|
|
A HISTORY OF THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE FROM THE FALL OF IRENE TO THE ACCESSION OF BASIL I CHAPTER VI
PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS
Under the rule of the iconoclasts, the differences which divided the
"orthodox" had been suffered to slumber; but the defeat of the common
enemy was the signal for the renewal of a conflict which had disturbed the
peace of the Church under Irene and Nicephorus. The two parties, which had
suspended their feud, now again stood face to face.
The fundamental principle of the
State Church founded by Constantine was the supremacy of the Emperor; the
Patriarch and the whole hierarchy were subject to him; he not only protected,
he governed the Church. The smooth working of this system demanded from
churchmen a spirit of compromise and "economy". It might often be
difficult for a Patriarch to decide at what point his religious duty forbade
him to comply with the Emperor's will; and it is evident that Patriarchs, like
Tarasius and Nicephorus, who had served the State in secular posts, were more
likely to work discreetly and harmoniously under the given conditions than men
who had been brought up in cloisters. We saw how the monks of Studion organized
an opposition to these Patriarchs, whom they denounced for sacrificing
canonical rules to expediency. The abbot Theodore desired to subvert the
established system. He held that the Emperor was merely the protector of the
Church, and that the Church was independent. He affirmed, moreover, the
supremacy of the roman See in terms which no Emperor and few, if any,
Patriarchs would have endorsed. But by their theory, which they boldly put into
practice, the Studites were undermining Patriarchal and episcopal authority.
They asserted the right of monks to pass an independent judgment on the administration of their bishop, and, in case his actions did not meet with
their approval, to refuse to communicate with hiin. A movement of independence
or insubordination, which was likely to generate schisms, was initiated, and
the activity and influence of Theodore must have disseminated his views far
beyond the limits of his own community.
Thus there arose two antagonistic sections, of which one approved more or less the doctrines of Theodore of Studion, while the other upheld Patriarchal authority and regarded Nicephorus as an ideal Patriarch. One insisted on the strictest observation of ecclesiastical canons and denounced the sudden elevations of Nicephorus and Tarasius from the condition of laymen to the episcopal office; the other condoned such irregularities which special circumstances commended to the Imperial wisdom. One declined to allow any relaxation of canonical rules in favour of the Emperor; the other was prepared to permit him considerable limits of dispensation. There were, in fact, two opposite opinions as to the spirit and method of ecclesiastical administration, corresponding to two different types of ecclesiastic. Both sides included monks; and it would not be true to say that the monks generally rallied to the section of the Studites. There were many abbots and many hermits who disliked the Studite ideal of a rigorous, disciplinary regulation of monastic life, and many who, like Theophanes of Sigriane, were satisfied with the State Church and had no sympathy with the aggressive policy of Theodore and his fellows. Methodius had always been an ecclesiastic, and the Studites could not reproach him for any irregularity in his consecration as bishop. He had been a martyr in the cause of image-worship, and he had effectively assisted in its triumph. But his promotion to the Patriarchate was not pleasing to the Studite monks. His sympathies were with the other party, and he was prepared to carry on the tradition of Tarasius and Nicephorus. We can well understand that his intimacy with the Emperor Theophilus, with whom he agreed to differ on the iconoclastic question, was far from commending him to the stricter brethren. The Studites were prepared to be critical, and from the very beginning his administration was the subject of adverse comment or censure. He desired to conciliate them, and the bones of their revered abbot Theodore were brought back for interment at Studion, with great solemnity. But the satisfaction of the monks at this public honour to their abbot was mitigated, if it was not cancelled, by the translation, at the same time, of the remains of Nicephorus to the Church of the Apostles They recalled his uncanonical consecration, they recalled his condonation of "adultery." But if he could not conciliate them, the Patriarch was determined to crush their rebellious spirit. He called upon them to anathematize all that Theodore had written against Tarasius and Nicephorus, and he urged that Theodore had himself practically revoked his own strong language, had been reconciled with Nicephorus, and in fact changed his opinion. But the Studites obstinately refused, and Methodius asserted his Patriarchal authority. "You are monks," he said," and you have no right to question the conduct of your bishops; you must submit to them." He pronounced against the rebellious brethren not the simple anathema, but the curse, the katathema, of the Church. The struggle seems to have ended with concessions on the part of the Patriarch. The difficulties which troubled
the short administration of Methodius possess a significant bearing
on the more serious ecclesiastical strife which marked the reign of his
successor, and which led, indirectly, to the great schism between the Eastern
and the Western Churches. The two opposing parties of Ignatius and Photius
represent the same parties which distracted the Patriarchate of Methodius, and
the struggle is thus a continuation of the same division which had vexed
Tarasius and Nicephorus, although the immediate and superficial issues are
different. When we apprehend this continuity, we are able to see that the
particular question which determined the course of the conflict between Photius
and Ignatius only rendered acute an antagonism which had existed for more than
half a century.
Methodius seems to have availed
himself of the most popular kind of literature, edifying biographies of holy
men, for the purpose of his struggle with the Studites. Under his auspices,
Ignatius the Deacon composed the Lives of Tarasius and Nicephorus, in which the
troubles connected with the opposition of Studion are
diligently ignored. The ecclesiastical conflicts of the period are, indeed,
reflected, more by hints and reticences than direct statements, in the copious
hagiographical productions of the ninth century, to which reference is frequently made in this volume.
On the death of Methodius, the
Empress Theodora and her advisers chose his successor from among three monks of
illustrious birth, each of whom, if fortune had been kind, might have worn the
Imperial crown. Nicetas, a son of the Emperor Michael I, had been tonsured
after his father's death, had taken the name of Ignatius, and had founded new
monasteries in the Islands of the Princes, over which he presided as abbot.
Here he and his family, who had not been despoiled of their wealth, afforded
refuge to image-worshippers who were driven from the capital. The sons of the Emperor Leo V to join the family of Ignatius
owed its downfall, had been cast into a monastery in the island of Prote; they
renounced the errors of their father, and won a high reputation for virtue and
piety. When the Patriarchal throne became vacant, these monks of Imperial
parentage, Basil and Gregory, the sons of Leo, and Ignatius, the son of
Michael, were proposed for election. Ignatius was preferred, perhaps because it
was felt that notwithstanding their own merits the shadow of their father's
heresy rested upon the sons of Leo; and he was consecrated on July 4, a.d. 847.
Ignatius had spent his life in
pious devotion and monastic organization. Tonsured at the age of thirteen or
fourteen, he had made no progress in secular learning, which he distrusted and
disliked. He was not a man of the world like Methodius; he had the rigid
notions which were bred in cloistral life and were calculated to lead himself
and the Church into difficulties when they were pursued in the Patriarchal
palace. It is probable that he was too much engaged in his own work to have
taken any part in the disputes which troubled Methodius, and Theodora may have
hoped that he would succeed in conciliating the opposing parties. But he was
by nature an anti-Methodian, and he showed this on the very day of his
consecration.
Gregory Asbestas, the archbishop
of Syracuse, happened to be in Constantinople at the time. A Sicilian, he was a
friend of the Sicilian Methodius, on whom he composed a panegyric, and he was a
man of some learning. There was a charge against him of some ecclesiastical
irregularity, and it was probably in connexion with this that he had come to
the capital. He had taken his place among the bishops who attended in St.
Sophia, bearing tapers, to acclaim the Patriarch, and Ignatius ordered him to
withdraw, on the ground that his episcopal status was in abeyance until the
charge which lay against him had been decided. This public slight
enraged Gregory, who dashed his candle to the ground and loudly declared that
not a shepherd but a wolf had intruded into the Church. The new Patriarch
certainly displayed neither the wisdom of a serpent nor the harmlessness of a
dove, and his own adherents admit that he was generally blamed. He
had thus at the very outset taken pains to offend an able and eminent prelate
of the party which had supported Methodius, and the action was interpreted as a
declaration of war. The result was a schism. Gregory had many sympathizers;
some bishops had marked their disapprobation of the action of Ignatius by
leaving the church in his company. A schismatic group was formed which refused
to acknowledge the new Patriarch—a group which expressed the general tendencies
of the Methodian party and avowed an unreserved admiration for Methodius. But
it was only a small group. The hierarchy in general supported Ignatius, as it
had supported Methodius; for Ignatius was supported by Theodora. Nevertheless
the followers of Gregory, though comparatively few, were influential. They
alleged against the Patriarch that he was a detractor from the merits and memory
of his predecessor, and that he was unduly rigorous and narrow in his
application of the canons. Ignatius summoned Gregory to answer the charge which
still hung over his head; Gregory declined, and, along with others of his
party, was condemned by a synod. He appealed against this judgment
to Pope Leo IV, who asked the Patriarch to send him a copy of the Acts.
Ignatius did not comply, and Leo’s successor, Benedict III, declined to confirm
the deposition of Gregory, and contented himself with
suspending him until he had inspected the documents.
The schism of Gregory might be
allowed to rest in the obscurity of ecclesiastical records if it had not won
distinction and importance by the adhesion of the most remarkable man of the
age. Photius was probably born about the beginning of the ninth century. His
father, Sergius, was a brother of the Patriarch Tarasius, and through his
mother he was connected with the family of the Empress Theodora. His parents
suffered exile for their devotion to image-worship under the iconoclastic
sovrans, and it was probably in the first years of Theodora’s reign that
Photius entered upon his career as a public teacher of philosophy. He had an
attractive personality, he was a stimulating teacher, and he soon found a band
of disciples who hung upon his words. His encyclopaedic learning, in which he
not only excelled all the men of his own time but was unequalled by any Greek
of the Middle Ages, will call for notice in another
chapter. His family connexions as well as his talents opened a career in the
Imperial service; and he was ultimately appointed to the high post of
Protoasecretis, or First Secretary, with the rank of a protospathar. It was
probably during his tenure of this important post that he was sent as
ambassador to the East, perhaps to Baghdad itself, perhaps only to some of the
provincial emirs.Whatever his services as an envoy may have been, he established personal
relations of friendship with Mohammadan magnates.
Photius had a high respect for
Gregory Asbestas, and identified himself closely with the group which opposed Ignatius. There was a natural antipathy between Photius, a man of learning
and a man of the world, and Ignatius, who had neither tact nor secular
erudition. It is probable that the Patriarch even displayed in some public way
his dislike or disdain for profane learning. We can well understand that he was
deeply vexed, by the opposition of a man whose talents and learning were
unreservedly recognized by his contemporaries, and who exerted immense influence
in the educated society of the city. The synod, which condemned Gregory, seems
to have also condemned Photius, implicitly if not by name; and he was numbered
among the schismatics.
In order to embarrass the
Patriarch, and to prove that a training in logic and
philosophy was indispensable for defending Christian doctrine and refuting
false opinions, Photius conceived the idea of propounding a heresy. He
promulgated the thesis that there are two souls in man, one liable to err, the
other immune from error. Some took this seriously and were convinced by his
ingenious arguments, to the everlasting peril of their souls. His friend,
Constantine the Philosopher, who was afterwards to become famous as the Apostle
of the Slavs, reproached Photius with propounding this dangerous proposition.
"I had no idea," said Photius, "that it would do any harm. I
only wanted to see how Ignatius would deal with it, without the aid of the
philosophy which he rejects."
The Palace revolution which
resulted in the fall of Theodora and placed the government in the hands of
Bardas changed the ecclesiastical situation. Whatever difficulties beset
Ignatius in a post which he was not well qualified to fill, whatever vexation
might be caused to him through the active or passive resistance of his
opponents, he was secure so long as the Empress was in power. But Bardas was a
friend and admirer of Photius, and the Ignatian party
must have felt his access to power as a severe blow. Bardas, however, was a
sufficiently prudent statesman to have no desire wantonly to disturb the
existing state of things, or to stir up a serious ecclesiastical controversy. If Ignatius had behaved with
discretion and reconciled himself to a regime which personally he disliked, it
is not probable that the sympathies of Bardas with the Photian party would have
induced him to take any measure against the Patriarch.
Ignatius found in the private
morals of the powerful minister a weak spot for attack. According to the rumour
of the town, Bardas was in love with his daughter-in-law, and had for her sake
abandoned his wife. Acting on this gossip, the Patriarch admonished Bardas, who
declined to take any notice of his rebukes and exhortations. We may suspect
that he refused to admit that the accusation was true—it would perhaps have
been difficult to prove—and recommended Ignatius to mind his own business. But
Ignatius was determined to show that he was the shepherd of his flock, and that
he was no respecter of persons. On the feast of Epiphany (Jan. a.d. 858) he refused the communion to
the sinner. It is said that Bardas, furious at this public insult, drew his
sword; but he managed to control his anger and vowed vengeance on the bold
priest.
The ecclesiastical historians
speak with warm approbation of this action of the Patriarch. The same prelate,
who adopted such a strong measure to punish the vices of Bardas, had
no scruples, afterwards, in communicating with the Emperor Basil, who had
ascended to power by two successive murders. And the ecclesiastical historians
seem to regard the Patriarch’s action, in ignoring Basil's crimes and virtually
taking advantage of them to reascend the Patriarchal throne, as perfectly
irreproachable. The historian who is not an ecclesiastic may be allowed to
express his respectful interest in the ethical standards which are implied.
About eight months later the
Emperor Michael decided to tonsure his mother and sisters and immure them in
the monastery of Karianos. He requested the Patriarch to perform the ceremony
of the tonsure, and we have already seen that Ignatius refused on the ground that the ladies themselves were unwilling.
Bardas persuaded the Emperor that his disobedience, in conjunction with his
unconcealed sympathy with the Empress, was a sign of treasonable purposes, and
a pretended discovery was made that he was in collusion with an epileptic
impostor, named Gebeon, who professed to be the son of the Empress Theodora by
a former marriage. Gebeon had come from Dyrrhachium to Constantinople, where he
seduced some foolish people; he was arrested and cruelly executed in one of the
Prince's Islands. On the same day the Patriarch was seized as an
accomplice, and removed, without a trial, to the island of Terebinthos (Nov.
23).
It is evident that there were no
proofs against Ignatius, and that the charge of treason was merely a device of
the government for the immediate purpose of removing him. For in the subsequent
transactions this charge seems to have been silently dropped; and if there had
been any plausible grounds, there would have been some sort of formal trial.
Moreover, it would appear that before his arrest it was intimated to the
Patriarch that he could avoid all trouble by abdication, and he would have been
tempted to yield if his bishops had not assured him that they would loyally
stand by him. Before his arrest he issued a solemn injunction that no service
should be performed in St. Sophia without his consent. A modern ecclesiastical
historian, who has no high opinion of Ignatius, cites this action as a proof
that he was ready to prefer his own personal interests to the good of the
Church.
In the place of his
banishment Ignatius was visited repeatedly by bishops and Imperial ministers
pressing on him the expediency of voluntary abdication. As he refused to listen
to arguments, threats were tried, but with no result. The Emperor
and Bardas therefore decided to procure the election of a new Patriarch, though
the chair was not de iure vacant,
inasmuch as Ignatius had neither resigned nor been canonically deposed. Such a
procedure was not an innovation; there were
several precedents. The choice of the government and the ecclesiastical party
which was opposed to Ignatius fell upon Photius. He was not only a grata
persona at Court; but his extraordinary gifts, his eminent reputation, along
with his unimpeachable orthodoxy, were calculated to shed prestige on the
Patriarchal chair, and to reconcile the public to a policy which seemed open to
the reproaches of violence and injustice. Many of the bishops who had vowed to
support the cause of Ignatius were won over by Bardas, and Photius accepted the
high office, which, according to his enemies, had long been the goal of his
ambition, and which, according to his own avowal, he would have been only too
glad to decline. He was tonsured on December 20;
on the four following days he was successively ordained lector, sub-deacon,
deacon, and priest, and on Christmas Day consecrated bishop, by his friend
Gregory Asbestas. For this rapid and irregular
elevation to the highest dignity of the Church, which was one of the principal
objections urged against Photius, the recent precedents of his uncle Tarasius
and Nicephorus, as well as others, could be alleged. The ambiguous position of
Gregory, who had been deposed by a synod and suspended
by a Pope, furnished another handle against the new Patriarch. But all
the bishops who were present in Constantinople, except five, acknowledged him,and the five dissentients were persuaded to acquiesce when he gave them a
written undertaking that he would honour Ignatius as a father and act according
to his wishes. But two months later he is said to have recovered the document on some
pretext and torn it up into small pieces. Then those bishops who were really on
the side of Ignatius, and had unwillingly consented to an impossible
compromise, held a series of meetings in the church of St. Irene, and deposed
and excommunicated Photius with his adherents. Such an irregular assembly could
not claim the authority of a synod, but it was a declaration of war. Photius immediately
retorted by holding a synod in the Holy Apostles. Ignatius, in his absence, was
deposed and anathematized; and the opportunity was probably used to declare
Gregory Asbestas absolved from those charges which had led to his condemnation
by the ex-Patriarch (spring a.d. 859).
In the meantime Bardas
persistently endeavoured to force Ignatius to an act of abdication. He was
moved from place to place and treated with cruel rigour. His
followers were barbarously punished. The writers of the Ignatian party accuse Photius
of having prompted these acts of tyranny, but letters of Photius himself to
Bardas, bitterly protesting against the cruelties, show that he did not approve
this policy of violence, which indeed only served to increase his own unpopularity.
The populace of the city seems to have been in favour of Ignatius, who had also
sympathizers among the Imperial ministers, such as Constantine the Drungarios
of the Watch. The monks, from whose rank he had risen, generally supported him;
the Studites refused to communicate with the new Patriarch, and their abbot
Nicolas left Constantinople. Photius, as is shown by his
correspondence, took great pains to win the goodwill of individual monks and
others by flattery and delicate attentions.
The announcement of the
enthronement of a new Patriarch, which it was the custom to send to the other
four Patriarchal Sees—Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—had been
postponed, evidently in the hope that Ignatius would be induced to abdicate.
When more than a year had passed and this hope was not fulfilled, the formal
announcement could no longer be deferred. An inthronistic letter was addressed
to the Eastern Patriarchs, and an embassy was sent to Rome bearing letters to
the Pope from Michael and Photius. The chair of St. Peter was now filled by
Nicolas I, who stands out among the Pontiffs between Gregory I and Gregory VII
as having done more than any other to raise the Papal power to the place which
it was to hold in the days of Innocent III. A man of deeds rather than of words,
as one of his admirers says, he was inspired with the idea of the universal
authority of the Roman See. The internal troubles in the Carolingian realm
enabled him to assert successfully the Papal pretensions in the West; the
schism at Constantinople gave him a welcome opportunity of pressing his claims
upon the East. But in Photius he found an antagonist, not only incomparably
more learned than himself, but equally determined,
energetic, and resourceful.
The letter of Photius to the Pope
was a masterpiece of diplomacy. He enlarged on his reluctance to undertake the burdens of the episcopal office,
which was pressed upon him by the Emperor and the clergy with such insistency
that he had no alternative but to accept it. He then—in accordance with the
usual custom in such inthronistic letters—made a precise statement of the
articles of his religion and declared his firm belief in the seven Ecumenical
Councils. He concluded by asking the Pope, not for any support or assistance,
but simply for his prayers. He abstained from saying anything against his
predecessor. But the letter which was sent in the Emperor's name gave a garbled account of the vacation of the Patriarchal throne, and requested
the Pope to send legates to attend a synod which should decide some questions
relating to the iconoclastic heresy. Neither the Patriarch nor the Emperor
invited the Pope even to express an opinion on recent events, but Nicolas
resolved to seize the occasion and assert a jurisdiction which, if it had been
accepted, would have annulled the independence of the Church of Constantinople.
He despatched two bishops, with instructions to investigate the facts in
connexion with the deposition of Ignatius, and to make a report He committed to
them letters (dated September 25, 860) to the Emperor and to
Photius. These letters have considerable interest as a specimen of Papal
diplomacy. The communication to the Emperor opens with the assertion of the
primacy of the Roman See and of the principle that no ecclesiastical difficulty
should be decided in Christendom without the consent of the Roman
Pontiff; it goes on to point out that this principle has been violated by the
deposition of Ignatius, and that the office has been aggravated by the election
of a layman—an election which "our holy Roman Church" has always
prohibited. On these grounds the Pope announces that he cannot give his
apostolic consent to the consecration of Photius until his messengers have
reported the facts of the case and have examined Ignatius. He then proceeds to
reply to that part of the Emperor's letter which concerned the question of
image-worship. The document concludes with the suggestion that Michael should
show his devotion to the interests of the Church by restoring to the Roman See
the vicariate of Thessalonica and the patrimonies of Calabria and Sicily, which
had been withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Pope by Leo III. The short
letter to Photius censures the temerity of his elevation and declines to
acknowledge his consecration, unless the Papal messengers, when they return
from Constantinople, report favourably on his actions and devotion to the
Church.
The diplomatic intent of these
letters could hardly be misapprehended by a novice. The innocent suggestion
(put forward as if it had no connexion with the other matters under discussion)
that Illyricum and Calabria should be transferred from the See of
Constantinople to that of Rome would never have been made if Nicolas had not
thought that there was a reasonable chance of securing this accession to the dominion and revenue of his chair. It is plain that he could not hope that
the Emperor and the Patriarch would agree to such a large concession unless
they received a due consideration; and it is equally obvious that the only consideration
which the Pope could offer, was to consent to the consecration of Photius, and
crush by the weight of his authority the schism which was so seriously
distressing the church of Constantinople. Notwithstanding his severe
animadversions on the uncanonical elevation of Photius, he intimated that this
was not an insuperable difficulty; if his delegates brought back a satisfactory
report, matters might be arranged. It is perfectly clear that Pope Nicolas
proposed a bargain, in the interest of what he calls ecclesiastica utilitas.
It is impossible to say whether
the Imperial government took into serious consideration the Pope's proposal.
But there were at all events some, probably among the moderate section of the
Photians, who thought that the best solution of the ecclesiastical difficulty
would be to agree to the bargain, and Photius was so gravely alarmed that, in a
letter to Bardas, he complains bitterly of the desire of persons who are not
named to deprive him of half his jurisdiction. It would seem that
there was a chance that the diplomacy of Nicolas might have been successful.
But if Michael and Bardas entertained any idea of yielding, they were persuaded
by Photius to relinquish it.
The two legates of the Pope were
won over to the Photian party by cajolements and threats. A council assembled
in May (a.d. 861), remarkable for
the large number of bishops who attended. The Emperor was present, and
Ignatius unwillingly appeared. Seventy-two witnesses, including both
highly-placed ministers and men of humble rank, came forward to prove that
Ignatius had been appointed to the Patriarchate, not by free election, but by
the personal act of Theodora. We are in the dark as to the precise
circumstances of the elevation of Ignatius. There is no doubt that he was
chosen by Theodora, but it is almost incredible that the usual form of election
was not observed, and if it was observed, to condemn his elevation was to
condemn the elevation of every Patriarch of Constantinople as uncanonical. For
virtually every Patriarch was appointed by the Imperial will. In any case at
this synod—if we can trust the accounts of the supporters of Ignatius—the
government exercised considerable pressure. The assembly,
including the representatives of Rome, whether they were convinced or not,
confirmed the deposition of Ignatius, and declared him unworthy. The
authority of Photius was thus established by the formal act of a large council,
subscribed by the legates of the Roman see.
The legates had exceeded their instructions.
When they returned to Rome in the autumn, their action was repudiated by the
Pope, who asserted that they had only been directed to report on the whole
matter to him, and had received no power to judge the question themselves.
There is no doubt that they had betrayed the interests of their master and
suffered themselves to be guided entirely by the court of Byzantium. An
Imperial secretary soon arrived at Rome, bearing a copy of the Acts of the
Council with letters from the Emperor and the Patriarch. The letter of Photius
could hardly fail to cause deep displeasure to the Roman bishop. It was
perfectly smooth, courteous, and conciliatory in tone, but it was the letter of
an equal to an equal, and, although the question of Roman jurisdiction was not
touched on, it was easy to read between the lines that the writer had the will
and the courage to assert the independence of the see of Constantinople. As for
the ecclesiastical provinces of Illyricum and Calabria, he hypocritically threw
upon the government the entire responsibility for not restoring them to Rome,
and implied that he himself would have been willing to sacrifice them.
The Imperial secretary remained
in Rome for some months,hoping that Nicolas would be persuaded to sanction all that his legates had done
in his name. But the Pope was now resolved to embrace the cause of Ignatius and
to denounce Photius. He addressed an encyclical letter to the three Patriarchs
of the East, informing them that Ignatius had been illegally deposed, and that
a most wicked man (homo scelestissimus) had occupied his church; declaring that the
Roman see will never consent to this injustice; and ordering them, by his
apostolical authority, to work for the expulsion of Photius and the restoration
of Ignatius. At the same time he indited epistles to the Emperor
and to Photius, asserting with stronger emphasis than before the authority of
Rome as head and mistress of the churches, and declining to condemn
Ignatius or to recognize Photius.
The ambassadors of the Pope, during their visit to Constantinople, had heard only one side. The authorities had taken care to prevent them from communicating with Ignatius or any of the Ignatian party, and they also attempted to hinder any one from repairing to Rome in the interests of the Ignatian cause. Theognostos, however, who was an ardent partisan of the deposed Patriarch, succeeded in reaching Rome in disguise, and he carried with him a petition setting forth the history of the deposition of Ignatius and the sufferings which he endured, and imploring the Pope, who was humbly addressed as "the Patriarch of all the thrones", to take pity and arise as a powerful champion against injustice. (The Libellus, stating the case of Ignatius, was written by Theognostos, but in the name of Ignatius, with whom were associated fifteen metropolitan bishops, and an "infinite number " of priests, monks, etc. Perhaps, as Hergenröther suggests, it was the knowledge of this despatch to Rome that prompted the government to make another attempt to force Ignatius, this time by reading aloud his sentence in the ambo of St. Sophia. Soldiers surrounded his house on the eve of Whitsunday, May 25, 862; but Ignatius escaped, disguised as a porter, and wandered for some months from island to island in the Propontis, eluding the pursuers who were set on his track. In August and September Constantinople was shaken by terrible earthquakes for forty days, and the calamity was ascribed by superstition to the unjust treatment of Ignatius. To calm the public, the Emperor caused a declaration to be made that Ignatius would be allowed to remain unmolested in his cloister. Ignatius revealed himself to Petronas, the brother of Bardas, who gave him as a safe-conduct an enkolpion (probably a jewelled cross) which the Emperor wore on his breast. He then had an interview with Bardas and was dismissed to his monastery) It was probably the influence of the representations of Theognostos and other Ignatians who had found their way to Rome, that moved Nicolas a year later (April a.d. 863), to hold a Synod in the Lateran. Neither the Emperor nor the Patriarch had vouchsafed any answer to his letter, and as it was evident that they had no intention of yielding to his dictation, he punished the Church of Constantinople by the only means which lay in his power. The synod deprived Photius of his ecclesiastical status, and excommunicated him unless he immediately resigned the see which he had usurped; it pronounced the same penalty upon all ecclesiastics who had been consecrated by Photius; and it restored Ignatius and all those bishops who had been deposed and exiled in his cause. A copy of the proceedings was sent to Constantinople. It was impossible for
Constantinople to ignore the formal condemnation pronounced by the Lateran
Synod, and Photius was prepared to assert the independence of his see, by
dealing out to the Pope the same measure which the Pope had dealt out to him.
In August 865, Nicholas received a letter from the Emperor assuring him that
all his efforts in behalf of Ignatius were useless, and requiring him to
withdraw his judgment, with a threat that, if he refused, the Emperor would
march to Rome and destroy the city. The document, which was evidently drafted
under the direction of Photius, must have been couched in sufficiently
provocative terms; but the threat was not seriously meant, and the writer did
not expect that the Pope would yield. The real point of the letter was the
repudiation of the papal claim to supreme jurisdiction, as the real point of
the Pope's long reply was the assertion of the privileges of the chair of St.
Peter. The Pope indeed makes what may be represented as a concession. He offers
to revise his judgment at Rome, and demands that the two rivals shall appear
personally before him, or if they cannot come, send plenipotentiaries. The
concession was as nugatory as the Emperor's threat, and it assumed, in an
aggravated form, the claims of the Papacy as a supreme court of appeal.
The quarrel between Rome and
Constantinople was soon augmented by the contest between the two sees for the
control of the infant church of Bulgaria, and Photius judged that the time was
ripe for a decisive blow. He held a local synod for the condemnation of various
heresies which Latin clergy had criminally introduced into Bulgaria. These
"servants of Antichrist, worthy of a thousand deaths," permitted the
use of milk and cheese in the Lenten fast; they sowed the seed of the
Manichaean doctrine by their aversion to priests who are legally married; they
had the audacity to pour anew the chrism of confirmation on persons who had
already been anointed by priests, as if a priest were not as competent to
confirm as to baptize. But above all they were guilty of teaching the
blasphemous and atheistic doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.
The eloquent Patriarch can hardly
find words adequate to characterize the enormity of these false doctrines, in
the encyclical letter which he addressed to the three Eastern
Patriarchs, inviting them to attend a general council at Constantinople, for
the purpose of rooting out such abominable errors. Other questions too, Photius
intimated, would come before the council. For he had received
from Italy an official communication full of grave complaints of the tyranny
exercised by the Eoman bishop in the west.
The document to which Photius
refers seems to have emanated from the archbishops of Koln and Trier, who were
at this time leading an anti-papal movement. The occasion of this division in
the western Church was the love of king Lothar II of Lothringia for his
mistress Waldrade. To marry her he had repudiated his queen, and his action was
approved by a synod at Metz, guided by the influence of the two archbishops.
But the Pope embraced the cause of the queen, and in a synod in the Lateran
(October 863), annulled the acts of Metz, and deposed the archbishops of Koln and Trier. These
prelates received at first support from the Emperor Lewis II, but that
vacillating monarch soon made peace with the Pope, and the archbishops presumed
to organize a general movement of metropolitan bishops against the claims of
the Roman see. They distributed to the bishops of the west a circular Protest,
denouncing the tyranny, arrogance, and cunning of Nicholas, who would “make
himself the Emperor of the whole world”. They sent a copy to the Patriarch of
Constantinople, imploring him to come to their help and deliverance.
This movement in the western church was well calculated to confirm Photius and the Imperial government in the justice of their own cause, and it led the Patriarch to a far-reaching scheme which it required some time to mature. It is certain that during the years a.d. 865-867, there were secret negotiations between Constantinople and the Emperor Lewis. It is improbable that any formal embassies were interchanged. But by unofficial means —perhaps by communications between Photius and the Empress Engelberta —an understanding was reached that if the Pope were excommunicated by the eastern Patriarchs, Lewis might be induced to drive him from Rome as a heretical usurper, and that the court of Constantinople would officially recognize the Imperial dignity and title of the western Emperor. Constantinople carried out her
portion of the programme. The Council met in a.d. 867 (perhaps the late summer), and the Emperor Michael presided.The Pope was condemned and anathema pronounced against him for the heretical
doctrines and practices which were admitted by the Roman Church, and for his
illegitimate interference in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople. The
acts of the Synod were afterwards burned, and we know
of it only from the brief notices of the enemies of Photius. They insinuate
that the signature of Michael had been appended when he was drunk; that the
signature of his colleague Basil, had been forged;
that the subscriptions of almost all those who were present, numbering about a
thousand, were fabricated. These allegations are highly improbable,
and the writers themselves are inconsistent in what they allege. It is obvious
that if the Emperors had disapproved of the purpose of the Council, the Council
could never have met; and it is equally clear that if the overwhelming majority
of the Council, including the Emperors, had disapproved of the decrees, the
decrees could not have been passed. But there seems to have been some
chicanery. At the Eighth Ecumenical Council, the metropolitan bishops whose
signatures appeared, were asked whether they had
subscribed, and they said, "God forbid, we did not subscribe". Are we
to suppose that they consented to the acts and afterwards refused to append
their names?
The scandal about the legates of
the Eastern Patriarchs is hardly less obscure. It is stated that Photius picked
up in the streets three evil men whom he foisted upon the synod as the
representatives of the Patriarchs. They pretended to be Peter, Basil, and
Leontios. But the true Peter, Basil, and Leontios appeared at the Eighth
Ecumenical Council, where they asserted that they had not been named as legates
by the Patriarchs, that they knew nothing about the Synod, had not attended it,
and had not signed its acts. It is impossible to discover the truth, nor has it much interest except for ecclesiastical
historians, who, if they are members of the Latin Church, will readily credit
Photius with a wholesale and barefaced scheme of deception, and if they belong
to the Greek communion, may be prepared to maintain that at the Eighth
Ecumenical Council mendacity was the order of the day. In either
case, those who stand outside the Churches may find some entertainment in an
edifying ecclesiastical scandal.
That the Emperors were acting in
concert with Photius is, if there could be any doubt, definitely proved by the
fact that Lewis was solemnly acclaimed as Basileus and Engelberta as Augusta.
No Council, no Patriarch, could have dared to do what, done without the
Imperial consent, or rather command, would have been an overt act of treason.
The Patriarch sent a copy of the Acts of the Council to Engelberta, with a
letter in which, comparing her to Pulcheria, he urged her to persuade her
husband to drive from Rome a bishop who had been deposed by an Ecumenical
Council.
The schism between Rome and Constantinople
was now complete for the moment. The Pope had anathematized the Patriarch, and
the Patriarch had hurled back his anathema at the Pope. But this rent in the
veil of Christendom was thinly patched up in a few months, and the designs of
Photius for the ruin of his antagonist came to nought. On the death of Michael,
the situation was immediately reversed. When Basil gained the sovran power, one
of his first acts was to depose Photius and restore Ignatius. It is probable
that his feelings towards Photius, the friend and relative of Bardas, were not
over friendly, but his action was doubtless determined not by personal or
religious considerations, but by reasons of state. We cannot say whether he
was already forming projects which rendered the alienation
from Rome undesirable; but his principal and immediate purpose was assuredly to
restore ecclesiastical peace and tranquillity in his own realm, and to
inaugurate his reign by an act of piety and orthodoxy which would go far in the
eyes of the inhabitants of Constantinople to atone for the questionable
methods by which he had won the autocratic power.
Nothing proves more convincingly
than Basil's prompt reversal of his predecessor's ecclesiastical policy, that
this policy was generally unpopular. Unless he had been sure that the
restitution of Ignatius would be welcomed by an important section of his
subjects at Constantinople, it is incredible, in view of the circumstances of
his accession, that it would have been his first important act. Photius had his
band of devoted followers, but they seem to have been a small minority; and
there are other indications that public opinion was not in his favour. The
severe measures to which the government had resorted against Ignatius and his
supporters would hardly have been adopted if the weight of public opinion had
leaned decisively on the side of Photius. There was, however, some
embarrassment for Basil, who only a few months before had cooperated in the
council which excommunicated the Pope, and there was embarrassment for many
others who shared the responsibility, in turning about and repudiating their
acts. The natural instinct was to throw all the blame upon Photius; Basil's
signature was officially declared to be spurious; and most of those, who had
taken part willingly or unwillingly in the condemnation of the Pope, were eager
to repudiate their consent to that audacious transaction.
The proceedings of the Eighth
Council, which procured a temporary triumph for Bome, the second patriarchate
of Photius, and his second dethronement, lie outside the limits of this volume.
He died in exile, almost a centenarian.
Immediately after his death he was recognized as a Father of the Church, and
anathema was pronounced 011 all that Councils or Popes had uttered against him.
The rift between Rome and Constantinople, which Photius had
widened and deepened, was gradually enlarged, and after the final rent (in the
middle of the eleventh century), which no subsequent attempts at union could
repair, the reputation of Photius became brighter than ever, and his council of
861, which the Pope had stigmatized as a pirate synod, was boldly described by
Balsamon as ecumenical. It was recognized that Photius was the first great
champion of the independence of the see of Constantinople, and of the national
development of the Greek Church, against the interference of Eome. He
formulated the points of difference between the two Churches which were to
furnish the pretext for the schism; he first brought into the foreground, as an
essential point of doctrine, the mystery of the procession of the Holy Ghost.
The members of the Latin and the
Greek Churches are compelled, at the risk of incurring the penalties of a
damnable heresy, to affirm or to deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son
as well as from the Father. The historian, who is not concerned, even if he
were qualified, to examine the mutual relations which exist among the august
persons of the Trinity, will yet note with some interest tliat on this question
the Greeks adhered to the official doctrine of the Church so far as it had been
expressed by the authority of Ecumenical Councils. The theologians of the
Second Council at Constantinople (a.d.
381) had distinctly declared the procession from the Father, and against this
pronouncement it could only be argued that they had not denied the procession
from the Son. It was not till a.d.
589 that a council in Spain added the words "and the Son" to the creed of Nicaea, and this addition was quickly adopted in
Gaul. It corresponded to the private opinions of most western theologians,
including Augustine and Pope Leo I. But the Greek Fathers generally held
another doctrine, which the layman may find it difficult to distinguish. They maintained that the Third person proceeded not from,
but through the Second. In the ninth century, the Popes, though they
repudiated the opposite dogma, hesitated to introduce the Spanish interpolation
into the Creed, and perhaps it was not adopted till the beginning of the
eleventh. The Reformed Churches have accepted the formula of the Creed, as it
was revised in Spain, though they acknowledge only the authority of the first
four Ecumenical Councils. It can hardly make much difference to the mass of
believers; since we may venture to suspect that the majority of those who
profess a firm belief in the double procession attach as little significance to
the formula which they pronounce as if they declared their faith in a fourth
dimension of space.
The beginnings of the antagonism
and mutual dislike between the Greeks and Latins, which are so conspicuous at a
later stage of history, may be detected in the Ignatian controversy. In the
correspondence between Pope and Emperor, we can discern the Latin distrust of
the Greeks, the Greek contempt for the Latins. The Emperor, probably prompted
by Photius, describes Latin as a "barbarous and
Scythian" language. He has quite forgotten that it was the
tongue of Constantine and Justinian, and the Pope has to remind him that his
own title is "Emperor of the Romans" and that in the ceremonies of
his own court Latin words are daily pronounced. But this childish and
ignorant attack on the language of Roman law shows how the wind was blowing,
and it well illustrates how the Byzantines, in the intense conviction of the
superiority of their own civilization—for which indeed they had many excellent
reasons—already considered the Latin-speaking peoples as belonging to the
barbarian world. It was not to be expected that the Greeks, animated by this
spirit, would accept such claims of ecclesiastical supremacy as were put
forward by Nicolas, or that the Church of Constantinople would permit or invite
a Pope's interference, except as a temporary expedient. Photius aroused into
consciousness the Greek feeling of nationality, which throughout the Middle
Ages drew strength and nourishment from bitter antagonism to Roman
Christianity, and the modern Hellenes have reason to regard him, as they do, with veneration as a
champion of their nationality.
The Ignatian affair has another
aspect as a conspicuous example of the Caesaropapism which was an essential
feature in the system of the Byzantine state. Ignatius was removed, because he
offended the Emperor, just as any minister might be deprived of his office. It
may be said thab the Ignatian party represented a feeling in the Church against
such an exertion of the secular power; and it is doubtless true that the party
included, among its active members, some who inherited the traditions of the
opposition to the Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus and considered the
influence of the Emperors in ecclesiastical affairs excessive. But we may
hesitate to believe that the party as a whole supposed that they were
protesting on principle against the authority of the autocrat over the Church.
It is more probable that they were guided by personal ties and considerations,
by sympathy with Ignatius who seemed to have been most; unjustly treated, and
by dislike of Photius. It is to be observed that the Emperor made his will
prevail, and though the policy of Michael was reversed by Basil, this was
simply a change in policy, it was not a change in principle. It was a
concession to public opinion and to Eome, it was not a
capitulation of the State to the Church. It was a new act of the autocrat as
head of the ecclesiastical organization, it was not an
abdication of the Caesar-pope.
It is hardly necessary to speak
of the canonical irregularities of which so much was made in the indictment of
the Pope and the Ignatian synods against Photius. In regard to the one fact
which we know fully, the sudden elevation of a layman to the episcopal office,
we may observe that the Pope's reply to the case, which Photius made out is unsatisfactory and imperfect. The instances of
Tarasius and Nicephorus were sufficient for the purpose of vindication. In
regard to
In the stormy ecclesiastical
history of our period the monks had played a conspicuous part, first as
champions of the worship of icons and then of the cause of Ignatius, who was
himself a typical monk. In the earlier controversies over the mystery of the
incarnation, gangs of monks had been the authors of scandal in those turbulent
assemblies at Ephesus, of which one is extolled as an Ecumenical Council and the
other branded as a synod of brigands; at Constantinople, they led an
insurrection which shook the throne of Anastasius. The Emperor Constantine V
recognized that the monks were his most influential and implacable opponents
and declared war upon monasticism. But monasticism was an instinct too deeply
rooted in Byzantine society to be suppressed or exterminated; the monastic order rested on as firm foundations, secured by public
opinion, as the Church itself. The reaction under Irene revived and confirmed
the power of the cloister; and at the same time the Studite movement of reform,
under the guidance of Plato and Theodore, exerted a certain influence beyond
the walls of Studion and tended to augment the prestige of the monastic life,
though it was far from being generally accepted. The programme of the abbot
Theodore to render the authority of the Church independent of the autocrat was
a revolutionary project which had no body of public opinion behind it and led
to no consequences. The iconoclastic Emperors did their will, and the
restoration of image-worship, while it was a triumph for the monks, was not a
victory of the Church over the State. But within the State-Church monasticism
flourished with as little check as it could have done if the Church had been an
independent institution, and produced its full crop of economic evils. Hundreds
of monasteries, some indeed with but few tenants, existed in Constantinople and
its immediate neighbourhood in the ninth century, and the number was being continually increased by new foundations. For it
was a cherished ambition of ordinary men of means to found a monastery, and
they had only to obtain the licence of a bishop, who consecrated the site by
planting a cross, and to furnish the capital for the upkeep of the
buildings and the maintenance of three monks. It was a regular custom for high
dignitaries, who had spent their lives in the service of the State, to retire
in old age to cloisters which they had built themselves.It is too
little to say that this was an ideal of respectability; it was also probably
for the Byzantine man a realization of happiness in the present, enhanced as it
was by the prospect of bliss in the future. But the State paid heavily for the
indulgence of its members in the life of the cloister and the cell.
fsuncial and military administration
|