Photius and the Councils (AD 859-880)

ACCADEMIA ANGELICO COSTANTINIANA DI LETTERE ARTI E SCIENZE Associazione Angelo-Comneno onlus COOPACAI PHOENIX SCARL Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano Diretta da Gaetano Passarelli 28 1 Roma 2024 PHOTIUS AND THE COUNCILS (AD 859-880) Valerio Polidori Sources This contribution aims to present an updated historiographical overview of Photius’ activity, from the moment of his accession to the patriarchal see up to his deposition, and more specifically concerning the main synods1 (local and general)2 that took place in those years. Particular attention will be paid to sources and 1 Many synods took place between 859 and 880 in Rome and Constantinople: (1) a synod of the followers of Ignatius and opponents of Photius that met in the church of Hagia Eirene in 859 with 170 participants; (2) a synod in Rome in 860, which complained that Ignatius was deposed without consultation with the bishop of Rome; (3) the so-called Protodeutera synod (859-861), a general council, which ended with 318 participants; (4) a Roman synod (early in 862) that rejected the decisions of the Protodeutera; (5) a large synod convened in Rome by the pope in 863, which declared that Ignatius should be restored to his previous position and that Photius should be deposed; (6) a large council in favour of Photius that was summoned in Constantinople in 867, for which allegedly more than one thousand signatures were presented by Photius; (7) the Roman synod of thirty bishops that in June 869 anathematised Photius for a second time; (8) the so-called Eighth Ecumenical Council that met in Hagia Sophia in 869–70 against Photius, which ended with 102 participants; (9) a synod in Rome in 879 that rehabilitated Photius with 17 participants and finally (10) the so-called Council of Union in Constantinople in 879–80 with 383 participants that re-established Photius in his position as patriarch, E. Chrysos, The Council of Constantinople in 869-70: A Minority Council, in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 49.1 (2020), 139. 2 The terminological dispute on the criteria for which we should speak of a synod, a general council or an ecumenical council goes far beyond the scope of this contribution. Regarding this wrote F. Dvornik, Which Councils are Ecumenical?, in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 3 (1966), 314–328. For a recent status quaestionis, see H.J. Sieben, Studien Zum Ökumenischen Konzil: Definitionen und Begriffe, Tagebücher und Augustinus-Rezeption, (Publications / Society for the Promotion of 35 active participants, and to the consequences for the history of the Eastern Roman Empire and relations between Rome and Constantinople in the following years. The scholarly literature bearing on the events of the Photian councils is quite vast and an all-encompassing presentation goes beyond the scope of this research. However, it may be useful to recall at least the most important and recent works, in an attempt to provide an elementary taxonomy. Modern scholars have dealt with every aspect of our theme: the general social and political context of 9th century Byzantium3 , the history of the Great Church, its patriarchs and its customs4 , the relations between Constantinople and Rome from both a political and a religious perspective5 , the Filioque controversy6 , the jurisdictional issues about Bulgaria and the mission to the Slavs7 and, finally, the many councils and synods in the period in question8 . The literature about Photius is immense, and Byzantine Studies 5), Schöningh, Brill, 2009 and W. Brandmüller, Zum Problem der Ökumenizität von Konzilien, in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 41.2 (2009), 275–312. In this chapter I shall use “synod” for simple local assemblies of bishops, “council” for local assemblies but with the presence of members coming from other patriarchates or characterised by a formal imperial convocation (and, possibly, presence). 3 See at least L. Brubaker, ed., Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive?: Papers from the Thirtieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1996, (Publications / Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 5), Aldershot - Brookfield, Ashgate, 1998. 4 See T. Noble, J. Smith – R. Baranowski, ed., Early Medieval Christianities, c.600-c.1100, (The Cambridge History of Christianity 3), Cambridge - New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008. 5 S. Vacca, Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur: genesi e sviluppo storico dell’assioma fino al Decreto di Graziano, (Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 61), Roma, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1993; H. Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, 95-192; E. Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate, New York, Oxford University Press, 2017. 6 P. Gemeinhardt, Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Frühmittelalter, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2002; E. Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology), New York, Oxford University Press, 2010; M. Gagliardi, ed., Il Filioque. A mille anni dal suo inserimento nel credo a Roma (1014-2014), Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015; A. Bucossi – A. Calia, ed., Contra Latinos et Adversus Graecos: The Separation between Rome and Constantinople from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century, (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 286), Leuven, Peeters, 2020. 7 On this, see the excellent, recent study by M. Betti, The Making of Christian Moravia (858882): Papal Power and Political Reality, (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 4501450 24), Boston, Brill, 2014. 8 The most important studies are H.G. Thümmel, Die Konstantinopeler Konzilien des 9. Jahrhunderts. Eine Übersicht, in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 37.2 (2005), 437–458, and L. Perrone, Das vierte Konzil von Konstantinopel (869-870), in G. Alberigo (ed.): Geschichte der Konzilien. Vom Nicaenum bis zum Vaticanum II, Düsseldorf, Patmos Verlag, 1993. Both indicate most of the significant literature (including sources) until 2005. On the council of 879 see also J. Meijer, A Successful Council of Union: a Theological Analysis of the Photian Synod 879–880, (Analecta 36 there are also many studies on the other actors of these councils such as Ignatius, Gregory Asbestas and Metrophanes of Smyrna9 . Surprisingly, even after the historiographic revolution carried out by Dvornik10 , the figure of Photius still feeds religious partisanships, sometimes to the detriment of the quality of the studies11 . The sources covering the period of the two patriarchates of Photius are extremely heterogeneous, and cross-linking between them is fundamental in order to obtain a full framework of the matter. It is not always simple to distinguish these sources into direct and indirect ones. Among the former are the texts written in the years in question by the very protagonists of the events we are about to describe; among the latter are all the other texts that narrate the events more or less indirectly. Partially escaping this model, we have collections of re-arranged sources mixing selected (and often interpolated) direct sources with commentaries and other material, such as the so-called Anti-Photian collection. 1.1 Direct sources Since the notable anti-Photian bias constitutes the predominant element of indirect sources, the importance that primary sources have is immediately clear for any investigation of the activity of Photius and the councils that took place during the years of his patriarchates. The main direct sources come from the councils themselves through their acta, although we should bear in mind that a good part of them did not survive and we are still largely reliant on outdated editions12 . Vlatadon 23), Thessaloniki, Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1975. 9 A detailed list of sources concerning these figures is available from the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit Online project at: https : //www.degruyter.com/database/pmbz/html. 10 F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1948; F. Ronconi, Le ‘Schisme photien’: la contribution de Francis Dvorník, in V. Vavřínek, P. Melichar – M. Čechová (ed.): Francis Dvorník Scholar and his Work, (Byzantinoslavica 76/3), 2018. 11 For example, P. Stéphanou, Deux conciles, deux ecclésiologies? Les conciles de Constantinople en 869 et en 879, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973), 363–407; M. Mormino, Memoria, esegesi, ruolo delle legazioni romane a Costantinopoli (861-866): spunti dalle missive ad res Orientales pertinentes di papa Nicola I (858-867), in Humanities 4 (24 March 2017), 161–181. Both provide a fully pro-Roman perspective on the issue. Stunningly, even the recent monumental critical edition of the “8th Ecumenical Council”, C. Leonardi – A. Placanica, ed., Gesta sanctæ ac universalis octavæ synodi quæ Constantinopoli congregata est Anastasio bibliothecario interprete, (Edizione Nazionale dei Testi Mediolatini d’Italia 27), Firenze, sismel Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2012, has an introductory essay that fully embraces the anti-Photian narrative embodied by the classic J. Hergenröther, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel: sein Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma, Regensburg, G. J. Manz, 1867. 12 The most serious deficiency is the lack of a critical edition for the council of 879. For this and other incompletely published synods we have to rely on outdated or fragmentary editions like P.-P. 37 One of the main sources until the death of Ignatius is Nicetas David’s Vita Ignatii (AD 907)13 . Although it provides a great deal of information, it displays a highly biased narrative from a die-hard partisan of Ignatius and as such it must be compared and balanced with other sources at our disposal. Of fundamental importance are both the epistolaries of Anastasius the Librarian14 , Photius15 and that of his counterparts in Rome, Nicholas I16 , Adrian I17 and John VIII18 , as well as the registers of the patriarchate of Constantinople19 . Some indirect information is occasionally provided by hagiographic literature, such as the philo-Photian Life of St. Euthymius the Younger20 , composed by Basil archbishop of Thessalonica at the beginning of the tenth century. Other works by Photius himself are of particular interest, such as his 18th homily, the Amphilochia21 and the De Sancti Spiritus Mystagogia22 . Other useful (even if sometimes highly biased) sources are the Vitae of pope Nicholas I and Hadrian II23 , the famous canonical collection established during the Gregorian reform by Cardinal Deusdedit at the end of the 11th century24 and the so-called Libellus Theognosti25 Other Latin sources such as Joannou, Les canons des conciles œcuméniques (2.-9. s.) 1.1, Grottaferrata, Tipografia italo-orientale S. Nilo, 1962, and G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 15-17, Venetiis, apud Antonium Zatta, 1770-1772. 13 A. Smithies – J.M. Duffy, ed., The Life of Patriarch Ignatius / Nicetas David, (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 51), Washington, Dumbarton Oaks, 2013. 14 MGH Ep. 7, 395-442. Also available online at https : //www.dmgh.de/. 15 B. Laourdas – L.G. Westerink, ed., Photii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig, Teubner, 1:1983; 2:1984; 3:1985; 4:1986; 5:1986; 6.1:1987; 6.2:1988. 16 MGH Ep. 6, 257-690. 17 MGH Ep. 6, 691-765. 18 MGH Ep. 7, 1-272. 19 V. Grumel, Les régestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople: Les actes des patriarches, 1, Constantinople, Socii Assumptionistae Calcedonenses, 1936. 20 P. Karlin-Hayter, ed., Vita Euthymii Patriarchae CP, (Bibliothèque de Byzantion 3), Bruxelles, Éditions de Byzantion, 1970. 21 Laourdas – Westerink, Epistulae et Amphilochia. 22 Critical edition: V. Polidori, ed., Fozio. Mistagogia del Santo Spirito, (Lingue e letterature 271), Roma, Carocci, 2018. 23 PL128, 1357-1380; 1379-1398, and L. Duchesne, ed., Le liber pontificalis, 2, Paris, Ernest Thorin, 1892; transl.: R. Davis, ed., The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis): The Ancient Biographies of Ten Popes from A.D. 817-891, (Translated Texts for Historians 20), Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 1995. The events about John VIII and his successors Marinus and Hadrian III are lacking. 24 V.W. von Glanvell, ed., Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit, Paderborn, Druck und verlag Von Ferdinand Schöningh, 1905. 25 Theognosti Libellus ad Nicolaum I papam in causa Ignatii Cp., PG105, 856C-861D (cf. Mansi 16, 300). Written by the monk Theognostus and presented to pope Nicholas I between the second 38 the Annales Bertiniani26 or the Erchenpertii Historia Langobardorum27 provide little or no information about the Photian councils. 1.2 Historians and indirect sources Works by historians28 of this period are few in number and problematic due to their heavy reliance on pro-Ignatian sources. Moreover, they are more interested in political and military affairs rather than ecclesiastical issues. The first of these is a lost source written by a palace official covering the reigns of Basil I (86786) and Leo VI (886-912), indirectly preserved through Symeon the Logothete’s History, of which it constitutes one of the main sources29 . Another anonymous work that is also lost but is again partially indirectly preserved is the violently antiPhotian Secret History probably by Nicetas David the Paphlagonian30 . The main consistent (and preserved) block of historical sources for this period was commissioned by Constantine VII. It consists of three works: Books I-IV of Theophanes Continuatus (ca. AD 958), On Imperial Reigns by Genesius (ca. AD 954), and the Life of Basil, also known as book V of Theophanes Continuatus (ca. AD 950). Since Books I-IV of Theophanes Continuatus cover the period from 813 to 867, it matches our needs better to provide a framework for the general context. The Life of Basil, maybe by Theodore Daphnopates31 , has 5 sources, all lost in their original form32 . We also have Genesius’ On Imperial Reigns33 . It is a work in clumsy and inelegant prose divided into four books, each devoted to a reign (those of Leo V, half of 861 and early spring 862, it provided a reconstruction, from an exclusively Ignatian point of view, of what happened between 858 and 861. 26 Frankish chronicle of the years between 830 and 882. For the Photian events, treated en passant and in a completely pro-papal perspective, the author must be Hincmar of Rheims. Edition: F. Grat, J. Vielliard – S. Clémencet, ed., Annales de Saint-Bertin, Paris, Klincksieck, 1964. 27 Critical edition: L.A. Berto, ed., Piccola storia dei Longobardi di Benevento, (Nuovo Medioevo 94), Napoli, Liguori, 2013. 28 An extensive and in-depth study of the sources concerning the period in question can be found in W.T. Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013 and L.A. Neville, Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing, Cambridge - New York, Cambridge University Press, 2018, 93-161. 29 However, Symeon seems to have found his material for the patriarchates of Ignatius and Photius elsewhere, Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians, 127. 30 Ibid., 139. 31 Ibid., 177-178. 32 The first is supposed to have been the fictional genealogy of Basil forged by Photius to prove his descent from Tiridates; the second might have been a lost encomium of Basil; the third is the abovementioned Secret History by Nicetas the Paphlagonian, the fourth a sort of inventory of buildings (maybe part of another encomium) and finally some material coming from the imperial archives. 33 A. Lesmüller-Werner – H. Thurn, ed., Iosephi Genesii Regum Libri Quattuor, (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 14), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1978. 39 Michael II and Theophilus, Michael III, Basil I). For the years corresponding to Photius, it heavily relies on Nicetas and the Life of Basil, and is consequently almost useless for the historian. Moreover, the author is rather disinterested in the Church councils of those years. The so-called Theophanes Continuatus34 also depends on Nicetas’ Secret History (which here used sources that were at least partly oral), but it omits most of the anti-Photian material. Although the Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete35 was written well after the events that concern us here, namely around 969, it is still important because the author did not copy the most recently available works such Theophanes Continuatus or the Life of Basil, but looked for the earliest sources he could reach. With this particular modus operandi he preserved significant parts of sources that others had neglected. Other sources, like the lost chronicle of Manuel Protospatharius, Pseudo-Symeon or Georgios Monachus Continuatus36 are not of significant interest because they are reliant on the sources already mentioned or are disinterested in Church affairs. The so-called Synodicon Vetus37 (AD 887 ca.) is a brief anonymous history of Church councils from the beginning to the Eighth “Ecumenical” Council, in which each council is covered by a single chapter. It is particularly relevant for this research because it also has an appendix about Photius’ career from 870 to his final deposition in 886. Chapters 157-162 deal with the synods that took place during the years of Ignatius and Photius, while the last four chapters briefly describe the events between 870 and 886. The SV probably shares a common source with the Vita Ignatii of Nicetas David, including all the anti-Photian sentiment. Finally, the so-called Anti-Photian Collection38 is a group of texts put together at the end of the ninth century, during the reign of pope Formosus (891-896) by an anonymous compiler who must have been a bitter enemy of Photius. It is divided into three parts: the first includes the encyclical letter of the Eighth Ecumenical Council and the 34 M. Featherstone – J.S. Codoñer, ed., Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur Libri I-IV, (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 53), Boston, De Gruyter, 2015; I. Ševčenko, ed., Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo Vita Basilii Imperatoris amplectitur, (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 42), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2011. 35 S. Wahlgren, ed., Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 44.1), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2006. 36 The previous Concise Chronicle of George the Monk, who wrote around 875, intentionally ends its account before the accession of Ignatius (847) in order to avoid any kind of controversy over Photius and the former patriarch. 37 J. Duffy – J. Parker, ed., The Synodicon Vetus, (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Series Washingtonensis 15), Washington, Dumbarton Oaks, Center for Byzantine Studies, 1979. 38 Edition in Mansi 16, 424 sqq. Description in Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 216 sqq. who suggests that the compiler of the greater part of it might well be the same as that of the Vita Ignatii, namely Nicetas David (p. 274-275). 40 letter addressed by the fathers of the Council to Hadrian II, together with an extract from a letter from Hadrian to Ignatius on the Bulgarian issue, and a lengthy correspondence by Metrophanes of Smyrna to the logothete Manuel about Photius’ condemnation. The second part has a letter from pope Stephanus to Basil, a short commentary on Photius’ second deposition, a correpondence between Stylianos of Neocaesarea, pope Stephen, Leo the Wise and pope Formosus about Photian ordinations. The third part has several writings on the Photian case including letters from the popes and commentaries on the topic. There is also a copy of the inscription placed at the entrance of Hagia Sophia mentioning the decrees against Photius. The collection brings together heterogeneous sources (or parts of them), often interpolating them and displaying the evident purpose of justifying Photius’ condemnation. Its use is therefore problematic. 2. General Context On the eve of Photius’ accession to the patriarchal throne, Byzantium was still shaken by the recent iconoclastic controversy. In the background, the scene of religious politics was occupied by the permanent - and at times violent - confrontation between the “moderates” and the “extremists” to use Dvornik’s apt expression39 . In Old Rome, by contrast, the political framework had changed drastically over the previous few decades, during which Frankish support had determined vigorous acceleration in the claims of the papacy, in multiple directions. First and foremost, from the very beginning of the century, there were affirmations of the Petrine authority to govern and rule all churches, Rome being magister, mater et caput of all churches and the bishop of Rome vicarius Petri40 . These claims increased considerably from the middle of the ninth century with the pontificates of Nicholas I (858-867) and Hadrian II (867-872). Secondly, and partly as a consequence of the first aspect, new and old jurisdictional issues arose, such as those concerning Illyricum, Sicily and – ultimately – Bulgaria. Finally, but still related to the first theme, since the privileges of the Roman see were – according to Nicholas I – directly derived from Peter himself, a new way of understanding conciliar decisions began to come to the fore, so that they were seen as not constraining for the First See41 . It is this last consideration that de facto opened the doors, for the 39 ibid., 1-38 and passim. Perrone and others refer to the same group using the well-known metaphor of ecclesiastical discipline in terms of akribeia and oikonomia, Perrone, Das vierte Konzil von Konstantinopel (869-870), 173. 40 Chadwick, East and West, 96. Cf. MGH, Ep. 6, 471.16, 528.13 (pope Nicholas I). 41 It is precisely after Nicholas I that the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals came into use, undermining the conciliar theory of the Church authority. On this topic, see Vacca, Prima sedes, 110-119. 41 moment in a still theoretical way, to the theological innovation of the Filioque, of which we shall speak at the end of the chapter. Besides, in both Constantinople and Rome, the fate of the patriarchs had little to do with religion and much to do with the needs of the palace. So it had been for Ignatius42 : son of the emperor Michael I (811-813) and made a eunuch to avoid any risk of claiming the throne, he was chosen by the widow Theodora on the death of Methodius, the first post-iconoclastic patriarch. According to the empress, the mild character of Ignatius would have allowed him to continue the slow work of restoring the images without too much upheaval from the extremist or crypto-iconoclast factions. In 858, however, Ignatius came publicly into conflict with Bardas by denying him communion on the feast of the Epiphany, on account of an alleged sexual scandal43 . The Caesar managed to send Theodora to a nunnery, to appoint her young son Michael as emperor and finally to force Ignatius to resign for violating Apostolic Canon 30 (31) which declared invalid the appointment of a bishop by the secular power. At the end of the year Photius was chosen to replace him. Since he was a layman, he spent just one day for each degree of the monastic priesthood (monk, lector, sub-deacon, presbyter, bishop),44 being ultimately consecrated patriarch on 25 December 85845 . 3. The synods of 859 and the Protodeutera A few weeks46 after Photius’ enthronement, a kind of synod of philo-Ignatian bishops gathered at the church of Hagia Eirene and probably deposed and anathematised the newly elected patriarch, reinstating the deposed Ignatius instead47 . 42 For an overview of the life of patriarch Ignatius, see first of all R.J. Lilie et al., ed., Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, Berlin-Boston, De Gruyter-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2014, ad vocem. It should be borne in mind, however, that most of the information in our possession derives from sources (mainly the Synodicon Vetus and the Vita Ignatii of Nicetas David) characterised by a strong anti-Photian sentiment. 43 The allegations were about an alleged incestuous relationship between Bardas (who was Theodora’s brother) and his daughter-in-law. Cf. Vita Ignatii, PG 105, 503A; Theophanes Continuatus 4.30; Anastasius Bibl., Mansi 16, 30. 44 This praxis was unconventional, but definitely not uncanonical. There were several precedents of laity rapidly promoted to the episcopate, both remote (e.g. Ambrose) and proximate (Nectarius, Tarasius and Nicephorus). 45 Vita Ignatii PG 105, 512A. 46 Two months according to the Vita Ignatii, 40 days according to Metrophanes, cf. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 53. Westerink dates Photius’ Ep. 3 to February 859 which therefore could be a terminus ante quem for the meeting of Hagia Eirene, see infra. 47 We do not have any precise information of what happened in this synod, but Photius’ Epistle 3 to the Kuropalates Bardas (dated February 859) might refer to it, since Photius complains of finding himself with a Church split in two (namely between the bishops of Ignatius and his own). 42 Shortly after, around March 859, Photius gathered another synod in the church of the Twelve Apostles48 in the presence of 170 bishops,49 at which Ignatius might have been condemned had he accepted the decision of the Hagia Eirene gathering. While the Vita Ignatii simply states that that the synod proclaimed a sentence of deposition and excommunication against Ignatius in his absence, Zonaras and Balsamon50 explain that in the first meeting the two parties could not reach an agreement and that the Ignatians were simply outvoted, continuing to cause turmoil. In fact, the first synod did not produce any written results, and the discussion was resumed in the synod of 861 which - assuming the premises of that of 859 - was therefore called Πρωτοδευτέρα (the “first-second”)51 . After a tepid exchange of letters between Photius and Nicholas in 86052 , in which the latter declared his desire to get to the bottom of the story of the deposition of Ignatius and the procedure for the elevation of Photius, the parties agreed to convene a new synod in Constantinople53 . The council was celebrated between April and August 86154 in the presence of more than 300 bishops and two papal The passage about people who produce false accusations against him (καὶ πλάττονται λόγοι, καὶ ὁ καθ’ἡμῶν τι καινότερον ἐπινοῶν) may refer to that gathering, Laourdas – Westerink, Epistulae et Amphilochia, I, 53-56; Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 470. The synod is also mentioned in a letter from Metrophanes of Smyrna to Manuel, patrikios and logothetes of the dromos, Mansi 16, 413-420: 416D. 48 Vita Ignatii, 26, Stylianos’ Epistle to pope Stephen V (Mansi 16, 428), Metrophanes’ Epistle to Manuel (ibidem, 416), Anastasius’ preface to the so-called Eighth Ecumenical Council, 90-95 (Leonardi – Placanica, Gesta octavæ synodi, 10). The anti-Photian Synodicon Vetus promotes the idea of a political plot, calling this first part of the Protodeutera ἐν τῷ παλατίῳ σύνοδον ἀφελῆ (a simple synod in the palace). See also Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 56. 49 C. Gallagher, Patriarch Photius and Pope Nicholas i and the council of 879, in The Jurist 67 (2007), 74. On this synod, see also Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 466-468. 50 PG 137, 1003 B/C-1005 B/A; ibid., n. 468; Mansi 16, 535. While the explanation is reasonable, it is not known from which contemporary source they got this information. 51 Although opposition to Photius had apparently been silenced, it remained very much alive even after this synod, the monastery of Stoudion being one of the main centres of opposition, Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 63-65. 52 A. Müller – F. Dölger, ed., Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit: Reihe A, Regesten. Teil 1, Halbbd. 1: Abt. 1. Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches von 565 - 1453, 2a ed., Munich, Beck, 2009, I, n. 457. The same year a synod in Rome complained that Ignatius was deposed without consultation with the bishop of Rome. 53 The sources do not agree about who had the initiative towards pope Nicholas: the Synodicon Vetus and the Vita Ignatii see Photius as the prime mover seeking a Roman condemnation of Ignatius, while the Life of Nicholas I (Liber Pontificalis, II, 155) and Metrophanes of Smyrna (Mansi 16, 416E) say that the Roman legates were sent on imperial request, which is more than likely. Also Theophanes Continuatus IV, 32, asserts that they were summoned under the pretext of residual iconoclasm. 54 The Acts of the synod survive just in the form of an extract in Latin translation by Ivo of Chartres and by Cardinal Deusdedit (von Glanvell, Deusdedit, 603-610). Cf. Dvornik, The Photian 43 legates: Radoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni. Officially, the purpose of the synod – requested and formally convoked by the emperor Michael III – was not about a re-trial for the case of Ignatius55 but just to assert once again the doctrine of the second council of Nicaea and to have iconoclasm solemnly condemned by the Roman see as well56 . In a letter to Michael, nonetheless, the pope asks for an enquiry into Ignatius’ case57 , refusing de facto to recognise Photius’ elevation before it was made. This was to become the leitmotif of all the papal policies for the whole time of Photius, and it is crucial to focus on the general context in order to understand the real motivations of the Roman see. The same letter provides better evidence: beside asking for the re-trial of Ignatius, pope Nicholas requests Michael to return full jurisdiction over Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the Roman see. It appears very likely that Nicholas wanted to exchange his tolerance of the unorthodox manner in which Photius had been consecrated for some jurisdictional concessions, in a straight do ut des. Ignatius was allowed to attend in his monastic garment only58 . The Council opened with the emperor himself declaring that any retrial of Ignatius was being conceded just as an act of courtesy (ex gratia) to the Roman see, and on condition that a judgement had to be made by the legates without bringing the case to Rome. It is not clear whether Photius did not attend the sessions of the council out of sensitivity or political opportunism. About Ignatius, while the Roman legates were accusing him of not replying to pope Benedict III’s requests for information about his dethroning the Archbishop of Syracuse Gregory Asbestas (Actio I), the Byzantine side (represented in the first session by the prothospatharios John) pointed out that Ignatius had not been elected by a canonical synod, but had been simply appointed solely by the Empress Theodora, which was against the thirtieth Apostolic Canon. In the next session, Ignatius refused to appear before the council, but in the third59 , to which he was forcibly policed, he stated that he did not Schism, 300 sqq. 55 Interestingly enough, Photius was not the only one to have had an election that was not exactly limpid on the canonical level. Pope Nicholas, in fact, had been appointed bishop per saltum, while he was a simple deacon, without therefore going through priestly ordination (Liber Pontificalis, II, 151-152); Ignatius himself, in turn, had been appointed directly by Theodora, without the clergy or the senate being consulted as was customary. Gregory Asbestas, bishop of Syracuse, even brought the latter case before popes Leo IV and Benedict III. On the whole affair, see Chadwick, East and West, 121-123. 56 Synodicon Vetus, 159. 57 MGH Ep. 6, 433-439 (25 Sept. AD 860), cf. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 75. 58 Vita Ignatii, 31. Deusdedit reports that after that he could wear alb and pallium, von Glanvell, Deusdedit, 610. 59 While the whole second actio dealt just with the physical absence of Ignatius and how many formal calls he had to receive, the third was spent determining whether the judgement of the legates had to be accepted by the assembly. In the end it was Bardas who forced the hand of all those present 44 appeal to the pope and did not accept to be judged by the legates (vos non recipio iudices). This is particularly interesting because although theorically he might have evoked the canons of Serdica60 – already mentioned by the Roman legates during the second session – to his own advantage, he instead chose to question the entire legitimacy of the process. In fact, despite a certain inclination of the legates in favour of overturning of the sentence of deposition, the minutes show a palpable mistrust on the part of Ignatius towards Radoald and Zachary. In the fourth and final actio of the synod, the Roman legates ratified the deposition of Ignatius on the basis of the accusations that emerged in the first session and the fact that the depositions of Gregory Asbestas and his followers were the result of a praeiudicium, for which reason the sentence over them was also declared void. The physical absence of Photius and the complete lack of accusation towards Ignatius coming from the new patriarch make it clear that the whole matter was just a settling of scores between Bardas and the party of Ignatius. In this wholly political dispute, the Roman see tried – without any success – to exercise its self-proclaimed authority to derive two advantages: one material and immediate of a judicial nature, and another more general in affirming the Serdican principle of appeal. On the sidelines of the events related to his predecessor, Photius’ will to bring order and put a limit to the excessive freedoms that had spread in recent years in monastic circles should be noted. The first seven canons61 of the Protodeutera in fact regulate different categories of abuse that had become systematic in recent years. The hostility that some monastic circles later showed towards Photius, especially in the first part of his patriarchal career, may well derive from this policy of subordinating the monasteries to the power of the local bishop62 . Other decisions show Photius’ intention to avoid similar incidents in the future: Canon 8 forbids caand effectively obliged them to recognise the authority of the legates «quasi si ipse [scil. the pope] sit presens», ibid., 608. 60 Ignatius knew that the right of appeal of Rome established by canons 3c, 4 and 7 of the local synod of Serdica in 343 was neither acknowledged by the eastern Church, nor recognised in Constantinople as binding in any way, shape or form. On the council, see H. Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, (Oxford early Christian studies), Oxford - New York, Oxford University Press, 2002; on the reception of Serdica and especially in this context see M. Anastos, Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium: Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome, (Variorum Collected Studies 717), Aldershot, Ashgate, 2001, 189, n.16 and 198-200. 61 The council produced 17 canons, which survived because they were included in a collection under the heading of ‘Canons of the local Synods’, probably assembled by Photius and commented in 883. Critical edition: G. Alberigo – A. Melloni, ed., Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta: editio critica, (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout, Brepols, 2006-2023, Vol 4.1, 9-22. 62 Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 67-69. 45 strated men to take holy orders (Ignatius was an eunuch)63 ; Canon 16 states that under no circumstances can any bishop be appointed over a church the president of which is still alive and is in good honourable standing, unless he himself voluntarily resigns64 ; finally, Canon 17 deals directly with Photius’ election, decreeing that “none of the laymen or monks shall be allowed to ascend to the height of the episcopacy precipitously and multitudinously as in a stampede, but, on the contrary, by being duly examined with reference to the various ecclesiastical degrees or levels”. Despite the apparent success of the council for both sides, also testified by an epistle in which the emperor summarised to pope Nicholas the results of the synodal work65 , the pope soon afterwards refused to accept the result of the council. Of course, this drastic change was probably determined by the fact that the oral reconstruction of the events provided by the legates on their return did not coincide with that contained in the letter sent by the emperor through his ambassador Leo66 . Whatever version Rodoald and Zacharias provided – and we do not know whether the main issue was the trial of Ignatius or rather the question of Illyricum67 – the pope was not happy with it. In a series of letters sent in 862 to the emperor, the patriarch and all the faithful68 , pope Nicholas vehemently asked for 63 Unsurprisingly, this canon had no success at all, since Photius’ successor, Stephen I (November 867 - 18 May 893) was himself a eunuch. Otherwise, the canons of the Protodeutera were translated into Church Slavonic in the twelfth century by St. Sava (the son of the first Serbian King Štefan Nemanja), eventually finding their way into the Slavic Orthodox collection of canon law. 64 It is still a matter of dispute among scholars whether Ignatius was deposed or more or less voluntarily resigned with a formal letter. One of the most favoured hypotheses is that Ignatius had consented to a formal deal according to which he would have resigned only if his successor had not been of the current represented by Gregory Asbestas, which could explain what is said in the Vita Ignatii 25, according to which Photius (who was consecrated by Asbestas himself ) did not keep his word. 65 F. Dölger – A.E. Müller, ed., Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565-1453, Tl. 1: Regesten von 565-1025, München, C. H. Beck, 2003, I, §460 (Aug.-Sept. 861). 66 The whole matter is well described by Ronconi, Le ‘Schisme photien’, 58-64, which also explains the role of some pro-Ignatian exiles in convincing the pope of the narrative we read in the Libellus Theognosti. 67 Around 732, eastern Illyricum had been transferred by Leo III from Roman jurisdiction to Constantinople. In a polite way, Photius had explained to Nicholas that although he was not opposed to granting that primacy of jurisdiction, nevertheless the decision rested with the emperor, Ep. 290, 390-2. On the complex situation of the region, see also C. Piétri, La géographie de l’Illyricum ecclésiastique et ses relations avec l’Église de Rome (Ve-VIe siècles), in: Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin: actes du Colloque organisé par l’École française de Rome: Rome, 12-14 mai 1982, (Collection de l’École française de Rome 77), Rome, École française de Rome [diffusion de Boccard], 1984. 68 Epistles 84-86, MGH Ep., 6, 440-451. 46 another revision of Ignatius’ cause69 . Since he had no answer from either Michael – who considered the matter well settled – or Photius, in summer 863 the pope summoned another synod70 in which he rejected the canons issued by the Protodeutera as well as Photius’ election, excommunicating him and Gregory Asbestas, declaring null and void all of Photius’ ordinations and restoring Ignatius to the patriarchal throne. In addition, the two legates, who had approved those canons, were removed from their sees under the suspicion of bribery71 . 4. The Synod of 867 After the Lateran synod, there was a significant deterioration in relations between Rome and Constantinople, testified by an exchange of vitriolic letters in the years 865-86672 . The harsh remonstrances of the emperor for the growing support of the pope for Ignatius correspond to legal claims of Roman primacy on the part of Nicholas. The pope was asserting that no synod could be summoned without the pope’s consent, a doctrine that was completely new since all the former ecumenical councils had been convoked and presided by the emperor, but one that was to find a large echo in the West in the following years. In the meantime, the Bulgarian khan Boris, who at that time had already established contact with both eastern and western Christianity (the latter through the Frankish bishops), was moving forwards in the process of tribal conversion73 from paganism. Although in 863 he had opted for the Greek side, receiving baptism with the name of the emperor Michael, the matter was far from being settled. The Bulgarians’ desire for 69 He also informed the other oriental patriarchs. According to the Vita Ignatii 37-38, the former patriarch was during these months wandering between the Propontid islands, which is rather hard to believe. 70 MGH Conc., 4, 142-146. According to Dvornik, Nicholas waited so long to act because he hoped the emperor would make some concession about southern Italy, Illyricum or Bulgaria in exchange for the formal recognition of Photius, Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 97. The synod began at St. Peter’s and then moved to the Lateran, probably in late summer 863. The acta did not survive. All that we know comes from the report that the pope made respectively to the emperor (Ep. 91) and to the eastern patriarchs (Ep. 98) dated 13 November 866, MGH Ep. 6, 512-533, 553-565. See also Vita Ignatii, 40 which extends the excommunication to the emperor and the whole government. Another minor synod had been previously held in Rome in early 862 rejecting the decisions of the Protodeutera. 71 MGH Ep. 6, 517-518; MGH Ep. 7, 377. 72 Epistles 88-93 (MGH 6, 454-544). Of the epistolary exchanges of these years, it often happens that only the Latin side is preserved, from which it is possible to make a rough reconstruction of the content of the Greek counterpart. 73 A good summary of the Bulgarian affair and the complex relations between Rome and Constantinople can be found in A. Louth, Greek East and Latin West: The Church, AD 681-1071, (The Church in History 3), Crestwood, N.Y, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2007, 167-188. 47 independence, bolstered by the denial from Constantinople of the patriarchal title for the head of the new Church, soon led them to be disputed between the Franks based in Regensburg and the legates of pope Nicholas, leading to a sudden expulsion of the Constantinopolitan clergy. In early spring of 867, Photius reacted to the Roman mission by summoning a synod in Constantinople74 condemning both the actions of the Roman clergy in Bulgaria and some Frankish doctrines such as the Filioque, the requirement of celibacy for inferior clergy, fasting on Saturdays, and the refusal to acknowledge the second Council of Nicaea as ecumenical75 . Soon after this, Photius invited his eastern colleagues of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem to a great council to be held in Constantinople to discuss (and confirm) the decisions of the synod. In the letter of invitation – the so-called “Encyclical”76 many of the themes were already present in nuce that were later developed extensively in Photius’ De Sancti Spiritus Mystagogia, the first theological treatise on the Filioque77 . The council finally took place between August and September 867. Due to the scarcity and bias of our available sources, it is difficult to reconstruct the events even in an approximate way. What can be said for certain is that there was a formal condemnation addressed to the Roman see and pope Nicholas I was probably 74 Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 480. The fact that Photius had convened a local synod which ended in a condemnation of the Latin practices in Bulgaria can be deduced from Ep. 2: “Now, concerning these forerunners of apostasy, common pests and servants of the enemy, we, by divine and synodal decree, condemn them as impostors and enemies of God”. 75 The same themes had probably been developed in an unpreserved letter sent by Photius to Boris-Michael the same year, see Dölger – Müller, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, I, §469, p. 243. 76 I.e. Ep. 2, Laourdas – Westerink, Epistulae et Amphilochia, I, p. 39-53. Photius explains the Roman missionary activities in Bulgaria to the eastern patriarchs, lists the erroneous doctrines that the Latins spread among the newly converted people and explains to what extent these doctrines had already been condemned at earlier synods. He finally asks to send representatives to a synod in Constantinople in order to condemn these heresies and to lead the Bulgarian people back to the true faith. The authenticity of the letter in this form has been questioned by T.M. Kolbaba, Inventing Latin heretics: Byzantines and the Filioque in the ninth century, Kalamazoo, Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2008, 60-61, 64-65 and passim. 77 Since the Filioque is the subject of another chapter in this book, I shall not go into detail here. Suffice it to recall the main arguments of Photius: (1) the Filioque is against the Scripture which says “the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father”; (2) all ecumenical councils from the fourth onwards, anathematised anyone who dared to change the Symbol of faith; (3) if the Son has the privilege of participating in the generation of the Spirit but the Spirit does not have the privilege of participating in the generation of the Son, subordinationism is introduced; (4) the procession of the Spirit from the Son subsumes the generation of the Word. So the Word, at least logically, precedes the Spirit, introducing in the Trinity a kind of “before and after” that is in other words, a form of crypto-arianism. 48 declared deposed and excommunicated78 . Both Michael and Basil79 signed the Acts of the council. We cannot assess in what terms the condemnation of Rome was issued and whether the Petrine primacy was questioned, but a passage from the homily 18 by Photius might shed some light: That famous Phinees, too, checked the plague which was ravaging his whole people by transfixing the Israelite together with the Medianitish woman; but not even he was innocent of a fellow-man’s blood, nor did he deliver from bodily destruction those whose champion he was. But our Phinees, not allowing the plague to prevail, nor drenching his right hand in kindred blood, but transfixing most courageously and royally the pestilence, not of the bodies, but of the souls, has made the whole commonwealth to rise above every error and plague80 . Here the parallel between the emperor(s) and Phinees, who in Num 25,7-8 literally exterminated 24,000 people to eradicate the heresy of the Israelites, may suggest that strong action was undertaken against a doctrinal issue, since a general council could not be convoked in the absence of a doctrinal problem. Now, if in Photius’ perception the Filioque was a Frankish heresy not (yet) accepted by Rome, it is legitimate to think that the only doctrinal basis for such a condemnation should be found in the pope’s refusal to recognise the second council of Nicaea as ecumenical, which - although totally alien to the intentions of Nicholas I – had occurred ipso facto by rejecting the canons of the Protodeutera. Be that as it may, following the council of 867, Photius sent his envoys Zacharias “Kophos”, the metropolitan of Chalcedon, and Theodoros from Caria or Laodicea to Italy, on the one hand to inform the pope of his deposition81 and on the other hand to ask 78 Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 482. Since the acta were destroyed, we have only indirect and anti-Photian sources for the council such as the Liber Pontificalis, II, 178-179; the Acta of the 8th council (sessions 7-8-9), Metrophanes’ epistle to Manuel, (Mansi 16, 417), Vita Ignatii 52, the Roman Synod of Hadrian II (Mansi, 16, 125,128), Anastasius’ Praefatio to the 8th council, Leonardi – Placanica, Gesta octavæ synodi, 147-165. 79 During the military caimpaign in Crete in 866, Bardas had been assassinated for allegedly plotting against the emperor. At Pentecost, the paroikomenos Basil had been crowned co-emperor by Michael. 80 C. Mango, ed., The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople / English translation, introduction and commentary, (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 3), Cambridge, ma, Harvard University Press, 1958, 313-314. Greek text: Σ. Αριστάρχης, Λόγοι καὶ Ὁμιλίαι τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Φωτίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Constantinople, The Annuaire Oriental & Printing Co., 1900, vol. 2, p. 314-326. This homily (which may well be the final act of this council) represents one of the very few surviving official (and non anti-Photian) testimonies of the events of 867. 81 Synodicon Vetus 161; Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 485. It is also possible that Photius had made arrangements with the archbishop of Ravenna to support the deposition of pope Nicholas, 49 Ludwig II and his wife Angelberga to carry it out82 . Nevertheless, several major political upheavals had occurred in the meantime. On 21 April 866 Michael had Bardas killed by his private guards, only to be killed in turn on 23 September 867 by Basil. These events changed the scenario completely and abruptly: the day after the assassination, Basil I deposed Photius, banishing him to the Skepe monastery83 and immediately recalled the embassy to Ludwig II and Angelberga. Finally, in November84 867, Ignatius was reinstated as patriarch. As a consequence, the highly embarassing Acts of the council, bearing the signatures of Basil, the Greek clergy, the senate’s representatives, and the oriental delegates, were destroyed. A few days earlier (13 November), pope Nicholas, who was already seriously ill, had died. His successor, Hadrian II, had been elected pope on 14 December 867. The dethronement of Photius was most of all a political matter, motivated by contingent situations both at home and abroad. On the one hand, after the assassination of Bardas and Michael, supported by the “moderate” party, Basil had no choice but to turn to the “extremists” to find internal stability. Among them figured the monks of Stoudion and the ultra-orthodox supporters of Ignatius. On the other hand, the conquest of Bari and a large part of Langobardia constituted a serious problem for the Byzantine dominance in southern Italy. For this, Basil had made contact with Louis II and pope Hadrian II to organise a joint action against the Arab threat85 , which is why it was essential to restore relations with Rome, which had drastically deteriorated since the recent council. Ep. 267, Laourdas – Westerink, Epistulae et Amphilochia, II, 217-218, Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 514. 82 Grumel, ibid., n. 483-484. 83 Vita Ignatii, 53. One of the reasons for Photius’ sacking might have been his criticism of the murder, as suggested by the Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete, 132,5 and the Short History of Psellos, §99, edition: W.J. Aerts, ed., Michaelis Pselli Historia Syntomos, (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 30), Berlin, Walter De Gruyter, 1990. The same is found in John Zonaras’ Epitome Historiarum XVI, 8b, PG135, 37; transl. A. Álvarez – F.M. García, ed., Libro de los emperadores: versión aragonesa del Compéndio de história universál patrocinada por Juan Fernández de Heredia, (Historia y pensamiento 41), Zaragoza, Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico; Instituto de Estudios Altoaragoneses; Depto. de Educación, Cultura y Deporte del Gobierno de Aragón, 2006, 218. 84 23 November according to the Vita Ignatii, 58, twenty days earlier according to Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 137. Since the first date is highly convenient for Nicetas David’s purposes (it was the anniversary of Ignatius’ banishment) the second date is preferable. 85 Vita Basilii, 55. See also Müller-Dölger, Corpus, I.2, n. 480-481. 50 5. The Anti-Photian (so called. “8th Ecumenical”) Council (869-870) 86 During the first days of June 869 a synod was held in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome . Here Hadrian and the attending 30 bishops, 9 presbyters, one archdeacon and four deacons solemnly condemned Photius for having judged a pope88 . Moreover, all those consecrated by Photius were deposed, while those who had been ordained by Ignatius and then passed to Photius could be re-admitted only if they signed a “libellus satisfactionis”89 . Shortly after this, another council was summoned in Constantinople by Basil to settle the case, trying not only to mend the relations with Rome once for all, but also to extinguish the conflict within the Byzantine Church itself. Although the agreement that emerged at this point between Roman and Byzantine interests constituted an essential prerequisite for the council to be convened, it was still not fully able to overcome the respective positions on several issues. The council was seen by Rome just as a ratification of what had been already decided in St. Peter’s90 , but that was hardly acceptable to 87 86 Canons: Alberigo – Melloni, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Vol. 2.1, 15-48. Acta: the Latin translation by Anastasius the Librarian is edited by Leonardi – Placanica, Gesta octavæ synodi. Unless specified, all citations of this section refer to this edition; the number of the Actio and the lines of the critical edition are given. The surviving excerpts from the Greek text are in Mansi 16, 309-409. A complete list of Greek fragments and epitomes is in ibid., lxiv-lxxii. 87 MGH Conc. 4, 337-351; Liber Pontificalis, II, 179, ibid., 242-252. 88 P. Jaffé, ed., Regesta pontificum Romanorum, Graz, Akademische Druck- U. Verlagsanstalt, 1956 (1888), vol. 1, 370-371. The famous principle, coming straight from the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, had already been well established after 862 by Nicholas I probably through Anastasius, cf. Vacca, Prima sedes, 112-123. Five canons were also issued 1) The council of 867 is condemned, and all copies of its Acts consigned to the flames; 2) two “conventicles” held against lgnatius are cursed; 3) Photius is condemned and anathematised; 4) if the signatories to that council repent they may be restored to communion by the pope, and Basil is assigned a place among catholic and pious emperors; 5) any who retain copies of that council are anathematised. See also Leonardi – Placanica, Gesta octavæ synodi, 15 (Anastasii Praefatio, 252-261). The attention given to the systematic destruction of every copy of the Acts clearly reveals how these were perceived as embarrassing and clearly problematic for the restoration of good diplomatic relations between Rome and Constantinople. 89 Actio I, 555-624. The Libellus affirmed the teaching authority of the Roman see as the ultimate authority in matters of faith, discipline and church communion, along the lines of the Formula Hormisdae. The superimpositions of the Libellus with that of Hormisdas are in Chrysos, The Council of Constantinople in 869-70: A Minority Council, 149-152. 90 Jaffé, Regesta, n. 2914, 371; Actio VI, 132-143. The outcome of the council is already predefined by the letter addressed by pope Nicholas to the Constantinopolitan clergy, which summarises the salient points in six chapters: Photius is anathematised, as well as is Gregory Asbestas (§1-2); all those who have been consecrated by Photius are reduced to the lay state (§3); Ignatius is reinstalled to his see, together with the bishops who had been removed after his deposition (§4-5); the cult of images is reaffirmed (§6), Actio VII, 249-1175. 51 Basil who, on the contrary, was asking for lenient measures against the followers of Photius and who was anything but prone to accept the supremacy of the pope over any council convened by the emperor (nor any other direct interference in his domestic affairs) as a matter of principle. According to the Vita Ignatii, the council opened in the catechumenia of Hagia Sophia in the presence of Basil with the public reading of the letters sent by Hadrian. From the opening lines it became clear that Basil’s political calculations were far from accurate. Although Basil had asked for (and eventually obtained91 ) clemency towards the clergy consecrated by Photius in order not to antagonise completely the vast support that the former patriarch still enjoyed, the pope wished to go straight ahead without any concessions. His interest was primarily that of affirming the primacy of the Roman see, in order to be able to derive therefrom advantages of a jurisdictional nature at a later date, as Nicholas had already tried to do before him. For this reason, one of the conditions dictated by pope Hadrian for communion to be restored was the signature by all the oriental bishops of the Libellus satisfactionis as decided in the Roman synod of June. This situation also placed the Ignatian party itself – which on the contrary promoted the traditional pentarchic doctrine – in serious embarrassment, well aware that any concession to the Roman see would sooner or later backfire in the future. With these premises in the background, and also bearing in mind that signing the libellus satisfactionis was a necessary prerequisite for admission, participation in the council was initially very small; in addition to representatives of the senate, the pope and the oriental patriarchates92 , only five bishops and seven metropolitans took part in the first session (5 October 869)93 . At the second session of the council (7 October), which presented itself as “ecumenical”94 , the situtation improved and 91 As early as 871, Basil and Ignatius asked Rome to soften the Council’s decisions regarding the Photian clergy, who had been reduced to the lay state (Canon 4). See also Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 504. 92 The delegates were bishops Stephanus of Nepi and Donatus of Ostia and deacon Marinus from Rome, the archdeacon Joseph for patriarch Michael of Alexandria (who was absent until the ninth session), metropolitan Thomas of Tyre representing Antioch (the see at the time was probably vacant), and hieromonk Elias for patriarch Theodosius of Jerusalem. 93 This is also attested by the pro-Ignatian Vita Ignatii, which describes the council in chapter 61. Echoes of this scarse participation might be found in Canon 17: “sunt quidam metropolitanorum, qui ne secundum vocationem apostolici praesulis occurrant a mundi principibus se detineri sine ratione causantur...”. 94 Actio II, 34-35; Alberigo – Melloni, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Vol 4.1, 15,19 (Terminus Synodi 105, 154). While the Liber Pontificalis calls the council just “synod” (108, 41), the Synodicon Vetus (§162) defines it as ecumenical. Inconsistently with other sources from the same pope, the council is also referred to as “octava synodus” in Ep. 53 of John VIII dated 875 (MGH Ep. VII, 307). Andrea Dandolo’s Venetiarum Chronica V, 11 states: “Hanc synodum graeci inter generales non suscipiunt, quia in ea de articulis fidei non est actum, et etiam propter Photii depo- 52 the bishops ordained by Methodius and Ignatius who had given up their allegiance to Photius were admitted again. Despite the fact that participation increased from session to session, even the tenth and last session was attended by only 103 bishops95 . Approximately 300 other bishops, who had been also invited, had in fact refused to sign the Libellus and therefore they had not been admitted to the council96 . After the first three sessions, focused on the delegates’ presentations, the reading of the pope’s letters and, of course, the complicated matter of the libellus and its acceptance, at the fourth session (18 October) the patrician Baanes, who presided over the commission of twelve senators on behalf of the emperor, made a formal request for Photius to be heard97 . The latter was brought in under duress at the fifth meeting (20 October), having refused to appear voluntarily98 . He did not comment on the allegations, but remained silent, while the rest of the session was spent trying to prove that Nicholas never enetered into communion with Photius and to deny or minimise the relations between the Constantinopolitan see and the eastern ones in the years of his patriarchate. The emperor was present at the sixth session (25 October) and at the seventh (29 October). While the former dealt mainly with the bishops consecrated by Photius, during the latter the ex-patriarch himself was brought back into the assembly99 together with Gregorios Asbestes and his closest followers such as Eulampius of Apamaea, to be finally condemned. It should be noted, however, that the Roman legates had to struggle to produce a condemnation of the ex-patriarch, because it was evident sitionem”, edition: E. Pastorello, ed., Andreae Danduli ducis Venetiarum Chronica per extensum descripta: aa. 46-1280 d.C. (Rerum Italicarum scriptores 12.1), Bologna, 1938-1958. 95 Gallagher, Patriarch Photius and Pope Nicholas, 76. Interestingly enough, a good part of the bishops who actually signed the libellus eventually went to protest to the patriarch and the emperor about this public act of submission to Rome. As a reaction, Basil tried in vain to get the signatures back, only to cause another minor diplomatic incident with the delegates, as narrated by Anastasius, Leonardi – Placanica, Gesta octavæ synodi, 52-53 (Apparatus, 44-53). The detailed account by Anastasius is translated in Chrysos, The Council of Constantinople in 869-70: A Minority Council, 154-155. 96 Although it does not provide precise numbers, this information is confirmed by the Liber Pontificalis, (Vita Hadriani, 108, 40). 97 Actio IV, 68-97. A first, informal, request, had already been made in the Actio I, 784-790. That the judgements had already been issued a priori and were not negotiable by the Roman legates is clear from their words in which Photius and his closest followers are admitted: «Ingrediantur, sed nos non propter contentionem advocamus eos, sed ut tantum audiant beatissimi papae Nicolai epistolam», Actio IV, 153-155. 98 With the sagacity that had always distinguished him, Photius replied to the messengers sent to escort him to the council with the incipit of Ps. 38, Mansi 16, 340; Actio V, 63-65. 99 Notably, Photius made his entrance with the pastoral staff (baculus innixus), arousing the immediate protest of Marinus, who successfully demanded that it be removed from him, Actio VII, 60-64. 53 that not only did he still enjoy vast support from the Church, but that his orthodoxy was not in question100 . In the end, they accepted a generic condemnation as an independent decision of the council rather than a simple ratification of the previous Roman synod. It was made on the basis of Photius’ excommunication of Nicholas – whereby he had excluded himself from ecclesiastical communion – but also of his election, reversing the judgement of the previous synod, the acta of which were burnt at the following session, on 5 November 869. The same day also dealt with the veneration of the icons, with the solemn condemnation of the iconoclast Theodoros Krithinos101 and some of his followers. In the end, the council stated that the icons must be venerated in the same way as the Bible (Canon 3). This marked the end of the first phase of the council. After that, work was interrupted for more than three months. The reasons for this hiatus are not known; although it has been often interpreted as a sign of dissatisfaction with the results achieved so far, especially in relation to the obligation of the bishops to sign the libellus102 , it may be simply that the pause was necessary to await the arrival of some important delegations from abroad for the end of the conciliar work. Meanwhile, by the ninth session (12 February 870) the number of attendees had barely risen to 67. Those who had spoken out against the legitimacy of Ignatius’ election at the synod of 861 were condemned. The representatives of the eastern sees at the same synod were also heard and forced to retract. At the tenth and final session (28 February 870), two embassies arrived: one from the German emperor Ludwig II103 and another one from khan Boris. In fact, the Bulgarian crisis was still alive. When the Bulgarian legates made their appearance to clarify whether the Bulgarian Church belonged to the Latin or Greek jurisdiction104 , the council was closed and the Roman legates, who had no mandate to discuss the case, were not invited to the further discussions. Nevertheless, they read a letter from 100 The answer that a certain Leo consul et scriba gave to the papal vicars to the question of anathema against Photius is exemplary: “Quis sum ego, ut anathematizem? Anathematismus in causa fidei fit. At vero Photius hortodoxus est, et ut quid anathematbo eum?”, Actio IX, 426-429. 101 He was Gregorius Asbestas’ predecessor as Archbishop of Syracuse. According to Thümmel, Die Konstantinopeler Konzilien des 9. Jahrhunderts. Eine Übersicht, 452, he must be considered the only known opponent of the images in the second half of the 9th century. 102 Perrone, Das vierte Konzil von Konstantinopel (869-870), 183. 103 Anastasius the Librarian was part of this group. The main purpose of this delegation was to combine a marriage in order to bind the two dynasties. A recent bibliography on the life and work of Anastasius can be found in C. Gantner, Ad Utriusque Imperii Unitatem? Anastasius Bibliothecarius as a Broker between Two Cultures and Three Courts in the Ninth Century, in Medieval Worlds 13 (2021), 36–53. 104 The Liber Pontificalis (Vita Hadriani 108, 47-58) gives a full account of what happened with the Bulgarian embassy. Noteworthily, it underlines the fact that the eastern delegates supported the Greek jurisdiction on a linguistic basis. 54 Hadrian II which made his recognition of Ignatius conditional on the granting of Roman jurisdiction over Bulgaria. For Ignatius, this condition was deemed inadmissible105 , so much so as to raise doubts as to whether pope Hadrian eventually ratified the council106 since at the end the Bulgars opted for Constantinople. In this solemn setting, the council ratified the final acts: the approval of 27 canons107 of dogmatic and disciplinary content, as well as a horos stating nothing new but reasserting generic fidelity to Tradition. Apart from Photius’ case, the canons deal mostly with the authority of the First See. During the discussion, on one side the Roman legates stressed the full and suprajurisdictional power of Old Rome, while on the Byzantine part the case of the heresy of pope Honorius108 and the lack of ecumenicity of the council of Serdica109 were recalled. For example, the first canon emphasises the need to respect the tradition transmitted by the councils, whether ecumenical or regional110 . This distinction must be read above all in the context of trying to impose the canons of Serdica on the authority of the First See over the eastern patriarchates. Other canons try to combine both perspectives: in canon 21, the first part asserts the authority of the five patriarchs against attempts by the state authority to expel them from their sees, but in the second part special guarantees are given to the pope about those who in the future would seek to make themselves his judges111 , remaining however on a generic level, capable of various interpretations. As a final remark, it must be noted that the Filioque was not a matter of interest. The eastern bishops were perfectly aware that the deposition of Photius had to do with politics rather than religious 105 Although warned by the Roman legates, Ignatius very soon consecrated an archbishop and shortly afterwards about ten bishops for Bulgaria. 106 MGH Ep. 6, 759-61. A letter of John VIII assumes that Hadrian ratified the council, MGH Ep. 7, 171, cf. 185-6. This seems to be in contrast with other letters of the same pope in which we read that the recognition of Ignatius was subordinated to the rights over Bulgaria, MGH Ep. 7, 62-63, 278, 294. 107 Actio X, 112-756. Most of them were drawn up and approved at the last session in February 870. Only fourteen canons survive in Greek, Gallagher, Patriarch Photius and Pope Nicholas, 77. 108 This found its way into the final declaration of the synod (Terminus Synodi), Actio X, 848. 109 During the synodal work, mention is made, for example, of the fact that the Council of Serdica (and pope Julius I) had declared Marcellus of Ancyra free of heresy (Actio VI, 290-296; 474-476). 110 “...quam ab orthodoxorum universalibus, nec non 35 et localibus conciliis, vel etiam a quolibet deiloquo patre ac magistro ecclesiae tradita sunt, servare ac custodire profitemur”, Alberigo – Melloni, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Vol 4.1, 34-38. 111 Here we should note a different nuance in the Greek text, which states that a universal synod may “on no account boldly raise accusations against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome” (μὴ μέντοι θράσεως ἀποφέρεσθαι κατὰ τῶν τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης ἱεραρχῶν) compared to the Latin version of Anastasius which reads “have the audacity to pronounce a sentence” (non tamen audacter sententiam dicere contra summos senioris Romae pontifices). On the topic see also Vacca, Prima sedes, 121-124. 55 issues. Neither Photius before his deposition, nor his bishops, wanted to head for a frontal clash with Rome on a delicate doctrinal matter such as the Filioque, and this might well explain the absence of this particular topic in the discussion. The council had ended in a far from peaceful manner. Not only the tensions on the sidelines of the Bulgarian question, but above all the signing of the libellus – in fact a formal submission to decisions already taken elsewhere – constituted a serious element of embarrassment for many on the Byzantine side. Probably for that reason, after the failed attempt by imperial agents to seize official signatures as already mentioned112 , the signed texts (and with them the original Acts) were stolen by pirates113 from the returning legates on their route from Dyrrhachium to Ancona and the Acta never reached Rome. 6. The second patriarchate and the “Council of Union” (879-880) After his deposition, Photius still enjoyed support from a vast part of the clergy. Even though his ordinations had been proclaimed invalid and void (canon 4), the majority of the bishops he had ordained had remained in place. In the following years, Ignatius gradually became reconciled with the exiled Photius114 , while at the same time no improvement of the relationship with Rome was achieved. From 872, it was definitively clear to Basil that his attempt to improve relations with Rome by sacrificing Photius had not achieved any results, so he recalled him from exile and appointed him tutor to his children115 , also assigning him a residence in the imperial palace116 . Three days after the death of Ignatius on 23 October 877, Photius ascended the patriarchal throne of Constantinople again. In the last few years, the context had drastically changed: the Arab menace in southern Italy had forced John VIII, who had succeded to Hadrian in December 872, to reconsider his position about Bulgaria in order to obtain military aid117 . In the end, in order to gain Basil’s support, the new patriarch had to be recognised (again). 112 See note 95. It has already been noted that the pirates might have been hired by the emperor, Chadwick, East and West, 167. 114 See Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 506. 115 The anti-Photian sources report the narration provided by Vita Ignatii, 89 according to which this was an ingenious action of Photius. During his exile in the Skepe monastery, he forged a genealogy of the family of Basil, which went back to the ancient ruler Teridates, thereby justifying his accession to the throne. 116 Theophanes Continuatus V (Vita Basilii), 44; Symeon Logothetes 132,16; Georgius Monachus Continuatus, 25, edition: V.M. Istrin, ed., Knigi Vremennyâ I Obraznyâ Georgiâ Mniha: Hronika Georgiâ Amartola V Drevnem Slavânorusskom Perevodě: Tekst Izslědovanie I Slovar’, Petrograd, Rossiyskaya Gosudarstvennaya Akademicheskaya Tipografiya, 1922, vol. II, 22. 117 In October 879 the Saracens of Naples suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of the Byzantine fleet, which finally came to the aid of Rome itself in August 880. 113 56 On 16 August 879, John wrote to the emperor trying to make clear that Photius’ communion with Rome was possible only if it were ratified by Rome118 . He also addressed the leaders of the anti-Photian party (Metrophanes of Smyrna, John of Sylaeum and Stylianos of Neocaesarea), exhorting them to take the path of unity while another council was prepared in Constantinople to settle Photius’ case once and for all. On 14 November 879 a Council in Constantinople took place under the presidency of Photius119 . Its mission was clear from its very title: “For the unification of the holy and apostolic Church of God”. The pope sent three legates: bishop Eugenius of Ostia, Paul bishop of Ancona, and Peter, cardinal of St. Chrysogonus120 , who arrived at a later date bringing five papal letters and the famous Commonitorium121 of eleven points. All these documents were dated 16 August 879122 . Representatives of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, a bishop from Moravia, one from Martyropolis in Mesopotamia and two from Bulgaria also attended the council, with another 381 Greek bishops, so that this council had more than three times as many participants as the one of ten years earlier. Although the pope had in fact been forced to accept a new council in order to have more negotiating power on geostrategic issues of interest to him, he still tried to set conditions through his Commonitorium: Photius should have asked for forgiveness for his past behaviour, and jurisdiction over Bulgaria should have been returned to Rome. Both conditions, for different reasons, could not be accepted by the council. As a matter of fact, Photius always mantained his point of view according to which he had been unjustly deposed, so he had nothing to apologise for; furthermore, any jurisdictional issue was not the competence of a council. Accordingly, the legates accepted a reformulation of the wording of the Commonitorium in the Greek translation123 eliminating the demand for Photius’ request for an apology, but also weakening any claim to jurisdiction over Bulgaria. 118 Ep. 69, 26-27: “...etiam vestra pietas ab apostolatu nostro pro hoc ipso personas postulat”, MGH Ep. 7, 64. 119 The Latin texts of this council are lost. What remains is the Greek version (not free from problems, as will be seen) and two Latin summaries, one coming from excerpta of papal registers, the other from the Deusdedit collection. For the latter, Peter Gemeinhardt already pointed out that it rather follows the Greek recension, Alberigo – Melloni, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Vol 4.1, 53 n. 9. A critical edition is still lacking, though an annotated parallel edition of all the texts is available in Meijer, A Successful Council, 215-270. Recent bibliography, horos and canons have also been edited by Alberigo – Melloni, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Vol 4.1, 59-71. Previous editions: Mansi 17, 371-530; Joannou, Le canons, 482-486. 120 Synodicon vetus, §165:1-6; Venetiarum Chronica, 157:33-35. 121 MGH Ep. 7, 188-190. On that, see infra. 122 Edition: MGH Ep. 7, 166-190. 123 Text edited in Mansi 17, 467 (Latin) and MGH Ep. 7, 188-189 (Greek). 57 The council was held at Hagia Sophia from November 879 to March 880. The first session (November 879, the precise day unknown but probably 16124 ), attended by at least 378 bishops and mostly dedicated to the exchange of greetings between the participants, opened with the speech of Zachary metropolitan of Chalcedon and the presentations of the legates. Zachary stressed the fact that the council was necessary because of the misinformation to which the Church of Rome had been exposed by the Ignatian party in the last few years concerning the religious affairs in Constantinople125 . The Roman legates then stressed the need to summon and admonish the few who still refused to recognise Photius as legitimate patriarch126 . At the second session (17 November), the pontifical letters (translated and partially revised in their Greek form) were read. In these letters, many examples are given of synodal decisions reversed or cancelled by subsequent synods127 , as in the case of the election and previous deposition of Photius. Furthermore, Rome’s demand that Constantinople withdraw from the Bulgarian mission was introduced, as well as the ban on sending the pallium, making ordinations or sending priests there128 . To this question, Photius replied by recalling that already in the time of Nicholas he had reminded the latter that this decision was an imperial prerogative. For his part he had not sent the pallium or made any ordinations since his reinstatement. Similarly, Procopius of Caesarea and Gregory of Ephesus recalled that no council is convened for jurisdictional issues129 . Photius was then invited by the Roman legates to explain the circustamces of his restoration, which he did130 . To conclude the long session, the letters from the three eastern patriarchs were read131 , together with another of the metropolitan of Amidae and Samosata in Armenia. Two days later, at the third session, the third letter which Cardinal Peter had brought was read132 , followed by a discussion about the 124 Since 17 November was a Tuesday, it is likely that the council opened on Monday. Mansi 17, 384B. 126 Ibid., 392. 127 Mansi, 17, 397-400. 128 MGH, 7, 173-174, 185-186; Deusdedit, 614. It should be remembered that previously (terminus ante quem 16 April 878) the Greek clergy in Bulgaria had been declared excommunicated by pope John and had been urged to leave that territory immediately, MGH Ep. 7, 66-67. 129 Mansi, 17, 418-420; Deusdedit, 615. 130 In this debate it should be noted how Cardinal Peter tried on every occasion to recall how it was the Roman see that returned their sees to bishops from whom they had been unjustly taken away, Mansi 17, 425D-428. 131 The content is predictable: the eastern sees have never interrupted communion with Photius (οὐδέποτε διέστησαν τῆς τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου πατριάρχου Φωτίου κοινωνίας). The fact that ten years earlier they had affirmed that they had never interrupted communion with Ignatius immediately makes clear the role of complete subordination of the eastern sees, willing to affirm everything and its opposite in order to maintain good relations with Constantinople. 132 It also dealt again with the Bulgarian question, to which the assembly responded as it had done 125 58 elevation of lay people to the status of bishops. This led to a detailed justification, promoted by metropolitans Procopius and Zacharias, of the Byzantine practice that the Roman see had to take as a different – but still valid and legitimate – local custom. The letter of patriarch Theodosius of Jerusalem was also read, and that was the occasion for the oriental participants to reject officially the declarations of their respective delegates at the previous council and to recognise fully the legitimacy of Photius. The eleven chapters of the Commonitorium that the pope had given to his legates were then read to the assembly133 . Apart from formal acceptance of Photius as legitimate patriarch (§3), it contained exhortations to reinstate the Ignatian bishops wherever possible (§5) or excommunicate them in case of stubborn refusal (§7), and again jurisdictional requests concerning Bulgaria (§9). Most importantly, the Commonitorium established the nullity of the council of 869 (§10), which may well explain why the Latin version did not survive. At the fourth session, on Christmas Eve, a new legate joined the council. This was Basil, metropolitan of Martyropolis, representing Antioch but also carrying letters from the new patriarch of Jerusalem Elias. After having reaffirmed the unity of the eastern sees with Photius, the assembly again devoted itself to examining the Commonitorium. The crucial points were reiterated: the Bulgarian question is the exclusive competence of the emperor, while episcopal promotion from the lay state is part of local customs that must be respected134 . In the end, on the proposal of Cardinal Peter, all the conciliar fathers joined Photius in the celebration of Christmas day. Since the synod of 869 had been abrogated, in the fifth session (26 January 880) the decision about the status of the second Council of Nicaea had to be reiterated, which was made in a solemn way, with a formal anathema for those who in the future did not consider that council as the Seventh Ecumenical135 . The council issued also three canons136 : anyone deposed or excommunicated by pope John would also be deposed or excommunicated by Photius and vice versa137 ; bishops who resigned their sees to become monks could not resume episcopal office (obviously, the immediate reference was to Ignatius’ case); and lay authorities were not to imprison bishops without just cause. The first canon in the second session, Mansi 17, 456. 133 Only the Greek version has survived, and it is reasonable to suppose that it too has been retouched or amended with regard to the original Latin text, J. Boojamra, The Photian Synod of 878-879 and the Papal Commonitorium (879), in Byzantine Studies 9 (1982), 1–23; Meijer, A Successful Council, 44-45, 112-120, 260-264. 134 Mansi 17, 488-489. In this case it seems that the assembly was more royalist than the king, since Photius himself had promulgated a norm very similar to that required by the Commonitorium in canon 17 of the Protodeutera (861). 135 Mansi 17, 493-496. 136 Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 520. 137 An abridged form of this canon can also be found in Deusdedit, 4, 437 (ed. Glanwell, 616). 59 is particularly relevant, since the introduction of this rule of reciprocity de facto put the two sees on an equal footing, although it was ambigously affirmed that the special rights of the Apostolic See would continue to be maintained138 . At the end of the session, all the participants signed the final document. However, the emperor’s signature was still lacking. For the whole time of the gathering he had been absent – leaving the presidency to Photius himself – because of the premature death of his favourite son Constantine. For that reason, a special session was organised on 3 March in the triclinium of the imperial palace with Photius, the legates and eighteen representatives of the 383 counciliar fathers. During this session the council, as customary, produced its horos (symbol of faith) in which is stated that no alteration, addition, or suppression was to be made to the Symbol (namely the “Symbol of Nicaea”, in the form transmitted by the first Council of Constantinople). The seventh and last session of the council was solemnly held in Hagia Sophia on 13 March. Here, after a report of the previous session, the horos was presented to the fathers who accepted it. The council had saluted Photius as “ecumenical patriarch” and John as “apostolic and ecumenical pope”. This powerful statement must not be underestimated, since it implied the supremacy of the patriarch of Constantinople over the three eastern patriarchs, balanced by an equal power of the Roman bishop on the West, in patent contradiction to the Serdican right of appeal to the Roman see but also in an unprecedented deployment of the traditional pentarchy139 . After the return of the legates bringing the conciliar Acts to Rome, pope John – previously informed by Photius about the reasons that made necessary the alterations that had been made to his letters – accepted the decisions made by the conciliar fathers140 . This was probably dictated by his Realpolitik, since the em138 Mansi 17, 497E., von Glanvell, Deusdedit, 616-617. It should also be noted that in the understanding of the Roman legates, the power to loose and bind was given by Peter to the pope, and by him to the patriarch of Constantinople. Neither Photius nor the assembly openly opposed this idea in the discussion, but probably only because there would be no trace of it in the official canons afterwards. 139 It should be noticed that although the title “ecumenical” had been accorded to the bishops of Constantinople since Chalcedon, the Roman see never completely accepted it (see for example the famous controversy at the time of Gregory the Great). Besides, the Greek understanding of this title was different from the latin “universalis”, mostly meaning the authority of the imperial city over the eastern provinces and their local synods. Besides, the fact that Photius never made use of this title in all his correspondence with Rome shows how fully aware he was of the difficulties the question posed. On this topic, see the preface to the Epanagoge in A. Schminck, Studien zu mittelbyzantinischen Rechtsbüchern, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 13), Frankfurt am Main, Löwenklau-Ges, 1986, 4-10. 140 The documents produced after the return of the legates, such as the epistles n. 258-259 to Basil and Photius (August 880), seem to demonstrate the pope’s acceptance of the results. On this topic, see Meijer, A Successful Council, 65-69. 60 peror had just sent a fleet to protect Rome from the Arab raids and restored the jurisdiction of Rome over the monastery of St. Sergius141 . Nonetheless, the Western reception of this council was immediately ambiguous: some marginalia in one Vatican manuscript of the Acts point out that the last two sessions of the council must be considered forgeries142 , but afterwards the very existence of the whole council was rejected. In the end, the council of 879-80 was not received in Rome, neither as ecumenical nor as local or valid in any way. This is undoubtedly due to the need on the part of the Roman jurists to find further support for the Gregorian reform143 , which could be found in the Latin version of the “cancelled” council of 869 but not in the – legitimate – one of 879144 . Paradoxically, despite the fact that at the Council of Florence (20 October 1438) Mark Eugenicus reminded the assembly that pope John VIII had declared null and void the anti-Photian council of 869, it was the latter that was considered ecumenical in the West145 . Now, although a thorough examination of the sources strongly suggests the authenticity of the Acts, it must be remarked that at least two of the Pope’s letters read out at the Council146 (n. 207 and 208) were voluntarily altered in their Greek versions. Without going into an interpretation of how proper the “mistranslation” was147 , the adaptations made in Constantinople went in the 141 MGH Ep. 7, 229-230. We should, however, notice some oddities in this letter from pope John to the emperor Basil. First, it mentions that Basil had allowed the Roman see to re-enter into possession of the Bulgarian diocesis, which in fact never happened; secondly, a sort of precautionary clause closes the letter: “...if perchance at the same synod our legates have acted against apostolic instructions, neither do we approve their action nor do we attribute any value to it”. The first element, which is also confirmed by another letter sent to Photius (MGH, ep. 7, 185-186) could be explained by the fact that Constantinople effectively ceased to send clergy to Bulgaria and also removed the territory from the official lists but, as a matter of fact, Bulgaria simply remained culturally dependent on the Greeks. This interpretation is confirmed by another letter sent by pope John to Boris the next year blaming him about his lack of compliance with being subjected to Rome. 142 This was functional to the policy of the Holy See at the time of the Council of Ferrara-Florence. It must be noted, by the way, that patriarch Euthymios (AD 907-912) knew the Acts of this council as we have them (including sessions six and seven), making the hypothesis of a late interpolation impossible, see Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 385. 143 For example, Anselm of Lucca (†1086) introduced canons 18, 21 ad 22 of the 869 synod into canonical collections; Bonizo of Sutri and Cardinal Deusdedit did the same, while the synod started to be called Octava Synodus, until Gratian included its canons in his famous Decretum. 144 D. Stiernon, Constantinople IV, Paris, Éditions de l’Orante, 1967, 208-215. 145 J. Gill, ed., Quae Supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini Necnon Descriptionis Cuiusdam Eiusdem, Roma, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1953, I, 90-92. 146 Epistles 207-210, MGH Ep. 7, 167-187. The Latin recension of the letters of pope John VIII is no longer extant. The oldest source at our disposal is a eleventh century manuscript from the abbey of Montecassino, which copies a selected part of the register. It preserves letters from 876 to 882. 147 On those, see Meijer, A Successful Council, 85 and Boojamra, The Photian Synod, 2. 61 direction of diminishing the Roman universal authority and jurisdiction, stressing instead the orthodoxy of the First See and its role as guarantor of the unity of the Church. This softening of papal claims was certainly more convenient and probably necessary faced with an eastern audience which was completely immersed in an ecclesiological horizon of a pentarchical type. The interpolations of the Commonitorium – preserved only in Greek – must also have been relevant. The most important one dealt with the omission of the papal request for Photius to apologise for his previous misconduct. Since both Photius and the Byzantine clergy thought that nothing wrong had been done, they did not feel any need for an apology, so the matter was turned into a generic request that Photius was to be received by the synod and offered thanks to the Roman Church. Even more important was the role of the tenth chapter of the Commonitorium (formally adopted at the fourth session on 24 December 879) stating that the synod of 869 had to be considered “invalid, without authority and not numbered among the other holy synods”148 . 7. Photius and the Filioque in the council of 879 While we cannot assert whether or not and to what extent the Filioque played a role in the excommunications of 867 (as Epistle 2 would suggest), it is quite remarkable that apparently it was not an open subject of debate during the council of 879149 . This, however, does not mean that the patriarch had renounced the theme, which elsewhere proves to be very close to his heart. It becomes evident with a thorough examination of the Acta and the Horos itself: [...] the Horos of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing (οὐδὲν ἀφαιροῦντες, οὐδὲν προστιθέντες, οὐδὲν ἀμείβοντες); for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. [...] thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all: [NiceneConstantinopolitan Creed] If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol [...] and impose on it his 148 Mansi 17, 472A, 489E; MGH Ep. 7, 189. For a recent status quaestionis on the role that the Filioque played at the council of 879, see also Alberigo – Melloni, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Vol 4.1, 29-31. 149 62 own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις)150 and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should [...] be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people151 . In the minutes of the 7th session we can find further clarification about the anathema against anyone who wants to change the words of the Symbol: ...to subtract from, or to add to, the holy and consubstantial and undivided Trinity shows that the confession we have always had to this day is imperfect. It condemns the Apostolic Tradition and the doctrine of the Fathers. If one, then having come to such a point of mindlessness as to dare do what we have said above, and set forth another Symbol and call it a Rule, or to add to or subtract from the one which has been handed down to us by the first great, holy and Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, let him be Anathema.152 The reference to the Filioque, already evident by comparing themes and lexicon with those of the Mystagogia, becomes patently obvious when it is stated that this addition/subtraction is made “to the holy and consubstantial and undivided Trinity”. The fact that not many years later Photius himself will recall that he defended orthodoxy against the Filioque in agreement with John VIII153 is just a confirmation of that154 . That the Filioque, although not expressly mentioned, is 150 Note how exactly the same expression appears in Photius’ work dealing with the Filioque: “οἱ μηδὲν αὐτοὺς ἀντιφθέγγεσθαι τῷ κοινῷ Δεσπότῃ μηδόλως παραδεχόμενοι, ἢ οἱ τούτους βιαζόμενοι πρὸς ἀντίπαλον καταστῆναι τῆς δεσποτικῆς φωνῆς μαρτυρίαν καὶ τὴν θαυμαστὴν ἐκείνην μυσταγωγίαν, δι’ ἧς θεολογοῦμεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεσθαι, διαστρέφειν ἰδίαις εὑρεσιλογίαις;”, De Santi Spiritus Mystagogia, 67 (Polidori, Mistagogia, 62). 151 Alberigo – Melloni, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Vol 4.1, 65-67; translation: G.D. Dragas, The Eight Ecumenical Council: Constantinople iv (879/880) and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine, in The Greek Orthodox Theologica Review 44 (1999), 357–69. 152 Mansi, 17, 520-521. 153 “...our John, brave in mind, brave in piety, brave in hating and driving out all injustice and impiety, capable of governing not only sacred institutions, but also civil ones and of transforming disorder into order, this bishop of Rome full of grace, through his glorious and God-fearing delegates, Paul, Eugene and Peter, bishops and priests of God, who participated in the synod convened by us, signed and sealed with the thought, words and holy hands of the said most illustrious and admirable men, the Symbol of faith in the form in which the Catholic Church of God and also the bishops of Rome before him received it.”, Polidori, Mistagogia, 94. 154 Of the same opinion, with many precise bibliographical references, is E. Morini, Il Filioque 63 part of the subtext of the council and, more generally, of the topics of confrontation with Rome, is also demonstrated by the reception of the theme among contemporaries. From the Roman side, Anastasius the Librarian in a letter to a certain deacon John (AD 874 or later) shows that he is well aware of the problem which he tries to minimise by bringing it back primarily to a different understanding of the procession (more focused on the hypostasis for the Greeks, more on the substance common to the Son for the Latins), but also to terminological misunderstandings, as had already happened in the time of Athanasius in the Arian crisis155 . Among the Greeks too there was vast awareness of the problem. The epistle which Photius wrote to Valpert of Aquileia in 883 or 884156 , demonstrates that raising awareness on that issue especially in the western dioceses most under Frankish influence was on Photius’ agenda in the years following the council. In his Oration 13, emperor Leo VI himself – who had also deposed Photius – vehemently railed against the Filioque157 , demonstrating knowledge (and appreciation) of the work by his ex-patriarch158 . The scant attention that scholarly literature has paid to the theme of the Filioque in the Photian councils (and especially to the agreement on this point with pope John VIII) is only a further epiphany of the divisiveness that this theme still assumes today159 . nella crisi foziana e negli avvenimenti del 1054, in M. Gagliardi (ed.): Il Filioque. A mille anni dal suo inserimento nel credo a Roma (1014-2014), Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015. 155 [...] ex epistola eiusdem sancti Maximi ad Marinum scripta presbiterum circumstantiam de Spiritus sancti processione, ubi frustra causari contra nos innuit Grecos, cum nos non causam vel principium Filium dicamus Spiritus sancti, ut autumant, sed unitatem substantiae Patris a Filii non nescientes, sicut procedit ex Patre, ita eum procedere fateamur ex Filio, missionem nimirum processionem intelligentes, pie interpretans, utriusque linguae gnaros ad pacem erudiens, dum scilicet et nos et Grecos edocet secundum quiddam procedere et secundum quiddam non procedere Spiritum sanctum ex Filio, difficultatem exprimendi de alterius in alterius linguae proprietatem significans. Siquidem et huiusmodi pia interpretatione sanctus olim Athanasius Orientales et Occidentales super subsistentiae vel personae nomine dissidentes univit, dum unum idemque utrosque corde credere sensuque retinere perdocuit, licet ob lingue varietatem aliter atque aliter ore confiterentur et importunis contentionibus deservirent, MGH Ep. 7, 425.22 sqq. On the topic see also Siecienski, The Filioque, 78-86. 156 Laourdas – Westerink, Epistulae et Amphilochia, III, §291, p. 139-152; Grumel, Les régestes (1.2), n. 529. The letter discusses the theme of the Filioque in detail and summarises many of the arguments of the Mystagogia. 157 Homilia de Spiritu Sancto (Hom. 7), edition: T. Antonopoulou, ed., Leonis VI Sapientis Imperatoris Byzantini Homiliae, (Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 63), Turnhout, Brepols, 2008, 81-102. 158 Compare, for example Hom.7, 309-313 with Photius’ Mystagogia, 39. 159 V. Polidori, L’attualità della Mistagogia di Fozio alla luce della recente edizione critica, in Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano 24.1 (2020), 71-73. 64 8. Final remarks The whole parabola of the ecclesiastical career of Photius was determined by political events, which had little or nothing to do with Church canons or theological views. Even the ecclesiological question of the primacy of the Petrine see was just the background to the real interests at stake: the jurisdiction of Bulgaria, Illyricum and southern Italy for the pope, and the pacification of internal currents for the Byzantine emperor. Of course, Photius’ perspective might have been different. As has already been pointed out160 , he never was a real anti-Latin. Even in the harsh sentences of 867 he was essentially defending the traditional conception of the East which understood the Church in a conciliar and synodal way. The claims of Nicholas and Hadrian, according to which the pope is above the council, not only conflicted with the traditional prerogatives of the emperor, but also with the principle of pentarchy, in which the harmonious agreement between the five patriarchs was the guarantee and bond of the actual ecumenical character of the Church161 . In this perspective, both the interference of the patriarch of Rome in the internal affairs of Constantinople and his liturgical or (even worse) theological innovations were simply unacceptable. The dispute over Photius’ accession had been exploited for political ends. From a canonical point of view his election had been canonical, albeit questionable under certain points of view. Moreover, he was a perfect “third party” man, being relatively neutral between the two religious factions and respected by both as a scholar and a stateman. Conversely, Ignatius’ election, motivated by exactly the same practical reason, was at least canonically questionable, being promoted solely by the Empress without any actual participation of the Church. The rehabilitation that Photius enjoyed shortly after his death in Christendom’s eastern hemisphere does partial justice to the hardships he endured during his episcopate. Besides, there is also a certain re-appropriation of historical truth in the scholarly literature of the last half century, although much work remains to be done. The critical edition of the Acts of the council of 879 and of many works by Photius are a necessary effort that the academic community will have to make in the near future to improve our still partial understanding of the events of those years that were so turbulent for relations between East and West. 160 J. Turner, Was Photios an Anti-Latin?: Heresy and Liturgical Variation in the Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, in Journal of Religious History 40.4 (December 2016), 475–489. 161 Perrone, Das vierte Konzil von Konstantinopel (869-870), 171. 65