Francis Dvornik

8/6/2019 Francis Dvornik

1/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I. THE HISTORYother instances of this exercise of supremacy can be found back in thesixth century/ although the circumstances were entire!y ~ifferent: PopeAgapet's intervention against the Patriarcl: Ant~mllus (535) wasprompted not by disciplinary, but by dogmatlc, motlves? the def:ndanthaving lent his support to the Emperor Zeno s Henotikon; while. theliquidation by Pope Horrnisdas of Acacius' schism (519) cel.1tred mamlyon a doctrinal issue. In the case of Ignatius and the Council of 86I,theissue was purely disciplinary, in no way touching on doctrine, and theByzantine Church, by allowing Ignatius to be tried by the Pope'srepresentatives, granted to the See of Rom~ more than a mere nght ofappeal, since, as we have seen, the ex-Patriarch had lodged no appealwith 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 thankfulfor it. Obviously, Nicholas' letter to the Emperor could not be readat the Council meeting in its original form and it was modified, thepassage relating to the reservation of the final verdict be!ng su~pressed.A similar incident had occurred at the Seventh Council: havmg beensent to Constantinople by Hadrian I merely to inqui re into the necessityfor, and the convocation procedure of an oecumenical counci l (thedecision of summoning or not summoning it having been reserved tothe Pope)," the legates eventually decided to take part, as papal repre-sentatives, in the Council summoned by Irene, and as the Pope's letterscould not be read as they stood to the Fathers, their terms were alteredto suit the occasion, without any results unpleasant to the legates. Inthe light of this precedent, coupled with the fact that Radoald andZachary brought to the Pope the submission of the Byzantine Churchto his judgement, the legates' 'perversion' should be much less of anunpardonable sin.3I Cf. Caspar, Geschiclue des Pap sttums (Tiibingen, 1933), vol. II, Pl'- 153 seq.,221 seq. J. Haller, Das Papsttum (Stuttgart, 1934), vol. I, pp. 2]2 seq., 245 seq.1See the letter from Hadrian Ito Constantine and Irene, in Baronius, Annales

Eccleslastici, a. 785, para. 37. Jaffe-Ewald, nos. 2448, 2449. Cf. J. Haller, DasPapsttum, pp. 5 seq. .3 cr J. Haller, Nikolaus lund Pseudo-Lsidor (Stuttgart, 1936), pp. 27 seq.

CHAPTER IVNICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORIS

Radoald and Zachary return to Rome-Nicholas' policy and letters to t1_leEmpe:-orand the Patriarch- Theognostos and the Roman Synod of 863-Byzant1I1e reactionin Bulgar ia and i ts development in Rome-Nicholas ' f~tal reply- :-Was the breachpermanent?-Reaction in Byzantium-Boris ' volte-jace; h~s I~fluence on thegrowth of the conHict- The Byzantine Synod of 867-Dld Ihotius challenge theRoman primacy?ON reaching Rome, the legates explained to the Pope the reasons whythey had taken it upon themselves to exceed their mandate, and thePope could not but see the important advantage the Holy See hadsecured over the most powerful patriarchate in the East. Everythingpoints to the fact that, at least on principle, he approved all that thelegates had done in Constantinople. This is proved by the way he dealtwith them; for Radoald of Porto was actually entrusted towards theend of November 862 with an important mission to the Frankish court. 1The Pope would certainly not have sent Radoald on this new embassy,had he not been pleased with his last mission to Constant inople. As forZachary, he quietly and honourably resumed his duties at the pontif icalcourt.In one particular matter, however, the mission of Radoald and

Zachary had failed completely. The Pope had commissioned them toclaim the return of the patrimonies of Sicily and Calabria and ofIllyricum to the direct jurisdiction of the Roman See. In this the legateswere unable to give the Pope any satisfaction, nor did the proposalsseem to have come up for discussion at the Council. None the less, thefact that the Byzantine Church and the Emperor had accepted the papallegates' verdict suggested that the prestige of the See of Rome was veryconsiderable in Byzantium. \Vas there then no hope that the Byzantineswould ever yield on this particular point? But the Pope still possessed,should the need ever arise, a powerful weapon at his disposal. If it wastrue that the Patriarch Ignatius had been tried and condemned by thelegates in the Pope's name, it was no less true that the new Patriarchhad not yet been oflicially acknowledged by the See of Rome as thelegitimate successor.

I iff.C.H. Ep. VI, pp. 268- '70 . The letter is dated 23 November 862.91


2/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. 1. THE HISTORYThe let ter sent to the Pope by Photius after the Council seemed to

raise and encourage such hopes, for it was couched in very deferentialterms, as though Photius had been aware that the Pope had not yetfully entered into communion with him. Hence the efforts in his letterto meet all the objections which the Pope had previously raised againstthe legitimacy of his elevation. After repeating what he had said in hisprevious letter, he insisted that he had been forced to accept a dignitywhich in no way appealed to him; he also tried to justify his rapidpromotion from the laity to the patriarchate, since the Church of Con-stantinople, he said, had not accepted the canon of Sardica quoted bythe Pope in his letter to Michael III, I prohibiting such rapid rise oflaymen to ecclesiastical dignities." But to meet the Pope's wishesPhotius had a canon voted by the Fathers of the last synod putting anendIn the Church of Constantinople to a practice at variance withRoman usage; he went on to quote several instances to the Pope ofthe canonical prescriptions being disregarded and ended by requestinghim not to listen to calumnies from people reaching Rome from Con-stantinople without any letters of recommendation from the eccle-siastical authori ties)

The contents of this letter seemed to the Pope to be encouraging, forI M.G.H. Ep. VI, pp. 435 seq.

1Hergenrorher, Photius, vol. I, pp. 445, 541 holds that this assertion by PhotiusIS "eine of fenbare Luge' . .Rosse ikin, Pervoe Patriarsliestvo Patriarkha Fotiva,pp . 156seq . t ries to reconc il e the Pope's and the Patr ia rch' s con trad ic tory s ta te -men ts . But the mat~er seems qui te simple. Phot iu s was jus ti fi ed in say ing tha t theChurch of .Constant tnople had not accepted the Pope's decretals quoted in Nicholas'letter to ~Ichael ; and as to the canons of Sardi ca , pho tius never pret ended tha t hi sChurch d. ld not know them: Al~ he implied was the tenth canon, quoted by thePope, which, although contained m the canonical Collect ions with the other canonsof Sardica (cf. V: Ben.eshevich, 'Joannis Scholastici Synagoga L titulorurn ' , in Abh.bayr. Akad., Phzl.-Hzst ",K/., 1937, P: 48), had not been carried into practice byth~ Church of Const ant inople, as evidenced by the appointment s o f Tarasius andNlcepho~us. I t , :as t? remedy this defect that Photius had had a special canonvo ted. Cf. on ~IS ~oJn~J . Lan&en, Geschichte der Riimischen Kirche (Bonn, 1893),vol. III, p. 19: Es ist nicht auffallend, das Nikolaus dem Konzil von Sardica eines~l~he Bedeutung e inrau rnt , da man im Abendlande seine Kanones mit denen desnlCam:ch~n bald verbunden harte, und es oft genug fur oekumenisch erklarte,Tha tsadl~lch ab.er "" es nu~ e .inabendlandisches Generalkonzil gewesen, und seineKanones irn Orient nicht recrpiert . Die Decretalen der Papste waren aber im Orientnur zum Thed bekannt, und galten nur insoweit, als ihr Inhalt sich an denanerkannten Glaubensque llen, Sch rif t, T radi ti on und oekumen ische Koncili enbewahne, Die r iimische und or ient ali sche Anschauung t ra fen h ie r g le ich hart aufeinander.'

3 ! ' . G . vol. 102, col s. 59) -617 ' See the ana lysi s o f thi s le tte r in Hergenr i:i therPhouus, vo l. r , pp . 439-60 and in Rosseikin, lococi t. pp. 15171. '

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORIShe saw clearly that the new Patriarch was very keen on recognition bythe See of Rome as the legitimate incumbent. This was important,making it worth his while to look about for a counterpoise equivalentin the scales of pontifical politics to the Patriarch' s desire, and there wasno better test than the return of Illyricum to the direct jurisdiction ofthe Holy See. There was in Photius' letter a passage which seemed tojustify the attempt. I There the Patriarch stated that he would have beenonly. too willing to meet the Pope's demands, had the Emperor notvetoed some of the concessions, so that the Patriarch and the' legateshad to give way for fear of worse risks. In these words; Photiusevidently hinted at the Pope's demand that Illyricum should becomeRoman again, and the Pope naturally concluded that the Patriarch hadon 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 witha letter from the Emperor and with the Acts of the Council andwas charged to supply. the Pope with full information. But as pour-parlers with the imperial ambassador dragged on, it gradually dawnedon the Pope that an important concession such as he was schemingcould hardly be extracted from the Emperor; all that the Pope'stenacity achieved was to make Leo miss the last boat to Constantin-ople and to force him to spend the winter in Rome, but. withoutmaking the slightest impression on his firm determination to obey hismaster's instructions. No arrangement that could please Nicholas wasin sight.

Anyone familiar with Nicholas ' ecclesiastical policy will understandwhy the Pope was so anxious to reach a satisfactory solution of hisproblem. The stake was first of all a young and vigorous nation whichoccupied a part of ancient Illyricum-the Bulgarians.2 They \vere stil lpagans, but their conversion to Christianity was only a matter of t ime.Had Nicholas' plans succeeded, the papacy would have registered atwofold success: first it would have secured, through the medium ofthe Bulgarians, won over to Roman Christianity and occupying, so tospeak, the very threshold of Constantinople, an indirect influence overthe Byzantine Church; and second, the Roman missionaries would thenhave been in a favourable position to elbow out of those countries the

I P.G. vol. 102, col. 6I). ,2 For further details, see my study on Illyricurn in my book, Les Lcgendes de

Constantin et de Mcihode, pp. 248-8).93


3/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. 1. THE HISTORYFrankish mis:ionaries? whose activities extended to the whole peripheryof the Frankish Empire as far as Croatia and Bulgaria to the south andPannonia, Moravia and Bohemia to the east and north-east. For it wasnot in. the interest of the papacy, as conceived by Nicholas, that theFrankish Church should grow too powerful and extend its directinfluence over these new nations. Such was the reason as I have~xplained in a ~revious work, why Nicholas was so keenl~ interestedlI1~eyoun?na~lOn~thatsprangup round the Frankish Empire, and thisp~ltcy, which inspired the acts of the pontificate of this great Pope,will help us to understand better Nicholas' dealings with Photius andhis rival Ignatius.The firn.mess.with which the imperial ambassador Leo met the Pope 's

overtures 111 this matter should, however, have made Nicholas realizethat he was treading on dangerous ground. It was not only the Franksand the papacy, but the Byzantines as well who had their hearts set onBulgaria, with this difference, that whereas the Bulgarian problem wasfor the. Franks and for Rome only a matter of prestige, it was for theByza~t1nes a matter of life and death, for Byzantium could not possiblypernut another power, whether political or cultural , to set tle at it s verydoors.

His fail~re with Leo did not damp Nicholas' hopes, and he tried hiscounterpoise theory in the expectation that the desire of photius toobtain the Pope's acknowledgement would be keen enough to justifythe cost. The ambassador left with two letters, dated 18 March 862,addressed to t1:eEm_peror and to Photius, both containing the Pope' srefusal to acq~lesce in th~ new conditions in Byzantium, and pleadingthe Roman prtmacy, which obliged him to ensure the observation ofcanonical laws throughout the Church. In both letters Nicholasrefutes th~ ;rguments. of the Ern_pe~or and Photius in supportof a layman s. promotIOn to ecclesiastical dignities even in cases ofurgent neces:lty and protests against the reading of his letters tothe Fathers 11 1 a bowdlerized version. In his letter to Photius thePope. c~mplains that his legates had not been treated with cou;tesyand ~nslstS repeatedly that they had no right to pass sentence onIgnatius.The tone o~ his lett:r to Michael is very courteous, as though the

P~pe were trymg to give the Emperor the impression that he had nowish to sever relations with him; but Nicholas makes it clearer in hisletter t~ Photius that his verdict should not be considered as final. Afterexpressmg doubts concerning the truth of Photius' statement that heI

l1 9 4

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORIShad felt no inclination to accept the patriarchal dignity, I the Popeproceeds:\Ve 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 refuseto pass sentence of condemnation; for we must beware lest an innocent manbe condemned on false pretences. As the Roman Church maintains him inhis dignity, if no accusation against him is substantiated, so also she refusesto admit you to patriarchal honours, as you have come by them in recklessdefiance of the traditions of the Fathers; nor will she consent to your retainingyour priestly functions unless and unt il the Patriarch Ignatius be just lycondemned.

Now it is easy to read between the lines of this letter that the Popeleft open the possibility of his confirming the sentence passed onIgnatius by his legates, since all he maintains is that the evidence pro-duced in support of the condemnation did not seem to him adequate.He does not, of course, mention the price Byzantium would have topay for a new revision of this sorry business; but Leo had stayed inRome long enough to fathom the secrets of Nicholas' policy; and hehad opportunities enough, during those long winter months, of soundingthe Pope's canonists and officials to acquaint his imperial master andPhotius with what lay behind an apparently definite refusal. And inorder to lend his words more weight and a more menacing significance,Nicholas at the same time announced his decision to the Patriarchs ofAlexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem."But if the Pope imagined that these dignitaries would ever be ableto influence Michael and Photius and induce them to yield to the Seeof Rome, he made a great mistake. Those poor oriental Patriarchs werefar too dependent on imperial good will and bounty ever to indulge in

I At.G.H. Ep . VI, P: 450. Hergenriither, Photius, vol. I, P: 44I goes toofar incasting doubts on the sincerity of the Patriarch's statement that he had acceptedthe patriarchate against his will: he callsit 'die alte Luge'. And yet, it isone of themost moving passagesin the letter (P.G. vol. I02, col. 597). Scholarswho havea love for learning and know how to be absorbed in its deepest secrets, will readwith emotion what the old professorof the Byzantine' University' has to say abouthis studies and his students. They alone will understand the feelingsof regret andbitterness Photius experienced,when harking back to those peacefulyears of studywhich he had to give up for ever. Instead of an idyllic life, devoted to study andteaching, he finds himself swallowed up in public life and dragged into politicalparty conflicts for which he professed nothing but contempt. Did Hergenriithernever experience the feelingsof a scholar wrested from his studies by occupationsthat have nothing to offer in commonwith scholarship?2 "~.f.G.H.Ep. VI, pp. 440-2.

95


4/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I. THE HISTORYactivities that might inconvenience their more fortunate and morepowerful confrere of the Imperial City; and if the Pope entrusted thoselet ters to Leo's diplomatic bag he gave evidence of greater naivete still.It is not likely that the successor of St Peter's refusal to acknowledgeIgnatius' successor ever reached those Eastern Patriarchs ' ears .

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISfavour of Ignatius, which he actually took, as we know, at the Romansynod of 863. \The exact date of this meeting is not given in the Pope's letter about

the synod. I As it is said there that after first meeting in the church ofSt Peter the assembly transferred its sittings to the church, of theSaviour, 'propter frigidiorem locum', it has been assumed that thesynod took place in the spring of that year, Baronius and Hergenrotherdating it in the month of April. Yet the text seems rather to indicatethat the venue of the meeting was altered on account, not of the cold,but of the heat. Hence J. Haller? is right in dating the convocation ofthe synod in the month of August, a time of the year when the ),leat inRome is wellnigh intolerable.,The timing is important, for it proves that Nicholas waited till the last

possible moment for the arrival of an embassy from Constantinoplearmed with full powers to negotiate the Photius affair and the restitu-tion of Illyricum to the Roman See. Balked in his expectations, he thenmade up his mind to intensify the pressure, and the month of Augustwas the most appropriate for the move. Assuming that sea communica-tions between Italy and Byzantium would be practically suspended bythe end of October, there was no likelihood of an imperial embassyarriving at such a late date in Rome; the envoys would have had littletime for their negotiations and a winter stay in Rome was not particularlyattractive. No embassy would be sent from Byzantium at that time ofthe year to find itself marooned in Rome till the reopening of sea traffic,i.e. till the month of March of the following year. On the other hand,if the Pope wished to dispatch the decision of the synod to Constanti-nople, he had little time to waste to enable his messengers to ~e~ outbefore the bad season started.ofwhat took place at this synod we are well informed by the letter

Nicholas sent on I3 November 866 to the the Eastern Patriarchs.3Firstwere read the Acts of the Byzantine Council of 861 together with theletters of Michael and Phorius, Then the legates' procedure in Con-stantinople was examined. Zachary, questioned by the synod, confessedthat he had exceeded his powers by holding communion with Phorius

In vain did Nicholas await a reply to his demand: Michael and Photiusremained dumb, which, to put it frankly, was the only possible thingfor them to do. Unable to pay the price the Pope expected for a newrevision of the Photian and Ignatian cases, their most discreet policywas to wait till the Pope changed his mind rather than start a quarrelwhich would have gravely compromised the good relations between thetwo Churches.But the Pope kept on hoping that his letters would produce the

desired effect on the Byzantines, whilst the legates Radoald and Zacharycontinued to enjoy his favours. Radoald received, on his mission to theFrankish court, new instructions from the Pope as late as the month ofApril, 863: but the imperial embassy did not make its appearance.Instead of the ambassadors, other people came to Rome, namely, theso-called champions of Ignatius, the principal mischief-makers in all thetroubles that had divided the Byzantine Church. The most prominentamong them were the abbot Theognostos and his followers, all tryingto draw the Pope to their side. Though none of them had letters ofrecommendation from the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas gladlywelcomed all these refugees, listening to their complaints and theirviews on the position. Theognostos came forward as Ignatius' spokes-man, though I have already said that the ex-Pat riarch had not appealedto the Pope and had given no one a mandate to act in his name; butbeing one of the Ignatian leaders, Theognostos considered himselfentitled to do so.

It is hard to say when Theognostos arrived in Rome; only one thing.is certain: it was after the ambassador Leo's departure. It would beinteresting to know whether it was in the course of the year 862 or atthe beginning of 863, but notwithstanding the vigilance of the imperialpolice, he certainly did his utmost to be in Rome at the earl iest possibledate.If Theognostos arrived in Rome in 862, it is important to observe

that he failed to induce the Pope to adopt his point of view, for it mustin that case have taken him a full year to decide on the resolute step in

I },f.G.H. Ep. VI, P: 5I7: 'Tunc convocato multarurn proviuciarurn Occiden-tal ium regionurn sancrissi rnorum episcoporum coeru et col lecta sancta synodo inecclesia Dei , in qua beatus Petrus apostolorum princeps redolet et virtutibus emicat,deinde propter frigicl iorem locum in ecclesia Salvatoris, quae ab auctore appellaturConstantiniana' (Church of the Lateran).

2 Loc. c it. pp . )2 seq.3 M.G.H. Ep. VI, chiefly pp. 5I7-2].

97


5/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I.THE HISTOltYand deposing Ignatius; and for his pains was deprived of his episcopaldignity and excommunicated. The synod then voted six canons. Thefirst d ec la re d t hat P ho tiu s, h av in g b ee n o rd ain ed b y a b ish op w ho w as't ied' by the Holy See on account of his misdeeds against Ignatius, wasstripped of all ecclesiastical dignity. He was also blamed for trying tobribe the papal legates. The second canon declared Gregory Asbestasto be deposed and excommunicated; and the clergy ordained by Photius

I. were disqualif ied 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 Ignatiuswere to be immediately reinstated in their honours and functions(canon V). The last canon rati fied the condemnation of John the Gram-marian, the last leader of iconoclasm and its sectaries.If we now compare these new decisions issued by Nicholas with the

contents of his letters to Michael, Photius and the Eastern Patriarchs in862, we note, indeed, an immense 'progress' in the Pope's mentalatti tude towards Photius; and it isalso easy toguess who was responsiblefor this' progress': none, of course, but Theognostos and his friends:and the Pope himself confessed as much, when he mentioned in thesame letters the rumours brought to Rome by people coming fromConstantinople. ILet us specify the points in which Theognostos influenced the Pope.

, First in importance was Gregory Asbestas ' association with the Photianaffair. Until then Nicholas had known little about him, or at any rateattached little importance to his case, since he mentions him nowhere.The legates' decision annulling the condemnation of Gregory and hisgroup had not been, up to that date, particularly questioned by thePope, the only objection he raised being against the sentence on Ignatiusand Photius. Yet, at the Roman synod, Asbestas' case held the floor,no doubt as a result of the intervent ion of Theognostos and his friends.A careful scrutiny of the Acts of the Roman synod discloses first ofal l the fact that the relations between Pliotius and the Asbestas groupsupplied the main grievances against Photius, who was blamed, forinstance, for having communicated with' schismatics', i.e. with Asbestas'friends, even before his ordination, a detail of which the Pope had beencompletely unaware before Theognostos' arrival in Rome. Photius wasI Loc. cit. p. 5 [7 : 'Sed p roccdon tc tempore murmur rnultorum ab illis partibusRomam venientium, quin irnrno persecutiones a Iautoribus Photii cornmotasfugientium, sensim eosdem coepit episcopos muneribus fuisse corruptos diffamareet, quod comrnunicassent photio et deposuissenr Iguatium, ciivulgare:

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISalso indicted for having been ordained by a deposed bishop and forhaving sentenced Ignatius with the assistance of deposed and anathema-tized bishops-again Asbestas' group-and of bishops 'without a see',this last designation implying, no doubt, that the Pope-again at theinstigation of Theognostos-did not acknowledge the promotionsamong the clergy made by Photius. Until the synod, the Pope had ap-parentlyno knowledge of any promise made by Photius to some Ignatianbishops or of his dealings with the outgoing Patriarch; yet, in the firstcanon of the Roman synod, the violation of this promise was listed amongthe main crimes laid atthe ' intruder 's ' door. The Pope also gave credenceto Theognostos' account of the 'persecutions' against the Ignatians.The fact that for the very first time he blamed his legates for havingcommunicated with Photius I could only be due to reports carried bythe Ignatian refugees to Rome, informing the Pope of particulars bedid not know before, or rather, to which he had attached no importance.For the fir st time, too, the Pope honoured Phot ius wi th the 'uncom-

plimentary designations' so dear to the Ignatians: the new Patriarch isnow called a 'rapax et scelestus adulter', 'adulter et pervasor' (canon Iof the synod), 'neophytus et Constantinopolitanae sedis invasor'(canon III), and' adulter, prevaricator, pervasor ' (canon IV), ti tles onecan find on nearly every page of Ignatius' Life, as written by Niceras-David, and of the anti-Photianist Collection, of which mention willbe made later.

Why, then, did Nicholas lend so much credit to the reports ofTheognostos and his like? For we must remember that the Pope couldeasily control their statements by consulting either the Acts of the synodof 86I, or the archives of his predecessors Leo IV and Benedict III(both Popes rather unfavourable to Ignatius), containing the documehtsof the Asbestas case and of his trial under Ignatius, or the letters of theEmperor and Photius; yet the Pope so disregarded these clocumentsthat he even indirectly accused the Emperor of telling lies. The Emperorhad stated in his correspondence that Iznatius had resizned and the' - ' , ' :J ,Roman synod emphatically states in its fourth canon: 'Qui primoquidem irnperiali violentia ac terrore trono privatus est .' Nicholas evenpreferred to disown his own legates who until then had been his trustedagents. How is such extraordinary conduct to be explained?We must remember what has been previously said about Nichubs'I Loc. cit. p. ) 15: 'Deniquc et cum photio adultero, ecclcsia" invasore atqueneophyte, quod sibi rnul tipliciter prohib itum fuerat, inter sacrosancra myster ia

communicaverunt.'

9 9


6/21


7/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. 1. THE HISTORYrehabilitation,' Zachary quietly resumed his office and his title, asthough there had been a private understanding between him and thePope. Besides, Zachary had honestly told the truth, when he confessedto the synod that he had exceeded his powers in Constantinople."

Radoald did not fare as well as Zachary, for he refused to appearbefore the Pope and must have been condemned for contumacy by asynod held in Rome on r November 864, as reported in a letter fromthe Pope to the Western Patriarchs and bishops) Radoald was threatenedwith anathema, should he ever attempt to make contact with Photius.

It seems then that, according to the Pope's account, Radoald hadrefused to fall in with the new trend of pontifical policy towards theoriental Church, and maintained that his own way with Photius inConstantinople had been justified and that the Pope was wrong inaltering his attitude., That is how we believe Nicholas' abrupt volte-jace with regard toPhotius may be explained, the Illyricum problem and Theognostos'plausible reports operating as the main levers. But even this decisionby the Pope, despite it s severity, was not to be the last word; his verdictwas reversible, if only the defendants would yield to reason and givethe Pope satisfaction on matters on which he felt so keenly+But in this respect the Pope was mistaken. As he was waiting for theEmperor' s reply and preparing his attack on the Patriarch, things wenton in Byzantium very much as before: the die-hard Ignatians' opposi-tion was broken and paralysed; the Emperor's power was steadilyexpanding, and Byzantium, under the rule of its young Emperor andof the remarkable statesman Bardas, had recovered its pristine influence.By 860-r the Empire's political and religious prest ige had penetratedas 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 Michaelth~ danger that threatened the Empire from Bulgarian quarters, andthis report, together with Nicholas' claims, accelerated the encirclement

I See p. 2012 cr th~ passage in the Pope's letter, M.G.H. Ep. VI, P: 517.3 Lac. Cit. pp. )6r, )62. Cf. Haller , lac. cit . p . 29.4 .Cf. what J. Haller sa~s on this matter , l ac. cit. pp. 3 r seq. He explains there lations between Byzantium and Rome at that time with remarkable insight

and clearness, though he unwarrantably underestimates Theognostos' share in thechange of pontifical politics.5 For further details, cf. my book, Les Lcgendes de Constantin et de Methode,pp. 148-209, 226-3r.

102

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BOHISmanceuvre which Byzantium had been planning round Bulgaria. It wasthen that the embassy sent by Rastislav (862), the Moravian prince,proposing an alliance against the Bulgarians, came in the nick of time.At the very moment when the Pope signed the Acts of the Roman synod,Byzantine ambassadors and missionaries, Constantine and Methodius,were presenting their credentials to Rastislav in his fortress on the banksof the Morava ; and when, towards the middle of 864, the Pope waswishing King Louis the German every success in his campaign againstRastislav with promises of prayers for the conversion of Bulgaria,which he hoped to be imminent, I the Bulgarians' fate had already beensealed. In the spring of the same year, the Byzantines, inconcert with theirMoravian allies, had unexpectedly invaded Bulgarian terri tory, whilsttheir f leet made a demonstration on the Bulgarian coast. Boris promptlycapitulated, threw up all his schemes for an alliance wi th the Franks andpromised 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. "

\ve do not know when the Pope heard for the first time of the clikasterthat upset all his plans and knocked the bottom out of his Illyricanschemes, and it is difficult to say whether he clung to his hopes, afterrealizing the facts. \Ve should have known more about this, if wepossessed the letter which the Pope addressed in the summer of 865 toMichael III, but which never reached him. Nicholas mentions this letterin his reply to one fr0111the Emperor, which he did not receive till theend of the summer in 865. It was written, he says, wi th all the love afather can have for his son," and all the courtesy a Pope must have foran Emperor. It is a pity that the original here summarized was notpreserved by the Pontifical Chancellery, but the mere fact that the Popewished to write to Michael even before he had received his reply provesat least that the Pope was waiting and hoping for an answer fromConstantinople, long overdue, unti l the summer of 865. The Photianincident was therefore not considered defini tely closed, as far as he wasconcerned, nonvithstanding the new Patriarch's condemnation by theRoman synod.Michael's reply, so eagerly awaited, was brought by the Protospathar

Michael towards the end of the summer of 865, at the time when theBulgarian incident seemed to be closed for good and Boris had receivedbaptism. It may be that the Emperor had watched and chosen his

I Letter to Solomon, bishop of Constance, Ai.G.lf. Ep. VI, p. 293.2 M.G.H. Ep. VI, P: 454.

!O3


8/21

TI-IE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I. THE HISTORYmoment, but his reply to the Pope has unfortunately been lost, thoughits main lines can be restored from Nicholas' answer.The Emperor must have written in the tone of one who was sure of

his advantage. He first blames the Pope for failing to appreciate at itstrue value the concession he and the Byzantine Church had made to theRoman See by allowing Ignatius to be tried by his legates. No instanceof such concession! had ever been heard of since the Sixth OecumenicalCouncil. Then the Emperor protests against the Pope's request for arevision of Ignatius' trial. He had never asked the Pope to send hislegates to try Ignatius, whose case had been settled by a local synod ofthe' Byzantine Church long before the legates arrived and could not bereconsidered.' As the incident did not touch on orthodox doctrinesand was a purely disciplinary affair, which the Byzantine Church couldperfectly well settle for itself, it was no concern of the Roman See.What the Emperor did ask for was the dispatch of legates for a secondcondemnation of iconoclasm, knowing that iconoclastic ideas were alsospreading in the West: but not even for this was the presence of theRoman legates essential, since that heresy had already been condemnedby the Council of Nicaea+ But the Emperor knew the man who hadsupplied the Pope with such one-sided information and incited himagainst Photius, i .e . none other than Theognostos and the other refugeemonks in Rome, where they also intrigued against his Imperial Majesty.The Pope should repatriate these culprits to Constantinople, and shouldhe refuse to comply with this demand, the Emperor would feel obligedto use more forcible methods to help him to change his mind.fJudging from some bitter remarks made by the Pope,6 the letter

apparently was written in an arrogant tone, though Nicholas seems tohave exaggerated and been too sensitive on certain points. He took

1 Loc ..cit. p. 457.2 Loc. cit. p. 460; 'Ce te rum dicit is non ideo ad nos mis is se vos, u t secundumiud ic ium Ignatiu s sus tinere t . .. . D icen tes vero , quod synodice fuerit condem-natus ... . ' P. 476; ' ... noluisse vos, ut a miss is nost ris Igna tiu s iudicare tur eoquod fuerit iam iudicatus et condemnatus.' '

.1 Loc. c it. P : 469; 'Sed dicit is fortasse non fuisse in causa Ignat ii sedem aposto-Iicam convocare necesse, qUIanon hunc ullus hereseos error involverat . .. . '4 Loc. cit. P: 472; 'Quod autern scripsistis vos idcirco quosdam nostrorumadesse voluisse, quoniam dicebamur cum expugnatoribus sacrarum imaginum con-certare ... . Quamvis dixerit is non nostri eguisse vos ad expugnandos heret icos pro

eo, quod iam fueri t huiusmod i heresi s in- Nicea secundo convocata synodo . ..subversa.'5 Loc. c it . p . 479.6 For instance, lococi t. p . 454: "epis tola ... quae tota blasphernia, tota erat iniuriisplena'; p. 4) 5 ; , . .. vos ab iniuriis scribentes ' , etc.

I04

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISoffence 'at the Emperor calling Rome an 'old town', when Michaelseems to have used the epithet' The old Rome' to distinguish Romefrom Byzantium 'The new Rome'. I The Pope, however, had goodreason to protest against the Emperor calling Latin a barbarian andScythic language.2 This is the first time that we see Greek patriotismat odds wi th Roman and Latin nationalism.

It used to be said that Michael's reply had been written by Photius.Jbut there is nothing to prove it, nor does Nicholas seem to have thoughtso; and some statements by the Pope into which a hint at Photius wa sread are not convincing.4 All these fancies are based on the notion,still prevalent, of the Royal and Imperial Chancelleries of the LatinMiddle Ages, when all the work of composition and editing of docu-ments was done by bishops and clergy. But what was true of the LatinWest is not applicable to the Byzantine Empire. Byzantium had noneed for bishops to compose its imperial letters, for the Empire boastedan excellent bureaucratic tradition. Functionaries were laymen, learnedand well versed in whatever was expected from efficient State oflicial;; .5Photius had certainly trained his subordinates well at the time he wasdirecting the Imperial Chancellery and he had, no doubt, a worthysuccessor to take over his functions.

1;:';:The Pope was dangerously 'ill when he received this letter frC?111Michael III, and not ina fit state to word the reply himself." The lengthyanswer which the imperial ambassador was handed at the last minuteat Ostia, just before the departure of his boat for Constantinople, anddated 28 September, must have been drawn up by the president of thePontif ical Chancellery, Anastasius the Librarian, the Pope contentinghimself with giving him the general outline." The letter was destinedto be one of the most important documents in the evolution of thepapacy. From the eleventh century onward, it has been exploited toI Loc. cit. P: 474: 'Urbs, quam vos quidem inveteratarn, sed Honor ius pius

irnperator aeternam vocat. ... i] 1TpECY~VTEPO: , i] VEWTEpo : 'Pcoun,l Loc. c it . p . 459: ' In tantam vero furoris habundant iam prorupist is , ut l inguae

Lat inae iniuriam irrogaret is , hanc in epistola vestra barbaram et Scythicam appel-lantes . .. . '

3 Hergenrother, Phouus, vol. I, P: 553.4 For instance, lvI.G.H. Ep. VI, P: 473;' non enim nos exp io corde vel ore vestrotam profana tamque perversa processisse putavimus.. . . .5 Cf. A . Andreades, 'Le recrut ement des fonctionna ires e t les Univers it es c lansl 'Empi re Byzan rin ' , in M elanges de Droi t dr!dii s J M: C. Cornil (Paris, 192:6),

pp. 17-40. F. Dvornik, Les Legendes de Constantin et deMethode, pp. 25-33, 39-45:6 Loc. c it . P : 474 . 7 Cf. Percls, 1oc.ci t. P: 307.

lOS


9/21

THE PHOTI.AN SCHISM. I. THE HISTORYthe utmost by the canonists of the Gregorian and post-Gregorianperiods. Not only did the great canonists of the time, like Anselm ofLucca, Deusdedit and Ivo of Chartres, bolster up their doctrine on theRoman papacy with extracts from this letter, but itis also quoted inall the other canonical collections of minor rank which are more or lessdependent on the larger Collections mentioned before.' Gratian, theleading canonist of the Middle Ages, copied twenty-four extracts fromthe letter in his Decretum.Such extensive quotation has greatly contributed to Nicholas ' popu-larity among the theorists of pontifical jurisprudence. But it is oftenimagined that Nicholas made a striking innovation by formulating inhis letter theories which had not been current in the Church or at theponti fical Curia." This i s an exaggeration. Perels ' has demonstratedthat Nicholas, in defining the Popes' supreme power, often quotes thewords of Pope Gelasius I without mentioning his name; and he alsomade his own the theories of Leo I. Nor should one exaggerate theinfluence of Pseudo-Isidore's Collection on the evolution of Nicholas 'ideology, though this Collection was, apparently, already known inRome under Leo IV or Benedict III.4This is not the place to analyse all the ideas of pontifical primacy5contained in this letter. All one can do is to point out items of specialimportance in the later development of the relations between Nicholas Iand Byzantium.In the first part of his letter Nicholas refutes Michael's statements

concerning Ignatius' condemnation. The Emperor, in the Pope's., I See E. Perels' excellent study, 'Die Briefe Papst Nikolaus I. Die kanonischeUberlieferung', in Neues Archiy (1914), vol. XXXIX, pp. 45-153. Cf. what is saidon pp. 292.seq.1cf. A. Hauck, Der Gedanke derpdpstlichen. Weliherrschaft bis auf Bonifa{ VIII

(Leipzig , 1904) , pp. 14 seq. H. Bohmer, 'Nikolaus I,' Realenryldopadie fur prot.Theologie (jrd ed., Leipzig, 1904),P: 69: "Nikolaus hat die mittelalterliche Papstideegeschaffen ... . ' But th is honour rather belongs to Gelasius 1.3 Papst Nikolaus I, pp. 153 seq. , 170seq. Cf. J. Haller, lococit. p. 77. RememberLeo IV's refusal of the pall ium sent to him by Ignatius as a present .4 Cf. A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichie Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1900), vol. II, p. 5425 See specialized studies by A. Thiel, De Nicolao J papa comrnentattones duaehistorico-canollicae (Brunsbergae, 1859)' F. Rocquain, La Papaute au Moyen Ase

(Paris, 1881), pp. 1-7+ J. Roy, 'Pr incipes du pape Nicolas Isur les rapports d~sdeux puissances', in Elud~s d'Histoire du "M.A. dediees d G. Monod(Paris, 1896),pp. 95-105. A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutsclzlands, pp. 533seq. H. Limmer,Papst Nikolaus I und diebY[antillische Staatskirche (Berlin, 1857). A. Greinacher, DieAnschauung des Papstcs Nikolaus J tiber das Verhiiltnis yon Staat und Kirche (Berlin,1909). (Abhandlungen zur mittelalterlichen und neueren Geschichte, vol. x.)

106

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISopinion, failed to respect the privileges of the See of Rome and spokeof St Peter's successor in a most outrageous manner. Since the SixthCouncil until recent days, most of the Byzantine Emperors had beenheretics.' The Greeks were in the habit of tampering with pontificaldocuments, for they did so at the Council of 787 and again in 86I. It isoutrageous for an Emperor to order a Pope to send his legates to aCouncil. Not even Michael, though he claimed the right, dared toexercise it; on the contrary, he invited the Pope to send his legates tothe Council, as is easily judged from the letter he sent to the Pope atthe time. It was really regrettable that Michael should not have imitatedhis predecessors' deference.' Then, why did he claim the title of RomanEmperor, if Latin, the Romans' tongue, was no better to him than abarbarian language?

With regard to Ignatius' condemnation by a synod of Constanti- >nople, the Emperor must admit that until then no Patriarch had everbeen deposed or condemned without the consent of the Roman See.It is absurd to contend that the synod of 86r which ratified the con-demnation had the same number of Fathers as the great Council ofNicaea: Ignatius ' condemnation was, none the less, unfair. The Emperorhad no right to convoke that Council and stand by, whilst a piousPatriarch was being disgraced; such a Patriarch could not be tried byhis own subordinates, or by schismatics and laymen, but only by ahigher court , i.e. by the Pope. Besides, without his consent , no Councilis valid.In the second part of his letter, the Pope defines with firmness, clarity

and precision the traditional and inalienable rights. of the Holy See)These rights, he says, were given by Christ Himself to St Peter, whohanded them down to his successors. Rome alone can boast of havingseen living and dying within its walls St Peter and St Paul, founders ofits glory. After Rome, Alexandria and Antioch had the closest contactwith the two Apostles, whereas Constantinople had to import somerelics (ofSt Andrew, Lukeand Timothy in 3)6) to give itself a semblanceof apostolic tradition."These privileges give the Pope power' super omnem terram, id est,

super omnem ecclesiarn ', therefore even the right of watching over theChurch of Constantinople; and that is why the Pope took an interest

I Loc, cit . PP: 456, 457. 2 Lac. cit. pp. 45T-9.3 Cf. chiefly the impressive passage, lac. cit. pp. 474 seq.: "praesertin: cumecclesiae Romanae privilegia . .. ecclesiam Dei '; p. 484: 'non itaque inirniciriae . ..nequaquam permittunt.' 4 Loc. cit. P: 475.

107


10/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. 1. THE HISTORYin Ignatius' case, reserved its decision to his own judgement and nevergave his legates leave to pass sentence on the Pat riarch.As regards Theognostos and his associates, the Pope refuses to send

them back to Constantinople, since they only tell the truth, and theirreports are borne out by other monks coming from the East. The Popehas the right to summon any cleric to his court in Rome. IAt the end of his letter, the Pope states that he wishes neverthelessto offer a concession to the Emperor and declares his readiness to revise

the case ofIgnatius and Photius, but only in Rome: the two rivals mustappear before the Pope or at least send their representatives to him. Heeven specifies which Ignatian bishops he wishes to see in Rome to pleadtheir Patriarch's case before his court. The Emperor must send hisrep:esenta:ives too. All this, he insists, is a great concession. The HolySee s verdict can be altered by none but the Pope himself, but Nicholasassures the Emperor that he wants to be an equitable judge,Z and onlyrefuses to reconsider the condemnation of Asbestas and his party.

It must be confessed that the conclusion of this letter comes as ashock, for the firmness of Nicholas' tone throughout his letter on theprivileges of his See and the violence of his language addressed to theGreeks and even to the Emperor lead one to expect a different solut ionto Ignatius' case. The Pope was apparently seriously disposed to recon-sider his verdict against Photius and to leave open the possibility of hisrehabilitation; but to help the Ignatians to become reconciled to thefact, he suggests to the Emperor between the lines that he should makeup his mind and sacrifice Asbestas and his confederates: their beingheld 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 seemthat he was still nursing hopes of recovering Bulgaria) Realist as hewas, he could not but see that all his hopes for the return of easternIllyricum had vanished, directly Byzantium had laid its hands on theBulgarians; but of course, when he dispatched his letter Nicholas couldnot anticipate what was to happen in Bulgaria some months later.It is not here that we shal l discover the mot ive of Nicholas' decision.

The vigour of the Emperor's reply brought home to Nicholas that heI L' 'hoc. cit. p. 478: Jus abemus non solum monachos verum etiam quoslibetcleric os de quacumque diocesi ... ad nos convocare.' 'l Loc. cit . pp. 480-4.

3.That is what J. Haller says, loc. cit. pp. 79 seq., though he is not so wellinspi red here as in his reading of the f irst phase in the conflict .108

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORIShad gone too far: after losing Illyricum, he was now busy wasting thefinest achievement Radoald and Zachary had brought from Constan-tinople-the recognition by the Byzantine Church of the Romansupremacy, a loss he realized to be more serious and deplorable thanthe first. One can trace Nicholas' fear and worry in the terms, oftenviolent, or at least unconventional, which he uses in addressing theByzantine Emperor. It is then that he feverishly casts about for pr~psto his argumentat ion in support of the inalienable rights of the Papacyover the whole Church and in justification of his previous refusal toacknowledge Photius without any further ado. As long as these rightsand privileges are admitted, a revision of the sentence passed may-beexpected on the strength of those very same privi leges. I .Notwithstanding i ts lofty and confident tone, Nicholas' letter marks

therefore a regression in pontif ical politics , though the retreat is heavilyscreened by an imposing mass of arguments in support of R0111e;sprivileges and by fresh attacks on imperial pretensions; l but it is aretreat for all that. This letter therefore did not convey a threat.ora warning of a complete rupture between Home and Byzantium; farfrom it: the Pope took it to be the first step towards an honourable andpeaceful l iquidation of the whole dispute.It is difficult to say what effect it produced in Byzantium. The Byzanltines' first impression must have been that the Pope was spoiling hi sown case. By allowing his legates to sit in judgement over an EasternPatriarch, the Byzantine Church was offering him an unique concessionthat did full justice to his claims. But the Pope overlooked this, andinstead of taking advantage of such an admission, went hunting forarguments in support of his primacy in \Vestern documents whichto Easterners must have sounded strange, if not suspicious. Asbestasand his followers, who themselves had appealed to the Pope against theverdict of their own Patriarch, were ready to go to any length in theirrecognition of the Pope's privilege: yet, here was the Pope decidingI Loc.cit. p. 48 I: 'Ergo de iudicio Romani praesulis non retracrando, quia necmas exigit , quod diximus comprobato , non negamus eiusdem sedis sententiam. posse in melius commutari , cum aut sibi subrep tum aliquid fuerit aut ipsa pro coii-sideratione aetatum vel t crnporum seu gl'3viul1l necessitaturn clispensatorie quicldamordinare decreverit, quoniam et egregium apostolum Paulum quaedam fecissedispensatorie legimus, quae postea reprobasse dinoscitur.' ,2 Itwould be interesting to know what was formulated in th is letter by the Pope,and what by Anasta sius. Not without good reason docs the Pope (loc. c it. P: 474)complain that he was soi ll that he was unable even to attend to the composition of

this letter . Cf . J. Haller , loc. cit. P: 76 .109


11/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. 1. THE HISTORYagainst them by claiming against Photius the same rights as his pre-decessors had claimed against Ignatius. For they had not forgottenwhat Leo IV had written to Ignatius,I when the Pope took him severelyto task for condemning Asbestas without the Roman See's consent, inviolation of previous observance.Another bone of contention must have been the Pope's assertion

that no synod could be summoned without the Pope's consent, and~orse still , that Councils were no concern of the Emperor' s.~ Nicholassimply ignored the Byzantine' doctrine' on Counci ls as it had evolvedin the East since the days of Constantine the Great. For indeed all thefirst oecumenical Councils had been convoked by the Emperors; theypresided at the meetings and it was their exclusive right to do so. It wasactually their practice to order bishops and patriarchs to attend theCouncils, their representatives being present at all discussions, even thoseof a disciplinary character; but they had no right to vote, this beingstrictly reserved to the bishops, though they afterwards confirmed thedecisions and made them legal throughout the empire?

Nicholas' views on the Councils, as explained in his letter, repre-sented in fact the last stage in the development of the conciliar theoryin the West. Yet, even in Byzantium, a slow approach towards thecurtailment of imperial power in the Councils was in progress, and theSeventh Oecumenical Council held its meetings under the chairmanship,not of the Emperor or his lay representative, but of Tarasius. Even theCouncil of 879-80 did not have the Emperor, but Photius in the chair,the Pat riarch on similar occasions exercising the funct ions of the Em-I The following is the text of the letter (lvI.C.H. Ep. v, p. 589): 'Ex quo

unigenitus Dei filius sanctam in se fundavit ecclesiam caputque universorumapostolicis institucionibus sacerdotum perfecit, cuiuscumque eontradictionis liti-giique contentio vestrae oriebatur vel accidebat ecclesiae, Romano vestri predeces-sores pontifici ingenti earn studio procacique celeritate innotescere procurabant;et postmodum eius roborati conscnsu lucitluo consilio cuncta, quae necessitaspr ovocabat , beat ifi co moderaminc perageban t. Vos autern, predictorum ut fertis

I viro rum [ sueces sore s], sine conscien ti a nost ra congregat is ep iscopi s deposi rionemperpetrastis, quod absentibus nostris legatis vel litteris nullo debuistis exploremodo .... ' 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 Michaelwere already familiar to the Byzantines and had proved acceptable, others raisedcriticism at the court and the patriarcheion, for instance, the claim to judge all majorcases in first and second instance. This seemed an unprecedented innovation to theByzantines, however willing they were to admit the principle of appeal to the Pope'ssupreme court even in disciplinary matters.

, For further details see my study, De Pote state C ivi li in Conci li ls Oecumenicl s . .. ,already quoted.

110

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISperor, a fact that was significant for its liability to prejudice the Emperor'srights in the future development of the conciliar not ion in Byzantium.

Now, this evolution was far more rapid in Rome; it was facilitatedby the fact of the Emperor's residing elsewhere, and the road lay opento a rapid advance towards the complete elimination of all lay influencein ecclesiastical assemblies. Further, it should be emphasized thatNicholas now laid down this principle for the first time in precise andunmistakable terms. Given the posit ion in Byzantium, one can under-stand that his theory of Councils must have sounded too advanced forMichael's taste, as he could not help seeing there a serious limitationof his imperial powers.Lastly, the Pope's views on the patriarchates of Alexandria andAntioch must have been particularly ofTensive to the Byzantines: heplaces Byzantium fourth after the patriarchates of Rome, Alexandriaand Antioch, an allocation that seems to have been popular at theRoman Curia in those days. Even in his letter to Boris-Michael, princeof Bulgaria, I the Pope bluntly stated that the Patriarch of Constanti-nople had in reality no right to call himself a Patriarch, since his seewas not of apostolic origin. Perhaps Photius admitted that after al l thePope was right in denying the apostolic origin of Constantinople, ashis historical knowledge must have been deeper than that of his con-temporaries; but in his days the belief was generally current and popularin Byzantium. We have heard Ignatius himself proudly boasting beforethe papal legates that he occupied the see of St Andrew the Apostle?But why stress this claim in a letter purporting to inaugurate the resump-tion of negotiat ions between Byzantium and Rome?

There is in the Pope's letter a hint that the Emperor had formulatedin his missive the Byzantine definition of the Roman Primacy as knownto the Byzantines of the ninth century. The passage makes one regretthe loss of the Emperor Michael's letter and it is a pity that the Popeneglected to report the Emperor's words with accuracy. These are thePope's words: 3 'Sed dicitis fortasse non fuisse in causa Ignatii sedemapostolicam convocare necesse, quia non hunc ullus hereseos errorinvolverat.' Does the Emperor here admit the necessity for the Pope's

I See p. 114.2 Cf. F. Doiger about this legend in his recent study, 'Rom in der Gedanken-

welt der Byzantiner', in Zeitsclirijt fiir Kircliengescluclue (1937), vol. LVI, pp. 1-42It seems safe to say that, as demonstrated by the Ignat ian case , the legend wasnotmainly invented and spread by Photius, as this learned author seems to think.Isha ll short ly have occasion to return to these problems.

3 M.C.H. Ep. VI, P: 469'III


12/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I.THE HISTORYco-operation in all matters of doc trinal definition, though defending a tthe same time the Byzantine Church's right to settle its own internalproblems of ecclesiast ical discipl ine alone, without recourse to the HolySee? I Again, observe tha t the Byzantine Church, whilst jea lously safe-guarding its right to settle its own domestic affairs, admitted never-theless the right of appeal to the Roman court, as was proved to thehilt in Asbestas' case and in the Acts of the synod of 861. Inote onlyfacts, leaving on one side the question whether this notion of theprimacy is correct or not.pespite all this, even this letter would have failed to provoke inByzantium any move particularly unpleasant to Rome, had events notabruptly taken a new turn: and the deus ex machina which broughtabout this sudden change was no other than the Prince of the Bulgarians,recently converted to Christianity. It is not often in history that onesees a barbarian, barely converted, wield such an influence on the fateof the Church.But the Khagan Boris-Michael is an interesting figure. He seems tohave been deeply impressed by the liturgy of his baptism, a ceremony

conducted by the Patriarch himself, and he would have loved to gracehis court with the same liturgical splendour. The one to impress himmost was the Patriarch himself and he found it difficult to admit thathe would ever be a genuine Christian prince, unless he also had his ownPatriarch. Application for one to the Byzantines was refused as a matterof course, Photius sending him instead a long and beautiful letter toexplain how a Christian prince should behave in his private and publiclife.z Of course, Photius would not hear of a Bulgarian Patriarch; butthe desire was very charac teristic of Boris, though it would be d ifficu ltto say how much of it was due to sheer naivete, and how much to sta tes-manlike instinct. At any rate, it was in the best interest of the youngBulgarian State to remain independent of Byzantium, even in religiousl11atters, as long as possible.

Then it was that the Khagan remembered what the Frankish priestshad promised him, when they preached on his territory, and theirpreaching certainly d id not remain unproductive. There was, besides,I Th~ word' fortasse' no d~ubt means that the Pope isnot quoting the Emperor 'swords l iteral ly. In the preceding sentences, he enumerates the Patriarchs who weredeposed with the Pope's collaboration, but all of them were heretics. The Popemay also have intended to forest all an object ion which the Emperor migh t make.In any case, Nicholas seems to have caught the correct drift of the Emperor'sthoughts and words. Z P.C. vol. 102, cols. 66; seq.

II2

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISa Frankophile party at the Khagan's court, as he had fostered the c losestrelations with the Franks, and this party worked against the Greekmissionaries. It prevailed in the end, and the Khagan made up his mindto try his luck with the Franks again, addressing not only Louis theGerman, but also Nicholas 1.The Bulgarian embassy, headed by Peter, a relation of the Khagan's,

John and Martin,' reached Rome in August 866.2 It appears that allthat Boris asked the Pope for was a Patriarch jt but he a lso addressedto him a considerable number of questions and asked advice on mattersof exceptional importance. He did not apply to the Pope for rnis-sionaries, as he expected them from Louis the German.

Nicholas was ela ted at the good news, never expecting such a suddenturn in what he had given up as hopeless. Rome spoke of a miracle,and one can understand the feeling, remembering how keen Nicholashad been on the recovery of IlIyricum. .

The Pope decided to make the utmost of the godsend. The new:Bulgarian Church must be founded by Rome and be directly under ,Roman jurisdiction, without the. inte rmediary of the Frankish Church fso he decided to send to Boris two bishops-Paul of Populonia andFormosus of Porto -with missionaries' ad praedicandam gentem illam ',as the Lioer Pontificalis has it. He also took trouble over a detailed andcareful reply to all the quest ions .,

We know what vogue these answers had among the medievalcanonists, who loved to quote them under the heading' Nicolai responsaad consulta Bulgarorum'. The let ter is, indeed, a masterpiece of pastoralwisdom and one of the finest documents of the history of the Papacy.I cannot analyse it here in detail: all I can do is to point out certainparticulars showing what care the Pope took to immunize the newChurch against Greek inf luence.He ins is ts, for ins tance, on the f irst place in the Church being occupied

by the Roman See, Constantinople being shifted back to the fourth:I M.C.H. Ep. VII, p. 154 (letter of 8 June 879 from John VIII to Michael).2 Liber Pontificalis (eel. Duchesne), vol. II, P: 164: 'Tunc ad hunc apostolicum

e t vere p raesulem orthodoxurn lega tos suos mense augusto , i ne li ctione XII II ,destinavi t, donaque non parva tam sanct is locis quam eidem summo pontifici con-tul it , suggerens e ius aposto la tu i quid se facere sa lubr iu s opor te ret , vel qu id ergareliquurn Vulgaricum adhuc baptismo sacro carentem populum, ut fidei sacramenta',perficeret, agi debere t. Quod bea tis simus audiens papa , magna replerus laeticia,!aueles Christo r edd idi t amp lu s ct cum omni sibi divinitus commissa ecc lesia ,grarulans, infinita preconia Dco nostro qui novissimis his temporibus tanturn fecit,miraculum devota mente, supplici quoque voce resolvic.'

3 Ch. 72 of Nicholas' reply. M.C.H. Ep. VI , p. 592.DPS I I 3 5


13/21

THE PHOTIAN .sCHISM. I. THE HISTORYpl~ce (chapter 92), as has already been stated. A number of Greekcustoms are condemned. I When the Bulgarians asked for a code ofcivil law, it seems that the Pope, instead of the Justinian code, sent themthe Collect ion of Lombard laws."The papal embassy was received in Bulgaria with extreme satisfaction;

and Boris was delighted every time the Pope's gracious letter was readout to him. All his doubts were cleared and all the problems he hadraised were solved: he was pleased that his Bulgars-men and women-could go on wearing breeches, without the fear of committing a mortalsin; he could henceforth take his bath on Wednesdays and Fridays andgo,to communion wearing his belt. But why could he not dispense withthe' horse's tail, which served his army as a banner, since the Popepromised him victory over all his enemies, if his Boyars would hoist thecross as an ensign? Though, after all, he might as well do without aPatriarch, if it came to that, and be content with an archbishop, sincethe Pope had told him that it came more or less to the same thing. Hewas especially pleased to hear that the Patriarch of Constantinople, whohad impressed him so deeply, was only a sham Patriarch, not in thesame class as the Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.There was among these replies one which was certainly not welcomedbyrhe Boyars, who would have liked to keep their old practice andcontinue to live each with several wives; but unfortunately, the Popeseverely reprobated this custom (chapter 5I), proving in this no morelenient than Photius, It was aggravating, but one could not get every-thing; and there was still hope that the missionaries would not showthemselves too difficult in this respect.

Making the most of the good impression they had made on Boris andacting in the spirit of the instructions they carried with them from thePope, the legates prevailed on the Khagan to dismiss the Frankishmissionaries on thei r arrival, with bishop Ermenrich of Pass au at thei rhead) And yet, Louis the German had prepared this mission so care-fully, to the extent even of soliciting his brother Charles for assistancein sending sacred vessels for the use of 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"Ch. 6 concerns bathing on Wednesdays and Fridays; ch. 54, prayers withhands crossed over the chest; ch. 5), communion; ch. 57, eunuchs; ch. 77, sortes

biblicae ; ch. 94, the chrism.;,' M. Conrat, Rornisches Recht bei Papst Nikolaus I', in Neues Arcliiv; vol.XXXVI, pp. 724 seq . Cf. Pere1s, lococit . p . 162.

3 .Annales Bertiniani, M.C.H. Ss. vol. I, P: 474.Il4

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISthe armour which the Khagan had worn the day he crushed the paganrebellion: a strange request, but Louis IIprobably assumed that byreceiving Latin Christ ianity Bulgaria would henceforth be part of theWestern Empire of which he was the sovereign; and not to disappointhim, the Pope sent him some of the presents. ISo everything was going well. Boris was so pleased with the new

missionaries that, pulling his hair, he took a solemn oath ever to remainthe faithful servant of St Peter, ~and Nicholas' hopes seemed at lastbe 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. To 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 senatorsand the clergy of Constantinople. Their presence in Bulgaria certainlyenhanced the prestige of the papal embassy; they stayed there for sometime and set out for Byzantium in the spring of 867.3The letter addressed to Michael+ was couched in a much calmer tone

than the letter sent in 865; and though the Pope mostly repeated whathe had said previously, his treatment was more consistent and sys-tematic. After recalling the story of the Photius case, the Pope mainlyprotests against the expedient of tampering with the letter carried bythe legates to the Council of 861 and refuses to ratify the condemnationof Ignatius, who could be judged by none but a higher court, i.e. by thePope. The same holds for Gregory Asbestas. The synod was not com-petent to annul the sentence passed by Ignatius, which could only be

I1' 1,[ !, I.u

I,

I Liber Poniificalis (ed. Duchesne), vol. II, p. 167; Annales Bertiniani, lac. cit.;J. Haller, Nikolaus] lind Pseudo-Lsidor, p. 81., Cf. Anastasius, Mansi, vol. XVI, col. II; cf. also my book, Les Lt!gendes deConstantin et de frfh/lOde, P: 281.3 I t i s not necessary to suppose wi th J. Haller (loc. cit . p. 84) that the Bulgarianembassy had lef t Rome long before the legates bound for Byzantium. The fact thatByzantium knew about the happenings in Bulgaria at the moment the legates hadreached the frontier proves nothing. The Byzantines may have heard of them, ifthe legates tarr ied for some t ime at the Khagan's court. In his letter of 23 October

867, addressed to Hincrnar (!If.C.H. Ep. VI, p. 603), the Pope clearly states thatthe tWO embass ies had lef t Home at the same t ime.4 M.C.H. Ep. VI,pp. 488-512. Cf. the analysis given by Hergcnrother, Photius,vol. I, pp. 618 seq.

II)


14/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I. THE HISTORYdone either by the Patriarch or by the Pope. Photius must first makeup for the damage he has done. By ordaini~g him, Asbest~s could onlygive him a share in his own condemnation; but Ignatius must bereinstated by the Emperor, who therein should follow hi.s predecessors'example; else, the Pope will summon a We.stern Council and have thecalumniating letter the Emperor had sent him condemned.

However, the Pope concludes by repeating that he is always readyto grant the Emperor the concession offered in his l~st lette:-; ~orIgnatius' trial can still be revised, the Pope even refusmg to JUSt1~yeveryone of Ignatius' acts. If he has offended, he deserves blame. TIllStime, to forestall any fraud, the Pope has entrusted his legates withcopies of all his previous letters. .

The letter i s fi rm and resolute in tone, but much less violent than thatof 865, and suggests that the Pope had more to do with this letter thanon the previous occasion.Nicholas' let ter, therefore, leaves a door open to prospects of mutual

understanding. His other letters, besides being mostly a repetition ofthe reasoning developed in the letter to Michael, yet let the readersguess that what the Pope really wished from his .heart was not ~o mucha revision of the trial as the downfall, pure and simple, of Photius. Forinstance, in his letter to Photius,' the Pope no longer mentions anyconcession; he merely summons the 'int ruder' to give place to Ignatius,or forfeit his right to absolution till his death.The letters designed for the bishops" often repeat word for word

what the Pope said in his letter to Michael, but they also are silent onthe concession. All the other let ters 3 betray the Pope's secret wish forPhotius' downfall. Their peremptory tone is no doubt stiffened by hisrecent success in Bulgaria, whereas the legates have naturally receiveddetailed instructions to work in Byzantium for the 'intruder's' over-throw.But they were on the alert in Byzantium and the legates could scarcelybe under any illusion about the difficulty of their mission. \Vhen thepapal envoys presented themselves at the frontier of the .Empire, theywere received by an official called Theodore. The receptlOn could nothave been warm, and even the Bulgars who had escorted the legates tothe frontier got a taste of the Byzantines' anger.t Theodore must haveI

II,

I M.C.H. Ep. VI, pp. 533-40. 2 Loc. cit. pp. 512 seq. , 553 seq.3 Lac. cit. pp. 540 seq.4 Liber Poruificalis, vol. II, P: 165. Cf. Nicholas' le tter to Hincrnar, M.C.H.Ep . VI, P: 603.

1I6

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISquestioned the legates on the purpose of their mission and noticed theirheavy dossier of letters addressed to important people. It all lookedsuspicious and a special messenger was dispatched to B~~antium to askfor further instructions, whilst the legates were left waitmg forty daysfor the reply. They do not seem to have carried away pleasant memoriesof this adventure. IIn Constantinople, people must have been quite aware of what wasgoing on in Bulgaria well before the messenger's arrival. The news ofBoris' defection created consternat ion at the imperial palace and at thepatriarcheion, for there was no disguising the fact that i t meant ~ seriouspolitical setback. Boris must have quickly recovered from hIS defeatin 864 to rush back so soon to his former allies, the Franks. It was,moreover diflicult to counter Boris' move with a military demon-stration, as in 864, the Khagan having taken good care to providefor his security on the Byzantine border and to have his Boyars at theirposts guarding the roads and the defiles. And the moment for his changeof front had been well chosen: whilst he was carrying out his plans, theByzantine army was away on an expedition to Crete," and Caesar Bardas,the principal designer of the encirclement policy of 864, had been assas-sinated by his rival Basil on 21 April . The authorities had their handsfull for the moment, and the season did not favour expeditions.Yet such things could hardly be tolerated: if war was out of the

question and diplomacy had lost its efficacy, there remained ... omeexpedients of a rel igious nature that could be t ried. The Greek mission-aries who had been asked to leave Bulgaria, had made complaintsabout certain' suspicious '. doctrines which their Frankish rival{weredisseminating over Bulgaria. The Franks, for instance, allowed theBulgars to take milk and cheese in Lent. This was dreadful! And theywere all but Manichaeans, since they forbade priest s to marry, thoseheretics affecting a particular aversion from marriage. Then the Frankslimited priestly powers by holding that confirmation could riot beadministered to children by ordinary priests, the function being strictlyreserved to bishops. What was more serious still, the Franks taught thatthe Holy Ghost proceeded not from the Father only, but also from theI It isnot impossible that Pope Stephen V,speaking in his letter toBasil(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. .1cf. H. Gregoire, 'Etudes sur le IXe siecle ' , in Bnalliioll (1933), vol, VIII,pp. )24 seq. on this expedition.

Il7


15/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I.THE HISTORYSon: this was rank heresy, and such abominations deserved condemna-tion by a synod.

The synod was duly summoned, Ibut whether before or immediatelyafter the arrival of the messenger conveying the news that the legatesstood waiting at the frontier is not known. One thing is certain, thatthe messenger had time to take back to the legates the decisions of thissynod, very severely condemning all these' false' doctrines. The legateswere invited to sign them and to acknowledge Photius as the legi timatePatriarch,' being permitted on no other conditions to prosecute theirjourney. Unable, of course, to accept them, the legates had no choicebut to withdraw to Bulgarian territory with all the letters they hadbrought from Rome, none of which reached its addressee. Thus vanishedthe Pope's last hopes of undermining Photius' position in Byzantiumthrough his embassy.The Byzantines had prepared their plans with great care. Had the

legates signed the synodal decrees and acknowledged Photius, theywould automatically have wrecked the Latin mission to Bulgaria; orshould this manceuvre fail, there was always the possibility of tryingthe effect of the condemnation on Boris and awaiting the result. Thatthis attempt was actually made3 we learn from the Pope's letter toHincmar: an imperial letter, signed by Michael and his new associateBasil, informed the Khagan of the condemnation. But Boris was stillunder the spell which Nicholas' letter had woven round his primitivesoul: no, the Latins could not be so wicked. Moreover, he had by hisside the bishop of Porto, who Certainly was as good a psychologist asthe Greek missionaries, and doubts that might have been raised inBoris' mind were soon laid. The Khagan even handed over the letterto the legates about to return to Rome, happy to be thus of service tothe Pope. The legates also happened to pick up in Bulgaria somepamphlets which the Greek missionaries had tried before their expulsionto disseminate among some half-civilized Boyars.f The Pope carefully

I This is an obvious inference from Photius' encyclical letter to the EasternPatriarchs (P.C. vol. I02, col . 732).

Z The fact is confirmed in Nicholas' letter to Hincmar, lvI.C.H. Ep. VI, p. 604:'a mis sis nostris contra omnem regulam et praeter omnem consuer udinern libellumfidei, si s e a b illis recipere vellent, exigere moliebantur, in quo tam isra capitula quamea tenent.es anathe.matizarent, necnon et epistolas canonicas ab his ei, quem suumoecononucon parriarcham appel lan t, d andas improbe requirebant.' Hergenrorher,Photius , vol. I, pp. 641, 656 seq.

3 Loc. cit. P: 603.4 That is how I understand the Pope's words (Ioc. cit. p. (03): 'accipientibus

.. nobis et per scrutantibus eandem cum aliis scriptis epistolam ... 'J I S

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BOnISscrutinized these documents and felt hurt. They blamed the Latinsfor offering on Easter Sunday, with the Eucharist, a lamb which theyplaced on the altar after the Jewish fashion; also, for their priests'habit of shaving, for making chrism with water and for raisingdeacons to the episcopacy without first conferring on them thepriesthood.One could afford to smile at these childish accusations and rivalries,if the consequences of such wrangles had not been so disastrous to the

whole of Christendom. All these details may seem to us petty andinsignificant to-day, but they should be read in the setting of the twodocuments-Photius' encyclical letter to the Eastern bishops andNicholas' letter to Hincmar, The irate and violent tone of the Patriarch 'sletter reveals the soreness of the wound the Pope had inflicted on theByzantines' national pride: to their way of thinking, vital interests ofthe Empire were involved in the question, and no compromise waspossible. So severely hurt and threatened did they feel that they losttheir heads and were ready to make every attempt to recover lostground.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 neverunderstood the Greek reaction to his success in Bulgaria. But he reallydid take fright, fearing a rupture between Rome and Byzantium thatwas more than dangerous, one that might easily shift to dogmatic issues.This is why he gave such a cry of alarm in his letters and tried tomobilizeall the spiritual forces in his Church before the great blow that hefeared should fall.The threatened repercussion from Constantinople was stupendous, butNicholas apparently never heard what photius was really planningagainst him. There is in his letter to Hincrnar a reference to a messagewhich the Byzantines had sent to the Patriarchs of Alexandria andJerusalem,' but as the Pope stated its object to be Photius' recognitionby the Eastern Patriarchs, he could not have meant Photius' famousencyclical, though he must have heard some vague rumours on whatPhotius was plotting.This notorious encyclical announced the convocation of a synod of

the Oriental Church for no other object than to put increased pressureon Boris: as the decisions of a local Council had failed to produce thedesired effect, perhaps those of a GenC'L11Council would have a better

1Loc, c it . p. 608.II9


16/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. I. THE HISTORYchance, the more so as the Council was also to condemn Nicholas' lineof conduct.In this document Photius stated that the Council would fi rst proceed

to condemn the 'false' doctrines of the Frankish missionaries; and asregards Nicholas' policy, he pointed out that he had received a numberof letters from \\'estern bishops complaining about the Pope. TheItalian bishops even sent him a synodal letter requesting him to defendthem 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 theinterests of the Church. Lastly, the third object of the Council was tobe (again according to the encyclical) the solemn recognition of thesecond Council of 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 of protests from thearchbishops of Cologne and Trier, two prelates who were the foremostcritics of the Pope's 'tyrannical' regime. I There was also betweenByzantium and the Greek monasteries of Rome a fairly close contact,as I have shown in another work; 2 and the Greek monks of thosehouses may very well have kept the Patriarch posted on all that hap-pened in the West, particularly in Rome. Photius appears also to havebeen in touch with another dangerous opponent of Nicholas, J ohn,archbishop of Ravenna, for we possess a letter sent to John by Photius,after his reinstatement on the patriarchal throne, either at the end of 878or at the beginning of 879. It is a peculiar document.J which reads asthough the Ravenna titular had raised hopes that Photius' campaignagainst the person of Pope Nicholas might find some support in theWest; but when Photius decided to strike, John failed to back him upas expected, and his hesitation may have had a good deal to do withPhotius' 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 of 867, but little

I

I IIIII .II

1Cf. Bury, A His tory of the Eastern Roman Empire, P: 201'2 Les Legendes de Constantin et de Methode, pp. 286 seq.,3 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ss. Patris Phoui ... epistolae XLV (Petropoli,1896), p. 6. Cf V. Grumel, Les Regestes desActes du Patrtarcliat de Constantinople,vol. II (Is tanbul , 1936), p . 102.

120

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISof what occurred there has reached us, the meagre inforrnatioriwehappen to possess coming exclusively from anti-Photianist sources. IOnly the following facts can be inferred with certainty: the Councilreally did take place, though some Ignatians tried to deny its occur-renee; many Fathers took part in it; Pope Nicholas was judged andcondemned; lastly, Louis II was acclaimed Emperor at the closingmeeting of the Council, in the presence and with the consent, ofMichael III and Basil . 2

Did their acclamation imply that the Fathers had charged Louis IIwith the execution of the sentence passed on Nicholas, and was therecognition of his imperial title a reward for the services expected bfhim? It i s difficult to prove that any negotiations to this eiTect had beencarried on between the two courts before the meeting of the Council.It is not impossible, as a certain contact could be made unofficially,though we know absolutely nothing abour an exchange of embassiesbetween the two Empires. They had, indeed, common interests inSouthern Italy and the Mediterranean. The Byzantines could not h~lpseeing that relations between the Pope and Louis had not always beencordial and the Byzantine court possibly had under considerat ion a pactwith Louis, promising him mili tary aid against the Arabs on conditionthat he should carry out the decisions of the Council of Constantinopleand depose Nicholas. But these are mere conjectures, except for' astrong presumption in their favour, since Basil, after Michael'sassassination, carried on his friendly policy with Louis II. More wohldhave been known about the negotiations, had we been in possessionof the letter from Photius to Louis' wife, Engelberta, and the letterfrom Michael to Louis, which the metropolitan of Chalcedon, Zachary,had been asked to transmit.3

One thing seems certain, that photius tried to enlist \Vestern aid ,the services of Louis II and of part of the episcopacy against Nicholas.Now, putting on one side all other considerations and concentratina bon this simple fact, I ask: can it be seriouslyadmittecl that the Patriarch,I Liber Ponuficalls (cd. Duchesne), vol. II, PP: 178 seq.; Anastasius the Libradan(Mansi, vol. XVI, col. 5); the Acts of the Eighth Council (Mansi, vol, XVI, sessions

VI I, VIII , IX) ; Merroph.mes of Smyrna (ibid. co!. 417); Nicetas-David, Vita Ignal.ii(P.C. vol. 105, col. 517); the Roman synod of Hadrian II (Mansi, vol. XVI, col's.125, 128). Cf. Hergcnrothcr, Pliotius, vol. I, p;J. 6.19seq.; Jvarnsov-Plaronov,Sv. Patriarlcli Fow, pp. 108 seq.; Bury, lococi t. pp. 201 seq.

2 Nicetas, loc. c it. , col. 5)7. Metropharu-s, loc. cit ., col . 'P7.3 .Cf. what J. Hal.ler says (Nikolaus I unci Pscudo-Lsidor, pp. 94 seq.) about therela tions between Nicho las and Lou is I I abou t the year 867.

12T


17/21

THE PHOTIAN SCHISM. 1. THE HISTORYwishing as he did to secure the assistance of the Latin episcopacy,expected to enlist its support by attacking the whole Western Churchand the venerable customs to which those bishops and the Emperorr were loyally attached? No, fairness and consistency drive us tothe conclusion that the Council of 867 was not aimed at the WesternChurch as such. The anathemas and condemnations hurled by theEastern Fathers against some \\1estern customs were only directedagainst the Roman missionaries of Bulgaria for the purpose of im-pressing Boris and his Boyars; in fact, Photius' encycl ical, I insist, onlymentioned the' so-called' bishops preaching in Bulgaria.These condemnations were meant to be the Eastern Church's reply

to the attacks the Latin missionaries in Bulgaria permitted themselvesupon some century-old customs of the Orientals, attacks and counter-attacks being both understandable in a country where two rival rites.were practised side by side. But i t is worth repeating that the ByzantineGovernment needed a conciliar decree to make any impression onBoris.'Besides, Photius had no reason whatsoever [or falling out with

L 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 of the Holy Ghost [rom the Father only," and the Pope, insteadof rebuking him [or his profession, declared in his letter of 18 March8623 that the faith of Photius was perfectly orthodox. Photius couldthen suppose, or at least pretend, that in this respect the Pope did not1 essentially differ from the Greeks. We shal l presently see that PhotiusI took another declaration of the same kind, that of John VIII, veryseriously+ and that in Byzantium the origin of that doctrine was oftenattributed to Formosus, bishop of Porto, of all men, the leader of theLatin mission to Bulgaria.fIt should also be observed that such accounts of the Council as havecome down to us nowhere mention any condemnation of the \\1estern

Church on the ground of any false doctrine she might have been teachingI Cf. Rosseikin, lac. cit. pp. 424 seq.2 P.C. vol. 102, col. 589: o\hw yap wi Tfi, xpovlKil'> Evvola, o>,oTi>,w, T j Tpla:;

V1TEPI5pv6~aETa l, Kat Ti jS Mi ls ova la , Ti ;'>Flcrrp t, E~ oorrsp 6 > ' E V appevCTTw, Kaiapp~Tws yeyevvl1Tal, TO 81')EKTIETI6pEVTal,6eoAoYIKWSv>,vOAOY116ijoETal.

3 M.C.H. Ep, VI, p. 440: 'Unde directionis vestrae sumptis apicibus laetificatisumus, quia vos catholicum in cis cognovimus. Nam ibi prudentiae vestrae utili-tatem intelleximus ideoque multas gratias Deo omnipotenti retulimus, quia vestrumscire de catholico fonte manare experti sumus.'4 See p. 196. 5 See pp. 2)3, 456 (late t reat is es on schi sm).

122

NICHOLAS, PHOTIUS AND BORISand that the Fathers of the Eighth Council reproved this synod [ornothing but the condemnation of Nicholas.

The opinion that the Council of 867 meant a declaration of warbetween the two Churches and a rupture between the Latins and theGreeks is due to Pope Nicholas' letter to Hincmar, for it was he whoattached to the Bulgarian incident the significance attributed to it s ince.It was only natural that the Pontiff should be looking for allies againstPhotius and that he should try to incense against him the Frankishepiscopate more than any other, for there was real danger threateningfrom that quarter. The Byzant ines were certainly aware of the fact thatthe Roman missionaries had ousted those of the Franks [romBulgaria, a circumstance that may have induced Byzantines and Franksto join hands in their opposit ion to Nicholas. To forestal l such a manger,the Pope had to gain the confidence of the Franks, chiefly Hincmar, byasserting that the interest of the whole Church was at stake: henceNicholas generalizes the accusations made by Photius agairist theBulgarian missionaries, giving the impression that they had been madeagainst the whole Latin Church, and therefore against the Franks aswell.At bottom Nicholas was right, for the customs spread by the Latin

missionaries in Bulgaria were customs dear to the Latins which theFranks, who were exceptionally keen on singing the Filioque in theircreed, also understood. Flattered at having been singled out by thePope to mobilize the Frankish Church, Hincmar did his utmost, and thewritings, composed at his suggestion, Iagainst the Greek denunciations,substantially helped in spreading the opinion throughout the West thatPhotius had indicted the whole Latin Church. Incidentally, the Pope,at the moment of writing to Hincmar, could have no knowledge of theCouncil summoned by Photius.I t is generally assumed, too, that the Council of 867 was up in arms, notonly against the Pope personally, but rather against the very notion ofthe Roman primacy: Photius is alleged to have proclaimed the downfallof Rome from the government of the Universal Church and to havebehaved generally as though he were the supreme head of the Church.I See p. 280. J. Haller, loc. cit. p. 93, disagrees with Percls, lac. cit. p. 167, by

minimizing the Pope's appeal: 'Eher konntc man darin, dass weder von denlothringischcn noch von den westfrankischen Bischofen cine Gesammterkhirungentsprechend der von \Vorms erfolgte, ein Zeichen von Unlust sehen, die durchden angesammelten Verdruss uber die Regierungsweise des Papstes leicht zuerklaren ware.'

123


18/21

. THE PH 0 TI AN SCHI SM. 1. THE HIS TOR YThere is in Nicholas ' letter to Hincmar a passage which seems to confirmtheassumption ;INo wonder tha t they should pretend such things, since they even maintain

and. boast that when the Emperors moved from the Roman city to Con-stantinople, the primacy of the Roman See was also transferred to the churchof Constantinople and that the privileges of the Roman church changedhands together with the royal honours, so much so that the usurper of thatsame Church Photius calls himself in his writings archbishop and universalpatriarch.It does not seem that the words can bear this interpretation. First of

all, when writing this letter on 23 October 867, the Pope knew nothingyet about the Counci l referred to: the synod must have terminated itssittings towards the end of August of the same year, for we learn thatafter the assassinatio

Documents

Francis Dvornik