Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/362

350 PHOTIUS. and had everj'^thing his own way. The restoration of Pliotiu3 and the nullity of the council of A. D. 869 were affirmed : the words " filioque," which formed one of the standing subjects of contention between the two churches, were ordered to be omitted from the creed, and the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Church was referred to the emperor as a question affecting the boundaries of the empire. The pope refused to recognize the acts of the council, with the exception of the restoration of Photius, though they had been assented to by his legates, whom on their return he condemned, and he anathematized Photius afresh. (Baron. Annal. Eccles. ad ann. 880. xi. xiii.) The schism and ri- valry of the churches became greater than ever, and has never since been really healed. Photius, according to Nicetas (ibid.), had been assisted in regaining the favour of Basil by the monk Theodore or Santabaren ; but other writers reverse the process, and ascribe to Photius the introduction of Santabaren to Basil. Photius certainly made him» archbishop of Euchai'ta in Pontus ; and he enjoyed, during Photius' patri- archate, considerable influence with Basil. By an accusation, true or false, made by this man against Leo, the emperor's eldest surviving son and des- tined successor, of conspiring his father's death, Basil had been excited to imprison his son. So far, however, was Photius from joining in the de- signs of Santabaren, that it was chiefly upon his urgent entreaties the emperor spared the eyes of Leo, which he had intended to put out. Basil died A. D. 886, and Leo [Leo VL] succeeded to the throne. He immediately set about the ruin of Santabaren ; and, forgetful of Photius' intercession, scrupled not to involve the patriarch in his fall. Andrew and Stephen, two officers of the court, ■whom Santabaren had formerly accused of some offence, now charged Photius and Santabaren with conspiring to depose the emperor, and to place a kinsman of Photius on the throne. The charge appears to have been utterly unfounded, but it answered the purpose. An officer of the court was sent to the church of St. Sophia, who ascended the ambo or pulpit, and read to the assembled people ar- ticles of accusation against the patriarch. Photius was immediately led into confinement, first in a monastery, afterwards in the palace of Pegae ; and Santabaren was brought in custody from Euchaita and confronted with him : the two accusers, with three other persons, were appointed to conduct the examination, a circumstance sufficient to show the nature and spirit of the whole transaction. The firmness of the prisoners, and the impossibility of proving the charge against them, provoked the emperor's rage. Santabaren was cruelly beaten, deprived of his eyes, and banished ; but was after- wards recalled, and survived till the reign of Con- Btantine Porphyrogenitus, the successor of Leo. Photius was banished to the monastery of Bordi in Armenia (or rather in the Thema Armeniacum), where he seems to have remained till his death. He was buried in the church of a nunnery at Mer- dosagares. The year in which his death occurred is not ascertained. Pagi, Fabricius, and Mosheim, fix it in A. D. 891 ; but the evidence on which their statement rests is not conclusive. He must have been an aged man when he died, for he must have been in middle age when first chosen patriarch, and he survived that event thirty years, and probably more. He was succeeded in the patriarchate by PHOTIUS. the emperor's brother Stephen, first his pupil, th^n his syncellusj and one of his clergy. (Theoph. Con- tinuat. lib. v. c. 100, lib. vi. 1 — 5 ; Symeon Ma- gi ster, De Basil. Maced. c. "21, De Leone Basil. ^ fil. c. 1 ; Georg. Monach. De Basil, c. 24, De Leone, ] c. 1—7.) The character of Photius is by no means worthy of much respect. He was an able man of the world, but not influenced by the high principles which befitted his sacred office. Yet he was pro- bably not below the average of the statesmen and prelates of his day ; and certainly was not the monster that the historians and other writers of the Romish church, whose representations have been too readily adopted by some moderns, would make him. A writer in the Edinburgh Review, vol. xxi. p. 329, says, " He seems to have been very learned and very wicked — a great scholar and a consummate hypocrite — not only neglecting occasions of doing good, but perverting the finest talents to the worst purposes." This is unjust : he lived in a corrupt age, and was placed in a try- ing position ; and, without hiding or extenuating his crimes, it must be remembered that his private character remains uninipeached ; the very story of his being an eunuch shows that he was not open to the charge of licentiousness ; his firmness is attested by his repulse of Basil from the commu- nion of the church, and his mercifulness by his intercession for the ungrateful Leo. It must be borne in mind also that his history has come down to us chiefly in the representations of his enemies. The principal ancient authorities have been referred to in the course of this narrative, though we have by no means cited all the places. We may add, Leo Grammaticus, Chrono(/raphia,Tp-p. 463 — 476, ed. Paris ; Zonar. xvi, 4, 8, 11, 12 ; Cedren. Compend. pp. 551, 569, 573, 593, ed. Paris, vol. ii. p. 172, 205, 213, 248, ed. Bonn ; Glycas, Atmal. pars iv. pp. 293, 294, 297, &c., ed. Paris, pp. 226, 228, 230, &c., ed. Venice, pp. 544, 547, 552, ed. Bonn ; Genesius, Reges, lib. iv. p. 48, ed. Venice, p. 100, ed. Bonn ; Constantin. Manass. Compend. Chrou. vs. 5133—5163, 5253, &c. 5309, &c. ; Joel, Chro- nog. Compend. p. 179, ed. Paris, pp. bo, 56, ed. Bonn ; Ephraem. i)e Patriaixhis CP.s. 10,012 — 10,025, ed. Bonn. Various notices and documents relating to his history generally, but especially to his conduct in reference to the schism of the churches, may be found in the Concilia, vols. viii. ix. ed. Labbe, vols. v. vi. ed. Hardouin, vols. xv. xvi. xvii. ed. Mansi. Of modern writers, Baronius (Annal. Eccles. A. D. 858—886) is probably the fullest, but at the same time one of the most unjust. Hankius {DeByzantin. Rerum Scriptoribus, pars i. c. 18) has a very ample memoir of Photius, which may be advantageously compared with that of Baronius, as its bias is in the opposite direction. See also Dupin, Nouvelle Biblioiheqtie des Auteurs Ecclesius- tiques, Siecle ix. p. 270, 2de edit. 1698. An essay by Francesco Fontani, De Pliotio Novae Romue Episcopo ejusque Scriptis Dissertatio, prefixed to the first volume of his Novae Eruditorum Deliciae, 12mo, Florence, 1785, is far more candid than most of the other works by members of the Romish Church ; and is in this respect far beyond the Memoire sur le Patriarche Photius, by M. We- guelin, in the Memoires de l"" Academic Rayah (de Prusse) des Sciences et Belles- Ivettres, Anne MDCCLXXVii. 4to. Berlin, 1779, p. 440, &c. Shorter accounts may be found in Mosheim (Eccles