecclesiae sed capitis.’ Speaking o f the Cardinals,
whose advice the Pope promises in his profession to follow, Nogaret simply inter
prets— and very correctly, too— the words ‘ consilio filiorum meorum’ as found in
Deusdedit’s profession. Cf. L. Möhler, ‘ Die Kardinäle Jakob und Peter Colonna’
(Paderborn, 19 14), in Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte
(Görres-Gesellschaft, vol. x v n ), especially pp. 125 seq.
450
A PPEN D IX II
alleged profession. It seems evident, first, that this forgery was not the w ork
o f W illiam de Nogaret, as has been so far assumed too readily.1 Then again
we can better explain how Nogaret’s fellow-workers came b y a copy o f the
Pope’s profession, without making it necessary to assume that they had
found a copy o f the Liber Diurnus, a very difficult proposition, considering
the nature o f this valuable document. I noted that this profession had been
copied b y several canonists after the edition preserved in Deusdedit’s C o l
lection, and we have only to remember the source o f Ivo o f Chartres and o f
the Britannica. A s there was no difficulty in getting hold o f a copy o f this
profession in the fourteenth century the appearance o f this document in
W illiam de Nogaret’s rejoinder should raise no serious difficulty.
One thing seems quite certain: Boniface’s alleged profession was not
forged before 13 0 3 ; it was rather the mention o f this notorious profession o f
the Popes made in Nogaret’s rejoinder that suggested the idea to an anony
mous enemy o f Boniface V III o f interpolating it in the sense as we know it,
for the purpose o f discrediting the unfortunate Pope. This may have been
done between 1303 and 1360. The profession contained in the Vatican Latin
MS. no. 7160 is therefore only another version, nearly identical to the one
falsely attributed to Boniface V III, both versions being apocryphal.
1 After re-examining the arguments o f his pupil Buschbell, fathering the forgery
on Nogaret, Finke, loc. cit. pp. 59 seq., already declared: Tch muss freilich zugeben,
dass eine vollständig überzeugende positive Beweisführung für die Fälschung
Nogaret nicht zu geben ist/
29 -2
451
APPEN D IX III
Unpublished Anonymous Greek Treatises on the Councils
F o r the purpose o f tracing the official tradition o f the Eastern Church on

the number o f oecumenical councils and its attitude with regard to the
Council o f Photius, I have made some researches on a special class o f
Byzantine theological literature— the Greek treatises on councils. These
treatises are many and scattered about all the great libraries o f Europe.
Besides em bodying the tradition on councils they also afford a clear illus
tration o f the Orthodox doctrine on the infallibility o f the Church, which
makes one regret that they should have remained a closed field to theologians
and historians. So far only one o f the anonymous treatises has been pub
lished, edited by C. Justel.1 It was m y first intention to publish the best o f
them, but recent events interfered with m y plans and I have only been able
to study the MSS. o f the National Libraries o f Paris, London and Brussels
with a few o f the Vienna Library. These were, however, sufficient for m y
limited purpose— the Eastern tradition on the Photian Council— and a com
parison o f the catalogues o f Greek M SS. in the possession o f the leading
libraries o f Paris, the Vatican, Moscow, Mount Athos and Vienna satisfied
me that the Paris M SS. are exceptionally complete and cover the Eastern
tradition in this matter.
I cannot give here the results, however useful, o f m y researches in full,
as they are not strictly relevant to the subject under discussion and the
prospect o f pursuing these studies in the near future is but slight. I there
fore limit m yself to the enumeration o f the M SS. I have studied and to a
few summary indications on their most important bearings.
A N O N Y M O U S G R E E K T R E A T IS E S ON C O U N C IL S.
B IB L IO T H È Q U E N A TIO N ALE, PARIS
1. MS. no. i i , fols. 320-7, twelfth century (written in 1186).
2. MS. no. 425, fols. 1—7, fifteenth to sixteenth centuries.
3. MS. no. 922, fols. 2 4 1-8 a, eleventh century.
4. MS. no. 947, fols. 1 1 0 - 1 5 , written in 1574.
5. MS. no. 968, fols. 392-5, fifteenth century.
6. MS. no. 1084, fols. 199-205, eleventh century.
7. MS. no. 1123, fols. 166a—72, fifteenth century.
8. MS. no. 1234, fol. 261, thirteenth century.
9. MS. no. 1259a, fols. 2 5a-8 , fourteenth century.
1 Ch. Justellus, Nomocanon Photii. . .Accessere ejusdem Photii, N ili Metropolitae
Rhodi et Anonymi Tractatus de Synodis Oecumenicis ex Bibliotheca Sedanensi
(Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1615).
452
A P P E N D IX III
10. MS. no. 1295, fols. 2850-9, fifteenth to sixteenth century.

11. MS. no. 1302, fols. 21-4, thirteenth century.
12. MS. no. 1303, fol. 80, fourteenth century.
14. MS. no. 1323, fols. 365-70, copied in 1598.
15. MS. no. 1335, fols. 1 20 -140 , fourteenth century.
16. MS. no. 1336, fols. 5-80, eleventh century.
17. MS. no. 1369, fols. 1-10 , fourteenth century.
18. MS. no. 1370, fols. 1230-250, written in 1297.
20. MS. no. 1373, fol. 10, copied in 1525.
21. MS. no. 1375, fols. 9, 100, copied in 1540.
22. MS. no. 13810, fols. 1 13 0-14, fourteenth century.
23. MS. no. 1555a, fols. 1520-4, fourteenth century.
24. MS. no. 1605, fols. 285-60, twelfth century.
25. MS. no. 1630, fols. 64-9, fourteenth century.
27. MS. no. 1788, fols. 1990-200, written in 1440.
29. MS. no. 2600, fols. 2450, 246, fifteenth century.
3 1. MS. no. 3041, fols. 13 1-2 0 , fifteenth to sixteenth centuries.
32. MS. Coislin 34, fols. 230-60, twelfth century.
33. MS. Coislin 36, fols. 1-8, fourteenth century.
34. MS. Coislin 120, fols. 28-31, tenth century.
35. MS. Coislin 363, fols. 154-9, twelfth century.
36. MS. Coislin 364, fols. 204, 2040, written in 1295.
37. MS. Coislin 374, fols. 3150-200, eleventh century.
38. MS. Supplément 78, fols. 2350, 236, seventeenth century.
39. MS. Supplément 482, fols. 1 11-2 0 0 , written in 1105.
40. MS. Supplément 483, fols. 1660-71, fourteenth century.
41. MS. Supplément 690, fols. 2420-4, twelfth century.
42. MS. Supplément 1086, fols. 64-6, eleventh century.
43. MS. Supplément 1089, fols. 26-7, sixteenth century.
THE N A TIO N A L L IB R A R Y OF VIEN N A
44. Codex Theologicus Graecus x ix , fols. 321, 321 0, written in 1097.

45. Cod. Theol. Graec. cccvn , fols. 940-60, fourteenth century.
46. Cod. Theol. Graec. c c c x x v , fols. 163, 1640, fifteenth century; fols. 228 -350
(profession o f faith).
47. Cod. Historicus Graec. v u , fols. 18 4 -7 0 ; fols. 19 3 0 -4 ; fols. 19 40 -6 , eleventh
century (?).
48. Cod. Theol. Graec. ccli v , fols. 7600-70, fourteenth century.
49. Cod. Juridicus Graec. x m , fols. 3 8 -7 10 , fifteenth century.
50. Cod. Hist. Graec. x x x iv , fols. 35 9 0 -6 10 , fifteenth century.
51. Cod. Graec. Hist. Eccl. et Prof, l x x , fols. 83-60, eleventh century (?).
453
APPENDIX III
TH E R O Y A L L IB R A R Y OF B R U SSE L S
52. MS. no. 11376, fols. 1700-3 <2, thirteenth century.
53. MSS. no. II, 4836, fols. 72α-6, thirteenth century.
B R IT IS H M U SEU M
54. Additional MS. 34060, fols. 218-81 (Canons of Greek Councils), fifteenth
century.
It appears that treatises on Councils have been written since the fifth or
sixth century, new Councils being simply added by later copyists. This can
be inferred from some short summaries which list only five Councils, as for
instance in the case of MS. no. 47, two of whose summaries (fols. 193 a, 194
and 194 0-6) mention only five Councils : the copyist relied on an old summary
without taking the trouble of adding the other Councils. A longer treatise
of the four first Councils is found in the MS. which I class as no. 27, though
the MS. possibly contains only the first part of a treatise on six or more
Councils.
What seems to be the oldest and most interesting treatise is found in MSS.
nos. 3, 9 and 34 of our list, where the anonymous writer counts only six
oecumenical councils and gives a summary of the local synods of Ancyra,
Caesarea, Gangrae, Antioch, Laodicea and Carthage. By his definition no
Council can be called oecumenical unless it be summoned by the Emperor,
who must invite all the bishops of the Empire, and unless some dogmatic
decision be arrived at. The Popes are placed at the head of the Patriarchs in
the account of the first four Councils.
The treatise that seems to have had the widest circulation is the one
published by Justellus. It originally contained, as far as I can see, only the
summary of six councils, the seventh being added later, at least in some
MSS. of the treatise. Justellus knew only the one MS., that was in the pos
session of the Sedan Library in his days; but the same treatise is found in
the following MSS., several of which embody a more interesting tradition
with many variants: MSS. nos. 6, 16 of my list (both mention only six
councils), i i , 13 (the Popes’ names are mentioned for each synod after the
Emperor’s name), 19, 28, 51, 52, 53.
MSS. nos. 2, 15 and 44, though very similar to Justellus’ treatise, differ
from it in many respects. For instance, the Popes are always named imme
diately after the Emperors and before the Patriarchs.
The Popes are also named first after the Emperors and accurate historical
data are found in a treatise represented by the following MSS. of my list:
nos. i, 7, 32 (an abridged version) and 37.
An entirely different treatise is preserved in MSS. nos. 14 and 33. Again
the Popes are placed after the Emperors and before the other Patriarchs as
in other MSS. affiliated to this treatise (nos. 23 and 39).
454
A PPEN D IX III
Some similarities with Jus tellus’ treatise are found in the following short
works, which, however, are all o f a different character: MSS. no. 4 (Popes
presiding over the first and the fourth Councils, the Patriarch o f Alexandria
over the second and third, the Patriarchs o f Antioch and Constantinople over
the sixth, Tarasius over the seventh) ; no. 24 (Patriarchs o f Constantinople are
always named before the Popes) ; no. 45 (shorter than Jus tellus’ treatise) ; no. 46.
Besides longer treatises on the Councils there exists a large number o f
short summaries and memoranda on the seven Councils, written probably
for teaching purposes. Those I list here differ from each other in m inor
details and follow a common pattern: M SS. no. 9 (only six councils men
tioned); no. 18 (the Popes are stated to have directed the first five councils;
for the seventh the Pope is named before Tarasius); no. 20 (gives only the
names o f the Emperors and the Popes for each Council); nos. 2 1, 22, 28
(the Pope always named before the other Patriarchs); no. 29 (the Photian
Councils o f 859, 861, 879-80 are numbered among the local synods, but the
so-called Eighth Oecumenical Council is omitted); nos. 36, 38 (analytical
table o f the seven Councils; the Popes come immediately after the E m
perors); no. 47 (three summaries, one o f them— fols. 193 <2, 194— published
b y P. Lambecius in his Commentarii de August. B ibl. Caesarea Vindobonensi
(2nd ed., A . Kollar, Vienna, 1782), vol. v m , p. 930); no. 48.
The summary in MS. no. 3 1 o f m y list is o f some interest for the w ay it
mentions Popes and Patriarchs. It names the Popes first only in the case o f
the First and the Seventh Councils but, strange to say, it states that the First
Council o f Nicaea took place under Popes Sylvester and Julius, the Fifth
under Mennas and Eutyches. It will be remembered that Photius, in his
letter to Boris-Michael o f Bulgaria, also writes that the Nicaean Council took
place under the Popes Sylvester and Julius,1 which has puzzled m any; and
I have pointed out that12 the Synodicon Vetus— an Ignatian treatise on
Councils— followed the same tradition. This new evidence makes it clear
that the tradition must have been common in Constantinople and that it was
not invented b y Photius.
Some o f the treatises must have been re-copied as professions o f faith, as
is the case with MS. no. 4 which is based on Justellus’ treatise and contains
such a profession.
Interesting also is the list o f canons voted b y the oecumenical and local
synods acknowledged b y the Eastern Church and preserved in MS. no. 54 o f
m y list. The Ignatian Council o f 869-70 is omitted, though it voted canons
that became very popular in the W est. But the canons voted b y the Photian
synods o f 861 and o f 879-80 are duly recorded.
1 P.G . vol. 102, col. 632.

2 See supra, p. 127. Also note that in the Juridicus Graecus Viennensis X I I I
(15th c., parchment, 347 fols.), fols. 38-710: is found a version different from the
Synodicon Vetus published by Pappe in the work mentioned, pp. 360 seq.
4Î5
A P P E N D IX III
I may add in conclusion that MS. no. 46 contains in addition (fols.

228-35 a) a profession of faith addressed to an Emperor and drawn up in
accordance with the decisions of the seven councils. Another profession of
faith is found in MS. 47 (fols. 231, 231α) and is the same as the Patriarch
Photius used to tender to all candidates to the episcopacy, who naturally had
to subscribe to seven councils.1
It goes without saying that what I have said here about the writings of
this class is very incomplete; but I feel that what little I have been able
to find on this matter amply confirms my contention that from the eighth
to the seventeenth century the Greek Church officially knew only seven
Oecumenical Councils.2
Euthymii Patriarchae Libellus de Definitionibus Fidei per Concilia Septem

Oecumenica. British Museum Arundel 528 (15 th c.). Extract on the Photian
Council, fols. n6seq., compared with the anonymous treatise of Parisinus
Graecus 968 (fols. 392-5, 15th c.) and with the treatise of Neilos of Rhodes.3
I found in Vienna another Greek MS. containing an anonymous treatise,
1 Έκδοσή Φωτίου του άγιωτάτου Πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Σύμβολον
πίστεως προς τούς μέλλοντας χειροτονεϊσθαι επισκόπους. Πιστεύω εις ενα Θεόν__
Reference to the synods: τάς άγιας και οικουμενικός επτά συνόδους υποδεχόμενος,
άπαντα τά ύπ* αυτών—
2 It would also be of great advantage to publish a new edition of the Greek
treatises on the schism, and it is known that the first attempt of this kind is attributed
to Nicetas of Nicaea. Three short works of this class have been published by Hergen-
röther, Monumenta Graeca ad Photium. . .pertinentia (Ratisbonnae, 1869), pp.
154 seq. In the Paris National Library I found several MSS. on the same topic
and akin to the treatises that have been published, but offering a considerable number
o f interesting variants; for instance, the Paris. Graec. 1278 (15th c., on paper,
172 fols.), fols. 2-6 corresponds to Nicetas’ treatise, but differs in many respects
from the text so far known. The treatises of Paris. Graec. 119 1 (15th c., on paper,
141 fols.), fols. 73, 80, 81, bear resemblance to treatises I and II published by the
Cardinal, but with some curious variants. The treatises copied in the Paris. Graec.
1286 (16th c., on paper, 318 fols.), fols. 251-4 and Paris. Graec. 1295 (15th c.-
16th c., on paper, 342 fols.), fols. 98-101 a (not listed in the Omont Catalogue)
also show affinity to treatises I and II of Hergenröther (ibid. fols. 26 seq., the
treatise written by John of Jerusalem). But I have cautioned the reader against
these later handbooks, as they often diverge widely from their common pattern,
Nicetas’ treatise, though they do give a good picture of fifteenth-century Byzantine
mentality with regard to Rome. Note that Neilos Damylas (Paris. Graec. 1295,
fols. 600-85) volunteers explanations as nebulous as the treatises themselves. In
the Cod. Theol. Graec. Viennensis c l x v i i i (15th c., fol. 381), which contains
anti-Latin writings, I found on fols. 375-6 a short treatise which seems to be
identically the same as the first treatise published by Hergenröther, loc. cit. pp.
154-63 (Πώς και τίνα τρόπον εχωρίσθησαν ημών οί Λατίνοι...ήν εν τη έβδομη
συνόδω Άδριανός πάπας ‘ Ρώμης). Circumstances prevented me from photo
graphing the treatise and making a closer comparison.
3 Ch. Justellus, Nomocanon Photii. . .Accessere ejusdem Photii, N ili Metropolitae
Rhodi et Anonymi Tractatus, loc. cit. pp. 175-9.
456
APPENDIX III
all but identical to the treatise on the Paris MS. no. 968, in Historicus Graecus
Viennensis x x x i v (chartaceus, 15th c., in folio, fol. 392), fols. 35 9 0 -6 1 a.
Unfortunately I have not been able to make a comparative study o f the
MS. and recent events have prevented me obtaining a photograph o f it.
This is what Euthym ios’ treatise has to say about the Photian C ouncil:
fol. 1 16 : Συνόδου ένωτικής [om. Parisinus 968; όγδοη Neilos Rhod.].
Ή ά για και οικουμενική αυτή σύνοδος [όγδοη τω ν τριακοσίων όγδοήκοντα
ά γιω ν πατέρων add. Neilos Rhod.] γέγονε επί τής βασιλείας Βασιλίου
του Μακεδόνος, καθ' ήν σύνοδον γέγονεν ή ειρήνη μεγάλη μεταξύ τής δυτικής
εκκλησίας και τω ν άλλων πατριαρχείω ν, φανερώς όμολογησάντων τω ν
δυτικών, ότι ούτως άναγινώσκομεν και πιστεύομεν, ως και υμείς [ημείς Paris.
968], χωρίς προσθήκης τίνος τό σύμβολον τό ά γιον είναι τής αληθούς
πίστεως [corrupted text in Neilos R h o d .: χωρίς προσθήκης τίνος τό
σύμβολον τό άγιον ως ούτω ς. . . έχον, όντως σύμβολον είναι τής αληθούς
πίστεως], αλλά καί τούς προστιθέντας, ή ελλείποντας άναθεματί^ομεν, όντος
τηνικαύτα Ίω άννου π ά π α ‘ Ρώμης, Φ ω τίου π ατριάρχου Κ ω νσταντινου
πόλεως, καί τοπ οτη ρη τώ ν τής ‘ Ρωμαίων εκκλησίας, Παύλου και Εύγενίου
επισκόπου [επισκόπων Paris. 968, Neilos Rhod.], καί Πέτρου πρεσβυτέρου
καί καρδινάλου [καρδιναλίου Paris. 968, Neilos Rhod.], καί τω ν άλλων
π α τρ ια ρ χώ ν διά τοπ οτη ρητών, Κόσμα πρεσβυτέρου καί πρέσβεως "Αλεξαν
δρείας / fol. 1 1 6 a ! καί Βασιλείου μητροπολίτου Μσρτυρουπόλεως τής "Αν
τιόχειας καί Ή λ ία πρεσβυτέρου Ιεροσολύμων* [Κόσμα.. . Ιεροσολύμων
om. Paris. 968, om. Neilos Rhod.] ών συνελθόντων ώς εν τοις πρακτικοίς
εύρομεν μετά πολλά άλλα υπέρ τής κοινής όμονοίας τώ ν εκκλησιών γραφέντα
καί το ύ τα επί λέξεως *[ώς εν το ίς. . . λέξεως om. Neilos Rhod.] οί μεν το π οτη ρη
το ί τής ‘ Ρώμης εβόησαν, πρέπον έστί μή έτερον όρον καινουργηθήναι άλλ"
αύτόν τον άρχαιον [όρον add. Neilos Rhod.], καί κατά άνά [Neilos Rhod.]
πάσαν τήν οικουμένην κρατούμενόν τε καί δοξα^όμενον άναγνωσθήναί τε καί
έπιβεβαιωθήναι* καί τού ιερού συμβόλου άναγνωσθέντος [άνευ προσθήκης add.
Neilos Rhod.] ώς έχει, ή ά γ ια σύνοδος έξεβόησεν* ήμείς κατά τήν τού σωτήρος
διδασκαλίαν καί τήν τώ ν αποστόλω ν παράδοσιν [παράνεισιν Arund. 528],
έτι δε καί τούς κανονικούς τύπους τώ ν ά γιω ν / fol. 1 1 7 / καί οικουμενικών
[επτά add. Paris. 968, Neilos Rhod.] συνόδων, τον άνωθεν εκ πατέρων καί
μέχρι ήμών κατεληλυθότα τής άκραιφνεστάτης τώ ν χριστιανώ ν πίστεως
όρον, καί διανοία [έπινοία Neilos Rhod.] καί γλώ σσ η στέργομέν τε καί
πά σ ι τρόποις [om. Paris. 968, Neilos Rhod.] διαπρυσίως παραγγέλλομεν
[περιαγγέλλομεν Paris. 968, Neilos Rhod.], ούδέν άφαιρούντες, ούδέν π ροστι-
θέντες κατά διάνοιαν ή λέξιν, ούδέν άμείβοντες, ούδέν κιβδηλεύοντες* καί μετά
τούτο οϊτε τοπ οτηρηταί τού [om. Neilos Rhod.] ‘ Ρώμης, καί ή σύνοδος
άπασα έξεβόησεν* εϊτις τοίνυν εις τούτο άπονοίας έλάσας τολμήσει [εϊτις...
τολμήσει om. Neilos Rhod.] έτερον εκθέσθαι σύμβολον καί όρον όνομάσαι
[άνακινήσαι Neilos Rhod.], ή προσθήκην ή ύφαίρεσιν ποιήσαι εν τω
άναγνωσθέντι νύν [om. Neilos Rhod.] ίερω καί ά γ ίω συμβόλω, άνάθεμα έστω.
457
LIST OF A BBREVIA TIO N S
Anal. Bol. Analecta Bollandiana.

A.S. Acta Sanctorum o f the Bollandists.
Bibliotheca. I. Th. de Rocaberti, Bibliotheca Maxima Pontificia, 21 vols. Romae,
1698, 1699.
Bonn. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, called the Byzantine of Bonn, 1826-
97 ·
Byz. Zeitschr. Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Leipzig, 1892-1939.
Mansi. Conciliorum Amplissima Collectio, 31 vols. Florence, Venice, 1759 seq.
M .G .H . Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Ep., Epistolae; Ss., Scriptores.
P .G . Patrologia Graeca, ed. Abbé Migne, 140 vols. Paris, 1857-66.
P .L . Patrologia Latina, ed. Abbé Migne, 221 vols. Paris, 1844-55.
Teubner. Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Leipzig.
Tractatus. Tractatus illustrium in utraque tum Pontificii, tum Caesarei iuris facultate
Iurisconsultorum, 18 vols. Venetiis, 1584.
458
LIST OF M A N U SC R IP T S QUOTED
GREEK MANUSCRIPTS
Anastasius Makedon. Litterae ad Imperatorem. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris,

MS. no. 137, fols. 16 - 113 (sixteenth century).
Anonymi Disputatio de Azymis. Bibi. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 1286, fols. 47-57
(sixteenth century).
Anonymi Fragmentum de Tempore quo Latini a Graecis dissidere coeperunt.
Bibi. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 1286, fols. 251-4 (sixteenth century).
------(similar treatise), Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 1295, fols. 98-101 a (fifteenth to
sixteenth centuries).
------(similar treatise), National Library of Vienna, Codex Theologicus Graecus
C L X V iii, fols. 375-6 (fifteenth century).
Anonymi Operis Fragmentum de Italorum Doctrina. Bibi. Nat. Paris, MS. no.
119 1, fols. 73-81 (fifteenth century).
Anonymi Opusculum de Origine Schismatis. Bibi. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 1278,
fols. 2-6 (fifteenth century).
Anonymi Responsa Theologica. Bibi. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 1302, fols. 275-81
(thirteenth century).
Anonymous Treatises on Councils, 54 MSS.; see list in Appendix III, p. 452.
Arsenii Monachi Scholia. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 1303, fols. 35-71 (fifteenth
century).
—— De Spiritu Sancto. Ibid. fols. 78 seq.
Bonacursius of Bologna. Thesaurus Veritatis Fidei, Greek and Latin. Bibl. Nat.
Paris, Greek MS. no. 1251, fols. 145 (fourteenth century).
Demetrius Chrysoloras. Epistolae ad Manuelem Pal. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no.
119 1, fols. 39 <2-44a (fifteenth century).
Elias Menatas. . .Petra Offensionis. Latin translation by the monk F. Meniata.
British Museum, Harleian MS. 5729.
Euthymios Patriarch. Treatise on Councils. Brit. Mus. Arundel 528, fols, i n - 1 7
(second half of the fifteenth century).
Joannes II Palaeologus. Symbolum Fidei, Romae in Foribus S. Petri ab. imp.
Joanne II Palaeologo inventum. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 119 1, fols. 73*2-40:
(fifteenth century).
John Camateros. Letters to Innocent III. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Greek MS. no. 1302,
fols. 2700-5 (thirteenth century).
John Chilas. Letters. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 2022, fols. 150-7 (fourteenth
century).
John of Claudiopolis. Treatise on the Azymes. Brit. Mus. MS. Hark 5657, fols.
1280-36 (fifteenth century).
Joseph Philarges. Adversus Latinos de Processione Spiritus S. Bibl. Nat. Paris,
MS. 110. 1295, fols. 85-101 (fifteenth to sixteenth centuries).
Manuel Chrysoloras. Tractatus de Processione Spiritus S. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS.
no. 1300, 20 fols, (sixteenth century).
459
L I S T OF M A N U S C R I P T S Q U O T E D
Manuel Moschopulos. Διάλεξις προς Λατίνους. Bibi. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 969,
fols. 3 15 -19 (fourteenth century).
Mark of Ephesus. Επίλογος ττρός Λατίνους. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. no. 34060, fols.
348 seq. (fifteenth century).
Nicholas de Otranto. Disputationes. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. Graec. Supplém.
no. 1232, 165 fols, (thirteenth century).
Nilus Damylas. Tractatus de Processione Spiritus S. Bibi. Nat. Paris, MS. no.
1295, fols. 600-85 (fifteenth to sixteenth centuries).
Orationes Catecheticae Duae. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 1302, fols. 281-95 (thir
teenth century).
Photius. ’Έκδοσις. . . Συμβόλου Πίστεως. Nat. Lib. Vienna. Codex Historicus
Graecus vu , fols. 231, 231α (eleventh century (?)).
Theodosius Monachus. De Processione Spiritus S. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 1303,
fols. 7 1-8 (fourteenth to fifteenth centuries).
LATIN MANUSCRIPTS
Caesaraugustana. First Recension. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 3876 (twelfth
century).
------ Second Recension. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 3876 (twelfth century).
Collectio Britannica. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. no. 8873 (eleventh century).
Collection in Seven Books. Vatican Library. Latin MS. no. 1346 (written in 1112 ) .
Collection in Ten Parts. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 10743 (first half of the
twelfth century).
Collection in Two Books. Vatican Library, Latin MS. no. 3832 (end of the eleventh
century).
Collection in Sixteen Parts. Brit. Mus. Harl. 3090 (twelfth century).
Collection of the Vatican Library, Latin MS. no. 1361 (beginning of the twelfth
century).
Collection of Sainte Geneviève, Paris, MS. no. 166 (twelfth century).
Collection in Nine Books. MS. 1349 of the Vatican Library Latin MSS. (tenth
century).
Collection in Five Books. MS. 1339 of the Vatican Library Latin MSS. (eleventh
century).
Collection in Five Books. Vatican Library. Latin MS. no 1348 (twelfth century).
Collection of the Vallicellan Library, Rome, T. xvm , 278 fols, (tenth century).
Collection in Three Books. Vatican Library, Latin MS. no. 3831 (beginning of the
twelfth century).
Collection of Prague. University Library. Codex Membran. V III H. 7 (beginning
of the twelfth century).
Collection of Tarragona. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 4281 b (twelfth century).
Collection in Nine Books of S. Victor. Bibl. de l’Arsenal, Paris, MS. no. 721
(twelfth century).
Collection of Bordeaux. Bibl. Municipale de Bordeaux, MS. no. 11 (first half of
the twelfth century).
De Conciliis cum suis Expositionibus. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 12264, fols.
172*2-219 (written in 1459).
460
L I S T OF M A N U S C R I P T S QUOTED
De Sex Prioribus Conciliis. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 1451 (tenth century).
Epitome Celeberrimorum Conciliorum. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 2448, fols. 17-48
Excerpta Sanctorum Pontificum (Collection of Canon Law). University Library,
Prague, Codex Lobkovicz no. 496, fols. 850-102 (thirteenth century).
First Collection of Châlons. Bibl. Municipale de Châlons-sur-Marne, MS. no. 47
(first half of the twelfth century).
Second Collection of Châlons. Bibl. Mun. de Ch.-sur-M., MS. no. 75 (first half of
the twelfth century).
Ivo of Chartres. Collectio Tripartita. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. nos. 3858; 3858
A, B (twelfth century).
Lanfranc. Canonical Collection. MS. Brit. Mus. Cotton. Claudius D. ix : Decreta
Romanorum Pontificum, Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum (eleventh to
twelfth centuries).
Notitia Historica de Conciliis. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 1340, fol. 17 v.
(ninth to tenth centuries).
Photius ad Michaelem. De Conciliis. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 2448, fols. 1- 1 6
Photius ad Michaelem. De Conciliis. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 10589, fols. 213-43
(seventeenth century).
Polycarpus. First Recension. Vatican Library, Latin MS. no. 1354 (twelfth
century).
------Second Recension. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 3882 (end of the fourteenth
century).
Psellus de Septem Conciliis. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 2448, fols. 10 1-3 (sixteenth
century).
Psellus de Septem Conciliis. Bibl. Nat. Paris, MS. no. 10589, fols. 208-12 (seven
teenth century).
Summa Decretorum Haimonis. Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 4377 (twelfth
century) and no. 4286 (twelfth century).
Summary of the Collection in Ten Parts, Bibl. Nat. Paris, Latin MS. no. 14145,
fols. 9-15 (twelfth century).
461
LIST OF SOURCES
Acta Concilii Sardicensis. Mansi, vol. in, cols. 1-83.

Acta Concilii Nicaeni IL Mansi, vol. x ii, cols. 9 5 1-115 4 ; vol. x iii, cols. 1-820.
Acta Concilii Primi et Secundi (859, 861). Deusdedit Card., Collectio Canonum
(ed. W. von Glanvell), Paderborn, 1905, pp. 603-16; Mansi, vol. xvi, cois.
536-49 (canones).
Acta Synodi Romanae 863. M .G .H . Ep. vi, pp. 518-23.
Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani IV (869-870). Mansi, vol. xvi, cois. 1-208
(VersioLatinaAnastasiiBibi.); Mansi, vol. xvi,cois. 300-413. (Versio Graeca.)
Acta Concilii Ravennensis (872). Mansi, vol. xvu , cois. 335-44.
Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani V (879-80). Mansi, vol. xvu , cois. 365-525.
Deusdedit Card., Collectio Canonum (ed. von Glanvell), loc. cit. pp. 6 10 -17
(extract from the first five sessions).
Acta Synodi Oriensis. Spicilegium Cassinense, 1888, vol. 1.
Acta Concilii Lugdunensis II. Mansi, vol. x xiv, cols. 35-135.
Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani a. 1277 habiti. Mansi, vol. x x iv , cols. 185-90.
Acta Concilii Armenorum (1342). Mansi, vol. x x v , cols. 118 5-1270 .
Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani (1350). Mansi, vol. x x v i, cols. 127-212.
Acta Concilii Vaurensis (1368). Mansi, vol. x x v i, cols. 473-548.
Acta Concilii Pisani (1409). Mansi, vol. x x v n , cols. 1-502.
Acta Concilii Constantiensis (14 14 -15 ). Mansi, vol. xxvn , cols. 519-1240; vol.
X X V I I I , cols. 1-968. See also H. von der Hardt, Constantiensis Concilii Acta
et Decreta,, Frankfurt, Leipzig, 1696-1742; H. Finke, J. Holbisteiner,
H. Heimpel, Acta Concilii Constantiensis, Münster i.W., 1896-1928, 4 vols.
Acta Concilii Basileensis (1431-42). Mansi, vols, x x ix , x x x ; ed. J. Haller, Conc.
Bas. Basel, vols, i-iv , 1896-1903; vols, v, vi (G. Beckmann, R. Wacker-
nagel), 1904, 1926; vol. vm (H. Herre), 1910.
Acta Concilii Florentini (1438). Mansi, vol. x x x i, cols. 463-1998.
Acta Concilii Lateranensis V (15 12 -16 ). Mansi, vol. x x x ii, cols. 649-1002.
Acta Concilii Tridentini (1545-63). Mansi, vol. x x x m , cols. 1-9 41.
Actus Mediolani. De Privilegio Romanae Ecclesiae. See Petrus S. Damianus.
Aeneas, Ep. Liber adversus Graecos. P .L . vol. 12 1, cois. 682—762.
Agalianus. See Theodorus Agalianus.
Albrich, Monachus. Chronica Trium Fontium a monacho Hoiensi interpolata.
M .G .H . Ss. X X II I , pp. 631-950.
Alexandrinus, Cardinal. Commentarius super Decreto, Mediolani (G. A. de
Sangiorgio), 1494.
Alferici S. ad Wulfinum ep. Canones. P .L . vol. 139, cois. 1470-6.
Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Epistolae. M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 395-412.
——- Acta Concilii Constant. IV. Mansi, vol. x vi, pp. 1-208.
— — Vita S. Nicolai I, Papae. See Liber Pontificalis.
Anastasius Makedon. Controversiae. P .G . vol. 142, cois. 480-513.
Andreas Ep. Mogorensis. Gubernaculum Conciliorum (ed. H. von der Hardt).
Constantiensis Conc. Acta. . ., Franckfurt, 1690, t. vi, cois. 139-334.
462
L I S T OF S O U R C E S
Andronicus Camateros. J. Vecci Refutationes adversus A. Camateri. P .G . vol.

141, cols. 395—613.
Annales Bertiniani. M .G.H . Ss. 1, pp. 423-515.
------Fuldenses. M .G.H . Ss. 1, pp. 343-415.
------Hildesheimenses. M .G .H . Ss. m , pp. 2 2 -116 .
------- Lamperti. M .G .H . Ss. in, pp. 22-102.
------- Laubienses. M .G .H . Ss. iv, pp. 9-28.
------Leodienses. M .G .H . Ss. iv, pp. 9-30.
------Quedlinburgenses. M .G .H . Ss. m , pp. 22-90.
Anonymus Contra Latinos (ed. Dositheos). Τόμ. Καταλλαγης, Jassy, 1692, pp.
1-204.
Anonymus de Sex Synodis Oecum, (ed. Ch. Justellus), Nomocanon Photii, Paris,
16 15 ; (ed. G. Voellus, H. Justellus), Bibliotheca luris Canon. Vet. Paris, 1661,
pp. 116 1-5 .
Anselm of Havelberg. Dialogi. P .L . vol. 188, cols. 1139-1248.
Anselm of Lucca. Collectio Canonum (ed. F. Thaner). Anselmi episcopi Lucensis
Collectio Canonum. Oeniponte, 1906.
Arethas of Caesarea. Epitaphius in Euthymium Patrem. M. Jugie, Patr. Orient.
(ed. Graffin-Nau), vol. xvi, pp. 489-98.
Arsenius, Patriarch. Testamentum (ed. J. B. Cotelerius). Eccl. Graecae Monu
menta, vol. i i . Paris, 1681.
Assemanus, J. S. Bibliotheca luris Orientalis Canonici et Civilis. Romae, 1762.
Atto Vercellensis. Capitulare. P .L . vol. 134, cois. 27-52.
Aureum Speculum Papae (ed. G. Brown). Fasciculus Rerum Expetendarum.
London, 1690.
Auxilius. De Ordinationibus a Formoso Papa factis. P .L . vol. 129, cois. 1061-74.
------Libellus in Defensionem Stephani Epis. P .L . vol. 129, cols. 110 1- 12 .
------Infensor et Defensor. P .L . vol. 129, cols. 1073-6.
------In defensionem Sacrae Ordin. Papae Formosi (ed. E. Dümmler). Auxilius
und Vulgarius. Leipzig, 1866.
Balsamon, Th. Commentarii in Canones. P.G . vols. 137, 138.
Barlaam. Epistolae pro Latinis. P .G . vol. 15 1, cois. 1266-1330.
Bartolomaeus Brixiensis. Glossae. See Bibliography (Semeca, J.).
Basil of Achrida. Dialogi (ed. J. Schmidt). Des Basileus aus Achrida, unedierte
Dialoge. München, 1901.
— Letter to Hadrian IV. P .G . vol. 119 , cols. 929-33.
Beccos, Joannes. De Unione Ecclesiarum. P .G . vol. 14 1, cols. 15 -15 7 , 925-41.
------ Refutatio Photiani Libri de Spir. S. Ibid. cols. 727-864.
------ In Tomum Cyprii. Ibid. cols. 864-926.
------ Ad Sugdaeae episcopum. Ibid. cols. 289-337.
------De Depositione sua Oratio II. Ibid. cols. 969-1009.
Bernaldus. Apologeticus. M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 11, pp. 58-88.
------ De Excommunicatis Vitandis. M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 11, pp. 112-42.
Bernard, S. Epistolae. P .L . vol. 182, cols. 69-662.
Bernold. Chronicon. M .G .H . Ss. v, pp. 385-467.
Bertholdus. Annales. M .G .H . Ss. v, pp. 264-326.
Bessarion, Cardinal. Encyclica ad Graecos. P .G . vol. 16 1, cols. 449-90.
463
Bonizo de Sutri. Liber de Vita Christiana (ed. Pereis). Texte qiur Geschichte des
Röm. u. Kanon. Rechtes im M .A. vol. I. Berlin, 1930.
------ Liber ad Amicum. M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 1, pp. 568-620.
Bruno, S. Signiensis. De Sacrificio Azymo. Reply to Abbot Leo. P .L . vol. 165,
cols. 1085-90.
Burchard of Worms. Decretorum Libri X X . P .L . vol. 140, cols. 537-1058.
Caloyan, Prince. Letters to Innocent III. P .L . vol. 214, cols. 1 1 1 2 seq., and P .L .
vol. 215, cols. 287-92.
Capistranus, J. Tractatus de Papae et Concilii S. Ecclesiae Auctoritate. Tractatus,
vol. X I I I , i. Venetiis, 1584.
Carlerius (Charlier) de Gerson, J. See Gerson.. . .
Cedrenus, G. (Skylitzes). Historiarum Compendium. P.G . vol. 12 1, cois. 23-116 6
(Bonn, 1839).
Cerularius, M. Homilia in festo Restitutionis Imaginum. P.G . vol. 120, cois.
723-36.
------Letters. P .G . vol. 120, cois. 751-820.
------ Edictum Synodale. Ibid. cols. 736-48.
Chronica Apostolorum et Imperatorum Basileensia. M .G .H . Ss. x x x i, pp.
266-300.
Chronica Pontificum et Imperatorum Tiburtina. M .G.H . Ss. x x x i, pp. 226-65.
Chronicon Salernitanum. M .G .H . Ss. m , pp. 467-561.
Chrysolanus, P. Oratio de Spir. S. P.G . vol. 127, cois. 911-20.
démanges, Nicolas de. In G. Durandus Junior, Tractatus de Modo Gener. Concilii
Celebrandi.
Clement IV, Pope. E. Jordan, Les Régistres de Clément IV. Bibl. des Écoles Fr.
d'Athènes et de Rome, série II, vol. xi. Paris, 1893.
Codinus. De Officiis. Bonn, 1839.
Coletus, N. Sacrosancta Concilia. . . studio P. Labbe et G. Cossarti. . .curante N .
Coleto, 1728, etc.
Constantinus Melitaniota. De Ecclesiastica Unione et de Processione S. Spiritus.
P .G . vol. 141, cols. 1032-1273.
Constantinus Porphyrogennetos. De Ceremoniis Aulae Byzantinae (ed. J. Reiske),
Bonn, 1819 ; (ed. A. Vogt), Le Livre des Cérémonies, Paris, 1935.
------ De Administrando Imperio. Bonn, 1840.
----— Vita Basilii. Bonn, 1838 (Theoph. Contin.).
Crabbe, P. Concilia omnia, tam generalia, quam particularia, ab Apost. tempori
bus in hunc diem celebrata, Cologne, 1538.
Criminationes adversus Eccles. Latinam (ed. J. B. Cotelerius). Eccl. Graecae
Monum. vol. m. Paris, 1681.
Dandolo. Chronicon Venetum. Scriptores Rer. Ital. (Muratori). Cf. H. Simons-
feld, Andreas Dandolo u. seine Geschichtswerke. München, 1876.
Demetrios Cydones. Letters published by G. Cammelli (Correspondance, Texte
inédit et traduit). Paris, 1930. (Collect. Byqanté)
------ De Processione S. Spiritus. P .G . vol. 154, cols. 864-958 (written by Manuel
Calecas).
Deusdedit, Cardinal. Canonical Collection (ed. V. W olf von Glanvell), Die
Kanonensammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit. Paderborn, 1905.
464
Deusdedit, Cardinal. Libellus contra Invasores et Simoniacos. M .G.H . Lib. de

Lite, vol. π, pp. 292-365.
Disputatio vel Defensio Paschalis Papae. M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 11, pp.
659-66.
Dominican Brothers. Tractatus Contra Errores Graecorum. P.G . vol. 140, cois.
487-541.
Durandus, G. Tractatus de Modo Generalis Concilii Celebrandi, Paris, 1671 (in
Tractatus, vol. x ili, p. 1 ; Venice, 1583).
Erchempertus. Historia Langobardorum. M .G .H . Ss. in, and in M .G .H . Ss.
Rerum Langobardorum (ed. G. Waitz).
Eustratios of Nicaea. Περί τσυ αγίου Πνεύματος; Περί των ^ ύ μ ω ν (ed. by
Demetrakopulos), Εκκλησιαστική βιβλιοθήκη. Leipzig, 1866.
Euthymios, Patriarcha. Encomium in Concept. S. Annae (ed. M. Jugie) in Graffin-
Nau, Patrol. Orient, vol. xvi, pp. 499-505, 1921.
------Encomium in Venerationem Zonae Deiparae. Ibid. pp. 505-14.
Euthymios Zigabenos. Panoplia. P.G . vol. 130.
Eutychius of Alexandria. Annales. P .G . vol. in, cols. 907-1156.
Faventius, Joannes. Summa Gratiani; Glossae. See Bibliography (Semeca, J.,
who quotes Faventius).
Flodoardus. Historia Remensis Ecclesiae. M .G .H . Ss. x iii, pp. 405-600.
Flores Temporum. Pontifices, by a Suabian Minorite. M .G .H . Ss. x xiv, pp.
228-50.
Formosus, Papa. Letters to Stylian. Mansi, vol. xvi, pp. 439, 456-8.
Formulae Merov. et Karolini Aevi. M .G .H . Leg. Sect, v, Form. (ed. K. Zeumer,
1886).
Gauzlin, Abbot of Fleury. The Life of Gauzlin, written by Andrew of Fleury.
See Bibliography (L. Delisle).
Genesios, J. Regum Libri iv. Bonn, 1834.
Georgius Acropolita. Annales. P.G . vol. 140, cols. 969-1220.
------- Λόγος περί τής Έκπορεύσεως (ed. Demetrakopulos), Έκκλ. Βιβλ. pp.
395—411- Leipzig, 1866.
Georgius Cedrenus. See Cedrenus, G. (Skylitzes).
Georgius of Cyprus. Scripta Apologetica. P.G . vol. 142, cols. 233-70.
Georgius Gemistos Plethon. De Dogmate Latino. P.G . vol. 160, cols. 975-80.
Georgius Koresios. Έγχειρίδιον. . . (ed. Dositheos). Τόμος Καταλ. pp. 276-410.
Jassy, 1692.
Georgius Metochita. Historiae Dogmaticae Lib. 1 et 11 (ed. A. Mai). Patrum
Nova Bibl. vol. vm . Roma, 1854-1905.
Georgius Monachus. Chronicon (ed. C. de Boor), Teubner, 1904, 2 vols.
------ Continuatus, Vitae Imperatorum. Bonn, 1838.
Georgius Pachymeres. Historia Rerum a Michaele Paleologo. . . Gestarum. Bonn,
l835’
Georgius Scholarios. De Processione S. Spiritus (ed. M. Jugie, Oeuvres complètes
de Gen. Scholarius), vol. il. Paris, 1929-38.
------ Apologia Syntomos (ed. M. Jugie), vol. ni.
------ Letter to Demetrius Palaeologus against the Union of Florence. Ibid. vol. h i .
Georgius Syncellus. Chronographia, Bonn, 1829; ed. de Boor, vol. 11 (Teubner).
DPS 465 30
Gerbert of Rheims. Letters (ed. J. Havet). Collect, de Textes pour servir à VÉtude
et à VEnseignement de VHistoire. Paris, 18 8 9 .
Gerhohus of Reichersberg. Opusculum de Edificio Dei. M .G .H . Lib. de Lite,
vol. ni, pp. 136 seq.
------Libellus de Simoniacis. M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. ni, pp. 239-72.
Germanos II, Patriarch. Epistula ad Cyprios (ed. J. B. Cotelerius). Ecclesiae
Graecae Monumenta, vol. π. Paris, 1681.
Gerson, Charlier de, J. Opera Omnia. 4 tom. Paris, 1606.
------De Potestae Ecclesiastica, vol. I, pp. 110-45.
— — De Auferibilitate Papae ab Ecclesia, vol. I, pp. 154-71.
------- De Modo se Habendi Tempore Schismatis, vol. I, pp. 171-5*
------Tractatus de Schismate, vol. I, pp . 2 1 0 - 2 0 .
------De Unitate Ecclesiastica, vol. I, pp. 178-86.
------- De Concilio unius Obedientiae, vol. I, pp. 221—30.
----- - Trilogus in Materia Schismatis, vol. I, p p . 292—315.
------Tractatus de Potestate Regia et Papali (ed. M. Goldast). Monarchia S. Rom.
Imp. vol. π. Harroviae, 16 11-14 .
Gesta Episcoporum Neapolitanorum. M .G .H . Ss. Rer. Lang. pp. 398-436.
Gratianus. Concordantia Discordantium Canonum. 1772 edition by J. Fenton,
and the Venice editions of 1495 and 15 14 ; edition by Friedberg in Corpus
Juris Canonici (Lipsiae, 1879). See also P .L . vol. 187.
Gregorius Abulpharagius. Chronicon Syriacum (pd. Bruns and Kirsch). Leipzig, 1789.
Gregorius Mammas. Contra Ephesium. P .G . vol. 160, cols. 13-205.
Gregory VII. Registrum (ed. E. Caspar), Das Register Gregors V I I ; M .G .H .
Ep. Selectae, 11, 1920, 1923, 2 vols.
Gregory of Alexandria. Profession of Faith. P.G . vol. 152, cols. 110 2-3.
Guido de Baysio. Glossae in ‘ Decretum Gratiani’. Venice, 1495.
Habert, Isaac. Archieraticon. Liber Pontificum Ecclesiae Graecae. Paris, 1643.
Hadrianus II, Papa. Epistolae. M .G.H . Ep. vi, pp. 691-765.
Hardouin, J. Conciliorum Collectio Regia Maxima. . . . 12 vols. Paris, 1715.
Helinandus Frigidi Montis. Chronicon. P .L . vol. 212, cols. 771—1082.
Herimannus Augiensis. Chronicon. M .G .H . Ss. v, pp. 74-133.
Hincmar. Annales. M .G .H . Ss. 1, pp. 455-515.
------Epistolae. P .L . vol. 126.
Hormisdas, Papa. Regula Fidei. Mansi, vol. vm , col. 407.
Hosius, S. De Loco et Auctoritate Rom. Pont, in Ecclesia, Bibliotheca, vol. x ix.
Romae, 1699.
Hugh of Verdun (Flaviniacensis). Chronicon Verdunense. P .L . vol. 154, cols.
1 12-403; M .G.H . Ss. vin, pp. 280-503.
Hugo Etherianus. De Haeresibus Graecorum. P .L . vol. 202, cols. 231-396.
Hugo de Sancto Victore. Eruditiones Didascalicae Libri Septem. P .L . vol. 176,
cois. 741-838.
Humbertus Cardinalis. Contra Simoniacos. P .L . vol. 143, cols. 10 0 5 -12 10 ;
M .G.H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 1, pp. 100—253.
------De Gestis Legatorum in Urbe CP. (ed. Will). Acta et Scripta quae de
Controversiis Eccl. Gr. et Lat. s. X I extant (Leipzig, 1864); P .L . vol. 143,
cois. 1002-4.
466
Humbertus Cardinalis. Adversus Graecorum Calumnias. P .L . vol. 143, cols.

930-74.
------ Rationes de S. Spiritu a Patre et Filio. A. Michel, H u m bert u. K er u lla rio s ,
vol. I, pp. 77 seq. Paderborn, 1925.
------Contra Nicetam. P .G . vol. 120, cols. 983-1000.
Humbertus de Romanis. Opusculum Tripartitum (ed. Crabbe). C oncilia O m n ia . . .
vol. π (Coloniae, ed. 15 51). S ee also Bibliography (F. Heintke and K. Michel).
Innocent III. Litterae. P .L . vol. 215.
Invectiva in Romam pro Formoso Papa (ed. E. Dümmler). G esta B eren g a rii.
Halle, 1871.
Isaias of Cyprus. Epistola de Processione S. Spiritus. P .G . vol. 158, cols.
971-6.
Ivo of Chartres. Decretum. P .L . vol. i6i,cols. 59-1022. National Library, Paris,
MS. Latin 3874.
------Epistolae. P .L . vol. 162, cols. 11-288.
Jacobatius Ch., Cardinalis. De Concilio Domini, T ra cta tu s, vol. χ ιιι, ρ. ι.
Venetiis, 1584-
Jacobus de Paradiso (de Clusa). De Septem Statibus Ecclesiae (ed. E. G. Brown).
F a scicu lu s R eru m E x petendarum e t F u gien daru m . London, 1690.
Joannes V III, Papa. Epistolae. P .L . vol. 126, cols. 651-967; Mansi, vol. χνιι,
cols. 3-242; M .G.H. Ep. vu (ed. E. Caspar).
Joannes II, Russian Metropolitan. Letter to Clement III (ed. A. Pavlov). K r i-
tichesk ie O puitui. St Petersburg, 1878.
Joannes Cantacuzenus. H istoria e, 3 vols. Bonn, 1828-32.
Joannes Chilas. Libellus de Processione S. Spiritus. P .G . vol. 135, cols. 505-8.
Joannes Claudiopolitanus. Controversiae (ed. A. Pavlov). K ritich esk ie O puitui.
St Petersburg, 1878.
Joannes de Deo. Cronica. M .G .H . Ss. x x x i, pp. 301-24.
Joannes Diaconus. Chronicon Venetum. M .G .H . Ss. vu, pp. 4-47.
Joannes Eugenicos. Treatise against the Council of Florence (ed. Dositheos).
Τόμος Καταλλαγης, pp. 206-73. Jassy, 1692.
Joannes of Jerusalem. Περί των Άζυμων (ed. Dositheos). Τόμος ’Αγάπης, pp.
504-38. Jassy, 1698.
Joannes VI Palaeologus. Letter to Martin V. Mansi, vol. x x viii, col. 1069.
Joannes of Paris. Tractatus de Potestate Regia et Papali (ed. S. Schardius). D e
J u r is d ic t io n e . . .I m p e r ia li. . . scrip ta , 1566.
Joannes Scholasticus. Syntagma 50 Titulorum (ed. V. Beneshevich). S .B . h a yr.
Akad. W iss. (Philos.-Hist. Cl.), 1937.
Joannes Skylitzes. S ee Cedrenus.
Job Jasites. Contra Latinos (ed. J. Hergenröther), P h o tiu s (Regensburg, 1867-9),
vol. i i , pp. 526 seq.
Joel. C hrono g ra p h ia . Bonn, 1837.
Joseph Bryennios. Περί της άγιας Τριάδος Λόγος (ed. Ε. Bulgaris). Leipzig, 1768.
------Διάλεξις περί της του άγιου Πνεύματος εκπορ. Ibid. ρρ. 407-78·
Joseph of Methone. Disceptatio pro Concilio Florentino. P .G . vol. 159, cois.
960-1394.
Justellus, H., Voellus, G. B ib lio th eca J u r is C anonici V eteris.. . . Paris, 1661.
467 30 -2
Justellus, Chr. Nomocanon Photii.. . . Paris, 1615.

Justinianus. Novellae (ed. C. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal). Teubner, 1881.
Labbe, Ph., Cossart, G. Sacrosancta Concilia ad Regiam Editionem Exacta, ιη vols.
Paris, 1672.
Laelius Jordanus. De Romanae Sedis Origine et Auctoritate. Tractatus, vol. xm ,
p. i. Venice, 1584.
Leo IV, Papa. Epistolae. M .G .H . Ep. v, pp. 585-612.
Leo IX , Papa. Epistolae et Decreta Pontificia. P .L . vol. 143, cois. 592-838.
Leo Achridanus. Epistola de Azymis et Sabbatis. P .G . vol. 120, cois. 835-44.
Leo Bardas. Scriptor incertus de Leone Barda. Bonn (1842), pp. 335—62.
Leo Choerosphactes. Letters to the Emperor Leo (ed. J. Sakkelion), in Δελτίον
τής ίστορ. και εθνολ. εταιρίας, vol. ι, 1883; (ed. G. Kolias), in Texte u.
Forschungen pur Byp-Neugriech. Philologie, no. 31. Athens, 1939.
Leo Diaconus. Historia. Bonn (1828).
Leo Grammaticus. Chronographia, P.G . vol. 108, cols. 1037—1164. Bonn (1842),
pp. 3 -33 1.
Leo Imperator. Panegyric of S. Elias (ed. Akakios). Δέοντος του Σοφού πανηγυρικοί
Λόγοι. Athens, 1868.
------ Panegyric of Basil I, A. Vogt, I. Hausherr, l’ Oraison funèbre de Basile I.
Orientalia Christiana, vol. 25. Rome, 1931.
Leo Metrop. o f Russia. Προς ‘Ρωμαίους. . .περί των ’ Αζυμων (ed. A. Pavlov).
Kriticheskie Opuitui, pp. 115 -3 2 . St Petersburg, 1878.
Leo of Ostia. Chronicon Casinense. M .G .H . Ss. vu, pp. 514-727.
Leonis Abbatis et Legati Epistola ad Hugonem et Robertum Reges. M .G .H . Ss.
in, p. 686; P .L . vol. 139, cois. 337-44.
Liber Diurnus. G. Galbiati, II Codice Ambrosiano de Liber Diurnus. Rom. Pont.
Analecta Ambrosiana, vol. vu. Milan-Rome, 1921 ; (ed. by Th. E. von Sickel),
Liber Diurnus. Vindobonae, 1889.
Liber Pontificalis. (Ed. L. Duchesne), 2 vols. Paris, 1886, 1892.
Liudprandus. De Legatione Constant. M .G .H . Ss. in, pp. 347-63.
------ Antapodosis, M .G .H . Ss. ni, pp. 273-339; Engl. transi, by F. A. Wright,
The Works o f Liudprand o f Cremona. London, 1930.
Macarius Macres. Προς Λατίνους (ed. Dositheos). Τόμος Καταλλαγης. Jassy, 1692.
Malalas, Jo. Chronographia. Bonn (1831).
Manasses, C. Compendium Chronicum. P .G . vol. 127, cols. 219-472. Bonn,
1837.
Manuel Calecas. Adversus Graecos Libri iv. P .G . vol. 152, cols. 17-258.
------De Processione Spiritus S. P.G . vol. 154, cols. 864-958 (attributed to
Demetrius Cydones).
Manuel II Palaeologus. Lettres (ed. E. Legrand). Paris, 1893.
Manuel Rhetor. De Marco Ephesio deque Rebus in Synodo Florentino Gestis
(ed. L. Petit). Patrologia Orientalis, vol. XVII, pp. 491-522.
Marianus Scotus. Chronicon. M .G .H . Ss. v, pp. 481-568.
Marinus II, Papa. Litterae. P .L . vol. 133, cols. 863—80.
Mark of Ephesus. Dialogus de Additamento in Symbolo. Patrol. Orient, vol. xvn ,
pp. 4 15 -2 1.
------ Epistola Encyclica. Ibid. pp. 449-59.
468
Marsilius of Padua (Menandrinus Patavinus). T ra cta tu s de T ra n sla tion e I m p erii

(ed. Schardius), 1566; (ed. M. Goldast), M on a rch ia S .R . I . v ol. 11, pp. 147 seq.,
Harroviae, 16 11-14 .
------D efen so r P a cis (ed. M. Goldast), vol. 11, pp. 154-312. Franckfurt, 1592.
Martinus Opaviensis. ‘ Margarita Decreti’, seu Tabula Martiniana (ed. P. Drach).
Spire, 1490 (?).
------Chronicon, M .G .H . Ss. x xn , pp. 377-475.
Matthaeus Blastares. Κατά Λατίνων (ed. Dositheos). Τόμος Καταλλαγής, pp.
441-55. Jassy, 1692.
Maximos Chrysoberges. De Process. S. Spiritus. P .G , vol. 154, cols. 1217-30.
Maximos Planudes. Tria Capita, refuted by George Metochita. P .G . vol. 141,
cols. 1276-1308.
Merlin, J. C on ciliorum Q uatu or G en eralium T om us P r im u s. Paris, 1524.
Metrophanes of Smyrna. Letter to the Logothete Manuel. Mansi, vol. x vi, cols.
413-20.
Michael of Anchialos. Dialogue with Manuel Comnenos (ed. by Ch. Loparev), in
V ii. V rem ennik, vol. xiv, 1907.
Michael Cerularius. S ee Cerularius.
Michael Glycas. A nnales. Bonn (1836).
------Κεφάλαια εις τάς απορίας της Γράφης (ed. Eustratiades). Athens, 1906.
Michael Syrus. C hronicon (ed. J. B. Chabot). Paris, 1899-1924.
Milliolus, A. Liber de Temporibus. M .G .H . Ss. x x x i, pp. 336-668.
Minorita Erphordiensis. Chronica Minor. M .G .H . Ss. x xiv, pp. 172-204.
Narratio de Beads Patribus Tarasio et Nicephoro. P .G . vol. 99.
Nicephorus, Patriarcha. Epistola ad Leonem III. P .G . vol. 100, cols. 169-200.
Nicephorus Blemmydes. De Processione S. Spiritus. P .G . vol. 142, cols. 533-84.
Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulos. Ecclesiastica Historia. P .G . vol. 145, cols.
603-1332.
Nicephorus Gregoras. B yz a n tin a e H istoria e (ed. Bekker), Bonn, 1855, vol. 1,
pp. 3-279; P .G . vol. 148, cols. 1 19-1450 and vol. 149, cols. 9-502.
------Panegyric of Theophano. Hergenröther, M on u m en ta G raeca a d P h otiu m
p ertin en tia . Ratisbonnae, 1869.
Nicephorus Philosophus. Vita A ntonii C auleae. A.S. Febr., d. 12. P .G . vol. 106.
Nicephorus Phocas. N o vella e, pp. 309-23. Bonn, 1828.
Nicetas Choniata. Thesaurus Orthodoxae Fidei. P .G . vol. 140, cois. 10-282.
Nicetas-David. Vita Ignatii. Mansi, vol. xvi, cois. 209-92; P .G . vol. 105,
cois. 487-574.
Nicetas of Maronea. De Processione S. Spiritus. P .G . vol. 139, cois. 169-222.
Nicetas Nicenus. De Schismate Graecorum. P .G . vol. 120, cois. 713-20.
Nicetas Stethatos. Libellus contra Latinos. P .G . vol. 120, cols. 10 11-2 2 .
Nicholas I, Papa. Epistolae. M .G .H . Ep. vi, pp. 257-690.
Nicholas de Cusa. S ee Bibliography (Cusa, N. de).
Nicholas of Methone. Νικολάου έπ. Μεθώνης λόγοι δύο (ed. Demetrakopulos).
Έκκλ. Βιβλιοθήκη. Leipzig, 1866. For the Latin edition see p. 397.
Nicholas Mysticos. Epistolae. P .G . vol. m , cois. 27-392.
Nicolaus Siculus Panormitanus. Pro Honore et Conservatione Concilii Basiliensis.
Mansi, vol. x x x , pp. 1123 seq.
469
Nilus (Neilos) Cabasilas of Thessalonica. De Dissidio Ecclesiarum; De Primatu.

P .G . vol. 149, co^s* 683-729.
Nilus (Neilos) of Rhodes. Treatise on the Councils (ed. Chr. Justellus), N om oca non
P h o tii, Paris, 1665 ; (ed. G. Voellus), H. Justellus, B ibi. J u r i s C anonici V eteris,
vol. i, pp. 1155-60, Paris, 1661.
Nogaret, W. de. Rationes quibus probatur quod Bonifacius legitime ingredi non
potuit Celestino vivente. P. Dupuy, H istoire du D ifféren d .. . . Paris, 1655.
Ockham, William of. Octo Quaestionum Decisiones super Potestate Summi Pontificis
(ed. Goldast). M o n a rch ia , vol. 11, pp. 313—91.
------ Dialogus de Potestate Imperatoris. Ibid. pp. 392-957.
—---- B reviloq u iu m de P o te sta te P a p a e (ed. L. Baudry). Paris, 1937.
Pancapalea. Summa. J. F. v. Schulte, D ie S u m m a d es P a n ca p a lea . Giessen, 1890.
Pantaleo (Pantelemon) Diaconus. Contra Graecos. P .G . vol. 140, cois. 487-574.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. S ee Photius.
------M on u m en ta G raeca e t L atin a a d H istoria m P h o tii P a tria rch a e P ertin en tia ,
2 vols. Petropoli, 1901.
Paschalis II. Professio Fidei. P .L . vol. 163, cois. 471-2.
Patria Constantinopoleos (ed. Th. Preger). S crip to res O rigin u m C on stan tin opoii-
tanarum . Leipzig (Teubner), 1907.
Petrus Abelardus. Apologia. P .L . vol. 178, cois. 105-8.
Petrus de Alliaco Cardinalis. De Ecclesiae et Cardinalium Auctoritate, in
G ersonis O pera. Paris, 1606.
Petrus S. Damianus. Actus Mediolani, Opusculum v. P .L . vol. 145, cois. 89-98.
Petrus Siculus. Historia Manichaeorum. P .G . vol. 104, cois. 1239-1304.
Philotheus. Cletorologion. Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De Ceremoniis (Bonn) ;
J. B. Bury, Im p . A dm in. S y stem in th e N inth C entury. London, 19 11.
Photius. O ration es e t H om iliae (ed. S. Aristarchos). Constantinople, 1900.
------ Ad Amphilochium, P .G . vol. 101 (ed. Sophocles Oikonomos), Athens, 1858.
— — Epistolae, Valetta, London, 1864; P .G . vol. 102, cols. 585—990.
------ Mystagogia0 P .G . vol. 102, cols. 279-400.
------ Epistolae xlv (ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus). Petropoli, 1896.
------ Letter to Ashod, King of Armenia. A. Finck, Esnik Gjandschezian, Der
Brief des Photius an Aschot u. dessen Antwort, in Z eitsch rift f ü r A rm en ische
P h ilo lo g ie , vol. II, 1904; Papadopoulos-Kerameus, P a lestin sk ii Shornik, vol.
Xi, 1892.
------ Collationes Accurataeque Demonstrationes de Episcopis et Metropolitis (ed.
F. Fontani), Novae Eruditorum Deliciae, Florentiae, 178 6 ,1 . 1 ; P .G . vol. 104,
cols. 1220-32.
------ P h o tia ca (ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus). St. Petersburg, 1897.
Phournes, J. Graeco-Latin Discussions (ed. Demetrakopulos). Έκκλ. Βιβλιοθήκη.
Leipzig, 1866.
Pius IV. B u lla su p er fo r m a J u r a m e n ti p r o fes sio n is fid e i. Mansi, vol. x x x iil,
pp. 220-2.
Placidus Monachus. Liber de Honore Ecclesiae. M .G .H . Lib. de Lite, vol. 11,
pp. 566-639.
Poggio of Florence, Joannes. D e P o te sta te P a p a e e t C oncilii (ed. J. Beplin). Rome,
1517 (?)·
470
Prierio, Sylvester de (Mazzolini). De Irrefragabili Veritate Rom. Eccl. Bibliotheca,

vol. X I X . Romae, 1699.
Psellos. Poem on the Orthodox Faith and on the Councils. P*G. vol. 122, cols.
816 seq.
Pseudo-Simeon. See Simeon Logothete.
Ptolemaeus Lucensis. Historia Ecclesiastica. Muratori, Ss. Rerum Italic, vol. xi.
Rangerius Lucensis. Vita S. Anselmi Lucensis Ep. M .G.H . Ss. x x x , pp.
i i 52-1307.
Ratherius. Praeloquiorum Libri Sex. P .L . vol. 136, cois. 145-344.
------Itinerarium. Ibid. cols. 579-600.
------Decreta et Libellus. Ibid. cols. 477-82.
Ratramnus Corbiensis. Contra Graecorum Opposita. P .L . vol. 12 1, cois. 225-346.
L. d’Achery, Spicilegium. Paris, 1723.
Regino of Prüm. Libri Duo de Synodalibus Causis. P .L . vol. 132, cois. 185-400;
(ed. F. G. A. Wasserschieben), Lipsiae, 1840.
Rolandus Magister. Summa. F. Thaner, Die Summa M . Rolandi. Innsbruck, 1874.
Romualdus (Guarna) Salernitanus. Chronicon. Muratori, Ss. Rerum Italic, vol.
vu, pars 1.
Ruhnus. Summa Decretorum. H. Singer, Die Summa Decr. des M . Rufinus.
Paderborn, 1902.
Sacchi de Platina, B. Historia de Vitis Pontificum Rom. Venice, 15 11.
Sathas, C. Publisher of Anonym. Chronicle, Bibi. Graeca Medii Aevi> t. vu. Paris,
1894.
Semeca, J. (Joannes Teutonicus). Glossae in Decr. Grat. (ed. Venice, 1495).
J. F. Schulte, Die Glosse zum Decret Gratians, in Denkschr. Akad. Wiss.
Wien (Philos.-Hist. Cl.), 1872, Bd xxi, pp. 70 seq.
Sergius III. Letter to the Frankish Episcopate. (Synod of Trosley), Mansi, vol.
X V I I I, col. 304.
Sicardus Cremonensis. Chronica. M .G .H . Ss. x x x i, pp. 2 2 -18 1.
Sigebertus Gemblacensis. Chronicon. M .G.H . Ss. vi, pp. 300-74.
Simeon Logothete (Pseudo-Simeon). Chronicon. Bonn, 1838 (Theoph. Cont.),
pp. 603-760.
Sirmond, I. Concilia Generalia, 4 vols. Romae, 1608-12 (Collectio Romana).
Stephanus Tornacensis. Summa. J. v. Schulte, Die Summa des Stephanus Torn.
Giessen, 1891.
Stephen V. Fragmenta et Epistolae. M .G .H . Ep. vu, pp. 334-65.
Stylianos of Neo-Caesarea. Letter to Pope Stephen V. Mansi, vol. xvi, pp. 426-35 ;
M . G.H . Ep. vu, pp. 375-82.
Surius, L. Concilia Omnia tam Generalia quam Particularia. Cologne, 1567.
Symeon Magister. See Simeon Logothete.
Symeon of Thessalonica. Dialogus contra hereses. P .G . vol. 155, cols, 33-176.
Synaxarion. Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum. A.S. Nov. (ed. H. Delehaye).
Brussels, 1902.
Synodicon Vetus, published by J. Pappe in J. A. Fabricius and G. C. Harles,
Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. xii. Hamburg, 1809.
Σύνταγμα των ιερών κανόνων (ed. G. Rhalles and M. Potles), 6 vols. Athens,
1852-9.
471
Theodorus Agalianus. Refutatio Argyropuli. P.G . vol. 158, colsT io n - 5 2 .

------ Συλλογή,. . (ed. Dositheos). Τόμος Καταλλαγής, pp. 432 seq. Jassy, 1692.
Theodorus II Lascaris. De Processione S . Spiritus (ed. H. B. Swete). London,
1875.
Theodorus Studita. Narratio de Beatis Patriarchis Tarasio et Nicephoro. P.G .
vol. 99, cols. 1849-54.
------Epistolae. P.G. vol. 99, cols. 904-1670.
------ Laudatio S. Platonis Hegumeni. Ibid. cols. 804-49.
Theognostos. Libellus. Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 296-301.
Theoleptos of Philadelphia. Tractatus de Operatione in Christo. P.G . vol. 143,
cols. 381-404.
Theophanes. Chronographia (ed. de Boor). Lipsiae, 1887 (Teubner). Bonn, 1839,
1841.
Theophanes Continuatus. Bonn, 1838.
Theophylactus of Ochrid. Liber de iis quorum Latini incusantur. P.G . vol. 126,
cols. 221-49.
- — -V ita S. dementis. P.G . vol. 126, cols. 119 3—1240.
Thomas S. Aquinas. Contra Errores Graecorum. See F. Reusch, Die Fälschungen
in dem Tractat des Thomas von Aquin gegen die Griechen. S .B . bayr.
AkacL. Wiss. (Phil.-Hist. Kl.), 1889, vol. xvm .
------ Summa Theologica (Rome ed. 1888), vol. iv.
Torquemada (Turrecremata), Joannes de. Summa de Ecclesia (ed. Card. Vitellius).
Venetiis, 1561.
------ Commentaria in Decretum (ed. de Bohier). Lugduni, 1519.
------De Potestate Papae et Concilio Generali (ed. J. Friedrich). Oeniponti,
1871.
------Responsio in . . . congregationem Basileensium. Mansi, vol. x x x i, cois.
63-127.
Triumphus, Augustus, of Ancona. Summa de Eccl. Potestate. Coloniae Agrip. 1475.
Udalrich, S. Sermo Synodalis. P .L . vol. 135, cois. 1069-74.
Vio, Th. de. De Auctoritate Papae et Concilii. Bibliotheca, Romae, t. x ix .
------ De Divina Institutione Pontificatus Romani Pontificis. Corpus Catholicorum
(ed. F. Lauchert), vol. x. Münster i.W. 1925.
Vita S. Anselmi Lucensis episcopi. See Rangerius.
------Cauleae Patriarchae. See Nicephorus Philosophus.
------S. Clementis, by Theophylactus. P.G . vol. 126, cois. 1193-1240.
------S. Constantini Judaei. A.S. Nov. vol. iv.
------ Euthymii (ed. de Boor). Berlin, 1888.
------ Euthymii Junioris (ed. L. Petit). Revue de VOrient Chrétien, 1903.
------ S. Evaristi (ed. C. van de Vorst). Analecta Bollandiana, vol. x l i , 1923.
------- S. Gregorii Magni, a Joanne Diacono. P .L . vol. 75, cois. 63-242.
----— Ignatii, by Nicetas-David. P.G. vol. 105, cois. 487-573.
------ S. Joannicii, by Sabas and Peter. A .S. 4 November, pp. 311-4 35 .
------ Josephi Hymnographi, by Theophanes (ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, in his
Monumenta Graeca et Latina, Petropoli, vol. 11, 1901); by John the Deacon,
P.G. vol. 105, cols. 926-76.
------ S. Methodii. P.G . vol. 100, cois. 1244-61.
472
Vita S. Nicephori, by Ignatius the Deacon (ed. C. de Boor). Lipsiae, 1880.

------- Nicetae Mediciensis, by Theosterictus Monachus. A.S. (3 Aprilis).
------ Nicolai Studitae, by John the Deacon. P.G . vol. 105, cols. 864-925.
------ S. Tarasii, by Ignatius the Deacon. A.S. (25 Februarii).
------S. Theodorae (ed. Regel). Analecta Byântino-Russica. Petropoli, 1891.
Vulgarius, Eugenius. De Causa Formosana Libellus (ed. E. Dümmler). Auxilius
und Vulgarius. Leipzig, 1866.
Zonaras, J. Annales. Bonn, 184 1; 2nd vol. 1844.
------Commentaria in Canones.. . . P.G . vols. 137, 138.
473
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A d o n tz, M. N. L ’Age et l’ Origine de l’Empereur Basile I. B y ia n tio n (1933)?
vol. v in ; (1934), vol. ix.
------La Portée historique de l’Oraison funèbre de Basile I. B y ia n tio n (1933),
vol. vin.
A g u s t in , A n t o n io ( A n t o n iu s A u g u s t in u s ). O pera om n ia , 8 v o l s . L u c a e ,
1765-74.
------D e E m en dation e G ratiani d ia logoru m libri duo (O p era , vol. I I I ). Lucae, 1767.
------J u r i s P o n tificii V eteris E pitom e (O p era , vol. v). Lucae, 1770.
------D e S y n o d is e t P seu d o sy n o d is (O p era , vol. v).
------J u r is P o n tificii E p ito m e . Tarragona, 1587.
A i l l y , P . d ’ ( A l l ia c o , P e t r u s d e ). D e Ecclesiae et Cardinalium a u c to r it a t e
(G erson is O p era ), Paris, 1606.
A lban u s , J. H. De Potestate Papae, in T ra cta tu s, t. x m . Venice, 1584.
A lex a n d r e N oël (A lex a n d er N a t a lis ). H istoria E cclesia stica V eteris e t N ovi
T esta m en ti, 8 tom. Paris, 1660.
A l l a c c i , L . ( A l l a t i u s ) . D e E cclesia e O ccid . atqu e O rien t. P erp etu a C on sen sion e .
Coloniae Agrippinae, 1648.
------D e L ibris e t R eb u s E cclesia e G ra ecoru m . Parisiis, 1646.
------D e O cta va S yn o d o P h otia n a . Romae, 1662.
------Diatriba de Methodiis. P .G . vol. 100, cois. 1231-40.
------In R ob erti C reygh ton i A pparatum , V ersionem e t N ota s a d h istoria m C oncilii
F loren tin i,, . . Romae, 1665.
------G raecia e O rth odox ae T om us p rim u s e t secu n d u s. Romae, 1652, 1659.
A l l ix , P. N ecta rii P a tria rch a e H ierosolym ita n i co n fu ta tio im p erii P a p a e in E cclesia m
(Engl, transi.). London, 1702.
A l m a i n u s , J. De Auctoritate Ecclesiae e t Concilii contra Thomam de Vio
(G erson is O pera, ed. by Ellies du Pin, t. i i ) . Parisiis, 1706 (ed. 1606, vol. i).
A l t a n e r , B. Kentnisse des Griechischen in den Missionsorden während des 13 u.
14 Jh. Z , f ü r K ir ch e n g e sch ich te (1934), v o l . l u i .
A m a n n , E. Photius. D iet, de T héol. C athol, (1935), vol. xii, cols. 1536-1604.
------ Jean VIII. Ibid. (1924), vol. vm , cols. 602-13.
------L ’Époque Carolingienne. H istoire de T É g lise (ed. A. Fliehe and V. Martin),
vol. vi. Paris, 1937.
A n d r ead es , A . Le recrutement des fonctionnaires et les Universités dans l’Empire
Byzantin. M éla n g es de D roit d éd iés a M . G. C ornil, Paris, 1926.
A n d r u z z i , L. V etus G raecia de S, S ed e R om a n a p r a ecla r e sen tien s, Venice, 1713.
------C onsensus tum G raecoru m tum L atin oru m P a tru m de P r o c. S pir. S, ex F ilio.
Romae, 1716.
A r i s t a r c h o s , S. Φωτίου λόγοι και όμιλίαι. Constantinople, 1900.
A r n o l d , G . U n p a rteyisch e K irch en u. K etq er H istorien .. . . Schaff hausen, 1740— 2.
A s s e m a n u s , J. S. B ib lioth eca J u r i s O rien ta lis C anonici e t C ivilis. Romae, 1762-4.
B a r o n i u s , C. A nnales E c c le s ia s tic i,.. .u n a cu m critica h isto rico -ch ro n o lo g ica P .
A ntonii P a g ii, 38 torn. Lucae, 1738-59.
47 4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Basn a g e , J. Thesaurus Monumentorum EccL et Hist. sive Henrici Canisii Lectiones
Antiquae. Antverpiae, 1725.

------Histoire de VEglise. Rotterdam, 1699.
B a u d r y , L. Guillelmi de Occam Breviloquium de potestate Papae. Paris, 1937.
B a y n e s , N. The Byqantine Empire. London, 1925.
B e e s , N icos A . Un manuscrit des Météoris de l’an 8 6 1-2 . Revue des Etudes
Grecques (19 13 ), t. X X V I .
B e l l a r m i n e , R. De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. Coloniae, 1684.
------De Conciliis et Ecclesia, Opera Omnia. Cploniae Agrippinae, 1633.
B e n e s h e v i c h , V l . Joannis Scholastici Synagoga L titulorum. Abhandl. bayr.
Akad. Wiss. (Phil.-Hist. Kl.), 1937.
B e v e r i d g e , W. Συνοδικόν, sive Pandectae Canonum SS. Apost. et Conciliorum,
2 vols. Oxonii, 1672.
B ö h m e r , A. Nikolaus I, Realen^yklopädie f . prot. Theol. (3rd ed.). Leipzig, 1904.
B o j a r s k i , J. P. Historya Focyusqa.. . . Lwow, 1895.
B o o r , C. d e . Excerpta hist, iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeneti. Berlin, 1903— 6.
------Nachträge zu den Notitiae. Z . f Kirchengeschichte (1891), vol. xii.
B r a c a t u s d e L a u r e a L a u r e n t i u s . De Decretis Ecclesiae. Bibliotheca (1698), vol. xv.
B r a t i a n u , G. I. Empire et Démocratie à Byzance. Byq. Zeitschr. (1937), vol. x xx vn .
B r é h i e r , L. L ’Enseignement supérieur à Constantinople. Byqantion (1929), vol. IV .
B r e s l a u , H. Handb. der Urkundenlehre fü r Deutschland u. Italien (2nded.). Berlin,
1931.
B r o w n , E. G. Fasciculus Rerum Expetendarum et Fugiendarum. London, 1690.
B u r y , J. B . The Relationship of Photius to the Empress Theodora. English
Historical Review (1890), pp. 255—8.
•----- A History o f the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene. London, 1889.
• --A History oj the Eastern Roman Empire. London, 1912.
------The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century. London, 19 11.
------The Constitution o f the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, 1910.
B u s c h b e l l , G. Professiones Fidei der Päpste. Rom. Quartalschr. (1896), vol. x.
------Die Römische Überlieferung der Professiones Fidei der Päpste. Ibid.
(1900), vol. X IV , pp. 13 1-6 .
C a m m e l l i , G. Personnaggi Bizantini dei secoli X I V - X V ---- Bessarione (1920),
VOl. X X IV .
C a m p e g iu s, T. B o n o n i e n s i s . De Auctoritate et Potestate Rom. Pont. Venice, 1555.
------ Tractatus de Auctoritate Conciliorum. Tractatus, vol. xiii. Venice, 1584.
C a p i s t r a n u s , J. Tractatus de Papae et Concilii S. Ecclesiae Auctoritate. Tractatus,
vol. X I I I , Venice, 1584.
C a p p u y n s , N. Le Synodicon de l’Église de Rhodes au X lV e siècle. Echos d’ Orient
(1934), vol. X X X I I I, pp. 196-217.
C a r r a n z a , B a r t h . See Mirandevius.
C a s p a r , E. Geschichte des Papsttums. Tübingen, 1930, 1933.
------Studien zum Register Johanns VIII. Neues Archiv (1910), vol. x x x v i.
C a v e , W. Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Liter aria. Oxonii, 1740-3.
C l e m a n g i i s , N i c o l a s d e . De Corrupto Statu Ecclesiae (in G. Durandus Jr.,
Tractatus de modo Gener. Concilii Celebr. Paris, 1671).
C o L E T T i, J. See Farlati, D.
47 Î
BIBLIOGRAPHY
C o nrat, M. (C o h n ). Römisches Recht bei Papst Nikolaus I. Neues Archiv ( 19 11),

v o l. X X X V I.
------ Geschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des Röm. Rechts in früheren Mittelalter.
Leipzig, 1891.
------ Der Pandekten und Institutionenauslug der Britischen Dekretalensammlung,
Quelle des Ivo. Berlin, 1887.
C o N T A R i N i, C a r d i n a l G. Opera (ed. by L. Contarini). Paris, 1571.
C o z z a , L. Historia Polemica de Graecorum Schismate. Romae, 1719— 20.
C r e i g h t o n , R. Vera Historia Unionis non Verae inter Graecos et Latinos. Hagae-
Comitis, 1660.
C u m o n t , F. Anecdota Bruxellensia, Univers, de Gand. Recueil de Travaux,
fasc. 10. Gand, 1894.
C u n h a , R o d r i g o D a . Commentarii in Primam Partem Decreti Gratiani. B r a c h a r a e
Augustae, 1629.
C u s a , N. d e . De Concordantia Catholica libri in, ed. S. Schardius, Syntagma
Tractatuum de Imp. Iurisdict. pp. 285-390. Argentorati, 1609.
D a m b e r g e r , J. F. Synchronistische Geschichte der Kirche im Mittelalter. Regens
burg, 1850-63.
D e l e h a y e , H. Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum. A.S. Nov., Propylaeum.
Brussels, 1902.
D e l i s l e , L. Inventaire des manuscrits Latins à la Bibl. Impér. P a r is , 1863— 71.
------ Vie de Gauzlin, Abbé de Fleury et Archev. de Bourges, par André de Fleury.
Mém. Soc. Archéol. Orléanais (1853), vol. I l, pp. 256-322.
D i e h l , C h . Le Sénat et le Peuple Byzantin aux Vile et Ville siècles. Byipntion
(1924), v o l . I.
D i m i t r a k o p u l o s , A. K. Ιστορία του σχίσματος. . .. Leipzig, 1867.
------ Όρθόδοξος Ελλάς. Leipzig, 1872.
------ Εκκλησιαστική Βιβλιοθήκη. Leipzig, ι866.
D Ob s c h ü t z , Ε . v o n . Methodios und die Studiten. By^. Zeitschr. vol. xvm (1909).
D ö l g e r , F. Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner. Zeitschr. f . Kirchen-
geschichte (1937), vol. l v i .
------ Regesten der Kaiserurkunden. München, 1924-32.
D ö l l i n g e r , J. Beiträge pir pol.y kirchl. u. Culturgesch. der letten 6. Jh . vol. 11.
Regensburg, 1863.
— ( J a n u s ) . The Pope and the Council. London, 1869.
D o m i n i c u s a SS. T r i n i t a t e . De Summo Pontifice, De Sacris Conciliis. Biblio
theca (1689), vol. X .
D o s i t h e o s . Τόμος Καταλλαγής. Jassy, 1692. Τόμος Χαράς, Jassy, 1705.
D r a m m e r , W. Der Werdegang Hergenröther’s Photius. Orient. Christiana Period.
(1941), vol. vu.
D r ä s e k e , J. Bischof Anselm von Havelberg. Zeitschr. fü r Kirchengeschichte,
vol. X X I (1902).
D u C a n g e . Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis. Niort, 1882-7.
D u c h e s n e , J. Etudes sur le Liber Pontificalis. Paris, 1877.
D u h r , J. Le Pape Marin I. Recherches des Sciences Religieuses (1934), t. X X IV .
D ü m m l e r , E. Auxilius und Vulgarius. Leipzig, 1866.
------ - Gesta Berengarii. Halle, 1871.
476
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DUPUY, P. Histoire du Différend entre le Pape Boniface V I II et Philippe le Bel.

Paris, 1655.
D u r a n d u s , G. Tractatus de Modo Generalis Concilii Celebrandi, Paris, 1671
(in Tractatus, vol. χιιι, 1 ; Venice, 1584).
D v o r n i k , F. Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX e siècle. Paris, 1926.
------Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byzance. Prague, 1933.
------L a Vie de St Grégoire le Décapolite et les Slaves Macédoniens au IX e siècle.
Paris, 1926.
------L ’Affaire de Photios dans la Littérature Latine du Moyen Age. Annales de
TInstitut Kondakov, vol. x. Prague, 1938.
------Le Premier Schisme de Photios. Bull. Inst. Archéol. Bulgare, vol. ix. Sofia,
1935·
------Le Second Schisme de Photios. Byqandon (1933), vol. vm .
------Etudes sur Photios. Bypantion (1936), vol. xi.
------ Lettre à M. H. Grégoire à propos de Michel III. Byqantion (1935), vol. X .
------L ’ Oecuménicité du V ille Concile dans la tradition occidentale du Moyen
Age. Bull. Acad. Belg. Cl. des Lettres, 5e série, vol. x x iv (1938).
------De potestate civili in conciliis oecumenicis, Acta VI Congressus pro unione
ecclesiarum. Academia Velehradensis, vol. x. Olomouc, 1930. (Engl, transi,
in Christian East (1932), v o l . X I v . )
------Quomodo incrementum influxus orientalis in imperio Byzantino s. V II- IX
dissensionem inter Ecclesiam Romanam et Orientalem promoverit. Acta
Conventus Pragensis pro studiis Orient, a. 1929 celebrati. Olomouc, 1930.
------Rome and Constantinople in the Ninth Century. Eastern Churches Quarterly,
1939.
------The Patriarch Photius— Father of the Schism or Patron of Reunion. Report
o f the Proceedings at the Church Unity Week. Oxford, 1942.
------East and West. The Schism of the Patriarch Photius, Restatements of Facts.
The Month (1943), v o l . c l x x i x .
------National Churches and the Church Universal. London, 1944.
------The Study of Church History and Church Reunion. Eastern Churches
Quarterly (1945), vol. vi.
------ De S. Cyrillo et Methodio in Luce Hist. Byz. Acta V. Conventus Unionistici
Velehradensis. Olomouc, 1927.
------The Circus Parties in Byzantium. Bypmtina-Metabypmtina (New York),
v o l . I.
E l l ie s d u P i n , L. Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques, vol. in. Paris,
169 8-8 9-1711.
E ugenius L ombardus . Regale Sacerdotium. Bibliotheca (1698), vol. x i.
E w a l d , P. Die Papstbriefe der Britischen Sammlung. Neues Arch. Ges. ältere
dtsch. Geschichtskunde (1880), vol. V .
F a b r i c i u s , J. A. and H a r l e s , G. C. Bibliotheca Graeca, i2 vols. Hamburg, 1790-
1809.
F a r l a t i , D., C o l e t t i , J. Illyricum Sacrum, 8 vols. Venetiis, 17 5 1-18 19 .
F a u c h e r , C h . Histoire de Photius. Paris, 1772.
F i l a r e t (D. G. G u m i l e v s k i ) . Istoricheskoe Chtenie ob Ottsakh Tserkvi, 3 vols.
St Petersburg, 1859.
477
BIBLIOGRAPHY
F in c k , A. Esnik Gjandschezian, Der Brief des Photios an Aschot und dessen
Antwort. Z eitsch r. f ü r a rm en isch e PhiloL (1904), vol. π.
F i n k e , H. Aus den T a gen d es B o n ifa i V III. Münster i. W. 1902.
F i n k e , H., H o l b i s t e i n e r , J. and H e i m p e l , H. A cta C oncilii C onsta n tien sis, 4 vols.
Münster i. W., 1896-1928.
F l a c i u s , M. C enturiae M a g d eb u rg en ses seu E ccle s . H istoria . Basileae, 156 1— 74.
F l e u r y , C . H istoire du C h ristian ism e, 6 vols. Paris, 1836, 1837.
F ontani , F. N ova e E ru ditoru m D elicia e. Florentiae, 1785-93, 3 vols.
F o u r n i e r , P. L ’origine de la Collection Anselmo Dedicata. M éla n g e s P . F.
G irard, Paris, 1912.
------Un Groupe de Recueils canoniques Italiens. M ém . In st. A cad. In scrip t.
B elles -L ettr es (1915), v o l . X L .
------Les deux recensions de la Collection Canonique Romaine dite le Polycarpus.
M éla n g es d ’A rchéol. e t dé H ist. (19 18-19), v o l . X X X V I I .
----- Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres. B ib i, d e V Ecole
d es C hartes (1897), v o l s . L V II, L V III.
— — Yves de Chartres et le Droit Canonique. R ev u e d es Q u estion s h istoriq u es
(1898), t. L X III.
------Le premier manuel canonique de la Réforme Grégorienne. M éla n g es
d ’A rchéol. e t T H ist. vol. xiv. Paris, 1894.
------La Collection Canon, dite Caesaraugustana. N ou v. R ev u e H ist. d e D roit
F ranc, e t É tra n ger (1921), vol. x l v .
F o u r n i e r , P . - L e B r a s , G. H istoire d es C ollection s C anoniques en O ccid en t, 2 vols.
Paris, 19 31-2.
F r i e d b e r g , E. A. C orpus J u r is C anonici, 2 vols. Lipsiae, 1879, 1881.
F r i e d r i c h , J. T u rrecrem a ta , J . de. D e p o te s ta te P a p a e e t C oncilio G en erali tra cta tu s
n otabilis. Oeniponti, 1871.
G a y , J. L ’Italie Méridionale et l’Empire Byzantin (867—1071). (.B iblioth èqu e d es
É coles F ra n ça ises d ’A thèn es e t d e R o m e, fasc. 90.) Paris, 1904.
G elzer, H. Das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche in Byzanz. A u sgew . K lein e
S ch riften . Leipzig, 1907.
------Die Konzilien als Reichsparlamente. Ibid. Leipzig, 1907.
------Der Patriarchat von Achrida. Abh. sä ch s. G es. (A kad.) W iss. (Phil.-Hist.
K l ) , Bd X X , 1902.
------B yz a n tin isch e K u ltu rg e sch ich te . Tübingen, 1909.
------- Die Genesis der Byzantinischen Themenverfassung (1899). Abh. s ä c h s . Ges.
(A kad.) W iss. (Phil.-Hist. Kl.), vol. xvm , 5.
------ Ungedruckte u. Ungenügend Veröffentliche Texte der Notitiae Episco
patuum.. . . Abh. ba yr. Akad. W iss. (Philos.-Phil. Kl.), Bd x xi, 1901.
------ G eorgii C yprii D escrip tio O rbis R om a n i (Leipzig, 1890).
G e r a z i m Y a r e d . Otzuivui sovremennikov o sv. Fotiye Patr. Konst. K h risty a n sk o e
C h ten ie, 1872-3.
G e r s o n , J. C h a r l i e r d e . S ee List of Sources.
G f r ö r e r , A. F. A llgem ein e K ir ch en g esch ich te. Stuttgart, 1841— 6.
G i e s e b r e c h t , W. Die Gesetzgebung der Römischen Kirche zur Zeit Gregor VII,
München. H istorisch es J a h rb u ch f . d a s J a h r 1866.
G l a n v e l l , V. W o l f V O N . D ie K a n o n en sa m m lu n g d es K a rd in a ls D eu s d ed it. Pader
born, 1905.
478
BIBLIOGRAPHY
G lan vell , V. W o l f v o n . Die Kanonensammlung des Cod. Vatic. Lat. 1348.

S.B . Akad. Wiss. Wien (Phil.-Hist. Kl.), vol. cx x xv i, 1897.
G o lu bko v, O. Novuiya Izsledovaniya o Vremeni i Lichnosti Patr. Fotiya.
Published in Pravoslavnoe Obo^ryenie, 1868.
G o r d i l l o , M. Photius et Primatus Romanus. Orientalia Christiana Periodica,
vol. vi. Rome, 1940.
G r a m a t i c a , L. and G a l b i a t i , G. Il Codice Ambrosiano dei Liber Diurnus Rom.
Pont. Analecta Ambrosiana, vol. vu. Milan-Rome, 1921.
G r a t i u s , O . Fasciculus Rer. expet. et fug. See Brown, E . G .
G r é g o i r e , H. Une Inscription datée au Nom du Roi Boris-Michel de Bulgarie.
Byiantion (1939), vol. xiv.
---- - L ’Empereur Maurice s’appuyait-il sur les Verts ou les Bleus? Ann. de
VInstitut Kondakov, 1938.
------ Maurice le Marcioniste, l’Empereur Arménien et Vert. Byiantion (1938),
VOL X III.
----- Une inscription au nom de Constantin III, ou la liquidation des Partis à
Byzance. Byiantion (1938), vol. xm .
----- Le Peuple de Constantinople (Manojlovic’ Carigradski Narod translated into
Fernch). Byiantion (1936), v o l . xi.
----- Études sur le IXe siècle. Byiantion (1933), vol. vm.
----- Inscriptions historiques Byzantines. Byiantion (1927-8), vol. iv.
----- Michel III et Basile le Macédonien dans l’inscription d’Ancyre. Byiantion
(1929-30), v o l . V .
G , A. Die Anschauungen des Papstes Nikolaus I über das Verhältnis
r e in a c h e r
von Staat und Kirche. Berlin, 1909.

G r u m e l , V. Autour du Voyage de Grossolanus à Constantinople. Echos d’ Orient
(I933), vol. XXXII.

----- La politique religieuse du Patriarche St Méthode. Ibid. (1935), νφΐ. xxxiv.
Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vols. I and II.
--------- Les
Istanbul, 1932, 1936.
------ Le Filioque au Concile Photien de 879-880. Échos d’ Orient (1930), vol. xxix.
----- · (Υ eut-il un second Schisme de Photius?’ Revue des Sciences phil. et théol.
( Γ933), ν ° 1· xn.
----- ‘ L’encyclique de Photius aux Orientaux,’ Échos d’ Orient (1935), vol.
x x x iv , pp. 129-38.
---- - La Liquidation de la Querelle Photienne. Ibid. (1934), vol. xxxm.
------ Chronique des Événements du Règne de Léon VI. Ibid. (1936), vol. x x x v .
----- La Genèse du Schisme Photien. Studi Biiantini e Neo-Ellenici (1939),
v o l. V.
----- - Qui fut l’Envoyé de Photius auprès de Jean VIII? Échos d ’ Orient (1933),
VOl. X X X I I .
----- Formose ou Nicolas 1er? Ibid. (1934), vol. x x x iii.
------Le Décret du Synode Photien de 879-880 sur le Symbole de Foi. Ibid.

(1938), VOL X X X V I I .
----- Les Lettres de Jean VIII pour le Rétablissement de Photius. Ibid. (1940)?
VOL X X X IX .
G u il l a n d , R. Essai sur Nicéphore Grégoras. Paris, 1926.
H abert, I. Archieraticon. Liber Pont. Ecclesiae Graecae. Paris, 1643, 1676 (2nd ed.).
479
BIBLIOGRAPHY
H a l l e r , J. Das Papsttum, Idee und Wirklichkeit. Stuttgart, 1934.
------ Nikolaus I und Pseudo-Isidor. Stuttgart, 1936.

------ Concilium Basiliense. Basel. Vols, i-iv , 1896-1903; vols, v, vi (G. Beck
mann, R. Wackernagel), 1914, 1926; vol. vu (H. Herre), 1910.
H a n k i u s , M . De Byzantinarum Rerum Scriptoribus Graecis. L i p s i a e , 1 6 7 7 .
H a r d t , H . v o n d e r . See List of Sources, Acta Concilii Constantiensis.
H a u c k , A. Der Gedanke der päpstlichen Weltherrschaft bis auf Bonifaz V I II. Leipzig,
1904.
------ Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 5 vols. Leipzig, 1887-1920.
H a u s h e r r , I. See A. Vogt.
Havet , J. Lettres de Gerbert— Collection de Textespour servir à VEtude et à VEnseigne
ment de VHistoire. Paris, 1889.
H e f e l e , C. J. and L e c l e r c q , H. Histoire des Conciles. Paris, 1907-14.
H e i n e c k e , J. M. ( H e i n e c c i u s ) . Eigentliche u. Wahrhaftige Abbildung der Alten u.
Neuen Griechischen Kirche. Leipzig, 17 11.
H e i n t k e , F. Humbert von Romans, der fünfte Ordensmeister der Dominikaner.
Hist. Studien, Heft 222. Berlin, 1933.
H e i s e n b e r g , A. Die Unionsverhandlungen vom 30 August, 1206. Patriarchen-
wahlu. Kaiserkrönung in Nikaia, 1208. S.B.bayr. Akad. Wiss. München, 1923.
H e n z e , W. Über den Brief Kaiser Ludwigs II an Kaiser Basilius I. Neues Arch.
Ges. ältere dtsch. Geschichtskunde (1910), vol. x x x v .
H e r g e n r ö t h e r , J. Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, 3 vols. Regensburg,
1867-9.
------ Monumenta Graeca ad Photium pertinentia. Ratisbonnae, 1869.
H i r s c h , F. Byzantinische Studien. Leipzig, 1876.
H o l t z m a n n , W. Unions Verhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexis I u. Papst Urban II
im Jahre 1089. Byz. Zeitschr. (1928), vol. xxvm .
H ö t t i n g e r , J. Η . Historiae Ecclesiasticae Novi Testamenti Enn. I. Tiguri, 1651.
I n n o k e n t i s ( I l a r i o n S m i r n o v ) . Nachertanie Tserkovnoi Istorii. S t Petersburg,
1817.
I v a n t s o v - P l a t o n o v . S v. Patriarkh Fotii. St Petersburg, 1892.
J a c o b a t i u s , C a r d i n a l i s C h . De concilio, Tractatus, vol. x m , 1. Venetiis, 1584.
J a f f é , P h . and E w a l d , P. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 2 vols. Lipsiae, 1885-8.
J a g e r , J. N. Histoire de Photius et du Schisme des Grecs. Paris, 1844.
J a n i n , R. Au lendemain de la conquête de Constantinople. Échos d’Orient (1933),
Vol. XXXII.
J a n s s e n s , Y . Les Bleus et les Verts sous Maurice, Phocas et Heraclius. Byzantion
(1936), vol. xi.
J u g i e , M. Œuvres complètes de Gennadie Scholarios. Paris, 1929— 38.
------ Theologia Dogmatica Christ. Orient. Paris, 1926 seq.
------ Homélies Mariales Byzantines. Patrologia Orientalis, vol. xvi. Paris, 1922,
1926.
------ Le Culte de Photius dans l’Église Byzantine. Revue de T Orient Chrétien
(19 22-3; 3rd ser.), t. m.
------ Demetrius Cydonès et la Théologie Latine à Byzance aux X IV e et X V e siècle.
Echos d ’ Orient (1928), vol. x x x i.
------ Les Actes du Synode Photien de Ste Sophie. Ibid. (1938), vol. x x x v n .
480
BIBLIOGRAPHY
JuGiE, M. Schisme. Diet. de Théol. Cath. (1939), t. xiv.

------Le Schisme Byzantin. Paris, 1941.
J u s t e l l u s , C h r . See List of Sources.
K a l l e n , G. Cusanus-Texte. De Auctoritate Praesidendi in Concilio Generali.
S.B . heidelberg. Akad. JViss. (Phil.-Hist. Kl.), 1935.
K n e l l e r , C. A. Papst u. Konzil im ersten Jahrtausend. Zeitschr. Kath. Theologie
(1904), vol. X X V I I I .
K o s t o m a r o v , N. I. Patriarkh Fotii i Pervoe Razdyelenie Tserkvei. Published in
Vyestnik Evropui, 1868, books i and il.
K r u m b a c h e r , K. Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur. München, 1897.
K u r g a n o v , T h . A. ‘ K izsledovaniyu o Pair. Fotiye’, Khrist„ Chtenie, 1895.
L a b b e , P. De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis quos attigit R . Bellar minus. Parisiis, 1660.
L a e h r , G. Briefe und Prologe des Bibliothekars Anastasius. Neues Arch. Ges.
ältere dtsch. Geschichtskunde (1927), vol. XLVII.
L a e l i u s , J. De Romanae Sedis origine et auctoritate. Tractatus, vol. χ ιιι, 2 .
Venice, 1584.
L a i r , J. A. Etudes critiques sur divers Textes des Xe et XIe s., t. I. Paris, 1899.
L a m b e c iu s , P . Commentarii de August. Bïbl. Caesarea Vindobonensi ( 2 n d e d .,
A. F. Kollar), vol. vm . Vindobonae, 1782.
L ä m m e r , H. Papst Nikolaus I u. die byzantinische Staatskirche. Berlin, 1857.
L a n g e n , J. Geschichte der Römischen Kirche von Gregor V II. bis zu Innozenz I I L
Bonn, 1893.
L a p ô t r e , A. Hadrien II et les Fausses Décrétales. Revue des Questions historiques
(1880), t. X X V I I .
------Le Souper de J ean le Diacre. Mélanges T Archéologie et diHistoire ( 1901 ), t. XXI.
------ L°Europe et le Saint Siège. Paris, 1895.
L a u r e a , L. B. d e . De Decretis Ecclesiae. Bibliotheca (1698), vol. χν.
L a u r e n t , V. Le Cas de Photius dans l’Apologétique du Patriarche Jean X I Beccos
au Lendemain du Ile Concile de Lyon. Echos d'Orient (1930), vol. x x ix .
------ Les Actes du Synode Photienet Georges le Métochite. Ibid. (1938), vol. x x x v ii.
------La Vie et les Œuvres de Georges Moschabar. Ibid. (1929), vol. xxvm .
------ La Correspondance de Demetrius Cydonès. Ibid. (1931), vol. x x x iv .
L a v r o v s k i i , P. A. K ir ili Mefodii. Kharkov, 1863.
L e b e d e v , A. P. Chteniya Obshchestva Lyubitelei Dukhovn. Prosvyeshcheniya,
1873, No. I. (Review of Hergenröther’s Photius.)
------Rimskie Papuiv Otnosheniakhk Tserkvi Vizantiiskoiv IX —X .v . Moscow, 1875.
---- —Istoriya Konst. Soborov IX . v. Moscow, 1880.
L échât , R. La patristique Grecque chez un théologien Làtin du X lle siècle,
Hugues Ethérien. Mélanges d’Histoire offerts à Ch. Moeller. Louvain, 19 14 .
L eclercq , H. Liber Diurnus. Diet, d’Archéol. Chrét. vol. ix , cols. 243-344. Paris,
1930.
L , C h . Le Sénat Romain depuis Dioclétien à Rome et à Constantinople.
e c r iv a in
Bïbl. des Ecoles Franç. d*Athènes et de Rome, vol. L U . Paris, 1888.

L e d e r e r , S. Der Spanische Kardinal Johann von Torquemada. Freiburg i. B. 1879.
L e g r a n d , E. Lettres de VEmpereur Manuel Paléologue. Paris, 1893.
L e i b , B. Deux inédits Byzantins sur les azymes. Orientalia Christiana, No. 9.
Rome, 1924.
DPS 48I 31
BIBLIOGRAPHY
L Z a c h a r i a e v o n . Geschichte des Griechischen-Römischen Rechtes (3rd
in g e n t h a l,
ed.). Berlin, 1892.

L oparev , C hr . Zhitie sv. Evdokima. Içvestiya Russkago Arkh. Inst. (1908),
V O L X III.
Maas , M. P. Der Interpolator des Philotheos. B y Zeitschr. (1934), vol. x x x iv .
M a a s s e n , F. Eine Römische Synode. Wien, 1878.
------Geschichte der Quellen der Litteratur des can. Rechtes im Abendlande. Gratz,
1870.
Mabillon , J. Vetera Analecta. Parisiis, 1723.
M a b i l l o n , J. and G e r m a i n , M. Museum Italicum, t. 11. Lutetiae Parisiorum,
1724, 2 tom.
$ Macarius Macres . See List of Sources.
Ma i , C ardinal A. Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, 10 vols. Roma, 1852-1905.
------ Spicilegium Romanum. Roma, 1839-44.
Maimbourg, L. Histoire du Schisme des Grecs, 2 vols. Paris, 1680.
M a r e s i u s , S. ( D e s m a r e t s ) . Joanna Papissa Restituta. Groningae Frisiorum, 1658.
M a r t i n , E . J . A History o f the Iconoclastic Controversy. L o n d o n , 1 9 3 2 .
M a s t r i c h t , G e r h a r d v o n . Historia Juris Ecclesiastici et Pontificii. Halae, 1705.
M e l e t i o s ( o f J o a n n i n a ) . Εκκλησιαστική ιστορία, 4 vols. Wien, 1783-95.
Meniates , E lias . Der Stein des Anstosses. Wien, 1787.
----- - Kamen Sobla^na. St Petersburg, 1783.
M e r c a t i , C a r d i n a l G. Per l’Epistolario di Demetrio Cidone. Studi Bibamini e
Neoellenici (1930), vol. in.
------ Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone____ Città del Vaticano, 1931 (Studi i
Testi, vol. Lvi).
------ Inno anacreontico alla SS. Trinità di Metrofane Arcivescovo di Smirne.
Byç. Zeitschr. (1929-30), vol. XXX.
Michel , A. Humbert und Kerullarios, 1, 11^ Paderborn, 1924-30 {(Quellen u.
Forschungen, Bd x x i seq.), 2 vols.
M i c h e l , K. Das Opus Tripartitum d. Humbertus des Romans, 2 umgearb. Aufl.
Graz, 1926.
M i r a n d e v i u s , B. C a r r a n z a . Summa Conciliorum et Pontificum a Petro usque ad
Paulum III. Salmanticae, 1549.
------ Quatuor Controversiarum de Auctoritate Pontificis et Conciliorum Expli
catio. Paris, 1672 {A d Concilia a Ph. Labbeo et G. Cossartio edita apparatus
alter, pp. ci seq.).
M ö h l e r , L. Kardinal Bessarion ais Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann. Pader
born, 1923. {Quellen u. Forschungen.. . , Görres Gesellschaft, vol. x x etc.).
------ Die Kardinäle Jakob und Peter Colonna. Paderborn, 1914 {Quellen u.
Forschungen.. . , Görres Gesellschaft, vol. xvn).
M o n t e , P. d e ( B r i x i e n s i s ) . Monarchia, sive Tractatus Conciliorum Generalium
(ed. N. Chalmot). Lyons, 1512 (in the Tractatus, vol. xm , 1).
M o r i n , D. G. Un Concile Inédit. Revue Bénédictine, 1900.
M u r a v i e v , A. N. Pravda Vselenskoi Tserkvi o Rimskoi i Prochikh Patr. Kafe-
drakh. St Petersburg, 1849.
N e a n d e r , J. A. W. Allgem. Geschichte der Christi. Religion u. Kirche, 6 vols.
Hamburg, 1825-52.
482
BIBLIOGRAPHY
N e c t a r io s o f J e r u s a l e m . Περί της αρχής του πάπα. J a s s y , 1672. See Α ΐ ΐ ί χ , P.
N is s e n W. Die Regelung des Klosterwesens im Rhomäerreiche bis qum Ende des

,
9 Jhts. Hamburg, 1897 (Programm Nr. 759 der Gelehrtenschule des
Johanneums).
N o r d e n , W. Das Papsttum und Byqanq. Berlin, 1903.
O ’ B r i e n M o o r e . The Roman Senate. P a u l y ’ s Realenqycl. der Classischen Alter
tumswissenschaft. Supplementband vi. Stuttgart, 1935.
O s t r o g o r s k i i , G. Studien iur Geschichte des Byqant. Bilder Streites. Breslau, 1929.
P a p a d o p o u l o s - K e r a m e u s , A. S s . Patris Photii. . .epistolae X L V . Petropoli,
1896.
------Φωτιακά. St Petersburg, 1897.
------Monumenta Graeca et Latina ad Historiam Photii pertinentia, 2 vols. Petro
poli, 1901.
------ Ό Πατριάρχης Φώτιος ώς Πατήρ άγιος. B y ρ Zeitschr. (1889), vol. vili.
P a r a d i s o , J. d e ( J a c o b u s d e C l u s a ) . De Septem Statibus Ecclesiae (ed. O. Gratius
and E. Brown). Fasciculus Rerum expetend., vol. 11. London, 1690.
P a r g o i r e , J. Nicolas Mésaritès, Métropolite d’Ephèse. Echos d’Orient (1904),
vol. vu.
P a t e t t a . Contributi alla Storia del Diritto Romano nel Medio Evo. Bullettino
delV Istituto di Diritto Romano. Rome, 1890.
P a v l o v , A. Kriticheskie Opuituipo 1st. drev. Greko-Russkoi Polemiki. St Petersburg,
1878.
P e i t z , W. M. Das Originalregister Gregors VII. S.B . Akad. JViss. Wien
(Phil.-Hist. Kl.) (19 11), v o l . 165.
—— Liber Diurnus. Wien, 1918. S.B . Akad. Wiss. Wien (Phil.-Hist. Kl.,
vol. 185). Cf. also above, p. 318.
------ Das Register Gregors I. Freiburg i. B. 19 17 (Stimmen der Zeit. Ergänpungs-
hefte, Reihe 2. Heft 2).
P e r e l s , E. Papst Nikolaus I und Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Berlin, 1920.
------ Die Briefe Papst Nikolaus I. Die kanonische Überlieferung. Neues Arch. d.
Ges. f . ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde (1914), vol. X X X I X .
------ Ein Berufungsschreiben Papst Nikolaus’ I. zur fränk. Reichssynode in Rom.
Ibid. (1906), v o l . X X X I I .
------ Bonizo, Liber de Vita Christiana. Texte pur Geschichte des Rom. und Kanon.
Rechtes im Mittelalter, vol. 1. Berlin, 1930.
P e t i t , L. Vie et Office de St Euthyme le Jeune. Revue de VOrient Chrétien,
I9° 3‘
—-— Documents relatifs au Concile de Florence. Patrol. Orient, vol. xvn , 1923.
P e v a n i , C. Un Vescovo Belga in Italia nel secolo X. Torino, 1920.
P i c h l e r , A. Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung. München, 1864—5.
------ An meine Kritiker. München, 1865.
P i n , L. E. d u ( E l l i e s - D u p i n ) . Histoire de VÉglise en abrégé. Paris (3e éd. 1719),
4 vols.
------ Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques. Paris, 1690—1703 (2nd ed.,
14 vols.).
P i t r a , J. B. Juris Ecclesiastici Graecorum Historia et Monumenta. Romae, 1864-8,
2 tom.
483 3 1-2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
P it z p iu s B e y , ]. G. Die Orientalische Kirche. Wien, 1857 (transi, by H. Schiel).

P l a t in a ,B. ( S a c c h i ) de . See Sacchi in List of Sources.
PoGGius, J. F., F lorentinus . De Potestate Papae et Concilii Liher. J. Beplin,
Rome, 1517 (?).
P o l e , R. ( C a r d i n a l ) . Reformatio Angliae. Romae, 1562.
P o o l e , A. L. Studies in Chronology and History. Oxford, 1934.
P o p o v , N. Imperator Lev V I Mudryi i ego Tsarstvovanie. M o s c o w , 1892.
P r e g e r , T h . Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitan. Leipzig, 1901— 7 (Teubner).
P r i e r i o , S i l v e s t e r d a ( M a z z o l i n i ) . De Irrefragabili Veritate Rom. Eccl., Biblio
theca, vol. XIX. Romae, 1699.
Q u i e n , M . L e . Panoplia Contra Schisma Graecorum. P a r is , 1718.
------ De Processione Spiritus S. Venedis, 1762 (ed. in Thesaurus Theologicus. . .
vol. m). P. G. vol. 94, cois. 192 seq.
R a m b a u d , A. N. De Byzantino Hippodromo et Circensibus factionibus. P a r is , 1870.
------ Le monde Byzantin. Revue des Deux Mondes, Aug. 15, 1871.
------ VEm pire Grec du Xe siècle. Paris, 1870.
R a t t i , A . La Fine d’ una Leggenda ed altere Spigolature intorno al Liber Diurnus
Rom. Pont. (R. Istituto Lombardo di Science e Littere, serie 11, vol. x l v i ) .
Milano, 1913.
R e e s , A. H. The Catholic Church and Corporate Union. London, 1940.
R h a l l e s , G. and P o t l e s , Μ. Σύνταγμα των ιερών κανόνων, 6 vols. Athens,
1852-69.
R i c h e r i u s ( R i c h e r ) , E. Historia Conciliorum Generalium (2nd ed., 4 p t s ) . Coloniae,
1683.
R o c q u a i n , F. L a Papauté au Moyen Age. Paris, 1881.
R o d r i g o d a C u n h a . See C u n h a .
R o s s e i k i n . Pervoe Patriarshestvo Patriarkha Fotiya. Sergiev P o s a d , 1915.
R oy, J. Principes du pape Nicolas I sur les rapports des deux puissances. Etudes
d'Histoire du Moyen Age (dediées à G. Monod). Paris, 1896.
R o z i È R E , E . d e . Recueil Général des Formules Usitées dans VEmpire des Francs du
Ve au Xe siècles, 3 vols. Paris, 1859—71.
------ Liber Diurnus, ou Recueil des Formules Usitées par la Chancellerie Pontificale
du Ve au XIe siècles. Paris, 1869.
R u n c i m a n , J. C. S. A History o f the First Bulgarian Empire. London, 1930.
S ä g m ü l l e r , J. B. Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle bis Papst Bonifa1 V III.
Freiburg i. B. 1896.
------ Die Idee Gregors VII vom Primat in der päpstlichen Kanzlei. Theol. Quartal
schrift, Tübingen, vol. l x x v iii , 1896.
—— Zur Geschichte der Entwicklung des päpstlichen Geset^gebungsrechtes. Rotten
burg a. N. 1937.
S a k k e l i o n , J. Δέοντος Μαγίστρου. . ., Συμεών άρχ. Βουλγαρίας και τινών άλλων
ετηστολαί, in Δελτίον της ίστορ. και εθνολ. έταιριάς της Ελλάδος, vol. I, 1883.
SANTIFALLER, L. Über die Verwendung des Liber Diurnus in der päpstl. Kanfiei.. . .
Münster i. W. 1925 (Festgabe H. Finke).
------ Die Verwendung des Liber Diurnus in den Privilegien der P ä p ste ....
Mitteilungen des Instituts f . Oster. Geschichtsforsch, vol. XLIX, 1935.
------ Zur Liber Diurnus-Forschung. Hist. Zeitschr. (1940), vol. clx i , pp. 532-8.
484
BIBLIOGRAPHY
San t if a l l e r , L. Neue Forschungen zur ält. Papstdiplomatik.. . . Forschungen und

Fortschritte (1938), vol. xiv.
S a t h a s , C. Bibliotheca Graeca Medii Aevi. Venice, 1872-94 (7 vols.).
S c H A R D iu s , S. Syntagma Tractatuum de Imperiali Jurisdictione. Argentorati, 1609.
S c h e d e l , H. Registrum hujus operis libri cronicarum cum figuris et ymaginibus de
Initio Mundi. Nuremberg, 1493.
S c h e f f e r - B o i c h o r s t , P. Die Neuordnung der Papstwahl durch Nikolaus II.
Strassburg, 1879.
S c h m i d t , J. Des Basileus aus Achrida. . . unedlerte Dialoge. München, 1901.
S c h m i t t , H. J. Die Morgenländische Griechisch-Russische Kirche. Mainz, 1826.
S c h r ö c k h , J. M. Historia Religionis et Ecclesiae Christianae (ed. by P. Marheineke;
7th ed.). Berlin, 1828.
S c h u l t e , J. F. v o n . Zur Geschichte der Literatur über das Dekret Gratians. S.B .
Akad. Wiss. Wien (Phil.-Hist. Kl., vols, l x i i i - l x v ) , 1870.
------ Die Glosse zum Dekret Gratians. Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien (Phil.-
Hist. Kl., vol. xxi), 1872.
—— Die Summa des Pancapalea über das Decretum Gratiani. Giessen, 1890.
------Die Summa des Stephanus Tornacensis. Giessen, 1891.
------Die Geschichte der Quellen u. Litt. d. can. Rechts. Stuttgart, 1875—80 (3 vols.).
------ Über drei in Prager Handschriften enthaltenen Canonensammlungen. S.B .
Akad. Wiss. Wien (Phil.-Hist. Kl., vol. L V i l ) , 1867.
Sch w e i n b u r g , K. Die Textgeschichte des Gespräches mit den Franken von Nicetas
Stethatos. By{. Zeitschr. (1934), vol. xxxiv.

Sd ralek, M. Wolfenbüttler Fragmente. Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, vols. 1, 11.
Münster i. W. 1891.
S e r a r i u s , N. Moguntiacarum Rerum ab Initio ad. . . hodiernum Archiepiscopum
libri V. Moguntiae, 1604.
S e s a v n i c z k y , M. E x Historia Eccl. P. Nat. Alex. De Schismate Graecorum. Vienna,
1780.
S g o u r o p u l o s , S i l v e s t e r . See Syropoulos.
S i c k e l , T h . v o n . Prolegomena zum Liber Diurnus. Vienna, 1889. S.B . Akad. Wiss.
Wien (Phil.-hist. Kl., Bd cxvil).
------Liber Diurnus Roman. Pontificum. Wien, 1889.
S i m o n i a d e s , C. Όρθοδ. Ελλήνων θεολογικαι γραφαι τέσσαρε$. London, 1859-
S i n g e r , Η. Die Summa Decretorum des Magister Rufinus. Paderborn, 1902.
S o k o l o v , I. Sostoyanie Monashestva v Vi^. Tserkvi s polov. I X do nachala X I I I v.
Kazan, 1894.
S o p h o c l e s O i k o n o m o s . Photius ad Amphilochium. Athens, 1858.
S o u c h o n , M. Die Papstwahlen von Bonifia^ V IIIbis Urban VI. Braunschweig, 1888.
S p a n h e i m , F. Historiae Christianae s. ix ; De Schismate Photiano. Opera, vol. 1.
Lugd. Batav. 1701.
S p i n k a , M. A History o f Christianity in the Balkans. Chicago, 1933.
S p i t t l e r , L. T. Grundriss der Geschichte der Christi. Kirche (2nd ed.). Göttingen,
1785.
S t a p l e t o n , T. De Conciliis. Bibliotheca, vol. x x. Romae, 1699.
S t ä u b e r , R. and H a r t i g , Ο. Die Schedelsche Bibliothek (Studien u. Dar stell,
aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte, Bd Vi). Freiburg i. B. 1908.
485
BIBLIOGRAPHY
S t e in , E . Geschichte des Spätrömischen Reiches, v o l . I. W i e n , 1928.

S t e in a c k e r , H. Zum Liber Diurnus und zur Frage nach dem Ursprung der
Frühminuskel. Studi e Testi, vol. X L (Miscellanea F. Ehrle, vol. iv). Rome,
1924.
S t e v e n s o n , E. Osservazioni sulla Collectio Canonum di Deusdedit. Archivio della
R. Storia Patria, vol. vili. 1885.
S w a l u e , E. B. Disputatio Academica Inauguralis de Dissidio Eccl. Christianae in
Graecam et Latinam Photii Auctoritate Maturato. Lugd. Batav. 1829.
S w e t e , H. B. Theodorus Lascaris Junior de Processione Spiritus S. London, 1875.
S y r o p o u l o s , S. ( S g o u r o p o u l o s ) . Ver a Historia unionis non verae (ed. R. Creighton).
Hagae-Comitis, 1660.
T an gl, M. Gregor. Register u n d Liber Diurnus. Neues Arch, ältere dtsch.
Geschichtskunde (1919), v o l . X L I.
------ Die Fuldäer Privilegienfrage. Mitteil. Inst. Östeifr. Geschichtsforsch. (1899),
v o l. X X .
T a r d if , A . Histoire des Sources du Droit Canonique. P a r is , 1 8 8 7 .
T a r d if , I. Une Collection Canonique Poitevine. Nouv. Rev. Hist, du Droit Franc,
et Étranger (1897), vol. xxi.
T h a n e r , F. Anselmi, episcopi Lucensis, collectio canonum una cum collectione minore.
Oeniponte, 1906.
----- Die Summa Magistri Rolandi, nachmals Papstes Alexander III. Innsbruck,
1874.
T h e i n e r , A. Disquisitiones Criticae in praecipuas canonum et decretalium collectiones.
Romae, 1836.
T h i e l , A. De Nicolao Ipapa commentationes duae historico-canonicae. Brunsbergae,
1859.
T o r q u e m a d a , J. d e ( T u r r e c r e m a t a ) . See List of Sources.
T r i n i t a t e , de S., S. D o m i n i c u s . De Summo Pontifice, de Sacris Conciliis.
Bibliotheca, vol. X .
T r i t h e m i u s , J. ( T r i t h e i m ) . De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis (ed. Fabricius, Biblio
theca Ecclesiastica). Hamburg, 1718.
U s p e n s k i , T h . J. Ocherkipo istorii V f . obraôvannosti. St Petersburg, 1892.
------Partii tsirka i Demy v Konstantinopole, V f . Vremennik, 1, 1894.
------Sinodik v nedyelyu Pravoslaviya. Zapiski Imp. Novor ossiiskago Universiteta
(Odessa, 1893), v o l . l i x .
V a f e i d o s , F i l a r e t . "Εκκλησιαστική ιστορία. Constantinople, 1886.
V a l e t t a , J. Φωτίου ετπστολαί. London, 1864.
V a s i l i e v , A. A. History o f the Byzantine Empire. (Univ. of Wisconsin Studies in
the Soc. Sei. and Hist., nos. 13 etc.) Madison, 1928-9.
------The Struggle with the Saracens. Cambridge Medieval History, vol. iv (1927).
Vio, T h o m a s de . See List of Sources.
V o g e l , A. Ratherius von Verona. Jena, 1854.
V o g t , A. Basile 1er. Paris, 1908.
------ Deux Discours inédits de Nicétas de Paphlagonie. Orient. Christ, no. l x x v i .
Rome, 1931.
------ La Jeunesse d e Léon VI le Sage. Revue Historique (1934), v o l . c l x x i v .
486
BIBLIOGRAPHY
V ogt, A. and H a u s h e r r , I. L ’ Oraison funèbre de Basile I. Orientalia Christiana,

no. X X V I , i. Rome, 1932.
V o r s t , C. v a n d e . La Vie de Saint Evariste. Analecta BolL (1923), vol. x l i .
------ Note sur St Joseph l’Hymnographe. Ibid. (1920), vol. x x x vm .
W a l c h , C h . W. F. Entwurf einer Vollständigen Historie der Kirchenversammlungen.
Leipzig, 1759.
W a l c h , J. G . Historia Controversiae Graecorum Latinorumque de Proc. Spiritus S .
Jennae, 1751.
W e i s m a n n , C. E. Introductio in Memorabilia Ecclesiastica Historiae Sacrae Novi
Testamenti, 2 vols. Halae Magdeburgicae, 1745.
W e r i n g h o f f , A. Verzeichnis der Akten fränk. Synoden. Neues Arch, ältere deutsche
Geschichtskunde (1901), v o l . X X V I .
W i l k e n , F. Die Parteien der Rennbahn, vornehmlich im Byzantinischen Kai
sertum. Abh. preuss. Akad. Wiss. (Phil.-Hist. Cl.), 1827.
W i l l , C. Acta et Scripta quae de controversiis eccl. Graecae et Latinae s. X I extant.
Leipzig, 1861.
W r i g h t , F. A. The Works o f Liudprand o f Cremona. London, 1930.
Y a r e d . See G e r a z i m Y .
Z a c h a r i a e V . L i n g e n t h a l . See Lingenthal.
Z e u m e r , K. Formulae Merovingici et Karolini Aevi. M .G.H . Legum Sectio V ,
Formulae. Hanover, 1882-6.
Z l a t a r s k i , V. N. I storia na Blgarskata D rfiava, vols. I, II. Sofia, 1918, 1927.
------ Blgarski Arkhiep.-Patriarsi Pryez prvoto Tsarstvo. Iqv. Istor. Drufiestvo,
kn. vi, 1924.
Z o e p f f e l , R. Die Papstwahlen u. die mit ihnen im nächsten Zusammenhang stehenden
Ceremonien in ihrer Entwicklung vom 11. bis pum 14. Jh . Göttingen, 1871.
487
IN D E X
Abulpharagius, Gregory, Syrian chroni Anastasius of Alexandria, 177
cler, II Anastasius, Ignatian archbishop, 234
Aeacius, Patriarch, 90, 145, 299 Anastasius the Librarian, 23, 24, 32-4,
Achrida, 397 4 L 43 ? 52? 55? 66? 71? 73“ 6? I 0 5?
Acropolites, George, 350, 412, 413 i ° 9 ? i 3 °? Î 3 6“ 8? Mb, 147? 152? 154?
Ado of Vienne, 130 155? 15 8? J 7 2? 173? l S l ? 2° 2? 282?
Adontz, M. N., 164, 250 286? 321? 337? 357? 444
Adriatic coast, 140 Anastasius Makedon, Patriarch, 412
Aeneas, bishop of Paris, 280, 285 Ancyra, 8 4 , 314
Africa, 259, 359 André de Fleury, 3 1 0
Agalianus, Theodore, 425 Andrew, St, Apostle, 8 0 , 1 0 7 , n i , 125
Agapet, Pope, 90 Andrew, archbishop of Rhodes, 363,
Agarenes. See Arabs 3 <M? 373
Agathon, Pope, 313, 315, 395 Andrew, Magister, Domestic of the
Agnalius de Monte, St, monastery, 314 Scholae, 243? 245-7
Agropolis, 229 Andrew, Spanish bishop, 358
Agustin, Antonio, archbishop of Tar Andronicus, Emperor, 384
ragona, 368, 369, 372, 373, 377, Andronicus Camateros, 401
448 Anne, St, 385
Akyndinos, 420 Anne, St, in Bithynia, monastery, 65
Albrich, monk, 352 Anselm, archbishop of Milan, 284
Alexander II, Pope, 306, 317, 376 Anselm of Havelberg, 345, 346, 396
Alexander III, 346 Anselm of Lucca, St, 106, 294, 296-8,
Alexander V, 437 317? 320? 332? 334 ? 33 8? 340
Alexander VI, 129 Anselmo Dedicata (Collection of canon
Alexander, Basil’s son, 209, 353 law), 284, 286, 290, 292
Alexander, co-Emperor with Leo VI, Anspertus, archbishop of Milan, 284
234? 283, 302 Antapodosis, 288
Alexander, Patriarch, 360 Anthimius (Anthemius), Patriarch, 90,
Alexandria, 95, 107, i n , 119, 125, 15 1, 299
183, 268, 269, 290 Anthimos, Metropolitan of Jassy, 427
Alexandrinus, Cardinal, 358 Anthony, Metropolitan of Cyzicus, 53,
Alexios Aristenos, 125 63
Alexis I Comnenus, 395 Anthony, Patriarch. See Cauleas
Alfric, St, archbishop of Canterbury, Anthony of Perge-Sylaeon, 52
3 12 Antioch, 53, 95, 107, i n , 114 , 125, 141,
Allatius (Allacci), 364, 377, 378, 427 I 5I? i 84? 19 1 ? 268, 290, 314, 316,
Almainus, Jacobus, 367 455
Amalfi tans, 330, 444 Apostles, Church of the Twelve, 56-9,
Amann, E., 34, 196, 197 62, 80, 87, 348
Amasia, 163 Arabs (Agarenes, Saracens), 12 1, 134,
Ambrose, St, Collection, 339 v 162, 181, 210, 227, 229, 268, 269,
Ambrosian MSS. of the Liber Diurnus, 273, 283, 362, 371
3 l8? 435 ? 443 Arethas of Caesarea, 386, 387
Amelli, D., 224 Aretinus, Leo, 359
Amphilochia, 428 Arialdus, deacon of Milan, 317
Amphilochus, Metropolitan of Cyzicus, Aristarchos, S., 63
63, 82, 161, 388 Arles, 258
488
INDEX
Armeniae Theme, ίο Basil, St, 341, 383, 414

Armenians (Armenia), 316, 364, 387 Basil, spathar, 140, 141
Arnold, Gottfried, 379 Basil I, Emperor, 35, 42, 51, 118, 120,
Arnulf, archbishop of Rheims, 287 12 1, 124, 132, 133
Arnulf, king of Germany, 253 and anti-Photian synod, 144-9, 1 51 _ 5
Arras MS. Collection of canon law, 333 and fall o f Photius, 135 -4 1, 143
Arrius, 313 and second Photian schism, 209-12,
Arsaber (Arsavir), Photius’ uncle, 164 216, 220, 221, 224, 226-9, 247, 283,
Arsaber, protospathar, 7 1-3 288, 302-4, 336-8, 344, 353, 357,
Arsenii, Metropolitan, 349 361, 362, 370, 371, 373, 376, 378,
Arsenios, Patriarch, 413 389, 39°? 413, 419, 422, 424, 433
Arsenius, monk, friend of Photius, and synod of 879-80: 159 -74,177—84,
160-2, 215 188-90, 194, 195, 199, 205, 207
Arundel 528 (MS.), 383, 384, 456, 457 Basil II, Emperor, 389
Asbestas, Gregory, bishop of Syracuse, Basil, son of Emperor Leo V, 17
16 -19 , 21-9 , 31-6 , 48-52, 63, 69, Basin, Thomas, bishop of Lisieux, 359
71, 73, 81, 83-6, 98, 99, 10 8 -11, Basle, 358
i ï 5, 116, 143, 149, l62? 243, 251, Basnage, J., 379
254, 368, 378 Baudinus, 349
Asia Minor, 247, 267 Beccos, John, 350, 403—7, 409—12, 414,
Assemanus, J. S., 263, 275 415, 417, 423
Atenolf, prince of Capua, 283 Bede, the Venerable^ 312, 314, 335
Athanasius, bishop of Naples, 223, 229 Belgrade, 215
Athanasius of Saccudion, 13 Bellarmine, Robert, Cardinal, 376
Athens, 247, 349 Benedict III7 Pope, 19, 24-7, 29-31,
Athos, Mount, 66, 388, 452 73-5, 81, 83, 99, 106, 143, 368, 378
Atto Vercellensis, 312 Benedict, Cardinal, 349
Augustinus Triumphus of Ancona, 345 Benedictines, 283, 284
Aurelianus, 126 Benevento (Beneventum), 173, 253, 282,
Auxilius, 256 291
Azymes, 345, 349, 350, 392, 401 Berengar, King, 288
Bernald, priest and monk, 295, 3 11
Baanes, Patrician, 27, 31, 147-50, 166, Bernard, St, 350
189 Bernold, chronicler, 295, 3 11
Babutzicos, conspirator, 244 Berthold, annalist, 295
Bardas, Caesar, 2, 3, 4, 1 1 , 17, 22, 35-9, Bertinian Annals, 280, 281, 309
44-6, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, Bessarion, Cardinal, 420, 421
68, 83, 88, 102, 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 , 13 2? r34? Beveridge, W., 125, 378
136, 137, 162, 163, 210, 246, 370, Bisignano, 231
37 2? 378 , 39°? 39 1 ? 401, 402, 414 Blachernae, church of Our Lady of,
Bari, 230 57? 58? 62, 74, 244
Barlaam, 384, 416, 420 Blasius, chartophylax, 54, 56, 60
Baronius, 72, 97, 129, 328, 365, 369, Blues, 6, 7, 9
371-5, 377- 82, 427-3°, 448 Bohemia, 94
Bartholomaeus Brixensis, 344 Bologna, 344
Bartholomew Abraham, bishop of Bonacursius of Bologna, 346
Crete, 364-6 Boniface V III, Pope, 327, 354, 355,
Basil, archbishop of Achrida, 397 448-51
Basil, archbishop of Thessalonica, 387 Boniface, St, 306
Basil, Metropolitan of Chalcedon, 63 Bonizo de Sutri, 293, 294, 297, 320, 352
Basil, Metropolitan of Martyropolis, 191 Boor, de, 276, 277
Basil, monk, 120 Bordeaux MS., 333, 334
489
INDEX
Boris-Michael, ιο ί, 103, 1 1 1 - 1 5 , 1 Ϊ 7·> Caesaraugustana, Collection of canon

i i 8 , 122, 127, 138, 152, 154-6, 160, law, 335, 336, 339
173,212-15,223,353,361,396,455 Caietanus, Thomas de Vio, 367
Bosphorus, 173 Calabria, 75, 91, 229, 231
Boyars, 114 , 117 , 118 , 122 Calecas, 426
Branimir, Duke, 213 Caloyan, Prince, 214
Britannica, Collection of canon law, 19, Calvin, 1
25, r55,296,303,306,324-7,448,451 Campegius Bononiensis, Thomas, 367
British Museum, MSS. of, 19, 324, 338, Canonists, 106, 184, 200, 303, 306, 308,
383, 401, 428, 452, 456 322, 323, 329, 341, 343-5, 366, 367,
Bruno, St, 350 375 ? 433
Brussels Library MSS., 454 Capistranus, St John, 358
Bryennios, Joseph, 416, 419 Capua, 173, 253, 283, 314
Bulgaria, 94 Carolingian Empire, 286
council of, 869-70: 150-7, 160 Carranza, B., 367, 370
John VIII of, 172-5, 179, 181, 190 Carthage, 314
jurisdiction over, 210 -18 , 222, 253, Caspar, E., 213
260, 297, 306, 332, 372, 422, 433 Catacoilas, Leo, 247
Nicholas I of, 10 1-3 , 108, 112 Cathari, 310
papal embassy to, 114 -19 , 122—5, I27 Cauleas, Anthony, Patriarch, 260, 262,
Bulgarian National Church, 113 , 214, 263, 265-7, 270, 271, 273, 276, 417,
215, 222, 253 434
Bulgarian Patriarchate, 214, 215 Cave, W., 380
Bulgarians, 93, 116, 125, 160, 212, 215, Cedrenus, George, 133, 274, 371, 401,
268, 273, 276, 346, 362 422
Burchard of Worms, 289, 312, 332 Celestin, Pope, 395
Buschbell, G., 440, 441 Centuriae Magdeburgenses, 370, 371
Byzantiije clergy, 45, 48, 63, 126, 145, Chalons Library MSS., 338
I 4<3, 175, 189 Chancellery of Byzantium, 3, 32, 51,
court, 12 1, 134, 135 182, 200, 301
emperors, 107 of Rome, 2 5, 7 3 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 5 , 1 4 5 , 1 7 8 ,
law, 71 1 9 8 , 202, 209, 228, 2 3 I , 2 3 2 , 2 3 5 ,
monasticism, 67, 76 309, 3 1 6 , 3 1 7 , 3 1 8 , 3 2 3 , 3 2 7 , 3 2 8 ,
Byzantines, 3, 32, 50, 53, 58, 67, 76, 91, 3 3 1 ? 3 5 1 ? 36 5? 43 6~ 4 I? 443 ? 444
94, 96, 103, 109, I I I , 1 12, II8, II9, Charlemagne, 3 1 2
123, I27, 138, 145, 147, 187, I99, Charles II, the Bald, 1 1 4 , 443
214, 222, 229, 230, 232, 245, 252, Charles III, 2 23
269, 272-6, 388, 389, 4 1 1, 418 Cherson, 3 3 , 64
Byzantium, 2, 3, 6, 13, 20, 23, 26, 35, 37, Chilas, John, 4 1 2
41, 43“ 5; 5° , 53, 58, 59, 6 5, <58, 69, Christodulos, secretary, 54, 60
7 1-3 , 77, 78, 9°, 9 3-8 ,10 2-20 ,122 , Church of Bulgaria. See Bulgarian
124, 126, 127, 130, 132-4, 137-9, National Church
14 1-3 , <47, 15 1-5 , 158, 159, i <5i , Church of Byzantium, 7 , 1 6 , 18
163, 165, 17 1-7 , 179 -82, i 85, t86, and Bulgaria, 91, 93, 96, 102, 103,
I9O, I9I, I93, 197,202, 20 4-10,212, 104, 107, 109, 1 12, 122, 124, 125
2I3, 215,218,220,222,224, 228—32, and the Extremists’ schism, 237, 239,
238—4O, 246, 248, 255—8, 261, 262, 240, 247, 251-62, 264, 266, 267,
264, 265, 268-7O, 272, 276-8, 28O, 269-71, 273, 278
285, 286, 288, 29O-3, 3O7, 339, 345, and the synod of 861: 70, 74, 77, 78.
347~ 9 ? 35 h 36L 3^8, 371, 37 2, 3 86? 81, 82, 89, 90
389 ? 395 ? 396 ? 401, 404, 4 M, 419? and writings on the councils, 313,322,
421, 423, 426, 434, 455 3 23 ? 3 29 ? 34d
490
INDEX
Church of Byzantium (corn.) of Lombard Law, 114
Collections of canon law, 287, 290-2, of St Emeran of Ratisbon, 289
299, 300 of St Peter’s of Salzburg, 289
Ignatius’ resignation from, 40-2, 45, of the Vallicellania, 289
48, 49 in five books, 291
in 15th c. and after, 363, 372, 377, 383, in nine books, 291
385, 388, 389, 391-6, 398, 399, 404, in nine books of Saint-Victor, 334
408, 410, 4 1 1, 418, 420, 423, 426-8, in thirteen books of Arras, 333
431-4, 443, 445, 452, 456 Prague, 333
Photius’ election to, 52, 61, 64, 65 Collections of Western canon law, 5,
under Basil, 132, 140, 144, 147, 15 1, 186, 187, 284, 289, 307, 316, 3 3 1,
162, 168-72, 175, 180, 181, 183, 333- 5, 337-9
186, 187, 192, 199, 201, 205, 209, Cologne, 120, 258, 364, 365
2 1 1, 214, 217, 221, 226, 228—33, Colonna, Jacob Peter, Cardinal, 450
236 Commonitorium of John V III, 175—9,
Church of Rome, 19, 22, 29, 41, 51, 78, I9I~3, 200, 208, 305, 379
95, 122, 123, 125, 127, 142, 147, Conrat, M., 325
15 6 ,17 9 ,18 1-5 ,18 7 -9 ,19 1,19 3 , Constantine, bishop of Larissa, 53
196, 197, 200, 202, 206, 207, 209, Constantine, bishop of Sylaeon, 52
2 1 7 , 2 2 1 , 2 2 5 - 3 6, 2 5 2, 2 5 3, 2 5 6- 9 , Constantine-Cyril, the Philosopher,,
261, 263, 266, 267, 269, 271, 280, 13, 33, 34, 52, 103
287,290-2,297,299,309,316-19, Constantine, Genesios’ father, 390
322, 327, 329, 332, 339, 346, Constantine, St, the Jew, 243
363, 373 > 377 , 379, 381, 383, 389, Constantine, son of Emperor Basil, 189,
39 2, 393, 394, 39ö, 39 s , 4° 4-<S, Σ94 , x95 ? 241
40 8-11, 418, 419, 426, 428, 433, Constantine the Great, 71, n o , 226,
436 , 443 , 444 , 450 313, 360, 389
Church, the Little, 240, 241, 249, 251, Constantine the Meliteniot, 412
26I, 27Ο Constantine IV, Emperor, 313, 315
Circus parties, 6-9 Constantine V, 68, 69
Claudius Amelius, 366 Constantine VI, 9, 10, 24, 37
démanges, Nicholas de, 345, 359 Constantine VII. See Porphyrogennetos.
Clement, St, Pope, 33, 359, 393 Coressios, George, 413
Clement III, Pope, 395 Cosenza, 231
Clement IV, Pope, 351 Cossart, G., 366
Clement V, Pope, 449 Councils. See Synods
Clement VII, Pope, 365, 366 Coxes, John, patrician, 80
Clermont MSS., 318, 436 Cozza, L., 380
Coletti, 366 Crabbe, P., 364
Collectio Britannica. See Britannica Creighton, R., 378
Collection, anti-Photian, 5, 33, 41, 46, Cremona, 288
99, 154, 168, 169, 216, 217, 2 19 -21, Crete, 11 7 ,1 3 7 , 366, 387
225, 226, 231, 232, 234, 240, 241, Crithinos, iconoclast, 149
248, 249, 251, 252, 255, 261, 265, Croatia, 94, 213
271, 272, 274-6, 347, 368, 369, 371, Crocoa (Curcu), John, Domestic of the
372, 374, 375, 391 Scholae, 244
Collections of canon law Cross, Holy, Monastery in Jerusalem, 388
Cologne Chapter, 289 Crotone, 412
Deusdedit. See Deusdedit Crusades, 126
Germanic, 289 Curia, Roman, 106, h i , 223, 224, 356
Intermediary, 305, 307, 308 Cusa, Nicholas de, 357, 358
Italian, 291, 292 Cyprian, Ignatius’ disciple, 87
491
INDEX
Cyprus, 397 Eugene, Ostiensis (Hostiensis), legate of

Cyril of Alexandria, 177 John VIII, 172, 173, 179, 180,
Cyril, St. See Constantine-Cyril 196, 217, 218, 338, 353, 368, 371,
418
Dalmata, monastery, 245 Eugene IV, Pope, 366
Dalmatian Bay, 140 Eugene the Lombard, 375
Dalmatian Croatia, 213 Eugenicos, John, 424
Damasus, Pope, 313, 395 Eugenius Vulgaris, 25 6
Dandolo, A., 353 Eulampius, bishop of Apamea, 19, 41,
Daniel, Metropolitan of Ancyra, 195 42, 149
Decretals, False, 285 Euschemon of Caesarea, 161
Gregorian, 343 Eusebius, archbishop, 234
Decretum, Burchard’s, 289 Eusebius, bishop of Nazianzus, 237
Frankish kings’ capitularies, 289 Eustathios, Patriarch of Antioch, 151
Gratian’s. See Gratian Eustratios of Nicaea, 396
Ivo’s. See Ivo of Chartres Eustratius, impostor, 88
Demetrius Chrysoloras, 417 Euthymians, 277
Demetrius Cydones, 415, 416 EuthymioSj Life o f 242, 246—9, 260,
Deusdedit, Cardinal, 28, 106, 178, 186, 262, 265, 268, 277
187, 297-9, 300-8, 319, 321, 322, Euthymios, St, Patriarch, 274, 276, 383,
324-8, 331, 335, 336, 339-41, 385, 420, 456
438-42, 444, 448-51 Euthymios, spathar, Basil’s envoy, 138 -
Deusdona, priest, 230 42, 144
Dictatus Papae, 328, 414 Euthymios the Younger, St, 4 1-3, 66
Dimitrakopulos (Demetrakopoulos), A. Euthymios Zigabenos, 396
K., 397? 429 Eutyches, 455
Dioscorus, 30, 82, 296 Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria,
Domago’i, Croat prince, 156, 157 268
Dominic of the Blessed Trinity, 375 Evaristus, St, Life o f 64, 65
Dominicans, 348, 349 Ewald, P., 325
Donatio Constantini, 348, 414, 421 Extremists, 9-18, 35-7, 45, 47, 50, 53,
Donatus, bishop, legate of Hadrian II, 55? 5<$, 59~62? 68, 69, 80, 81, 135-8,
M3? 220, 330 163, 164, 166, 241, 242, 244, 245,
Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 425, 248-51? 255, 276-8, 433
427-9
Dositheus of Osion Dion, 65 Faucher, Ch., 380
Faventinus, John, 343
Elias (Helias), legate of Patriarch of Felix III, Pope, 183
Jerusalem, 41, 51, 191, 192 Felix V, Pope, 355
Elias, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 268 Filaret, archbishop of Tchernigov, 429
Elias, Prophet, 244, 246 Filaret Vafeidos, 429
Ellies du Pin, L., 376, 380 Filioque (Procession of the Holy Ghost),
Emir of Syria, 162 1 17, 1 18, 122, 123, 196, 198, 260,
Engelberta, wife of the Emperor Louis, 286, 287, 345, 349—51 ? 362-4? 377,
121 379 ? 381, 383? 384? 392 ? 393 ? 396 ?
England, 289 399 ? 400, 403-5? 407? 409? 4 1T
Ephesus, 142 4 15-19 , 421, 423-5? 444
Erchempertus, chronicler, 282-4, 286 Flacius, 370, 371
Eremia, district of Constantinople, 388 Flavianus, Patriarch of Constantinople,
Ermenrich, bishop of Passau, 114 177? 395
Euchaita, 243 Fleury, Cardinal, 380
Eudocia Ingerina, Empress, 115 ,13 5 , 242 Flodoard, chronicler, 259, 281
492
INDEX
Florence, 349 Golubkov, 429

Folco of Rheims, 259 Gordon of Armeniakoi, monastery, 247
Formosus of Porto, Pope, 113 , 122, 142, Gratian, 106, 331, 339, 341-6, 352, 353,
2 14 -17 , 220, 223-5, 251-62, 264, 357- 9 ? 3^ 7 ? 368? 376 , 380, 419
270-2, 287, 397, 4 1 1, 426 Greek clergy (missionaries), 113 , 117 ,
Fournier, P., 284, 285, 290, 291, 324, 118 , 125, 155-7, 160, 173, 184, 185,
3 2 5? 33 1 ? 333 ? 335 2 1 1, 422, 426
Frankish Annals, 301 Greek customs, 114
Frankish Bishops, 280, 286, 392 Greek language, 238
Frankish Church, 89, 94, 113 , 123, 259, Greek monasteries, 13 1, 143
280, 281, 289, 3 10 -12 , 444 Greek monks, 120
Frankish court, 91, 96 Greeks, Greece, 2 3 ,4 1,7 7 , 107, 108, 122,
Frankish Empire, 94, 256 I2 4 ? 125? I 5 I~ 3? * 56? 2 I 3? 22 9 ? 2 3°?
Frankish missionaries, 94, 103, 112 , 114 , 253, 280, 283-6, 288-90, 314, 315,
120, 122, 123, 212 3 29> 345- 50, 353, 35 8, 359, 302“ 5,
Franks, 94, 103, 113 , 117 , 123, 126, 127, 3 68, 377 , 3 83 , 3 85, 393, 394 , 39 6,
212, 349 400,414, 415, 421, 427, 431
Frioul, 258 Greens, 6, 7, 9
Fulda Annals, 281 Grégoire, H., 133
Gregorian canonists, 106, 296, 305, 322,
Gaddiana Collection of canon law, 334 330
Garigliano, 229 Gregory I, the Great, St, Pope, 282, 299,
Gaton, imperial asekretis, 163 314, 32°, 335 , 352, 356 , 359 , 43 6
Gauderich of Velletri, 33, 142, 204, 218, monastery of, ιο ί
405 Gregory II, Pope, 438
Gaul, 258, 280, 286, 314, 359 Gregory VII, St, Pope, 186, 292, 293,
Gauzlin, abbot of Fleury, 310 2 95 ? 2 96? 3o°? 3° 6? 322? 3 27 ? 3 28?
Gebeon, 38 331? 355? 37 8? 437 , 440
Gelasius I, Pope, 106, 176, 183, 306, Gregory, bishop of Ephesus, 190
310, 3 12 -14 Gregor}/, Cardinal, 333
Gemistos Plethon, George, 424 Gregory of Cyprus, 417
Genesios, Joseph, 14, 17, 390, 391 Gregory, deacon and chartophylax of
Geneviève, St, Collection, 338 Amasia, 163
Gennadios, Bulgarian archbishop, 4 11 Gregory Mammas, 421, 422, 424
George, archpriest, 218 Gregory of Nyssa, St, 350
George of Cyprus, 412 Gregory, Patriarch of Alexandria, 412
George the Monk, Continuator, 38, 39, Gregory Primitiarius, 173
*36? 375 ? 39 1 ? 401 Gregory, St, the Decapolite, 238
George of Nicomedia, 161 Gregory, St, of Nazianzus, 250, 414
George, Patricius, commander of Cala church of, 80
bria, 229, 230 Gregory, son of the Emperor Leo V, 17
Gerbert, archbishop of Rheims (Pope Grimoald, bishop of Bomarzo, Roman
Sylvester II), 287, 288, 310 envoy to Bulgaria, 154, 155
Germanos I, Patriarch, 278, 434 Grossolanus, John, 396
Germanos II, Patriarch, 413 Grumel, V., 69, 235, 265, 397
Germanus, bishop of Cyzicus, 52 Guaimar, Prince of Salerno, 229
Germany, 258, 280, 281, 286, 314 Guido of Baysio, 344
Gerson, J. Carlerius de, 345, 358 Gulielmus Durandus, Jr, 345
Gesta Episcoporum Neapolitanorum, 312 Gumer, Patricius, 247
‘ Glossotomia’, 60 Gunthar (Günther), Bishop, 130, 282
Glycas, Michael, 371, 400, 401, 402, Guy of Spoleto, 253
422 Guzuniates, Theodore, 242
493
INDEX
Habrudunum, 258 293> 299> 30°, 3°7, 309, 322> 33°,
Hadrian I, Pope, 90, 174, 395, 436 351, 393, 408, 441, 442, 45°
Hadrian II, Pope, 30 Honorius I, Pope, 438
and anti-Photian Collection, 216 -19 , Hormisdas, Pope, 90, 144
221, 222 Höttinger, I. H., 378
and Council of 869: 138-50, 153-8 Hubaldus, archbishop of Ravenna, 344
and Council of 879: 159-61, 164, 180, Hugh, archbishop of Lyons, 324
184, 186, 189, 193, 204, 2 1 1 Hugh, King, 287
Roman synod of 867: 128-31 Hugh de Saint-Victor, 350
varia, 231, 234, 235, 252, 254, 255, Hugh of Verdun, chronicler, 295
281, 282, 284, 304, 305, 309, 329, Hugo Etherianus, 346, 347, 349
344 ? 359 ? 3 di? 362, 3^3 ? 37 θ, 371, Humbertus, Cardinal, 293, 316, 317,
37 b, 377 ? 404, 405, 415? 421 , 443 332, 392
Hadrian III, Pope, 196, 220, 221, 224, Humbertus de Romanis, 346
225, 228, 232, 282, 368, 399
Hadrian IV, Pope, 397 Iconoclasm, 2, 3, 7-9, 12, 13, 67-70, 74,
Hagiopolites, John, 247 76, 98, 104, 273, 370, 393, 417
Haller, J., 97 Ignatian schism, 259, 261. See also
Hanke, M., 378, 379 Church, the Little
Hardouin, I., 366, 375 Ignatians, 23, 31, 34, 35, 43, 46, 47, 49?
Havet, J., 310 50? 52, 54-b, 58? 59? 63? 65? 70, 75?
Hefele, 430 87, 99, 100, 102, 169, 176, 178, 185,
Heinecke, J. M., 379 192, 193, 218, 225, 230, 231, 234,
Helias, spathar and drungary, 163 236? 237, 248, 250, 254, 255, 260-2,
Helinandi Chronicon^ 312 271, 272, 275-7, 300
Henry IV, Emperor, 293 Ignatius, St, Patriarch of Constanti-
Heraclea, 52 nople, 3, 4
Heraclius, Emperor, 6? 7, 315 and anti-Photian revolt, 59, 61—5, 68
Hergenröther, J., Cardinal, 64, 72, 79, and Basil’s change of policy, 164-6
97 , 125-7? 129, 137, 149? l88? x95 ? and the Extremists’ schism, 275-7
197? 204, 240, 251, 263, 381, 382, and Nicholas I, 72-6
397, 400, 4 11, 429, 430 and Nicholas’ policy, 94-6
Herimannus Augiensis Contractus, 3 11 and Photius’ election, 49, 51-6
Hérivée, archbishop of Rheims, 287 and the Pope’s legates, 88-91
Hexamilium, 64 and Roman synod of 863: 97-101
Hiera, Isle of, 56, 247 and synod of 861: 77-84
Hildesheim, Annals of, 3 11 and synod of 869 : 142, 143, 145-7,
Hincmar, bishop of Laon, 280 150? 153-8
Hincmar, chronicler, archbishop of and synod o f 880: 178-81, 183, 187
Rheims, 115 , 118 , 119 , 123, 124, anti-Ignatian campaign, 32-4
280, 281, 286, 287, 309, 310 appeal of, 85-7
Hippodrome, 38, 132 Basil and Photius’ downfall, 132, 136,
Holy (Roman) See, 19, 24, 25, 27, 29, 137, 139? Ί4 °
31? 32, 35, 48, 73, 74, 81, 82, 86, compromise of, 159-61
89 ? 9°? 9 1 ? 93 ? 97, 9 8? IO°? IOÏ? io4 , enthronement of, 17, 18
107, 108, n o , 112 , 113 , 124, 125, first difficulties with Asbestas, 21-3
127,128,138,143,144,146,147, in Greek tradition, 368, 389, 391,
Ho, 153, 154, H6, 162, 171, 174, 400-2, 404, 407, 410, 4 1 1, 4 13 -17 ,
175, 177, 181, 188, 190, 193, 194, 42 1,4 22,4 27,4 34
196, 199, 201, 208, 2 1 1, 214, 220, in Western tradition, 280, 281, 283,
222, 229, 232, 234, 236, 241, 251, 287? 293, 294, 300, 309, 321, 344,
254, 258, 271, 272, 282, 283, 286-8, 353? 368? 370-3? 375-7
494
INDEX
Ignatius, St (cont.) John, bishop o f Syracuse, 299

incident with Bardas, 33-8 John, Bulgarian ambassador, 113
Nicholas’ letters to, 104, 106-8, n o , John Camateros, Patriarch, 401
i n , 115 , 125 John, Cardinal, legate of Formosus,
nomination of, 17, 18 267, 269, 270
persecution of, 57 John Chrysostom, St, 84, 386
reconciliation, 167-73 John of Claudiopolis, 398, 401
resignation of, 39-48 John of Comana, 237
Rome corresponds with, 2 1-7 , 29-31 John of Constantinople (Patriarch), 177,
varia, 2 11, 225, 238, 240, 246, 263, 299, 412
272, 273 John Curopalates, 371
Ignatius the Deacon, 238 John of God, 294
Ikon worship, 2, 8, 9 John of Heraclea, 161, 199
Illyricum, 75, 91, 93, 97, 100, 102, 108, John, Ignatian archbishop, 234
109, 1 13 John of Jerusalem, 398
Innocent III, Pope, 344, 345, 349, 380, John of Leontopolis, 237
4OI John of Paris, 345
Invectiva in Romanam Ecclesiam, John o f Silaeon, 140, 175
258 n. i John, St, the Apostle, 80
Investiture, 322, 323, 326, 352 John, St, the Baptist, 266
Irene, Empress, 8, 9, 12, 36, 68, 90, 189, monastery of, 388
3D ? 389 John the Deacon, 238, 282, 286, 320,
Irene, Photius’ mother, 164 386
Irene, St, church of, 44, 53, 54-60 John the Deacon, historian of Venice,
Isaac Argyros, 418 3 11
Isaias of Cyprus, 417 John the Grammarian, Patriarch, 12, 32,
Isaurian dynasty, 2, 7 98
Israelites, 227 John, patrician, 161, 175, 373
Italy, 258, 259, 286, 291, 326, 368 John, protospathar, 29, 81, 83
Italy, Southern, 12 1, 227, 229, 230, 257, John II, Russian Metropolitan, 395
267, 289, 290, 362 John VIII, Pope, 4, 101, 122
Ivantsov-Platonov, 430, 431 and Basil, 170
Ivo of Chartres, 106, 184, 186, 187, and Boris, 155-7, 160
302-8, 323, 324-6, 330-2, 335-41, and Bulgarian compromise, 210 -15
352, 422, 451 and legates to Constantinople, 172-86
and letter to Basil, 209
Jacobatius, Cardinal, 356, 359 and letter to Photius, 205-8
Jacobi Sti Leodiensis Annales, 3 11 and second condemnation of Photius,
Jaffé, Ph., 19 216-20, 222-5
Jager, J. N., 381 and synod of 879: 188, 190, 192, 193,
Jassy, 427 196—203
Jeremiah, 183 in Greek literature, 384, 393, 404-7,
Jerusalem, 95, 119 , 125, 141, 15 1, 184, 410, 415, 416, 418-20, 422, 424,
268, 29O 425, 444
Jews, 267, 421 in Latin literature, 296-8, 302-9, 317,
Joan, ‘ popess’, 361, 378 3 ï 9, 321, 329, 330, 335-8, 340, 348,
Joannes Hieronymus Albani, 367 352- 3, 359 , 362-3, 368, 369, 371,
Joannikios, St, monk of Mount Olym 373 , 376 , 379-81
pus, 18 varia, 229, 252-5, 261, 263, 271, 282,
Job Jasites, 4 11 283, 284, 285
Joel, chronicler, 413 John IX , Pope, 217, 225, 257, 260, 262,
John, archbishop of Ravenna, 120, 130 270, 271, 275, 368
495
INDEX
John X , Pope, 269 Laurissienses Annales, 3 11
John X IV , Pope, 350 Lavrovskii, P. A., 429
John X V , Pope, 287, 288 Lazarus, monk, Ignatian envoy, 21, 24,
Joseph, abbot, 9, 12 2 5? 27 ? 29~3 L 83
Joseph of Arimathea, 166 Lebedev, A., 430
Joseph, St, the Hymnographer, 238,240, Le Bras, 331, 333
386 Legates of Hadrian II, synod of 869:
Joseph, Ignatian abbot, 65 143—51? 153-9? l6x? 226
Joseph of Methone, 423 of John VIII, synod of 879: 172, 173,
Joseph, Patriarch, 4 11 175-82, 188-92, 194-6, 198, 200-2,
Judas, 197, 198 205, 208, 216, 218, 219, 221, 226,
Jugie, M., 197, 389 2 55? 3° 5? 368? 4°d—8, 424
Julian Cesarini, Cardinal, 358, 362, 363, o f Nicholas I, 4, 28, 7 1-9 1, 94, 97?
373 99, 101, 104, 109, 115 - 18 , 124
Julius I, Pope, 127, 455 of Pope Formosus (892): 255, 261,
Justellus, Ch., 360, 384, 452, 454, 455 264
Justinian, 268, 285, 313, 315 to synod of 906: 268
Justinian Code, 114 Leib, B., 461
Justinian Novels, 285, 290, 292 Leo, abbot of St Bonifacius, 287, 288
Leo, abbot of St Mary’s in Byzantium,
Katasambas, archbishop of Nicomedia, 350
13 Leo Choerosphactes, ambassador, 268,
Kehr, Μ. P., ιο ί 269
Khagan, Bulgar. See B oris-Michael Leo, imperial ambassador, 76, 93-6, 102
Khazars, 102 Leo, imperial asekretis, 163
Kletorologion, 267-70 Leo Magister, 268
Kokorobion monastery, 65 Leo, Metropolitan of Achrida, 392
Kostomarov, N. L, 429 Leo of Ostia, chronicler of Monte
Kurganov, T. A., 431 Cassino, 257
Leo, patrician, 175
Labbe, Ph., 366 Leo, priest, ambassador, 115
Laelius Jordanus, 367 Leo the Grammarian, 375
Lalacon, Leo, Domestic of the Scholae, Leo the Philosopher, 13, 165
56 Leo I, St, Pope, 106, 313, 314, 395
Lambecius, P., 455 Leo III, Pope, 71, 409, 436, 444
Lambertinienses Annales, 3 11 Leo IV, Pope, 19, 21, 24-6, 75, 99, 106,
Landulph of Capua, legate of Formosus, n o , 220, 306, 368
252, 254 Leo V, Emperor, 12, 17, 68
Lanfranc, 289 Leo VI, the Wise, 135, 169, 170, 209,
Laodicea, bishop of, 82 229, 230, 240-51, 255, 265-8, 270,
Lapôtre, A., 197, 224 272, 273, 276, 277, 283, 302, 353,
Lateran, 13 1, 132, 296, 301, 306, 307 361? 389, 391, 401, 434
Latin clergy, 230 Leo IX , Pope, 293, 315-17? 440, 44 2?
Latins, 119, 152, 229, 362, 363, 365, 379, 445
393 ? 394 ? 39 6? 39 8~ 4 0 i? 403, 407? Libellus of Hadrian II, 144, 145, 147,
4 11, 413, 415, 416, 418-20, 422, 149, 15 8, 22i, 370
433 Liber Diurnus, 318, 319, 321, 324, 325,
Laubienses Annales, 312 3 28? 330, 337- 9 ? 343 ? 435-47
Launoi, J., 366 Liber Pontificalis, 25, 71, 73, 113 , 141,
Laurentius, priest, secretary to synod of 152-4, 282, 301, 370, 371
861: 79, 82 Liudprand, bishop of Cremona, 288,
Laurentius Bracatus de Laurea, 375 314
496
INDEX
Liutbert, archbishop of Mainz, 281 Maximus, Patriarch, 299

Lombards, 231 Mediterranean, 121
Lothar II, 100, 292, 294, 295 Melanchthon, 1
Louis II, Emperor, 114, 12 1, 124, 138, Meletios, Metropolitan of Athens, 429
1 5 r, i6 4 Menâtes, Elias, bishop of Cercyra, 428,
Louis the German, King of Germany, 429
103, 113 , 178 Mennas, Patriarch, 455
Luke, St, 107 Mercati, G., Cardinal, 418
Luther, 1 Merlin, 364
Lyons, 258 Methodius of Gangra, 71, 73
Methodius, monk, 141
Maas, P., 267, 269 Methodius, St, Patriarch of Constanti
Macarius Macres, 417, 425 nople, 3, 13 -18 , 21, 23, 24, 32, 37,
Macedonia, 153 48, 49, 52, 63, 68, 81, 103, 146, 160,
Macedonian dynasty, 2, 245 164, 178, 183, 215, 238, 271, 273,
Magnaura University, 165, 168 393 ? 429
Maimbourg, L., 377 Methodius, Slav apostle, 103, 444
Mainz, 258 Metochita, George, 407, 409-11, 414,
Mammas, St, Hippodrome, 133 415
Manasses, Constantine, 401, 402, 422 Metrophanes, Metropolitan of Smyrna,
Manichaeans, 117 5? Μ, 33 ? 4 L 43- 5? 49-51? 53- 5?
Mansi, J. D., 197 57-9? 86, 149, 175, 192, 216, 231,
Manuel Calecas, 357, 377, 414, 415, 237-40, 249, 378
418 Michael Catudares (Catudes), 244
Manuel Chrysoloras, 415 Michael Cerularius, 293, 316, 332, 348,
Manuel Comnenus, Emperor, 347, 398 392-4, 406, 410, 426
Manuel, Logothete, 43, 216, 231 Michael Ducas, Emperor, 360, 361
Manuel Moschopulos, 412 Michael I, Emperor, 12, 17, 68
Manuel II, Palaeologus, Emperor, 417 Michael II, Emperor, 12, 68, 295
Mapas. See Stylianos Michael III, Emperor, 11
Margarita, triclinium of the, 243 and Illyricum, 91, 92, 95-9, 102, 103
Marianus Scotus, 295, 3 11 and intransigents’ opposition, 34-7,
Marinus, legate and Pope, 42, 72, 73, 45 , 49 , 5°, 53, 55, 56, 0 - 5, 68
1 1 5, 14 2,14 3,148 ,20 3,216 ,219 -26 , and Pope’s letter, 25, 26
232? 233? 235? 248, 253, 258, 270, and synod of 861: 70-90
282, 374, 405? 433 and synod of 867: 118, 12 1, 124, 125,
Marinus II, Pope, 314 -16 , 445 127, 128
Mark of Ephesus, Metropolitan, 362, and synod of 869: 148, 152, 162, 163
3 63 ? 373 ? 375 ? 421, 4 22? 4 24 ? 42 5 correspondence with Pope, 104, 105,
Marsilius of Padua, 345 107-9, i n , 1 1 5, 1 16
Martianus, Emperor, 313 his character, 132-8, 140—2
Martin I, Pope, 217 varia, 210, 245, 280, 288, 292, 294-7,
Martin V, Pope, 425 2 99? 33 2~~3 ? 344? 353? 36°? 36 ï? 37°,
Martin, Bulgarian ambassador, 113 372? 37b, 389? 390, 401, 417
Martiniakoi, 242 Michael of Anchialos, 398-400
Martinus Polonus of Opava, 294, 352, Michael, Patriarch of Alexandria, 191
353 ? 370 Michael, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 151
Mary Major, St, Rome, 73, 141 Michael of Mytilene, 149, 161
Matthew Blastares, 420 Michael, protospathar, 103, 149
Maur, St, monastery of, 380 Michael Syrus, chronicler, 11
Maximos Chrysoberges, 415 Migne, Abbé, 270
Maximos Planudes, 412 Milan, 258, 317, 435, 436, 438
DP S 497 32
INDEX
Miliolus, Albert, 294 on Ignatius, 17-19 , 22, 23, 171

Milo, 288 on Ignatius’ resignation, 39-43, 45, 47
Missionaries, Roman, 103, 154 on Michael III, 34
Mitrophanes, Patriarch, 360 on Photius’ election, 53-7
Moderates, 8 ,9 ,13 , 32, 35, 36,,45,48-52, his Life o f Ignatius, 272—7
60, 69, 136, 143, 163-5, i 67, 238, in Western tradition, 347, 348, 371-3,
242, 246, 248—5Ο, 276—8 378—80, 388, 422
Moechians, n Nicholas’ attitude towards, 99
Monophysism, 7, 8, 316 on the new quarrel, 60-2
Monothelites, 315 on the reconciliation, 164, 167, 169
Monte Cassino, 291 on the synod of 861: 76, 80, 86-8
Moravia, Moravians, 94, 102, 103, 178, Nicetas Helladicos, 243
215, 253, 444 Nicetas Pectoratus, 392
Moscow, 349, 428, 430, 452 Nicetas of Chrysopolis, 65
Munich Library, 4 11 Nicetas of Maronea, 400
Mussulman world, 2 Nicetas of Nicomedia, 396
Mylae (Milazzo), 273 Nicetas of Smyrna, 192, 239
Mystagogy, 196, 249, 253, 396, 399, Nicetas, spathar, 161
405 Nicetas the Philosopher, 276, 277
Mydiene, 44, 56, 61 Nicholaites, supporters of Nicholas
Myxaris (Myxiares), conspirator, 244 Mysticos, 138, 142, 252, 277
Nicholas, abbot of the Pissidion monas
Naples, 256, 291 tery, 66
Narbonne, 351 Nicholas, abbot of Studion, 64-6
Narentine pirates, 154, 158 Nicholas, bishop, in Bulgaria, 157
Natalis (Noel), A., 365, 366, 380 Nicholas, bishop, Roman legate, 267,
Naukratios of Studion, 13 269
Neander, 429 Nicholas Cabasilas, 419
Nechites (Nicetas), 345 Nicholas Mesarites, 412
Nectarios, Patriarch, 428 Nicholas of Methone, 397, 413, 417
Neilos of Damylas, 419, 420 Nicholas Mysticos, Patriarch, 248, 249,
Neilos, Metropolitan of Rhodes, 384, 260, 262, 263, 265, 266, 269, 270,
385,420,456 276, 277, 385, 387, 392, 434
Neilos of Thessalonica, 418, 419 Nicholas of Otranto, 349
Nestorius, 299 Nicholas I, Pope, 4
Nicephorus Blemmydes, 403, 412, 417 and Acts of 869 synod, 149, 150, 152,
Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulos, 361, 156, 159, 160
416 and Acts of 879 synod, 172, 176, 177,
Nicephorus, Emperor, 10, 12, 135 180, 181, 184, 186, 188, 190
Nicephorus Gregoras, 417 and anti-Photian Collection, 216-22,
Nicephorus, Metropolitan of Nicaea, 23 I? 232, 234, 235, 252, 254, 255,
145 263, 271
Nicephorus, monk, 165 and Basil, 134, 138
Nicephorus, official, 133 and Bulgarian jurisdiction, 2 10 -12
Nicephorus, Patriarch, 10 -12 , 15, 24, 32, and embassy to Constantinople, 139—
37, 50, 71, 386, 434 44
Nicephorus the Philosopher, 266 and Illyricum, 9 1-106, 108-20,122-5,
Nicetas Acominatos, 401 12 7-31
Nicetas, chartophylax of Nicaea, 393, and synod of 861: 70-90
394? 410 his letters, 25-7, 35
Nicetas-David, of Paphlagonia, 5 in Eastern tradition, 404, 405, 415,
on Bardas, 37 421, 425, 433, 443
498
INDEX
Nicholas I (corn.) Patetta, 289, 290

in Western tradition, 279-80, 292-4, Paul, bishop of Ancona, legate of
296-300, 302, 306, 323, 332, 333, John V III, 172, 173, 178, 179,
337? 33 8? 344, 35 2? 353 ? 36L 363? 180, 193, 196, 338, 353, 3Ô8, 371,
368? 370-3, 376 4 l8
varia, 42, 44, 47, 52, 54, 63 Paul, bishop of Heraclia in Pontus, 53
Nicholas II, Pope, 317, 439, 441 Paul, chartophylax, 159
Nicholas IV of Muzaton, Patriarch, 397 Paul, Ignatian archbishop, 234
Nicholas Siculus Panormitanus, 356 Paul, Metropolitan of Caesarea in Cappa
Nicholas the Studite, 240 docia, 78, 140, 143
Nilus of Thessalonica, 416 Paul of Populonia, 113
Nogaret, W. de, 449, 45°? 4 5 * Paul, patrician, 175
Novels of Justinian, 285, 286, 290 Paul, St, 140, 209, 314, 315
Numeroi, prison, 44, 56, 57 Paul II, Patriarch, 299
Paul III, Patriarch, 50
Ockham, W. of, 345 Paul V, Pope, 365
Odilo, St, 312 Pavia, 288
Odo, bishop of Beauvais, 280 Peitz, W. M., 301, 318, 436, 442
Oeconomia, 8, 24, 45, 250, 276, 277 Pelagius I, Pope, 306
Olympian monks, 14, 66 Pelagius II, Pope, 299, 306
Oppido, John de, 370 Pentarchy, 150
Oria, 230 Pereis, E., 106
Orthodoxy, 1, 7, 15, 68, 70, 4 11, 434, Peter, archpriest and legate to 758 synod,
45 2 395
Ostia, 105 Peter, bishop of Sardes (Sardis), 19, 51,
63? 140, 141
Pachymerus, 413 Peter, Bulgarian ambassador, 113
Pagi, A., 365, 375 Peter, Cardinal, legate of John VIII,
Palamas, 420 178, 179, 190, 196, 199, 200, 202,
Palaeologus, John, Emperor, 425 33 8? 353 ? 371, 418
Palermo Collection of canon law, 334 Peter d’Ailly, 355, 358
Pallium, 32, 71, 86, 199, 2 11, 258, 421, Peter Damian, St, 293, 317
435
Peter, deacon, and Roman synod of 869 :
Pancapalea, 342, 343 142
Pandenulf, Count of Capua, 173 Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, 393
Pannonia, 94, 297 Peter, Patriarch of Constantinople, 299
Panoplia, Le Quien, 380, 393 Peter, protonotary, 197, 399
Panop lia, Michael Cerularius’ (?), 393 Peter, St, 125, 128, 156, 174, 182-5, 2°°?
Panormia, 336, 337, 338 209, 227, 258, 314, 315, 318, 395,
Pantelemon, 347 409
Papacy, 106, 109, 113 , 139, 181, 208, Peter’s, St, church in Rome, 97, 218,
223, 251, 253, 284, 292, 297, 300, 318, 426
307, 318, 323, 342, 374, 375, 379, Peter’s, St, Collection, 334
414? 425, 444 Petronas, patrician, 88
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 388 Petrus Abelardus, 349
Paphnucius the Studite, 64 Petrus de Monte Brixiensis, 358
Pappe, J. 57 Philarges, monk, 417
Paradiso, J. de, 358 Philip the Fair, 450
Paris Libraries MSS., 323, 333-5, 337? Philotheos, 267
338, 346, 348, 349? 359-6 1? 3 84 ? Photianists, 46, 216, 221, 227, 249, 251,
415, 417, 423, 426, 452, 453 254-6, 260, 262, 264, 273, 277
Paschal II, Pope, 301, 321, 350 Photinus, 313
499
INDEX
Photius, Patriarch, 2, 6 Phournes, J., 396

and Bulgarian incident, 114 -16 , 118 Pichler, A., 381
and Collections of canon law, 296- Pius IV, Pope, 369
300, 302-6, 308 Pius X I, Pope, 435
and the Eighth Council, 309, 319,322, Placidus, monk, 295, 321
329; (from the 12th c.), 332, 336-9, Platina, B., 361, 362, 370
342, 344—5 1; (from the 15th c.), Plato, abbot, 9, 10, 14
35 <h 359 ? 36o~ 3 ? 368-82. In Poggio, J. F., of Florence, 358
Eastern tradition, 383, 384; (till the Poitiers MSS., 333
12th c.), 391-402; (from 13th to Poly carpus Collection, 332, 333
15 th c.), 403-22, 424-6; (from Poly chronius of Jerusalem, 177
1 6th to 19th c.), 427-31. In Porphyrogennetos, Constantine VII,
Western tradition (10th c.), 279—83, Emperor, 132, 375, 389, 390, 402,
285, 286-8; (n th c.), 293, 294 4 11
and Formosus, 251—5 Posis palace in Byzantium, 80
and Hadrian III, 225—31 Praesepis, Church of St Mary, Rome, 72
and Ignatius’ resignation, 40, 43, 44, Pretorium, prison, 44
46 Primacy, Roman, 94, 106, 109, h i , 123,
and Illyricum, 92-102 125, 126-9, 150, 182, 183, 186, 208,
and John’s legates, 173-81 280? 290, 345, 346, 348
and Marinus, 222, 224 Procopius, Metropolitan of Caesarea in
and Nicholas’ letter, 105, 108, n o Cappadocia, 190-2, 196, 199
and opposition to Stephen V, 237-40 Procopius, spathar, 268, 269
and Stephen V, 232-6 Procopius, sub-deacon (in synod of
and Studite schism (Asbestas and 861), 84
Ignatius), n , 13, 22, 23, 25, 26 Professions o f faith, 318, 319, 325-8,
and synod of 861: 67-90 33 2? 335? 33 ^? 340? 35°? 354~Α 366?
and synod of 869: 14 1—3 369? 385, 393, 412, 420, 426, 436,
and synod of 879: 183-98, 200, 201 440-4, 446—51? 455 ? 45 d
and the alleged schism, 256, 261-4, Prometon, 56
266, 270-5, 277 Propontis, Isle of, 87
and the Bulgarian embassy, 15 1, 152, Protestants, 364, 374, 378, 379
155? 156 Protoasekretis (Photius), 50
and the doctrine of the two souls, Psamathia monastery, 248
32-5 Psellus, 360, 361
and Leo VI, 241, 243-6 Pseudo-Anastasius (creed), 426
and the ‘ Libellus’, 144-9 Pseudo-Isidore’s Decretalia, 106
and the papal legate’s failure, 159—64 Pseudo-Simeon (Simeon Magister, Si
Basil’s revolt against, 132-9 meon Logothete), 21, 33, 38, 60,.
his abdication, 247—50 13 2? 164, 375, 388, 391, 402
his consecration and conflict, 51-66 Ptolemaeus Lucensis, 352
his cultus, 386-9 Pyrrhus, Patriarch, 299
his election, 48-50
his encyclical and synod of 867: Quedlinburg Annals, 3 11
i 19 -31 Quidellus, P., 369
his reconciliation, 171, 172 Quien, M. Le, 380
his rehabilitation, 165-9
his Roman letters; compromise on Raderus, M., 47, 79, 84, 375
Bulgaria, 210 -15 Radoald (Rhodoald), bishop of Porto,
John’s answer to, 206-10 28, 46, 74, 76, 89-91, 96, 102, 109,
John’s attitude to, 215-20 mo? 130, 146, 147, 15 1, 173, 180,
varia, 43 2~ 4 ? 443? 444 ? 455 ? 45 6 202, 218, 280, 300, 301, 371
5 00
INDEX
Rangerais, 294 Samuel, bishop of Colossus, 7 1, 73

Rastislav, ruler of Moravia, 103 Samuel, Ignatian, 64, 65
Ratharius, 312 Santifaller, L., 437, 444
Ratherus, bishop of Verona, 288 Saracens. See Arabs
Ratramnus, abbot of Corbie, 280, 285 Saragossa, 335
Ravenna, 258, 364 Sathas, C., 413
Reggio, 231 Saviour, church of the, Rome, 97
Regino of Prüm, 288 Schedel, H., chronicler, 370
Rheims, 258, 259, 287, 288, 336 Scholarios, G., 424
Rhodes, 4 11 Schröckh, J. M., 380, 429
Rhoedestus, 77 Schweinburg, K., 275
Richerius, F., 375 Scythic language (Latin), 105
Robert, King, 287 Sdralek, M., 336, 352
Rodrigo da Cunha, archbishop of Sedan Library MS., 454
Lisbon, 376 Selymbria, 78
Rolandus, commentator of Gratian, 342 Semeca, J. (Teutonicus), 343, 344
Romanos II, Emperor, 391 Senate, Byzantine, 7, 243
Romans, 123, 138, 141, 187, 196, 199, Roman, 7
219, 232, 233, 241, 253, 262, 433 Sens, 351
Romanus, legate of Pope Formosus, Sergius I, Patriarch, 299
252, 254 Sergius II, Patriarch, 394, 410
Rome, 20, 27, 31, 43, 44, 70-2, 81, 91, Sergius III, Pope, 286, 426
93 ? 95 ? 96? 99 ? I0°? I0 4 , 107, 109, Sergius, Photius’ brother, 50
i n - 1 4 , 1 19, 124, 126, 127, 129, Sergius, St, Photius’ father, 387
131? 138, 141, 143, 145-8, 152, 154, Sergius, St, convent of, 210
156, 158, 17 1, 173, 174, 176, 177, Sergius Magister, 13
1 81, 182, 186, 187, 200, 203-4, Sergius, Slav priest, 215
2 10 -15 , 218, 222, 223, 227, 232, Sicard, bishop of Cremona, 294
237,240,248-50,254,257,258, Sicily, 75 , 9 1 , 2 58, 273 , 35°
262,264,265,270,277,285,286, Sickel, Th. E. von, 435-7, 441, 445
292, 300, 305, 307, 313, 314, 322_5, Sicus, bishop of Capua, 314
3 27~ 9? 34 2? 35 1 ? 35 8? 37 2, 395 ? 399 ? Sigebertus Gemblacensis, 312
404? 406, 415, 423, 433, 449 Sigismund, Emperor, 357
Romuald, Archbishop and chronicler, Simeon, Leo V i’s Roman ambassador,
294 268
Rosseikin, 50, 92, 431 Simeon Logothete. See Pseudo-Simeon
Rothad of Soissons, 100 Simeon Magister. See Pseudo-Simeon
Rozière, E., 3 11, 332 Simeon, son of Boris-Michael, 152, 214,
Rufinus, Gratian’s commentator, 342, 2 I 5? 2 53
343 Simeon of Thessalonica, 417, 418
Russia, 382, 430 Simond, I., 365
Russians, 388, 391, 428, 431 Simoniacs, 293
Ruthenes, 381 Simoniades, C., 413
Sisinnios, Patriarch, 380, 389
Sabellius, 313 Sisinnius, protospathar, 78
Saint-Victor Collection of canon law, 334 Skylitzes, J. (Cedrenus), chronicler, 133,
St-Germain-des-Prés Collection of 274, 401, 402, 422 ^
canon law, 336, 337 Smirnov I (archimandrite Innokentis),
Salernitans, 330, 444 429
Salerno, 229, 253 Sophia, St, church in Byzantium, 22, 24,
Salerno, Chronicle of, 286, 294 33 ? 36? 70, 13 2? 133? I 34 ? ib8, 189,
Salonika, 266 194, 216, 237, 247, 293, 348, 383
501
INDEX
Sophocles Oikonomos, 428 Synod of Carthage, 314, 454

Souls, doctrine on two, 33 Synod of Chalcedon, 82, 127, 280, 286,
Source, palace of the, 247 29 2? 313? 3 J 5? 3 22? 350? 355 ? 44 o
Spain, 359 Synod of Constance, 354, 355, 357,
Spanheim, F., 379 366
Spittler, L. T., 379 Synods of Constantinople:
Stanislaus Hosius, 367 (553, second of Const., seventh
Stapleton, Th., 367 oecum.), 313, 323, 354, 445, 466
Stauracius, son of Emperor Nicephorus, (680, third of Const., sixth oecum.),
12 104, 107, 3 11, 313, 323, 354, 359,
Stauracius, Logothete, 9, 10, 36 394 , 445 ? 44 d
Stauropats (Stauromachs), 216, 219,273, (853)? 27 ? 32
274 (858), 48-50? 73 ? 371, 37d
Stephen V (VI), Pope, 21, 43, 57, 178, (859, 861, Prima, secunda; anti-
215, 216, 217, 2 19 -2 1, 224-37, 240, Ignatian or Photian), 24, 28-31,
247, 248, 251-3, 261, 263, 282, 284, 4 °? 4<b 47 ? 58? 62? 67 ? <58, 70-90,
3°3, 368 97 ? 99 ? IO°? io 7 ? in ? 1 1 5? i 27 , 150?
Stephen of Tournay, 342, 343 15 1, 180, 182, 195, 218, 300-5, 348,
Stephen, Domestic of the Scholae, 247 370, 371? 37<5? 397 , 419? 420 , 434 ,
Stephen, legate of Hadrian II, 143, 220 455
Stephen Magister, 243, 245-7 (867), 120-4, 12 8 -31, 138, 14 1-3 ,
Stephen, Patriarch, 225, 230, 250, 263, 151? 152, 181, 370, 433
273? 283? 434 (869-70, anti-Photian, eighth oecum.),
Stephen, sub-deacon, secretary to the 4 ? 27 ? 31-5? 4 L 43 ? 49 ? 51? 58? 63?
synod of 861: 79, 80 7 2? 7<b 7 8? I28, 141-3? 145-7?
Studion, monastery, 3, 9, 14, 64, 65, 243, 1 51-4, 156, 158-61, 165, 169, 171,
245 173? 175-7, 180-2, 185, 191, 195,
Studite schism, 16, 24 203, 210, 216, 218-22, 225, 226,
Studites, 12, 14-16, 24, 48, 49, 52, 64, 65 2 2 8 ,2 3 1 ,2 3 3 ,2 3 4 ,2 5 5 ,2 7 3 ,2 7 5 ,
Stylianites, 255, 261, 275 282,293,295-8,300,304,305,309,
Stylianos, archbishop of Neocaesarea 3 1 0 ,3 1 4 - 1 6 ,3 1 9 - 2 9 ,3 3 1 - 3 ,3 3 5 -
(Mapas), 5, 21, 24, 26, 33, 41, 43, 4 2 ,3 4 4 ,3 4 5 ,3 4 7 ,3 4 9 ,3 5 3 ,3 3 4 ,
5o> 53? 56? 57? 76, 168, 169, 216, 356 -7 9 ,3 8 1-5 ,39 5 ,3 9 6 ,4 0 0 ,4 10 ,
217, 219, 225-7, 229, 233-7, 239- 418,422,423,427,433,440,441,
41, 247-51, 254-6, 260-7, 270, 271, 443-5,452,455
275? 368? 374? 391 (879-80, Photian (reunion) synod),
Stylianos Zautzes. See Zautzes n o , 165, 170, 17 1, 178-81, 183-6,
Surius, Laurence, of Moravia, 365 18 9 ,19 2 ,19 3 ,19 5 - 8 ,2 0 0 ,2 0 5 - 7 ,
Svatopluk, 444 209—1 1 , 2 1 3 , 2 1 5 , 2 1 8 —20,222,232,
Sylvester, St, Pope, 83, 127, 313, 360, 233,237,239,254,255,301,305-9,
395? 455 329, 33 1 , 335, 338, 34 i, 34 8, 352,
Symbol of the faith, 195-8, 253, 260, 353, 357 , 301, 302, 364, 369, 3 7 1-3 ,
363? 377, 398-400, 405-9? 4 h ? 375-8, 380, 383-6, 393, 394, 399,
413? 415, 418-20, 424, 444 4OO, 4O5-8, 4IO-I2, 4I4, 416-2O,
Synagogai (Photius’ writing), 126, 170 4 22_ 5? 455 ? 457
Synaxaria, 262, 387-9, 4 11, 421, 422 (906-7, reunion synod), 265-7, 269,
Synod of Ancyra, 314, 454 270, 271, 277
Synod of Antioch, 314, 454 (995-6), 393
Synod of the Armenians, 350 (1156), 401
Synod of Barlaam, 384, 420 (1280), 350
Synod of Basle, 354, 355, 360 Synod of Ephesus, 299, 312, 322, 323,
Synod of Caesarea, 454 440
502
INDEX
Synod of Ferrara, 360 Theodora, St, Empress, 2, 3, 12, 13,

Svnod o f Florence. 362, 364—6, 368, 373, 16-18 , 26, 27, 31, 35-8, 49, 50, 55,
377, 420, 421, 423-5, 427 59, 68, 81, 87, 115, 134, 135
Synod, Gallo-Roman or Merovingian, Theodore, St, abbot of Studios, 8-12,
289 14, 15, 24
Synod of Laodicea, 454 Theodore, Ignatius’ gaoler, 87
Synod of the Lateran ( 1112 ), 350 Theodore, an official, 116
Synod of the Lateran (1215), 292, 355 Theodore of Laodicea, 161, 163, 300
Synod of the Lateran (1514), 369 Theodore II Lascaris, Emperor, 413,
Synod of Lavaur, 351 414
Synod of Lyons (1274), 346, 350, 354, Theodore, Olympian ascetic, 66
355 , 403, 423 Theodore Santabarenos, Metropolitan
Synod o f Melh (1284), 350 of Euchaita, 166-8, 243-7, 249
Synod of Nicaea (first of Nicaea, first Theodore, bishop of Sugdea, 405
oecum.), 107, 183, 313, 322, 323, Theodore, bishop of Syracuse, 63
36°, 395, 44 °, 441, 455 Theodore, secretary of 869—870 synod,
Synod of Nicaea (second of Nicaea, 148
seventh oecum.), 8, 90, 104, 107, Theodosius, Emperor, 313
n o , 120, 189, 192—4, 273, 290, 310, Theodosius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 15 1,
312, 313, 319, 322, 323, 349, 354, 191
359 , 36 5, 394 , 443 , 444 , 44 <$ Theodosius, Photian monk, 149
Synod of Oria (887), 230 Theodosius, bishop of Nin, 213
Synod of Ravenna (898), 257 Theodosius, bishop of Oria, 228, 229,
Synods of Rome: 232
(811), 223 Theodota, Byzantine court lady, 9
(863) , 97-9, 103, 176, 371, 443 Theodoulos, bishop of Ancyra, 145
(864) , 28O Theognostos, abbot of the Source
(869), I4I, I42, I76, I82, 218 monastery, 5, 27, 33, 41, 43
(879), 204, 217, 222 his Libellus, 62—5
Synod of Sardica, 26, 31, 32, 82, 85, 86, his minutes on the synod of 861 :
92, I26, 232 76—85
Synod of Trent, 369 in Constantinople, 141, 142, 145, 159,
Synod of Troyes, 359 172, 181, 186, 187
Synod of Vienne, 354, 355 in Rome, 96, 98-102, 104, 108, 13 1,
Synodicon Vetus, 57, 58, 62, 74, 75, 127, 134, 138-40
455 on Ignatius, 54
Syracuse, 76, 273 on the synod of 861: 46, 47
Syropulos, Sylvester, 425 varia, 231, 372
Theoktistos,Logothete,2, 13, 17, 31, 35,
Taio, 359 36, 50, 370
Taormina, 273 Theoleptos of Philadelphia, 412
Tarasius, St, Patriarch, 3, 8, 10, 11, 15, Theophanes, St, chronicler, 11
32, 37, 50, 81, 92, n o , 135, 175, Theophanes, biographer of Joseph the
189, 194, 238, 278, 434, 455 Hymnographer, 386
Tarento, Taren tans, 229, 230 Theophanes Continuator, 14, 34, 35, 39,
Tarragona, 368 132, 134, 388, 391, 401
Tarragona MSS., 333, 334 Theophano, St, Empress, 242
Tauromenium, 266 Theophilus, Emperor, 12, 13, 68, 73,
Terebinthos, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 56 164, 238
Tetragamy, 269, 276, 291, 434 Theophilus, bishop of Amorion, 27,
Theiner, A., 336 71- 4, Μ8
Theodektes, 202 Theophilus of Iconium, 192
5 °3
INDEX
Theophylactus, archbishop of Bulgaria, Victor III, Pope, 326

393 Vienna Library MSS., 452, 453, 456
Theopolis (Jerusalem), 268 Vigil, Pope, 313, 315, 395
Theosterikos, monk, biographer of Vio, Thomas de, 367
St Nicetas of Medikeion, 11, 66 Vladimir, son of Boris, 152
Theotgand (Thietgand), bishop, 130,282 Vogt, A., 244
Thessalonica, 78, 349, 397
Theutberga, 100 Walch, Ch. W. F., 379
Thomas Aquinas, St, 351 Walch, Io. G., 379
Thomas of Beyrouth, 191 Waldrada, 295
Thomas of Tyre, 199, 356 Weissmann, Ch. E., 379
Thrace, 153 Wilderode, bishop of Strassburg, 310
Timothy, St, 107 Will, C .,3 15
Torquemada, J. de (Turrianus), 356, W olf von Glanvell, V., 446
357, 3 ^7 , 377 Wolfenbüttel, 336
Traffic between Rome and Byzantium, Worms, 281
139? 171 Wulfad of Bourges, 100
Trier, 120
Trinity, Blessed, 7, 196, 385 Yared Gerazim, hieromachus, 382, 430
Tripartite Collection, 323, 325
Trosley in the Soissonnais, 286, 287 Zachary, bishop of Agnani, legate of
Tryphon in Chalcedon, monastery, 248 Nicholas I, 28, 46, 74, 89-91, 96,
Turin Collection of canon law, 334 97, 101, 102, 109, 131, 146, 151,
Tuscus, Leo, 347 172, 173, 180, 181, 202, 203, 205,
218,224,258,280,300,301,371,403
Udalrich, St, 312 Zachary, bishop of Taormina, 71
Uniates, 365 Zachary, Metropolitan of Antioch in
Urban II, Pope, 306, 327 Pisidia, 162
Urban VI, Pope, 345 Zachary, Metropolitan of Chalcedon,
Asbestas’ envoy, 25—31, 49, 51, 63,
Valetta, J., 429 72-4, 83, 84, 121, 124, 148, 149,
Vallicellania Collection of canon law, 187-9, I9L 356
289, 290 Zautzes, Stylianos, 242, 245-8
Vatican Library MSS., 126, 318, 332, Zdeslav, Croat prince, 213
368, 369, 448, 450, 452 Zeno, Emperor, 90
Vatican MSS., 291, 386, 435, 436, 451 Zoe, Zautzes’ daughter, 242
Venetus Marcus Graecus, 167, 275 Zonaras, J., 58, 59, 62, 370, 373, 375-8,
Venice, 3 11, 353 401, 402
Verona, 288 Zosimus, monk, 120

Dvornik The Photian Schism 1948 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dvornik The Photian Schism 1948 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dvornik The Photian Schism 1948 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Chap. III. T h e S y n o d o f 861 p . 70

Chap. V L P h o t i u s ’ R eh a bilit a tio n and the S y n o d of

Chap. V I I . T heS eco n d S c h ism of P h o tius, A H i s t o r i c a l

Chap. V III. P h o t i u s , L e o VI a n d the H ea lin g of the

Chap. II. O e c u m e n i c i t y of the E ig h t h C o u n c il in

Chap. IV. F ifteenth C en t u r y t ill the M odern P erio d

Chap. V. P h o t i u s and the E ig h th C o u n cil in the E a s t e r n

Chap. VI. F r o m the T h i r t e e n t h C e n t u r y to t h e M o d e r n

C onclusion />. 432

Appendix I. New Edition o f the Liber Diurnus (eleventh century) and

Appendix III. Unpublished anonymous Greek Treatises on the

L ist of M a n u s c r ip t s Q uoted P- 459

L ist of S ources p 0 462

tradition. Moreover, it would have been impossible to reassess Photius’

to Paris a week before the invasion o f Belgium and I brought it safely

advice on many details. He accepted the dedication shortly before his

PO L IT IC A L PA RTIES, R ELIG IO U S PRO BLEM S

Introduction: Photius’ case— Political and religious parties in Byzantium—

F e w names in the history o f Christianity have inspired feelings so

The very discordance o f the contradictory estimates o f the character

equivalent to a University. His literary salon, where classical literature,

Bardas for immoral conduct. When Ignatius refused to abdicate, Photius

valuations so perplexing, how is one to judge a man who is venerated

1 Some of these problems have been outlined by G. Ostrogorskii, Studien $ur

1 Theophanes (Bonn), vol. 1, p. 719; (de Boor), vol. 1, p. 464.

ascent to the throne is reported by two Syriac writers.1 This was

1 Gregorii Abulpharagii Chronicon Syriacum (ed. Bruns and Kirsch; Leipzig,

such as iconoclasm. This is what happened. When Nicephorus perished

The final restoration o f image worship by Theodora in 843 opened a

philosophers, but because they were patronized by the iconoclasts, who

reformed confrères o f the monastery o f Studion. The wording o f the

1 According to a marginal note in the Vatican MS. (Leo Allatius, Diatriba de

had repented on his death-bed. I f Methodius showed a desire to settle

Byzantine tradition, knowing full well that the attacks o f Ignatius’

1 See infra, p. 81. z A.S. Nov. t. 11, p. 318.

The incident was ominous. Nicetas himself, though he defends Ignatius,

1 Ph. Jaffé-P. Ewald, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Lipsiae, 1885-8), vol. 1,

Stylianos then goes on to state that the condemned schismatics used

1 Mansi, vol. xvi, col. 232; P .G . vol. 105, col. 512.

anti-Ignatian bias: calling upon the aristocracy to ridicule and revile

was called a parricide. As Anastasius emphatically denies the accusation,

the same, is flatly contradicted by Pope Nicholas I, who stated in his

But m y predecessors o f blessed memory Leo and Benedict refused in

1 M .G .H . Ep. V I, p. 500; cf. ibid. p. 527.

Lazarus’ visit with the non-committal ‘ huius [Benedicti] temporibus

1 M .G .H . Ep. vi, p. 478: £Ecce enim scripta vestra missa ad antecessorem

Nicholas, and he is obviously at pains to explain his predecessors5

1 See below, pp. 297-308.

declaration, he received a letter with the injunction in Ju ly 858, nine or

So far, we have only considered the ecclesiastical aspect o f the conflict.

and it had been Anastasius5 intention to collect in the Byzantine capital

dignified. According to him, their author was no less a man than

and the bishop o f Syracuse no doubt enhanced the Moderate party’s

1 Consult my book (loc. cit.), where I quote Bury’s judgement on Ignatius’

went so far as to organize a conspiracy. Simeon Magister/ unfavourable

IGNATIU S’ RESIGNATION AND PHOTIUS’

Nicetas’ testimony—-Ignatius’ abdication confirmed by the Extremists’ reports—-

On their request being refused, a second deputation o f bishops, rein

Another Ignatian document, the so-called Synodicon Vetus, pub

It is unfortunately impossible to obtain an adequate idea o f the impor

The Pope immediately proceeded to action. Leo, the imperial am