This was
the first step in an antagonism which was destined to end in schism.
the first step in an antagonism which was destined to end in schism.
Cambridge Medieval History - v4 - Eastern Roman Empire
The warlike Armenian who sat on the Greek
throne invaded Bulgaria in 971, traversed the unguarded Balkan passes,
took Great Prêslav, and released Boris and his family from Russian
captivity, saying that he had “come to avenge the Bulgarians for what
they had suffered from the Russians. ” But when Silistria, the last Russian
stronghold, fell, and the Russians had evacuated Bulgaria, Tzimisces de-
posed Boris and the Bulgarian Patriarch, and annexed eastern Bulgaria
to the Byzantine Empire. Boris was compelled to divest himself of his
regalia, and received a Byzantine court title; his brother was made an
eunuch. Great Prêslav was rebaptized Ioannoupolis after its conqueror;
the eastern Bulgarian Empire was at an end. Western Bulgaria under
the sons of Shishman remained, however, independent for 47 years longer.
Of these four sons, the so-called Comitopouloi (or“Young Counts”), David
was killed by some wandering Wallachs, Moses was slain while besieging
Seres, and Aaron with most of his family was executed for his Greek
sympathies by his remaining brother Samuel, who thus became sole
Bulgarian Tsar. His realm, at the period of its greatest extent (before
the Greek campaigns of 1000-1002), included a considerable part of
Danubian Bulgaria, with the towns of Great Prêslav, Vidin, and Sofia,
and much of Serbia and Albania, but was essentially Macedonian, and
his capital, after a brief residence at Sofia, was moved to Moglena, Vodená,
and Prespa (where an island in the lake still preserves the name of his
“castle”), and finally to the lake of Ochrida, the swamps of which he
drained by 100 canals into the river Drin.
Upon the death of Tzimisces in 976, the Bulgarians rose; both
Boris II and his brother, Roman, escaped from Constantinople, but the
former was shot by a Bulgarian in mistake for a Greek, while the latter,
being harmless, received a post from Samuel, who overran Thrace, the
country round Salonica, and Thessaly, and carried off from Larissa to
his capital at Prespa the remains of St Achilleus, Bishop of Larissa in
the time of Constantine the Great. The ruined monastery of the island
of Ahil in the lake still preserves the memory of this translation. Samuel
even marched into continental Greece and threatened the Peloponnese,
but was recalled by the news that the young Emperor Basil II had in-
vaded Bulgaria. The first of his Bulgarian campaigns, that of 981, ended,
however, ingloriously for the future conqueror of the Bulgarians. Whilst
on his way to besiege Sofia, he was defeated at Shtiponye near Ikhtiman
and with difficulty escaped to Philippopolis. Fifteen years of peace be-
tween the hereditary enemies ensued, which Samuel employed in making
war upon John Vladimir, the saintly Serbian Prince of Dioclea, in
ravaging Dalmatia, and in occupying Durazzo. Bulgaria thus for a brief
space-for Durazzo was soon recovered by the Greeks--became an
## p. 241 (#283) ############################################
Samuel and Basil II
241
Adriatic power. The Serbian prince, carried captive to Prespa, won the
heart of Samuel's daughter Kosara, who begged her father to release him
and allow her to marry him. Samuel not only consented, but allowed
him to return and rule over his conquered land.
In 996 began the second war between Basil II and the Bulgarians.
Basil, free at last from the cares of the civil wars, had appointed Taronites
governor of Salonica for the special purpose of checking Samuel's raids.
The new governor, however, fell with his son into a Bulgarian ambush
and was killed ; whereupon Basil sent Nicephorus Uranus to take his
place. Meanwhile Samuel, elated at his success, had marched again
through the vale of Tempe as far as the Peloponnese, ravaging and
plundering as he went. But this time he was not to return unscathed.
On his way back Uranus waited for him on the bank of the swollen
Spercheus, and, crossing in the night, fell upon the sleeping Bulgarian
soldiers, who had believed it impossible to ford the river. Samuel and
his son, Gabriel Radomir Roman, were wounded and only escaped capture
by lying as if dead among the corpses which strewed the field, fleeing,
when it was dark, to the passes of Pindus. From that moment Samuel's
fortune turned. His next loss was that of Durazzo, betrayed to the
Greeks by his father-in-law, the chief man of the place, and by the captive
son of Taronites, who had obtained the affections of another of the
Tsar's susceptible daughters, and had been allowed to marry her and had
received a command at that important position. The Greeks everywhere
took the offensive. In 1000 they entered and again subdued Danubian
Bulgaria, taking Great and Little Prêslav and Pliska, which is now
mentioned after a long interval. Next year Basil cleared the Bulgarian
garrisons out of the south Macedonian towns of Berrhoea, Servia, and
Vodená, and out of the Thessalian castles, removing them to Voleros at
the mouth of the Maritza. To this campaign we owe the first description,
which enlivens the prose of Cedrenus', of the waterfall of Vodená— the
Tivoli of Macedonia. In 1002 Vidin and Skoplje fell, and Samuel, believing
that the Vardar could not be crossed, once again nearly became the prisoner
of the Greeks. Hostilities dragged on, and Basil for the next twelve years
annually invaded the western Bulgarian Empire, which was now reduced
to part of Macedonia, Albania, and the mountains round Sofia. But in
1014 the third and last Bulgarian war of the reign broke out. On 29 July
Nicephorus Xiphias turned the strong Bulgarian position of Kleidion
("the key") in the Struma valley, near the scene of King Constantine's
victories over the Bulgarians 900 years later. Samuel escaped, thanks to
his son's assistance, to Prilep, but Basil blinded the 15,000 Bulgarian
captives, leaving one man in every hundred with one eye, so that he might
guide his totally blinded comrades to tell the tale to the fugitive Tsar.
Samuel fainted at the ghastly sight and two days later expired.
The western Bulgarian Empire survived him only four years. His
II. 436, 447, 449–56.
1
C. MED. U, VOL. IV. CH. VIII.
16
## p. 242 (#284) ############################################
242
Fall of Western Bulgaria
son, Gabriel Roman, by a captive from Larissa succeeded him, but
excelled him in physique alone. Barely a year later Gabriel was murdered
by his cousin John Vladislav, Aaron's son, whose life he had begged his
father to
spare
when Aaron and the rest of his family were put to death.
The ungrateful wretch likewise assassinated his cousin's wife, blinded her
eldest son, and invited the Serbian Prince, John Vladimir, to be his
guest at Prespa and there had him beheaded. Having thus removed all
possible rivals in his own family, the new Tsar began to treat with Basil,
whose vassal he offered to become. Basil, mistrusting the murderer,
marched upon his capital of Ochrida, blinding all the Bulgarians whom
he took prisoners on the way. He captured Ochrida and was on his way
to relieve Durazzo, which was invested by the Bulgarians, when a sudden
defeat, inflicted upon a detachment of his army by the Bulgarian noble,
Ivats, caused him to retire on Salonica. The Bulgarians continued to
make a vigorous defence of their difficult country; Pernik successfully
resisted a siege of 88 days; the Tsar even endeavoured to make an
alliance with the Patzinaks from beyond the Danube against the
Greeks. But he fell by an unknown hand while besieging Durazzo in
1018. Bulgaria, left without a head, was divided into two parties--one,
headed by the widowed Tsaritsa Maria, the Patriarch David, and Bog-
dan, “the commander of the inner fortresses"; the other and weaker
party, led by the late Tsar’s son Fruyin, and the soldierly Ivats. Upon
the news of the Tsar's death, Basil marched into Bulgaria to complete
the subjection of the country. At Strumitsa the Patriarch met him with
a letter from the Tsaritsa, offering on certain conditions to surrender
Bulgaria. Bogdan was rewarded with a Byzantine title for his treachery,
and then the Emperor proceeded to Ochrida, where he confiscated the
rich treasury of the Tsars. In his camp outside there waited upon him
the Tsaritsa with her six daughters and three of her sons, a bastard son
of Samuel, and the five sons and two daughters of Gabriel Radomir
Roman. The conqueror received her kindly, as well as the notables who
made their submission. Her three other sons, however, of whom Fruyin
was the most prominent, had fled to Mt. Tomor near Berat, where they
endeavoured to maintain the independence of Bulgaria in the Albanian
highlands, while Ivats held out in his castle of Pronishta in the same
mountainous region. The young princes, however, were forced to sur-
render and compensated with court titles; the brave Ivats was treacher-
ously seized and blinded. The last two nobles who still held out then
surrendered. After nearly 40 years of fighting, Bulgaria was subdued.
The “Bulgar-slayer,” as Basil II is known in history, celebrated his
triumph in the noblest of all existing churches, the majestic Parthenon,
then Our Lady of Athens. On his march he gazed upon the bleaching
bones of the Bulgarians who had fallen by the Spercheus twenty-two years
before, and upon the walls erected in the pass of Thermopylae to repel
their invasions. The great cathedral he enriched with offerings out of
יל
## p. 243 (#285) ############################################
Bulgaria a Byzantine province
243
the Bulgarian treasury, and 900 years later the Athenians were reminded
of his triumph there. Thence he returned to Constantinople, where the
ex-Tsaritsa, Samuel's daughters, and the rest of the Bulgarians were led
through the Golden Gate before him.
BULGARIA A BYZANTINE PROVINCE (1018–1186).
Bulgaria remained for 168 years a Byzantine province. Her nobles
had lost their leaders, her princes and princesses had disappeared amidst
the pompous functionaries of the Byzantine Court. Only her Church
remained autonomous, but that only on condition that the Patriarchate,
which during the period of the western Bulgarian Empire had had its seat
successively at Vodená, Prespa, and finally at Ochrida, was reduced to the
rank of an Archbishopric. In 1020 Basil II issued three charters' con-
firming the rights of “the Archbishop of Bulgaria"—the additional title
of “Justiniana Prima” was added in 1157—whose residence continued
to be at Ochrida, whither it had been moved by Simeon. He expressly
maintained intact the rights and area of its jurisdiction as it had been
in the times of both Peter and Samuel, which therefore included 30
bishoprics and towns, such as Ochrida, Kastoria, Monastir, and Skoplje in
Macedonia; Sofia and Vidin in old Bulgaria; Belgrade, Niš, Prizren, and
Rasa in what is now Jugoslavia; Canina (above Avlona), Cheimarra,
Butrinto, and Joannina in South Albania and Northern Epirus; and Stagi
(the modern Kalabaka) in Thessaly. We may therefore safely assume that
in the palmy days of Peter and of Samuel these places were included
within their respective Empires. In 1020 these thirty bishoprics contained
685 ecclesiastics and 655 serfs. But after Basil II's reign the number of
the suffragans was reduced practically to what it had been in the time of
Samuel, and after the first archbishop no more Bulgarians were appointed
to the see of Ochrida during the Byzantine period. The head of the
autonomous Bulgarian Church was always a Greek and often a priest
from St Sophia itself, except on one occasion when a Jew was nominated,
and the list includes the distinguished theologian and letter-writer,
Theophylact of Euboea, who felt as an exile his separation from culture
in the wilds of Bulgaria, and John Camaterus, afterwards Ecumenical
Patriarch at the time of the Latin conquest of Constantinople. The
Bogomile heresy made great progress during this period, especially round
Philippopolis, despite its persecution by the Emperor Alexius I. For
the civil and military administration of Bulgaria a new (Bulgarian) theme
was created under a Pronoetes? and also a duchy of Paristrium, while
the neighbouring themes had their territory enlarged. The various
governors, holding office usually for only a year, made as much out of
their districts as possible in the customary Oriental fashion; but the
local communities retained a considerable measure of autonomy, and we
לל
1 BZ. 11. 40–72. 2 Cf. infra, Chapter xxiii, p. 733.
CH. VIII.
16-2
## p. 244 (#286) ############################################
244
Bulgarian rising of 1040
וי
are expressly told that Basil left the taxes as they had been in the time
of Samuel, payable in kind.
The Bulgarians did not, however, remain inactive during this long
period of Byzantine rule. A succession of weak rulers and court intrigues
followed the death of Basil “the Bulgar-slayer. ” The Bulgarian prince
Fruyin, and his mother the ex-Tsaritsa, were mixed up in these intrigues,
both imprisoned in monasteries, and the former blinded. In 1040 a more
serious movement arose. Simultaneous insurrections broke out among
the Serbs of what is now Montenegro and the Bulgarians, who found a
leader in a certain Peter Delyan, who gave himself out to be a son of the
Tsar Gabriel Radomir Roman. Greeted enthusiastically as Tsar, he had
the country at his feet, so lively was the memory of the old dynasty.
But a rival appeared in the person of the warlike Tikhomir, who was
acclaimed Tsar by the Slavs of Durazzo. Delyan invited his rival and
the Bulgarians that were with him to a meeting, at which he told them
that “one bush could not nourish two redbreasts," and bade them choose
between Tikhomir and the grandson of Samuel, promising to abide loyally
by their decision. Loud applause greeted his speech; the people stoned
Tikhomir and proclaimed Delyan their sole sovereign. He marched upon
Salonica, whence the Emperor Michael IV the Paphlagonian fled, while
his chamberlain, Ivats, perhaps a son of the Bulgarian patriot, went over
with his war chest to the insurgents. One Bulgarian army took Durazzo;
another invaded Greece and defeated the imperial forces before Thebes;
the entire province of Nicopolis (except Naupactus) joined the Bulgar-
ians, infuriated at the exactions of the Byzantine tax-collector and at
the substitution, by the unpopular finance minister, John, the Emperor's
brother, of cash payments for payments in kind. But another Bulgarian
leader now appeared in the person of Alusian, younger brother of the
Tsar John Vladislav, and Delyan's cousin, whom the grasping minister's
greed had also driven to revolt. Delyan wisely offered to share the first
place with this undoubted scion of the stock of Shishman--for his own
claims to the blood royal were impugned. But a great defeat of the
Bulgarians before Salonica, which was ascribed to the intervention of
that city's patron saint, St Demetrius, led to recriminations and suspicions.
Alusian invited his rival to a banquet, made him drunk, and blinded him.
The double-dyed traitor then betrayed his country to the Emperor, the
revolt was speedily crushed, and Delyan and Ivats were led in triumph
to Constantinople.
Another Bulgarian rising took place in 1073, and from the same
cause—the exactions of the imperial treasury, which continued to ignore
the wise practice of Basil II and the lessons of the last rebellion. Having
no prominent leader of their own to put on the throne, the Bulgarian
chiefs begged Michael, first King of the Serbian state of Dioclea, to
send them his son, Constantine Bodin, whom they proclaimed “Tsar of
the Bulgarians” at Prizren under the popular name of Peter, formerly
## p. 245 (#287) ############################################
Further risings
245
לל
borne by Simeon's saintly son. But there was a party among the Bul-
garians hostile to what was doubtless regarded as a foreign movement;
the insurgents made the mistake, after their initial successes, of dividing
their forces, and were defeated at Paun (“the peacock” castle) on the
historic field of Kossovo, where Bodin was taken prisoner. Frankish mer-
cenaries in Byzantine employ completed the destruction by burning down
the palace of the Tsars on the island in the lake of Prespa and sacking
the church of St Achilleus. Worse still were the frequent raids of the
Patzinaks and Cumans, while Macedonia was the theatre of the Norman
invasion. But, except for occasional and quickly suppressed risings of
Bulgarians and Bogomiles, there was no further serious insurrection for
over 100 years. Under the Comnenian dynasty the Bulgarians were
better governed, and they lacked local leaders to face a series of energetic
Emperors.
CH. VIII.
## p. 246 (#288) ############################################
246
CHAPTER IX.
THE GREEK CHURCH: ITS RELATIONS
WITH THE WEST UP TO 1054.
AFTER the festival in honour of the restoration of the images
(11 March 843), the last religious differences between the East and West
seemed to have disappeared, and yet the course of events during the
Iconoclast controversy had seriously modified the conditions under which
the relations between Rome and Constantinople had been hitherto
maintained.
The Papacy emerged from that long dispute completely emancipated
politically from the Byzantine Empire. After the accession of Paul I
(757) the Pope no longer applied to the Emperor of Constantinople for
the ratification of his election but to the King of the Franks, and after
the year 800 to the Emperor of the West. After Pope Hadrian the year
of the reign of the Eastern Emperors no longer appears in the papal
bulls, and nothing is more significant than this breaking with an ancient
tradition
It cannot be disputed that after the second Council of Nicaea (787),
held in the presence of the papal legates, relations had been renewed
between Rome and Constantinople, which continued until the second
abolition of image-worship (815). But neither the Empress Irene nor
her successors dreamt of revoking the edict of Leo the Isaurian which
had deprived the Roman Church of its patrimony in the East and of its
jurisdiction over Southern Italy and Illyricum. A still more illuminating
fact is that, when the Empress Theodora restored image-worship in 843,
she did not treat with the Pope as Irene had done, and the new Patriarch
Methodius ordered the anathema to be launched against the iconoclasts
without the co-operation of Rome.
Two distinct and opposed attitudes towards the Pope may, in fact, be
seen in the Greek Church. On the one hand the superior clergy, largely
recruited from among laymen, ex-governors or high officials, steeped in
the doctrines of Caesaropapism, could not shew much enthusiasm and
indeed felt considerable misgivings towards a pontiff who, since the events
of the year 800, had been the mainstay of the Emperors of the West,
1 Kleinclausz, L'empire carolingien, ses origines et ses transformations, Paris, 1902,
p. 165.
## p. 247 (#289) ############################################
The Greek Church and Rome
247
regarded at Byzantium as usurpers. A large number of these prelates
had adhered to iconoclast doctrines, and in 843 many of them tried to
obliterate this past by a reconciliation with orthodoxy.
On the other hand, these high official clergy were confronted by the
monks, and especially the Studites, who had defended image-worship
even to martyrdom, and were resolute opponents to the interference of
the Emperors in the affairs of the Church. Their fundamental doctrine
was complete liberty as against the State in matters of dogma no less
than of discipline. But the one effective guarantee of this liberty for
them was the close union of the Greek Church with Rome. They recog-
nised in the successor to St Peter the spiritual authority denied to the
Emperor. Theodore of Studion, in his correspondence with the Popes
and sovereigns, emphasises the necessity of submitting to the arbitration
of the Pope all the difficulties which may perplex the Church', and for
a long time the monastery of Studion was considered the stronghold of
the Roman party at Byzantium.
For these reasons the restoration of image-worship in 843, even if it
was an undeniable victory for the Studites, was not so complete a success
as they had wished, and the Patriarch Methodius, himself formerly a
monk but animated by a conciliatory spirit and desirous above all things
of restoring peace in the Church, made several vigorous attacks on their
uncompromising policy. On the other side, the elevation to the Patri-
archate in 846 of Ignatius, son of the Emperor Michael Rangabé, who
during his brief reign had been the protector and almost the servant of
the Studites, seemed to assure definitely the triumph of their doctrines.
Brought up in exile on Princes Islands, Ignatius was a true ascetic and
had fervently embraced all the principles of Studite reform. Friendly
relations with Rome seemed therefore assured, but a significant incident
shewed that the new Patriarch, however well disposed he might be towards
the Pope, did not propose to abandon one jot of his autonomy. Gregory
Asbestas, Archbishop of Syracuse, having taken refuge at Constantinople,
was condemned by a synod for certain irregularities. He appealed to
Pope Leo IV, who commanded Ignatius to send him the acts of the
synod; the Patriarch refused, and the matter remained unsettled. Bene-
dict III, who succeeded Leo IV in 899, refused to confirm the deposition
of Gregory Asbestas and contented himself with suspending him until he
had seen the evidence? Thus, though the relations between Rome and
Constantinople had once more become normal and the good will of Ignatius
and the Studites towards the Pope was manifestly great, the long sepa-
ration due to the Iconoclastic dispute had borne fruit; the Greek Church
had become accustomed to complete autonomy, so far as Rome went,
and its bishops, who fostered feelings of distrust and even hostility
against her, only awaited an opportunity to shew them. The crisis in
1 MPG, xcix. cols. 141, 1017, 1020, 1192, 1332.
2 Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, pp. 184–185.
CB. IX.
## p. 248 (#290) ############################################
248
Ignatius and Photius
the Patriarchate, which was the result of the deposition of Ignatius, soon
supplied them with the desired opportunity.
Ignatius had made many enemies for himself by his uncompromising
character and his unbending austerity, which did not spare those who
held the highest places. In 858 he dared to attack the Caesar Bardas,
whose profligacy was a public scandal, and refused to administer the
sacrament to him. Bardas avenged this insult by banishing Ignatius to
the island of Terebinthus, after having implicated him in an imaginary
plot against the Emperor (27 November 858). Then, being unable to
extort from him an act of abdication, and without even waiting for the
result of the trial which was pending, Bardas raised to the patriarchal
throne a layman, the protoasecretis Photius, one of the most renowned
teachers in the University of Constantinople.
Photius, if we can believe his letters', appears to have hesitated at
first to accept the post, but ended by allowing himself to be persuaded,
and within six days was professed a monk and received all the eccle-
siastical orders. On 25 December 858 he was consecrated Patriarch in St
Sophia. He represented the party of the high clergy which had adopted
once more the tradition of Tarasius, Nicephorus, and Methodius, and he
met at once with violent opposition from the monks, especially from the
Studites, whose Abbot Nicholas of Studion refused to take the com-
munion with him, and was banished. He therefore thought it expedient
to consolidate his power by a reconciliation with Rome. In 860 a solemn
embassy, consisting of four bishops and a high lay official, was sent to
Pope Nicholas. Its object was to invite the Pope to assemble a council
to settle the dispute as to image-worship, and more especially to obtain
the papal recognition of Photius as lawful Patriarch. This step in itself
shews that Photius at that time accepted generally the jurisdiction of the
Pope.
But Nicholas I refused to recognise the election of Photius without
fuller information, and, after protesting against the deposition of Ignatius,
he despatched to Constantinople two legates, Radoald, Bishop of Porto,
and Zacharias, Bishop of Anagni, with instructions to hold an inquiry
and to treat Ignatius provisionally as lawful Patriarch. No efforts were
spared at Constantinople to conceal this news. The legates as soon as
they arrived (February 861) were secluded and prevented from com-
municating with Ignatius and his partisans. Pressure was brought to bear
on them by threats and even by bribes. They allowed themselves to be
persuaded and, contrary to their instructions, they consented to preside
at a council which was convened at the Holy Apostles (May 861), and
pronounced the deposition of Ignatius, after suborned witnesses had been
1
Loparev, Byzantine lives of the saints of the eighth and ninth centuries (Vizan-
tiyski Vremennik, xvii. 1913, p. 49).
2 Vita S. Nicolai Studitae (MPG, cv. col. 863; cf. Loparev, Vizantiyski Vremennik,
XVII. p. 189).
## p. 249 (#291) ############################################
Conflict between Photius and Nicholas I
249
produced to affirm that the accused had been elected contrary to the
canons? .
But when the legates returned to Rome, loaded with presents from
Photius, the Pope received them with indignation and repudiated all
their acts. In an encyclical addressed to the three Eastern Patriarchs
he declared that the deposition of Ignatius was illegal and that Photius
improperly held the see of Constantinople. In answer to a letter from
Photius, brought by an imperial secretary, in which the Patriarch seemed
to treat with him on equal terms, the Pope reminded him that the see of
Rome was the supreme head of all the Churches. Finally, at the request
of some partisans of Ignatius, including the Archimandrite Theognostus,
who had succeeded in escaping to Rome, he called a council at the Lateran
palace (April 863), which summoned Photius to resign all his powers on
pain of excommunication; the same injunction was laid on all the bishops
consecrated by Photius? .
The dispute thus entered the domain of law, and the issue at stake
was the jurisdiction of the Pope over the Church at Constantinople.
Before taking the final step and embarking on schism, Photius seems to
have hesitated and to have adopted diplomatic means at first. He in-
duced the Emperor Michael to write a letter to the Pope, which was in
the nature of an ultimatum. The Emperor threatened to march on Rome
in the event of Nicholas refusing to revoke his sentences, and repudiated
the doctrine of the supreme jurisdiction of the papacy. Nicholas, making
the widest concessions, offered to revise the judgment of the council if
Ignatius and Photius would consent to appear before him at Rome? .
Photius, on his side, was fully posted in Western affairs, and knew that the
uncompromising character of Nicholas roused keen opposition in those
parts. He had favourably received a memorandum from the Archbishops
of Cologne and Trèves, who had been deposed by the Pope for having
consented to the divorce of Lothar II. In the course of the
year
863
Photius addressed letters to the Western clergy and to the Emperor
Louis II to demand the deposition of Nicholas by a Council of the
Church'. This was not yet rupture with the West, since by acting as he
did he hoped to find a more conciliatory Pope than Nicholas. Neverthe-
less, when he learned of the arrival of Roman legates in Bulgaria, consider-
ing their interference with this newly-founded Church as an encroachment
on the rights of the Patriarchate, he convoked a synod (867), which
formally condemned the Latin uses introduced into the Bulgarian Church,
and more particularly the double procession of the Holy Ghost.
This was
the first step in an antagonism which was destined to end in schism.
1 Mansi, Concilia, xv. 179-202. Vita Ignatii 19-21 (MPG, cv. col. 488).
2 Nicolaus, Epist. 7 (Mansi, Concilia, xv. col. 178–183).
3 Nicolaus, Epist. 8 (Mansi, Concilia, xv. 187-216).
Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, p. 200. Gay, L'Italie méridionale et l'empire
byzantin, pp. 80–82.
4
CE. IX,
## p. 250 (#292) ############################################
250
The schism of Photius
Matters came rapidly to a head. In November 866 the Pope resolved
to address a final appeal to Constantinople, and despatched fresh legates
with orders to put letters into the hands of the Emperor and principal
personages of the court. Photius then took the decisive step, and it is
possible that this decision was influenced by the raising of Basil to the
imperial throne as colleague to Michael after the murder of Bardas. He
wished to confront the future Emperor, whose hostility he anticipated,
with an accomplished fact. In the course of the summer of 867 a council
presided over by the Emperor Michael pronounced the excommunication
of Pope Nicholas, declared the practices of the Roman Church to be
heretical as opposed to Greek use, and stigmatised the intervention of
that hurch in the affairs of Constantinople as unlawful. The resolutions
of the council were sent by Photius to the Eastern Patriarchs in the form
of an encyclical, in which he bitterly condemned all the peculiar usages
of the Western Churches: the addition of the Filioque to the creed,
the Saturday fast, the use of eggs in Lent, the custom of the clergy of
shaving the beard, and others. Two bishops went to take the acts of the
council to Italy. The Pope, desirous of justifying Western uses, com-
manded Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, to convoke provincial councils
in order to answer the objections of the Greeks!
The split between the East and the West was thus effected. It is
clear that the differences in the uses quoted by Photius were not the real
cause of the schism. From the dogmatic point of view the East and the
West participated in the same faith, that of the Ecumenical Councils.
The addition of the Filioque to the creed modified in appearance the
idea which was formed of the relations between the Persons of the
Trinity, but in no respect changed the dogma itself. It was not impos-
sible, as indeed subsequent events shewed, to come to some agreement as
to Church discipline and the liturgy. At the close of the year 867 the
two apostles of the Slavs, Constantine (Cyril), a pupil of Photius, and
his brother Methodius, arrived at Rome, bringing with them the relics of
St Clement. Pope Nicholas was dead and it was his successor Hadrian II
who consecrated them bishops (5 January 868) and, by giving the name
of Cyril to Constantine, paid homage to the great Patriarch of Alex-
andria who had formerly been the connecting link between the East and
Rome. He further approved the translation of the Scriptures made by
the two apostles, as well as their liturgy in the Slavonic tongue? . No act
shews more clearly the conciliatory spirit of the two Churches in the
matter of uses. The cause of the separation cannot therefore be found
here, but must be attributed to the regard for its autonomy which inspired
1 Among the answers are quoted those of Odo, Bishop of Beauvais, and Aeneas,
Bishop of Paris. Text of the Encyclical of Photius, MPG, cii. cols. 724–731.
See Hefele, Histoire des Conciles (French translation by Leclercq, 1911), vol. iv.
Pp. 442-449.
2
Leger, Cyrille et Méthode, pp. 100-103. Cf. supra, Chapter vil(B), pp. 224-5.
## p. 251 (#293) ############################################
Deposition of Photius
251
the Church of Constantinople. Photius, by championing this cause, easily
led with him the bishops who, like himself, refused to admit the supreme
jurisdiction of the Pope in disciplinary matters. We shall further see
that even on this question the Greeks were far from being obstinate, and
admitted the intervention of the Pope when it served their interests.
Their attitude towards Rome was, in reality, always dependent on the
vicissitudes of their own disputes.
It was a palace revolution in the end which overthrew Photius and
revived relations with Rome. Some months after the council held by the
Patriarch, the murder of Michael III brought Basil the Macedonian to
the throne. The new Emperor disliked Photius, possibly because he had
been a favourite of Bardas. He saw also that the re-instatement of Ignatius,
whom the people esteemed a martyr, would conduce to his own personal
popularity. The very day after his accession (25 September 867) he had
Photius imprisoned in a monastery, and with great ceremony re-instated
Ignatius in the patriarchal chair (23 November 867). All the bishops
and archimandrites exiled by Photius were recalled.
Thus to obtain his political ends Basil formally recognised a juris-
diction in the Pope by sending him a double embassy composed of
partisans of Ignatius and of Photius, with instructions to ask him to
re-establish peace in the Church of Constantinople by calling a council
and effecting a reconciliation with the bishops consecrated by Photius.
In a synod held at St Peter's, at the close of the year 868, Pope Hadrian
II, the successor of Nicholas I, solemnly condemned the council of 867 and
convoked a council at Constantinople. Stephen, Bishop of Nepi, Donatus,
Bishop of Ostia, and a priest, Marinus, were chosen to represent him there.
After a difficult journey the legates entered Constantinople by the
Golden Gate on 29 September 869. Basil received them with the greatest
honours, and testified in their presence to his veneration for the Church
of Rome," the mother of all the other Churches. ” But it was manifest
from the very first sittings of the Council, which opened on 9 October 869
and took the title of Ecumenical, that a misunderstanding existed
between the Emperor and the legates. The Emperor, solicitous for the
interests of the State, wished first and foremost to re-establish peace in
the Church. He had been surprised to see that, differing from Nicholas I,
Pope Hadrian II had condemned Photius unheard and on the sole evidence
of the partisans of Ignatius. In order that the peace might be permanent, ,
and to prevent Photius and his followers from being able to plead an
abuse of justice, it was necessary that the Council should revise the sentence
and deliver a full and detailed judgment. This was the purport of the in-
structions given to the Patrician Baanes, president of the lay commission
which represented the Emperor at the Council. The Pope's standpoint
was quite different. His legates had only been instructed by him to
1 Vogt, Basile I, pp. 210-212. Loparev, Byzantine lives of the saints of the eighth
and ninth centuries (Vizantiyski Vremennik, vol. xviii. p. 61).
CH, X.
H
## p. 252 (#294) ############################################
252
Ecumenical Council (869-870)
publish the sentence against Photius, pronounced by his predecessor and
confirmed by him. They had the further duty of reconciling with the
Church those bishops, followers of Photius, who should consent to sign
the libellus satisfactionis brought by them. The jurisdiction of the Pope,
differently understood in the East and the West, was the real matter at
issue?
Baanes won an initial success by demanding that Photius and his
followers should be brought before the Council to tender their defence
there. On 20 October Photius appeared, but remained mute to all interro-
gations. His condemnation was then renewed, but the legates observed
that they were not re-trying the case but were merely publishing the
sentence already formulated. Basil accepted this compromise, which was
tantamount to a defeat for him, and came in person to preside at the
concluding sessions of the Council, which broke up on 28 February 870.
Thus the Ecumenical Council, which was intended to smooth all the
religious difficulties, only ended in increasing the distrust between Rome
and Constantinople. Basil certainly lavished friendly words and assur-
ances of orthodoxy on the legates at the ceremony which marked the
closing of the Council, but his acts discounted his speeches. Some days
previously, to gratify the old partisans of Photius who regretted having
signed the libellus satisfactionis, he had seized all the copies of that
document at the house of the legates in spite of their protests but then
consented to allow them to be deposited with Anastasius the Librarian,
ambassador of the Emperor Louis II at Constantinople. Further, this
scholar was requested by the legates to compare the Greek and Latin
texts of the acts of the Council, when he perceived with astonishment
that a letter of Pope Hadrian had been tampered with, and that the com-
pliments which he paid to the Emperor Louis II had been suppressed? .
The most grave incident occurred three days after the close of the
Council. The Bulgarians had received baptism from the Greek mis-
sionaries sent by Photius, but their Tsar Boris, whose ambition was to
see an ecclesiastical hierarchy founded in Bulgaria with a Patriarch at
its head, being unable to obtain it from Constantinople, had applied to
Rome. Nicholas I had sent a mission to Bulgaria under the direction
of Formosus, Bishop of Porto, who replaced the Greek ritual everywhere
by the Latin, and Photius had on other occasions protested against this
interference. But when Boris called upon the Pope to create Formosus
Patriarch, he met with a flat refusal. Then it was that, turning to Con-
stantinople, he sent an embassy to implore the Council to decide to which
Church Bulgaria should belong.
The Emperor assembled once more the fathers of the Council and
tried to obtain from the legates the formal recognition of the jurisdiction
of the Patriarch of Constantinople over Bulgaria. The legates protested
1 Vogt, Basile I, pp. 215–218.
2 Vogt, op. cit. pp. 218–227.
## p. 253 (#295) ############################################
Re-instatement of Photius
253
vehemently that they had not received any instructions on this point, and
that Bulgaria was besides directly amenable to the see of Rome. Hardly,
however, had the legates left when the Patriarch Ignatius consecrated an
archbishop and ten bishops for Bulgaria. Photius would not have acted
otherwise, and nothing shews more clearly than this affair the inherited
misunderstanding which separated the leaders of the two Churches? .
When the legates took leave of the Emperor, so strained were the
relations that Basil was mean enough not to make any arrangements for
facilitating their return. Their journey, which lasted nine months, was
most arduous: they were captured by Slav pirates and lost all their
archives, and only reached Rome on 22 December 870. By good fortune
Anastasius the Librarian, who had embarked for the same destination,
had safely brought the acts of the Council and the copies of the libellus
satisfactionis. Hadrian II wrote an indignant letter to Basil, in which
he complained of the manner in which his legates had been treated on
their return and also of the interference of Ignatius in Bulgaria ; but
nothing came of it, and the Bulgarian Church remained definitely attached
to Constantinople. Finally, as a mark of his dissatisfaction, the Pope
refused to pardon the followers of Photius for whom the Emperor had
interceded.
But soon, by the usual reversal of Byzantine opinion, Photius, who had
been imprisoned in a monastery, succeeded in regaining the good graces
of Basil and was recalled to Constantinople? . Ignatius continued to
govern the Church, but three days after his death, which took place on
23 October 877, Photius was re-instated on the patriarchal throne, and,
according to the Vita Ignatii, he began by banishing and ill-treating the
principal adherents of Ignatius. But what was to be his attitude towards
Rome? Logically he ought to have refrained from any relations with
the Pope. He did nothing of the kind, and asked Pope John VIII to
recognise his re-instatement. The Emperor, who supported this request,
had evidently no wish for a rupture with Rome, and placed at the same
time his fleet at the disposal of the Pope to defend Italy against the
Saracens.
The circumstances were therefore favourable for the union. John VIII
consented to recognise Photius as Patriarch on condition that he should
ask pardon before a synod for his past conduct and should abstain from
any interference in Bulgaria. A council then opened at Constantinople
in November 879, but Basil, overwhelmed with sorrow at the loss of his
only legitimate son, Constantine, was not present and did not even send
a representative. Photius, having thus. a free hand, easily outwitted the
legates, who were ignorant of Greek and were unaware that the Pope's
1 Vogt, op. cit. pp. 223-230.
2 According to the Vita Ignatii, 52 and Symeon Magister, vii. 752, he won the
favour of the Emperor by forging a genealogy which connected the family of Basil
with the Armenian dynasties.
CH. II.
## p. 254 (#296) ############################################
254
Disgrace and death of Photius
letter, translated into that language, had been garbled. The Patriarch
gave a lengthy defence of his conduct and was rapturously applauded
by the 383 bishops present. The question of the Bulgarian Church was
referred to the decision of the Emperor; the council refused to admit the
prohibition, desired by the Pope, of nominating laymen to the epis-
copate; finally, by pronouncing the anathema against all who should add
anything to the faith of Nicaea, it once more brought up the question
of the Filioque?
Photius had triumphed; it was only three years later, in 882, that
the Pope, thanks to an inquiry made by a new legate, Marinus, who was
sent to Constantinople, learned what had really happened at the council.
John VIII in indignation declared the legates of 879 deposed, and ex-
communicated Photius. The rupture was complete, and the two Churches
were thus separated by a new schism, which persisted under John's suc-
cessors, Marinus, Hadrian III, and Stephen V, who exchanged letters full
of recriminations with Basil.
The death of Basil in 886 was followed by an astonishing coup de
théâtre, and Photius was once more disgraced. Leo VI, the heir to the
throne, who passed for an illegitimate son of Michael III and Eudocia
Ingerina, was fired with an intense hatred of Photius. Although he had
been his pupil, he had quarrelled with him. He charged him with having
intrigued with Basil to deprive him of the throne, and there was even
talk at Byzantium that the ambitious Patriarch had contemplated either
himself assuming the imperial throne or giving it to one of his relations? .
The fact remains that Leo VI had hardly attained to power before he
pronounced the deposition of Photius. The strategus Andrew and the
superintendent of the posts, John Hagiopolites, were commanded to go
to St Sophia, where the synod had been assembled. They read out a
long recital of all the crimes of which Photius was accused; the Patri-
arch was then stripped of his episcopal vestments and conducted to a
monastery, where he lived for another five years (886-891). An assembly
of bishops elected Stephen, the Emperor's brother, as Patriarch? .
At the same time one of Photius' principal followers, Theodore
Santabarenus, was arrested in his diocese of Euchaita, conducted to Con-
stantinople, and put into solitary confinement. The Emperor tried to
induce him to accuse Photius of plotting against him, but when con-
fronted with the ex-Patriarch the abbot revealed nothing. Leo VI was
furious and ordered him to be scourged and banished first to Athens,
where his eyes were put out, and thence to the eastern frontier.
Photius thus came out of the struggle apparently defeated, and left
the Greek Church more rent asunder than at his accession. Some hagio-
graphic documents drawn up at this period throw strong light on the
i Vogt, op. cit. pp. 239-244.
2 Vogt, op. cit. p. 249.
3 Mansi, Concilia, xviii. 201.
## p. 255 (#297) ############################################
Contemporary judgments on Photius
255
was
divided attitude of the Greek clergy towards the question of relations
with Rome. The author of the life of St Joseph the Hymn-writer,
Theophanes the Sicilian, who wrote in the last years of the ninth century,
when nearing the end of his work, prays the saint to ask Christ for
the cessation of the disputes and for the restoration of peace in the
Church, and later he vehemently urges Joseph to obtain by his prayers
the boon that orthodoxy remain inviolate! Such was indisputably the
desire of a large part of the Greek clergy, and of the monks of Studion
in particular, whose Igumen, Anthony, had passed almost the whole
patriarchate of Photius in exile.
On the other hand, the life of St Euthymius the Younger of Thessa-
lonica strikes a somewhat different note. The author, Basil, Archbishop
of Thessalonica, admittedly a supporter of Photius, gives a brief but
very partisan account of the vicissitudes of the struggle between Photius
and Ignatius, and throws all the responsibility for the schism onto the
imperial policy. If he abstains from attacking Ignatius, he none the less
considers Photius to be a saint. “ The Iconoclast heresy,” he says,
already extinct. St Methodius after having governed the Church for five
years had returned to the Lord. Ignatius the Holy had been raised to
the episcopal throne of Constantinople. He governed it for ten years. . . .
In consequence of the persecutions of those who then reigned he left his
throne and his Church, the one voluntarily, the other under compulsion.
He retired to a monastery and published an act of abdication. . . . The
news of this forced abdication soon spread, and in consequence many
refused to take communion with the new Patriarch. The very holy
Nicholas [of Studion), not wishing to have any dealings with him, pre-
ferred to leave his monastery, the new Patriarch being orthodox and
invested with all virtues. This was the blessed Photius, the torch (TOU
owtós) whose rays illuminated the ends of the earth". Then follows a
eulogy of Photius and his incomparable life, and an account of his miracles.
This curious testimony gives us the version of the events which had
been prepared by the adherents of Photius. It shews us the deep im-
pression which this man, who had nothing of the apostle in him but was
first and foremost a politician and a diplomatist, had produced by his
intrepidity. He had posed as a champion of orthodoxy against Rome,
and had thus bequeathed to his successors a formidable weapon
which
was destined to render any new agreement between the two Churches un-
stable and precarious.
Immediately after the deposition of Photius, Leo VI had opened
negotiations with the Pope for the re-establishment of religious union,
but it was only twelve years later, in 898, that any agreement was reached.
The chief difficulty was the question of the bishops consecrated by Photius,
1 Loparov, Byzantine lives of the saints of the eighth and ninth centuries (Vizan-
tiyski Vremennik, vol. xviii. p. 6).
2 Ib. vol. xix. pp. 101–102.
CH, Tx.
throne invaded Bulgaria in 971, traversed the unguarded Balkan passes,
took Great Prêslav, and released Boris and his family from Russian
captivity, saying that he had “come to avenge the Bulgarians for what
they had suffered from the Russians. ” But when Silistria, the last Russian
stronghold, fell, and the Russians had evacuated Bulgaria, Tzimisces de-
posed Boris and the Bulgarian Patriarch, and annexed eastern Bulgaria
to the Byzantine Empire. Boris was compelled to divest himself of his
regalia, and received a Byzantine court title; his brother was made an
eunuch. Great Prêslav was rebaptized Ioannoupolis after its conqueror;
the eastern Bulgarian Empire was at an end. Western Bulgaria under
the sons of Shishman remained, however, independent for 47 years longer.
Of these four sons, the so-called Comitopouloi (or“Young Counts”), David
was killed by some wandering Wallachs, Moses was slain while besieging
Seres, and Aaron with most of his family was executed for his Greek
sympathies by his remaining brother Samuel, who thus became sole
Bulgarian Tsar. His realm, at the period of its greatest extent (before
the Greek campaigns of 1000-1002), included a considerable part of
Danubian Bulgaria, with the towns of Great Prêslav, Vidin, and Sofia,
and much of Serbia and Albania, but was essentially Macedonian, and
his capital, after a brief residence at Sofia, was moved to Moglena, Vodená,
and Prespa (where an island in the lake still preserves the name of his
“castle”), and finally to the lake of Ochrida, the swamps of which he
drained by 100 canals into the river Drin.
Upon the death of Tzimisces in 976, the Bulgarians rose; both
Boris II and his brother, Roman, escaped from Constantinople, but the
former was shot by a Bulgarian in mistake for a Greek, while the latter,
being harmless, received a post from Samuel, who overran Thrace, the
country round Salonica, and Thessaly, and carried off from Larissa to
his capital at Prespa the remains of St Achilleus, Bishop of Larissa in
the time of Constantine the Great. The ruined monastery of the island
of Ahil in the lake still preserves the memory of this translation. Samuel
even marched into continental Greece and threatened the Peloponnese,
but was recalled by the news that the young Emperor Basil II had in-
vaded Bulgaria. The first of his Bulgarian campaigns, that of 981, ended,
however, ingloriously for the future conqueror of the Bulgarians. Whilst
on his way to besiege Sofia, he was defeated at Shtiponye near Ikhtiman
and with difficulty escaped to Philippopolis. Fifteen years of peace be-
tween the hereditary enemies ensued, which Samuel employed in making
war upon John Vladimir, the saintly Serbian Prince of Dioclea, in
ravaging Dalmatia, and in occupying Durazzo. Bulgaria thus for a brief
space-for Durazzo was soon recovered by the Greeks--became an
## p. 241 (#283) ############################################
Samuel and Basil II
241
Adriatic power. The Serbian prince, carried captive to Prespa, won the
heart of Samuel's daughter Kosara, who begged her father to release him
and allow her to marry him. Samuel not only consented, but allowed
him to return and rule over his conquered land.
In 996 began the second war between Basil II and the Bulgarians.
Basil, free at last from the cares of the civil wars, had appointed Taronites
governor of Salonica for the special purpose of checking Samuel's raids.
The new governor, however, fell with his son into a Bulgarian ambush
and was killed ; whereupon Basil sent Nicephorus Uranus to take his
place. Meanwhile Samuel, elated at his success, had marched again
through the vale of Tempe as far as the Peloponnese, ravaging and
plundering as he went. But this time he was not to return unscathed.
On his way back Uranus waited for him on the bank of the swollen
Spercheus, and, crossing in the night, fell upon the sleeping Bulgarian
soldiers, who had believed it impossible to ford the river. Samuel and
his son, Gabriel Radomir Roman, were wounded and only escaped capture
by lying as if dead among the corpses which strewed the field, fleeing,
when it was dark, to the passes of Pindus. From that moment Samuel's
fortune turned. His next loss was that of Durazzo, betrayed to the
Greeks by his father-in-law, the chief man of the place, and by the captive
son of Taronites, who had obtained the affections of another of the
Tsar's susceptible daughters, and had been allowed to marry her and had
received a command at that important position. The Greeks everywhere
took the offensive. In 1000 they entered and again subdued Danubian
Bulgaria, taking Great and Little Prêslav and Pliska, which is now
mentioned after a long interval. Next year Basil cleared the Bulgarian
garrisons out of the south Macedonian towns of Berrhoea, Servia, and
Vodená, and out of the Thessalian castles, removing them to Voleros at
the mouth of the Maritza. To this campaign we owe the first description,
which enlivens the prose of Cedrenus', of the waterfall of Vodená— the
Tivoli of Macedonia. In 1002 Vidin and Skoplje fell, and Samuel, believing
that the Vardar could not be crossed, once again nearly became the prisoner
of the Greeks. Hostilities dragged on, and Basil for the next twelve years
annually invaded the western Bulgarian Empire, which was now reduced
to part of Macedonia, Albania, and the mountains round Sofia. But in
1014 the third and last Bulgarian war of the reign broke out. On 29 July
Nicephorus Xiphias turned the strong Bulgarian position of Kleidion
("the key") in the Struma valley, near the scene of King Constantine's
victories over the Bulgarians 900 years later. Samuel escaped, thanks to
his son's assistance, to Prilep, but Basil blinded the 15,000 Bulgarian
captives, leaving one man in every hundred with one eye, so that he might
guide his totally blinded comrades to tell the tale to the fugitive Tsar.
Samuel fainted at the ghastly sight and two days later expired.
The western Bulgarian Empire survived him only four years. His
II. 436, 447, 449–56.
1
C. MED. U, VOL. IV. CH. VIII.
16
## p. 242 (#284) ############################################
242
Fall of Western Bulgaria
son, Gabriel Roman, by a captive from Larissa succeeded him, but
excelled him in physique alone. Barely a year later Gabriel was murdered
by his cousin John Vladislav, Aaron's son, whose life he had begged his
father to
spare
when Aaron and the rest of his family were put to death.
The ungrateful wretch likewise assassinated his cousin's wife, blinded her
eldest son, and invited the Serbian Prince, John Vladimir, to be his
guest at Prespa and there had him beheaded. Having thus removed all
possible rivals in his own family, the new Tsar began to treat with Basil,
whose vassal he offered to become. Basil, mistrusting the murderer,
marched upon his capital of Ochrida, blinding all the Bulgarians whom
he took prisoners on the way. He captured Ochrida and was on his way
to relieve Durazzo, which was invested by the Bulgarians, when a sudden
defeat, inflicted upon a detachment of his army by the Bulgarian noble,
Ivats, caused him to retire on Salonica. The Bulgarians continued to
make a vigorous defence of their difficult country; Pernik successfully
resisted a siege of 88 days; the Tsar even endeavoured to make an
alliance with the Patzinaks from beyond the Danube against the
Greeks. But he fell by an unknown hand while besieging Durazzo in
1018. Bulgaria, left without a head, was divided into two parties--one,
headed by the widowed Tsaritsa Maria, the Patriarch David, and Bog-
dan, “the commander of the inner fortresses"; the other and weaker
party, led by the late Tsar’s son Fruyin, and the soldierly Ivats. Upon
the news of the Tsar's death, Basil marched into Bulgaria to complete
the subjection of the country. At Strumitsa the Patriarch met him with
a letter from the Tsaritsa, offering on certain conditions to surrender
Bulgaria. Bogdan was rewarded with a Byzantine title for his treachery,
and then the Emperor proceeded to Ochrida, where he confiscated the
rich treasury of the Tsars. In his camp outside there waited upon him
the Tsaritsa with her six daughters and three of her sons, a bastard son
of Samuel, and the five sons and two daughters of Gabriel Radomir
Roman. The conqueror received her kindly, as well as the notables who
made their submission. Her three other sons, however, of whom Fruyin
was the most prominent, had fled to Mt. Tomor near Berat, where they
endeavoured to maintain the independence of Bulgaria in the Albanian
highlands, while Ivats held out in his castle of Pronishta in the same
mountainous region. The young princes, however, were forced to sur-
render and compensated with court titles; the brave Ivats was treacher-
ously seized and blinded. The last two nobles who still held out then
surrendered. After nearly 40 years of fighting, Bulgaria was subdued.
The “Bulgar-slayer,” as Basil II is known in history, celebrated his
triumph in the noblest of all existing churches, the majestic Parthenon,
then Our Lady of Athens. On his march he gazed upon the bleaching
bones of the Bulgarians who had fallen by the Spercheus twenty-two years
before, and upon the walls erected in the pass of Thermopylae to repel
their invasions. The great cathedral he enriched with offerings out of
יל
## p. 243 (#285) ############################################
Bulgaria a Byzantine province
243
the Bulgarian treasury, and 900 years later the Athenians were reminded
of his triumph there. Thence he returned to Constantinople, where the
ex-Tsaritsa, Samuel's daughters, and the rest of the Bulgarians were led
through the Golden Gate before him.
BULGARIA A BYZANTINE PROVINCE (1018–1186).
Bulgaria remained for 168 years a Byzantine province. Her nobles
had lost their leaders, her princes and princesses had disappeared amidst
the pompous functionaries of the Byzantine Court. Only her Church
remained autonomous, but that only on condition that the Patriarchate,
which during the period of the western Bulgarian Empire had had its seat
successively at Vodená, Prespa, and finally at Ochrida, was reduced to the
rank of an Archbishopric. In 1020 Basil II issued three charters' con-
firming the rights of “the Archbishop of Bulgaria"—the additional title
of “Justiniana Prima” was added in 1157—whose residence continued
to be at Ochrida, whither it had been moved by Simeon. He expressly
maintained intact the rights and area of its jurisdiction as it had been
in the times of both Peter and Samuel, which therefore included 30
bishoprics and towns, such as Ochrida, Kastoria, Monastir, and Skoplje in
Macedonia; Sofia and Vidin in old Bulgaria; Belgrade, Niš, Prizren, and
Rasa in what is now Jugoslavia; Canina (above Avlona), Cheimarra,
Butrinto, and Joannina in South Albania and Northern Epirus; and Stagi
(the modern Kalabaka) in Thessaly. We may therefore safely assume that
in the palmy days of Peter and of Samuel these places were included
within their respective Empires. In 1020 these thirty bishoprics contained
685 ecclesiastics and 655 serfs. But after Basil II's reign the number of
the suffragans was reduced practically to what it had been in the time of
Samuel, and after the first archbishop no more Bulgarians were appointed
to the see of Ochrida during the Byzantine period. The head of the
autonomous Bulgarian Church was always a Greek and often a priest
from St Sophia itself, except on one occasion when a Jew was nominated,
and the list includes the distinguished theologian and letter-writer,
Theophylact of Euboea, who felt as an exile his separation from culture
in the wilds of Bulgaria, and John Camaterus, afterwards Ecumenical
Patriarch at the time of the Latin conquest of Constantinople. The
Bogomile heresy made great progress during this period, especially round
Philippopolis, despite its persecution by the Emperor Alexius I. For
the civil and military administration of Bulgaria a new (Bulgarian) theme
was created under a Pronoetes? and also a duchy of Paristrium, while
the neighbouring themes had their territory enlarged. The various
governors, holding office usually for only a year, made as much out of
their districts as possible in the customary Oriental fashion; but the
local communities retained a considerable measure of autonomy, and we
לל
1 BZ. 11. 40–72. 2 Cf. infra, Chapter xxiii, p. 733.
CH. VIII.
16-2
## p. 244 (#286) ############################################
244
Bulgarian rising of 1040
וי
are expressly told that Basil left the taxes as they had been in the time
of Samuel, payable in kind.
The Bulgarians did not, however, remain inactive during this long
period of Byzantine rule. A succession of weak rulers and court intrigues
followed the death of Basil “the Bulgar-slayer. ” The Bulgarian prince
Fruyin, and his mother the ex-Tsaritsa, were mixed up in these intrigues,
both imprisoned in monasteries, and the former blinded. In 1040 a more
serious movement arose. Simultaneous insurrections broke out among
the Serbs of what is now Montenegro and the Bulgarians, who found a
leader in a certain Peter Delyan, who gave himself out to be a son of the
Tsar Gabriel Radomir Roman. Greeted enthusiastically as Tsar, he had
the country at his feet, so lively was the memory of the old dynasty.
But a rival appeared in the person of the warlike Tikhomir, who was
acclaimed Tsar by the Slavs of Durazzo. Delyan invited his rival and
the Bulgarians that were with him to a meeting, at which he told them
that “one bush could not nourish two redbreasts," and bade them choose
between Tikhomir and the grandson of Samuel, promising to abide loyally
by their decision. Loud applause greeted his speech; the people stoned
Tikhomir and proclaimed Delyan their sole sovereign. He marched upon
Salonica, whence the Emperor Michael IV the Paphlagonian fled, while
his chamberlain, Ivats, perhaps a son of the Bulgarian patriot, went over
with his war chest to the insurgents. One Bulgarian army took Durazzo;
another invaded Greece and defeated the imperial forces before Thebes;
the entire province of Nicopolis (except Naupactus) joined the Bulgar-
ians, infuriated at the exactions of the Byzantine tax-collector and at
the substitution, by the unpopular finance minister, John, the Emperor's
brother, of cash payments for payments in kind. But another Bulgarian
leader now appeared in the person of Alusian, younger brother of the
Tsar John Vladislav, and Delyan's cousin, whom the grasping minister's
greed had also driven to revolt. Delyan wisely offered to share the first
place with this undoubted scion of the stock of Shishman--for his own
claims to the blood royal were impugned. But a great defeat of the
Bulgarians before Salonica, which was ascribed to the intervention of
that city's patron saint, St Demetrius, led to recriminations and suspicions.
Alusian invited his rival to a banquet, made him drunk, and blinded him.
The double-dyed traitor then betrayed his country to the Emperor, the
revolt was speedily crushed, and Delyan and Ivats were led in triumph
to Constantinople.
Another Bulgarian rising took place in 1073, and from the same
cause—the exactions of the imperial treasury, which continued to ignore
the wise practice of Basil II and the lessons of the last rebellion. Having
no prominent leader of their own to put on the throne, the Bulgarian
chiefs begged Michael, first King of the Serbian state of Dioclea, to
send them his son, Constantine Bodin, whom they proclaimed “Tsar of
the Bulgarians” at Prizren under the popular name of Peter, formerly
## p. 245 (#287) ############################################
Further risings
245
לל
borne by Simeon's saintly son. But there was a party among the Bul-
garians hostile to what was doubtless regarded as a foreign movement;
the insurgents made the mistake, after their initial successes, of dividing
their forces, and were defeated at Paun (“the peacock” castle) on the
historic field of Kossovo, where Bodin was taken prisoner. Frankish mer-
cenaries in Byzantine employ completed the destruction by burning down
the palace of the Tsars on the island in the lake of Prespa and sacking
the church of St Achilleus. Worse still were the frequent raids of the
Patzinaks and Cumans, while Macedonia was the theatre of the Norman
invasion. But, except for occasional and quickly suppressed risings of
Bulgarians and Bogomiles, there was no further serious insurrection for
over 100 years. Under the Comnenian dynasty the Bulgarians were
better governed, and they lacked local leaders to face a series of energetic
Emperors.
CH. VIII.
## p. 246 (#288) ############################################
246
CHAPTER IX.
THE GREEK CHURCH: ITS RELATIONS
WITH THE WEST UP TO 1054.
AFTER the festival in honour of the restoration of the images
(11 March 843), the last religious differences between the East and West
seemed to have disappeared, and yet the course of events during the
Iconoclast controversy had seriously modified the conditions under which
the relations between Rome and Constantinople had been hitherto
maintained.
The Papacy emerged from that long dispute completely emancipated
politically from the Byzantine Empire. After the accession of Paul I
(757) the Pope no longer applied to the Emperor of Constantinople for
the ratification of his election but to the King of the Franks, and after
the year 800 to the Emperor of the West. After Pope Hadrian the year
of the reign of the Eastern Emperors no longer appears in the papal
bulls, and nothing is more significant than this breaking with an ancient
tradition
It cannot be disputed that after the second Council of Nicaea (787),
held in the presence of the papal legates, relations had been renewed
between Rome and Constantinople, which continued until the second
abolition of image-worship (815). But neither the Empress Irene nor
her successors dreamt of revoking the edict of Leo the Isaurian which
had deprived the Roman Church of its patrimony in the East and of its
jurisdiction over Southern Italy and Illyricum. A still more illuminating
fact is that, when the Empress Theodora restored image-worship in 843,
she did not treat with the Pope as Irene had done, and the new Patriarch
Methodius ordered the anathema to be launched against the iconoclasts
without the co-operation of Rome.
Two distinct and opposed attitudes towards the Pope may, in fact, be
seen in the Greek Church. On the one hand the superior clergy, largely
recruited from among laymen, ex-governors or high officials, steeped in
the doctrines of Caesaropapism, could not shew much enthusiasm and
indeed felt considerable misgivings towards a pontiff who, since the events
of the year 800, had been the mainstay of the Emperors of the West,
1 Kleinclausz, L'empire carolingien, ses origines et ses transformations, Paris, 1902,
p. 165.
## p. 247 (#289) ############################################
The Greek Church and Rome
247
regarded at Byzantium as usurpers. A large number of these prelates
had adhered to iconoclast doctrines, and in 843 many of them tried to
obliterate this past by a reconciliation with orthodoxy.
On the other hand, these high official clergy were confronted by the
monks, and especially the Studites, who had defended image-worship
even to martyrdom, and were resolute opponents to the interference of
the Emperors in the affairs of the Church. Their fundamental doctrine
was complete liberty as against the State in matters of dogma no less
than of discipline. But the one effective guarantee of this liberty for
them was the close union of the Greek Church with Rome. They recog-
nised in the successor to St Peter the spiritual authority denied to the
Emperor. Theodore of Studion, in his correspondence with the Popes
and sovereigns, emphasises the necessity of submitting to the arbitration
of the Pope all the difficulties which may perplex the Church', and for
a long time the monastery of Studion was considered the stronghold of
the Roman party at Byzantium.
For these reasons the restoration of image-worship in 843, even if it
was an undeniable victory for the Studites, was not so complete a success
as they had wished, and the Patriarch Methodius, himself formerly a
monk but animated by a conciliatory spirit and desirous above all things
of restoring peace in the Church, made several vigorous attacks on their
uncompromising policy. On the other side, the elevation to the Patri-
archate in 846 of Ignatius, son of the Emperor Michael Rangabé, who
during his brief reign had been the protector and almost the servant of
the Studites, seemed to assure definitely the triumph of their doctrines.
Brought up in exile on Princes Islands, Ignatius was a true ascetic and
had fervently embraced all the principles of Studite reform. Friendly
relations with Rome seemed therefore assured, but a significant incident
shewed that the new Patriarch, however well disposed he might be towards
the Pope, did not propose to abandon one jot of his autonomy. Gregory
Asbestas, Archbishop of Syracuse, having taken refuge at Constantinople,
was condemned by a synod for certain irregularities. He appealed to
Pope Leo IV, who commanded Ignatius to send him the acts of the
synod; the Patriarch refused, and the matter remained unsettled. Bene-
dict III, who succeeded Leo IV in 899, refused to confirm the deposition
of Gregory Asbestas and contented himself with suspending him until he
had seen the evidence? Thus, though the relations between Rome and
Constantinople had once more become normal and the good will of Ignatius
and the Studites towards the Pope was manifestly great, the long sepa-
ration due to the Iconoclastic dispute had borne fruit; the Greek Church
had become accustomed to complete autonomy, so far as Rome went,
and its bishops, who fostered feelings of distrust and even hostility
against her, only awaited an opportunity to shew them. The crisis in
1 MPG, xcix. cols. 141, 1017, 1020, 1192, 1332.
2 Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, pp. 184–185.
CB. IX.
## p. 248 (#290) ############################################
248
Ignatius and Photius
the Patriarchate, which was the result of the deposition of Ignatius, soon
supplied them with the desired opportunity.
Ignatius had made many enemies for himself by his uncompromising
character and his unbending austerity, which did not spare those who
held the highest places. In 858 he dared to attack the Caesar Bardas,
whose profligacy was a public scandal, and refused to administer the
sacrament to him. Bardas avenged this insult by banishing Ignatius to
the island of Terebinthus, after having implicated him in an imaginary
plot against the Emperor (27 November 858). Then, being unable to
extort from him an act of abdication, and without even waiting for the
result of the trial which was pending, Bardas raised to the patriarchal
throne a layman, the protoasecretis Photius, one of the most renowned
teachers in the University of Constantinople.
Photius, if we can believe his letters', appears to have hesitated at
first to accept the post, but ended by allowing himself to be persuaded,
and within six days was professed a monk and received all the eccle-
siastical orders. On 25 December 858 he was consecrated Patriarch in St
Sophia. He represented the party of the high clergy which had adopted
once more the tradition of Tarasius, Nicephorus, and Methodius, and he
met at once with violent opposition from the monks, especially from the
Studites, whose Abbot Nicholas of Studion refused to take the com-
munion with him, and was banished. He therefore thought it expedient
to consolidate his power by a reconciliation with Rome. In 860 a solemn
embassy, consisting of four bishops and a high lay official, was sent to
Pope Nicholas. Its object was to invite the Pope to assemble a council
to settle the dispute as to image-worship, and more especially to obtain
the papal recognition of Photius as lawful Patriarch. This step in itself
shews that Photius at that time accepted generally the jurisdiction of the
Pope.
But Nicholas I refused to recognise the election of Photius without
fuller information, and, after protesting against the deposition of Ignatius,
he despatched to Constantinople two legates, Radoald, Bishop of Porto,
and Zacharias, Bishop of Anagni, with instructions to hold an inquiry
and to treat Ignatius provisionally as lawful Patriarch. No efforts were
spared at Constantinople to conceal this news. The legates as soon as
they arrived (February 861) were secluded and prevented from com-
municating with Ignatius and his partisans. Pressure was brought to bear
on them by threats and even by bribes. They allowed themselves to be
persuaded and, contrary to their instructions, they consented to preside
at a council which was convened at the Holy Apostles (May 861), and
pronounced the deposition of Ignatius, after suborned witnesses had been
1
Loparev, Byzantine lives of the saints of the eighth and ninth centuries (Vizan-
tiyski Vremennik, xvii. 1913, p. 49).
2 Vita S. Nicolai Studitae (MPG, cv. col. 863; cf. Loparev, Vizantiyski Vremennik,
XVII. p. 189).
## p. 249 (#291) ############################################
Conflict between Photius and Nicholas I
249
produced to affirm that the accused had been elected contrary to the
canons? .
But when the legates returned to Rome, loaded with presents from
Photius, the Pope received them with indignation and repudiated all
their acts. In an encyclical addressed to the three Eastern Patriarchs
he declared that the deposition of Ignatius was illegal and that Photius
improperly held the see of Constantinople. In answer to a letter from
Photius, brought by an imperial secretary, in which the Patriarch seemed
to treat with him on equal terms, the Pope reminded him that the see of
Rome was the supreme head of all the Churches. Finally, at the request
of some partisans of Ignatius, including the Archimandrite Theognostus,
who had succeeded in escaping to Rome, he called a council at the Lateran
palace (April 863), which summoned Photius to resign all his powers on
pain of excommunication; the same injunction was laid on all the bishops
consecrated by Photius? .
The dispute thus entered the domain of law, and the issue at stake
was the jurisdiction of the Pope over the Church at Constantinople.
Before taking the final step and embarking on schism, Photius seems to
have hesitated and to have adopted diplomatic means at first. He in-
duced the Emperor Michael to write a letter to the Pope, which was in
the nature of an ultimatum. The Emperor threatened to march on Rome
in the event of Nicholas refusing to revoke his sentences, and repudiated
the doctrine of the supreme jurisdiction of the papacy. Nicholas, making
the widest concessions, offered to revise the judgment of the council if
Ignatius and Photius would consent to appear before him at Rome? .
Photius, on his side, was fully posted in Western affairs, and knew that the
uncompromising character of Nicholas roused keen opposition in those
parts. He had favourably received a memorandum from the Archbishops
of Cologne and Trèves, who had been deposed by the Pope for having
consented to the divorce of Lothar II. In the course of the
year
863
Photius addressed letters to the Western clergy and to the Emperor
Louis II to demand the deposition of Nicholas by a Council of the
Church'. This was not yet rupture with the West, since by acting as he
did he hoped to find a more conciliatory Pope than Nicholas. Neverthe-
less, when he learned of the arrival of Roman legates in Bulgaria, consider-
ing their interference with this newly-founded Church as an encroachment
on the rights of the Patriarchate, he convoked a synod (867), which
formally condemned the Latin uses introduced into the Bulgarian Church,
and more particularly the double procession of the Holy Ghost.
This was
the first step in an antagonism which was destined to end in schism.
1 Mansi, Concilia, xv. 179-202. Vita Ignatii 19-21 (MPG, cv. col. 488).
2 Nicolaus, Epist. 7 (Mansi, Concilia, xv. col. 178–183).
3 Nicolaus, Epist. 8 (Mansi, Concilia, xv. 187-216).
Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, p. 200. Gay, L'Italie méridionale et l'empire
byzantin, pp. 80–82.
4
CE. IX,
## p. 250 (#292) ############################################
250
The schism of Photius
Matters came rapidly to a head. In November 866 the Pope resolved
to address a final appeal to Constantinople, and despatched fresh legates
with orders to put letters into the hands of the Emperor and principal
personages of the court. Photius then took the decisive step, and it is
possible that this decision was influenced by the raising of Basil to the
imperial throne as colleague to Michael after the murder of Bardas. He
wished to confront the future Emperor, whose hostility he anticipated,
with an accomplished fact. In the course of the summer of 867 a council
presided over by the Emperor Michael pronounced the excommunication
of Pope Nicholas, declared the practices of the Roman Church to be
heretical as opposed to Greek use, and stigmatised the intervention of
that hurch in the affairs of Constantinople as unlawful. The resolutions
of the council were sent by Photius to the Eastern Patriarchs in the form
of an encyclical, in which he bitterly condemned all the peculiar usages
of the Western Churches: the addition of the Filioque to the creed,
the Saturday fast, the use of eggs in Lent, the custom of the clergy of
shaving the beard, and others. Two bishops went to take the acts of the
council to Italy. The Pope, desirous of justifying Western uses, com-
manded Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, to convoke provincial councils
in order to answer the objections of the Greeks!
The split between the East and the West was thus effected. It is
clear that the differences in the uses quoted by Photius were not the real
cause of the schism. From the dogmatic point of view the East and the
West participated in the same faith, that of the Ecumenical Councils.
The addition of the Filioque to the creed modified in appearance the
idea which was formed of the relations between the Persons of the
Trinity, but in no respect changed the dogma itself. It was not impos-
sible, as indeed subsequent events shewed, to come to some agreement as
to Church discipline and the liturgy. At the close of the year 867 the
two apostles of the Slavs, Constantine (Cyril), a pupil of Photius, and
his brother Methodius, arrived at Rome, bringing with them the relics of
St Clement. Pope Nicholas was dead and it was his successor Hadrian II
who consecrated them bishops (5 January 868) and, by giving the name
of Cyril to Constantine, paid homage to the great Patriarch of Alex-
andria who had formerly been the connecting link between the East and
Rome. He further approved the translation of the Scriptures made by
the two apostles, as well as their liturgy in the Slavonic tongue? . No act
shews more clearly the conciliatory spirit of the two Churches in the
matter of uses. The cause of the separation cannot therefore be found
here, but must be attributed to the regard for its autonomy which inspired
1 Among the answers are quoted those of Odo, Bishop of Beauvais, and Aeneas,
Bishop of Paris. Text of the Encyclical of Photius, MPG, cii. cols. 724–731.
See Hefele, Histoire des Conciles (French translation by Leclercq, 1911), vol. iv.
Pp. 442-449.
2
Leger, Cyrille et Méthode, pp. 100-103. Cf. supra, Chapter vil(B), pp. 224-5.
## p. 251 (#293) ############################################
Deposition of Photius
251
the Church of Constantinople. Photius, by championing this cause, easily
led with him the bishops who, like himself, refused to admit the supreme
jurisdiction of the Pope in disciplinary matters. We shall further see
that even on this question the Greeks were far from being obstinate, and
admitted the intervention of the Pope when it served their interests.
Their attitude towards Rome was, in reality, always dependent on the
vicissitudes of their own disputes.
It was a palace revolution in the end which overthrew Photius and
revived relations with Rome. Some months after the council held by the
Patriarch, the murder of Michael III brought Basil the Macedonian to
the throne. The new Emperor disliked Photius, possibly because he had
been a favourite of Bardas. He saw also that the re-instatement of Ignatius,
whom the people esteemed a martyr, would conduce to his own personal
popularity. The very day after his accession (25 September 867) he had
Photius imprisoned in a monastery, and with great ceremony re-instated
Ignatius in the patriarchal chair (23 November 867). All the bishops
and archimandrites exiled by Photius were recalled.
Thus to obtain his political ends Basil formally recognised a juris-
diction in the Pope by sending him a double embassy composed of
partisans of Ignatius and of Photius, with instructions to ask him to
re-establish peace in the Church of Constantinople by calling a council
and effecting a reconciliation with the bishops consecrated by Photius.
In a synod held at St Peter's, at the close of the year 868, Pope Hadrian
II, the successor of Nicholas I, solemnly condemned the council of 867 and
convoked a council at Constantinople. Stephen, Bishop of Nepi, Donatus,
Bishop of Ostia, and a priest, Marinus, were chosen to represent him there.
After a difficult journey the legates entered Constantinople by the
Golden Gate on 29 September 869. Basil received them with the greatest
honours, and testified in their presence to his veneration for the Church
of Rome," the mother of all the other Churches. ” But it was manifest
from the very first sittings of the Council, which opened on 9 October 869
and took the title of Ecumenical, that a misunderstanding existed
between the Emperor and the legates. The Emperor, solicitous for the
interests of the State, wished first and foremost to re-establish peace in
the Church. He had been surprised to see that, differing from Nicholas I,
Pope Hadrian II had condemned Photius unheard and on the sole evidence
of the partisans of Ignatius. In order that the peace might be permanent, ,
and to prevent Photius and his followers from being able to plead an
abuse of justice, it was necessary that the Council should revise the sentence
and deliver a full and detailed judgment. This was the purport of the in-
structions given to the Patrician Baanes, president of the lay commission
which represented the Emperor at the Council. The Pope's standpoint
was quite different. His legates had only been instructed by him to
1 Vogt, Basile I, pp. 210-212. Loparev, Byzantine lives of the saints of the eighth
and ninth centuries (Vizantiyski Vremennik, vol. xviii. p. 61).
CH, X.
H
## p. 252 (#294) ############################################
252
Ecumenical Council (869-870)
publish the sentence against Photius, pronounced by his predecessor and
confirmed by him. They had the further duty of reconciling with the
Church those bishops, followers of Photius, who should consent to sign
the libellus satisfactionis brought by them. The jurisdiction of the Pope,
differently understood in the East and the West, was the real matter at
issue?
Baanes won an initial success by demanding that Photius and his
followers should be brought before the Council to tender their defence
there. On 20 October Photius appeared, but remained mute to all interro-
gations. His condemnation was then renewed, but the legates observed
that they were not re-trying the case but were merely publishing the
sentence already formulated. Basil accepted this compromise, which was
tantamount to a defeat for him, and came in person to preside at the
concluding sessions of the Council, which broke up on 28 February 870.
Thus the Ecumenical Council, which was intended to smooth all the
religious difficulties, only ended in increasing the distrust between Rome
and Constantinople. Basil certainly lavished friendly words and assur-
ances of orthodoxy on the legates at the ceremony which marked the
closing of the Council, but his acts discounted his speeches. Some days
previously, to gratify the old partisans of Photius who regretted having
signed the libellus satisfactionis, he had seized all the copies of that
document at the house of the legates in spite of their protests but then
consented to allow them to be deposited with Anastasius the Librarian,
ambassador of the Emperor Louis II at Constantinople. Further, this
scholar was requested by the legates to compare the Greek and Latin
texts of the acts of the Council, when he perceived with astonishment
that a letter of Pope Hadrian had been tampered with, and that the com-
pliments which he paid to the Emperor Louis II had been suppressed? .
The most grave incident occurred three days after the close of the
Council. The Bulgarians had received baptism from the Greek mis-
sionaries sent by Photius, but their Tsar Boris, whose ambition was to
see an ecclesiastical hierarchy founded in Bulgaria with a Patriarch at
its head, being unable to obtain it from Constantinople, had applied to
Rome. Nicholas I had sent a mission to Bulgaria under the direction
of Formosus, Bishop of Porto, who replaced the Greek ritual everywhere
by the Latin, and Photius had on other occasions protested against this
interference. But when Boris called upon the Pope to create Formosus
Patriarch, he met with a flat refusal. Then it was that, turning to Con-
stantinople, he sent an embassy to implore the Council to decide to which
Church Bulgaria should belong.
The Emperor assembled once more the fathers of the Council and
tried to obtain from the legates the formal recognition of the jurisdiction
of the Patriarch of Constantinople over Bulgaria. The legates protested
1 Vogt, Basile I, pp. 215–218.
2 Vogt, op. cit. pp. 218–227.
## p. 253 (#295) ############################################
Re-instatement of Photius
253
vehemently that they had not received any instructions on this point, and
that Bulgaria was besides directly amenable to the see of Rome. Hardly,
however, had the legates left when the Patriarch Ignatius consecrated an
archbishop and ten bishops for Bulgaria. Photius would not have acted
otherwise, and nothing shews more clearly than this affair the inherited
misunderstanding which separated the leaders of the two Churches? .
When the legates took leave of the Emperor, so strained were the
relations that Basil was mean enough not to make any arrangements for
facilitating their return. Their journey, which lasted nine months, was
most arduous: they were captured by Slav pirates and lost all their
archives, and only reached Rome on 22 December 870. By good fortune
Anastasius the Librarian, who had embarked for the same destination,
had safely brought the acts of the Council and the copies of the libellus
satisfactionis. Hadrian II wrote an indignant letter to Basil, in which
he complained of the manner in which his legates had been treated on
their return and also of the interference of Ignatius in Bulgaria ; but
nothing came of it, and the Bulgarian Church remained definitely attached
to Constantinople. Finally, as a mark of his dissatisfaction, the Pope
refused to pardon the followers of Photius for whom the Emperor had
interceded.
But soon, by the usual reversal of Byzantine opinion, Photius, who had
been imprisoned in a monastery, succeeded in regaining the good graces
of Basil and was recalled to Constantinople? . Ignatius continued to
govern the Church, but three days after his death, which took place on
23 October 877, Photius was re-instated on the patriarchal throne, and,
according to the Vita Ignatii, he began by banishing and ill-treating the
principal adherents of Ignatius. But what was to be his attitude towards
Rome? Logically he ought to have refrained from any relations with
the Pope. He did nothing of the kind, and asked Pope John VIII to
recognise his re-instatement. The Emperor, who supported this request,
had evidently no wish for a rupture with Rome, and placed at the same
time his fleet at the disposal of the Pope to defend Italy against the
Saracens.
The circumstances were therefore favourable for the union. John VIII
consented to recognise Photius as Patriarch on condition that he should
ask pardon before a synod for his past conduct and should abstain from
any interference in Bulgaria. A council then opened at Constantinople
in November 879, but Basil, overwhelmed with sorrow at the loss of his
only legitimate son, Constantine, was not present and did not even send
a representative. Photius, having thus. a free hand, easily outwitted the
legates, who were ignorant of Greek and were unaware that the Pope's
1 Vogt, op. cit. pp. 223-230.
2 According to the Vita Ignatii, 52 and Symeon Magister, vii. 752, he won the
favour of the Emperor by forging a genealogy which connected the family of Basil
with the Armenian dynasties.
CH. II.
## p. 254 (#296) ############################################
254
Disgrace and death of Photius
letter, translated into that language, had been garbled. The Patriarch
gave a lengthy defence of his conduct and was rapturously applauded
by the 383 bishops present. The question of the Bulgarian Church was
referred to the decision of the Emperor; the council refused to admit the
prohibition, desired by the Pope, of nominating laymen to the epis-
copate; finally, by pronouncing the anathema against all who should add
anything to the faith of Nicaea, it once more brought up the question
of the Filioque?
Photius had triumphed; it was only three years later, in 882, that
the Pope, thanks to an inquiry made by a new legate, Marinus, who was
sent to Constantinople, learned what had really happened at the council.
John VIII in indignation declared the legates of 879 deposed, and ex-
communicated Photius. The rupture was complete, and the two Churches
were thus separated by a new schism, which persisted under John's suc-
cessors, Marinus, Hadrian III, and Stephen V, who exchanged letters full
of recriminations with Basil.
The death of Basil in 886 was followed by an astonishing coup de
théâtre, and Photius was once more disgraced. Leo VI, the heir to the
throne, who passed for an illegitimate son of Michael III and Eudocia
Ingerina, was fired with an intense hatred of Photius. Although he had
been his pupil, he had quarrelled with him. He charged him with having
intrigued with Basil to deprive him of the throne, and there was even
talk at Byzantium that the ambitious Patriarch had contemplated either
himself assuming the imperial throne or giving it to one of his relations? .
The fact remains that Leo VI had hardly attained to power before he
pronounced the deposition of Photius. The strategus Andrew and the
superintendent of the posts, John Hagiopolites, were commanded to go
to St Sophia, where the synod had been assembled. They read out a
long recital of all the crimes of which Photius was accused; the Patri-
arch was then stripped of his episcopal vestments and conducted to a
monastery, where he lived for another five years (886-891). An assembly
of bishops elected Stephen, the Emperor's brother, as Patriarch? .
At the same time one of Photius' principal followers, Theodore
Santabarenus, was arrested in his diocese of Euchaita, conducted to Con-
stantinople, and put into solitary confinement. The Emperor tried to
induce him to accuse Photius of plotting against him, but when con-
fronted with the ex-Patriarch the abbot revealed nothing. Leo VI was
furious and ordered him to be scourged and banished first to Athens,
where his eyes were put out, and thence to the eastern frontier.
Photius thus came out of the struggle apparently defeated, and left
the Greek Church more rent asunder than at his accession. Some hagio-
graphic documents drawn up at this period throw strong light on the
i Vogt, op. cit. pp. 239-244.
2 Vogt, op. cit. p. 249.
3 Mansi, Concilia, xviii. 201.
## p. 255 (#297) ############################################
Contemporary judgments on Photius
255
was
divided attitude of the Greek clergy towards the question of relations
with Rome. The author of the life of St Joseph the Hymn-writer,
Theophanes the Sicilian, who wrote in the last years of the ninth century,
when nearing the end of his work, prays the saint to ask Christ for
the cessation of the disputes and for the restoration of peace in the
Church, and later he vehemently urges Joseph to obtain by his prayers
the boon that orthodoxy remain inviolate! Such was indisputably the
desire of a large part of the Greek clergy, and of the monks of Studion
in particular, whose Igumen, Anthony, had passed almost the whole
patriarchate of Photius in exile.
On the other hand, the life of St Euthymius the Younger of Thessa-
lonica strikes a somewhat different note. The author, Basil, Archbishop
of Thessalonica, admittedly a supporter of Photius, gives a brief but
very partisan account of the vicissitudes of the struggle between Photius
and Ignatius, and throws all the responsibility for the schism onto the
imperial policy. If he abstains from attacking Ignatius, he none the less
considers Photius to be a saint. “ The Iconoclast heresy,” he says,
already extinct. St Methodius after having governed the Church for five
years had returned to the Lord. Ignatius the Holy had been raised to
the episcopal throne of Constantinople. He governed it for ten years. . . .
In consequence of the persecutions of those who then reigned he left his
throne and his Church, the one voluntarily, the other under compulsion.
He retired to a monastery and published an act of abdication. . . . The
news of this forced abdication soon spread, and in consequence many
refused to take communion with the new Patriarch. The very holy
Nicholas [of Studion), not wishing to have any dealings with him, pre-
ferred to leave his monastery, the new Patriarch being orthodox and
invested with all virtues. This was the blessed Photius, the torch (TOU
owtós) whose rays illuminated the ends of the earth". Then follows a
eulogy of Photius and his incomparable life, and an account of his miracles.
This curious testimony gives us the version of the events which had
been prepared by the adherents of Photius. It shews us the deep im-
pression which this man, who had nothing of the apostle in him but was
first and foremost a politician and a diplomatist, had produced by his
intrepidity. He had posed as a champion of orthodoxy against Rome,
and had thus bequeathed to his successors a formidable weapon
which
was destined to render any new agreement between the two Churches un-
stable and precarious.
Immediately after the deposition of Photius, Leo VI had opened
negotiations with the Pope for the re-establishment of religious union,
but it was only twelve years later, in 898, that any agreement was reached.
The chief difficulty was the question of the bishops consecrated by Photius,
1 Loparov, Byzantine lives of the saints of the eighth and ninth centuries (Vizan-
tiyski Vremennik, vol. xviii. p. 6).
2 Ib. vol. xix. pp. 101–102.
CH, Tx.
