the Week of Proper 26 / Ordinary 31
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Encyclopedias
Photius of Constantinople (3)
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
or one of the most eminent men whose names occur in the long series of the Byzantine annals, flourished in the 9th century. In the preparation of this article we depend very largely upon Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biog. s.v.
Life. — The year and place of his birth, and the name of his father, appear to be unknown. His mother's name was Irene: her brother married one of the sisters of Theodora, wife of the emperor Theophilus (Theoph. Continuat. lib. 4:22); so that Photius was connected by affinity with the imperial family. We have the testimony of Nicetas David, the Paphlagonian. that his lineage was illustrious. He had at least four brothers (Mountagu, Not. ad Epistol. Photii, page 138), one of whom, the eldest, enjoyed the dignity of patrician. Photius himself, in speaking of his father and mother, celebrates their crown of martyrdom, and the patient spirit by which they were adorned, during the reign of Theophilus or some other of the iconoclastic emperors. This is the more likely, as Photius elsewhere (Epistol. 2, Encycl. § 42, and Epistol. ad Nicol.,Papam) claims as his relative Tarasius (probably great-uncle), partriarch of Coistantinople, who was one of the great champions of image worship, which shows the side taken by his family in the controversy. The ability of Photius would have adorned any lineage, and his capacious minid was cultivated, as the testimony even of his opponents and his extant works show, with great diligence. "He was accounted," says Nicetas David, the biographer and panegyrist of his competitor Ignatius, "to be of all men most eminent for his secular acquirements, and his understanding of political affairs. For so superior were his attainments in grammar and poetry, in rhetoric and philosophy, yea, even in medicine, and in almost all the branches of knowledge beyond the limits of theology, that he not only appeared to excel all the men of his own day, but even to bear comparison with the ancients. For all things combined in his favor: natural adaptation, diligence, wealth, which enabled him to form a comprehensive library; and more than all these, the love of glory, which induced him to pass whole nights without sleep, that he might have time for reading. And when the time came (which ought never to have arrived) for him to intrude himself into the Church, he became a most diligent reader of theological works? (Vita Ignatii apud Conci. volume 8, ed. Labbe). It must not, however, be supposed that Photius had wholly neglected the study of theology before his entrance on an ecclesiastical life: so far was this from being the case, that he had read and carefully analyzed, as his Bibliotheca attests, the chief works of the Greek ecclesiastical writers of all ages, so that his attainments in sacred literature might have shamed many a professional divine.
Thus highly connected, and with a mind so richly endowed and highly cultivated, Photius obtained high advancement at the Byzantine court. He held the dignity of a proto-a-secretis, or chief-justice (Codin. De Officiis CP. page 36. ed. Bonn); and, if we trust the statement of Nicetas David (1. c.), of protospatharius, a name originally denoting the chief sword-bearer or captain of the guards, but which became, in later times, a merely nominal office (Codin. ibid. page 33). To these dignities may be added, on the authority of Anastasiis Bibliothecarius (Conail. Octavi Hist. apud Concil. ol. 8:col. 962, ed. Labbd), that of senator; but this is, perhaps, only another title for the office ofprotoa-secretis (Gretser. et Goar. Not. in Codin. page 242). Besides these official duties at the capital, he was also occasionally employed on missions abroad; and it was during an embassy "to the Assyrians" (a vague and unsuitable term, denoting apparently the court of the caliphs, or of some of the other powers of Upper Asia) that he read the works enumerated in his Bibliotheca, and wrote the critical notices of them which that work contains — a striking instance of the energy and diligence with which he continued to cultivate literature in the midst of his secular duties and when away from home. Of the date of this embassy, while engaged in which he must have resided several years at the Assyrian court, as well of the other incidents of his life before his elevation to the patriarchate of Constantinople, we have no knowledge. He could hardly have been a young man at the time he became patriarch.
The patriarchal throne of Constantinople was occupied in the middle of the 9th century by Ignatius (s.v.), who had the misfortune to incur the enmity of some few bishops and'monks, and also of Bardas, who was allpowerful at the court of his nephew Michael, then a minor. Ignatius had excommunicated Bardas on a charge of incest, and Bardas, in retaliation, caused the patriarch's deposition, and the election of Photius in his place. Though a layman, and, according to some statements, under excommunication for supporting Gregory, less than a week sufficed, according to Nicetas David (ibid.), for the rapid passage of Photius through all the needful subordinate gradations: the first day witnessed his conversion from a layman to a monk; the second day he was made reader; the third day subdeacon; the fourth, deacon; the fifth, presbyter; and the sixth (Christmas-day, A.D. 858) beheld his promotion to the patriarchate, the highest ecclesiastical dignity in the empire. Nicetas (ibid.) states that his office was irregullarlv committed to him by secular hands. Photius himnself, however, in his apologetic epistle to pope Nicholas I (apud Baron. Annal. ad ann. 859, § 61, etc.), states that the patriarchate was pressed uponu his acceptanice by a numerous assembly of the metropolitans, and of the other, clergy of his patriarchate; nor is it likely that the Byzantine court would fail to secure a sufficient number of subservient bishops to give to the appointment every possible appearance of regularity. A consciousness that the whole transaction was violent and indefensible, whatever care might be taken to give it the appearance of regularity, made it desirable for the victorious party to obtain from the deposed patriarch a resignation of his office; but Ignatius was a man of too lofty a spirit to consent to his own degradation. Photius, however, retained'his high dignity; the secular power was on his side; the clergy of the patriarchate, in successive councils (A.D. 858, 859), confirmed his appointment, though we are told by Nicetas David that 'the metropolitans exacted from him a written engage:ment that he would treat his deposed rival with filial reverence, and follow his advice; and even the legates of the Holy See were induced to side with him, a subserviency for which they were afterwards deposed by pope Nicholas I. The engagement to treat Ignatius with kindness was not kept; in such a struggle its observance could hardly be expected; but how far the severities inflicted on him are to be ascribed to Photius cannot now be determined.
The critical position of the latter would be likely to aggravate any disposition which he might feel to treat his rival harshly; for Nicholas, in a council at Rome (A.D. 862), embraced the side of Ignatius, and anathematized Photius and his adherents; various enemies rose up against him among the civil officers as well as the clergy of the empire; and the minds of many, including, if we may trust Nicetas (ibid.), the kindred and: friends of Photius him.self, were shocked by the treatment of the unhappy Ignatius. To add to Photius's troubles, the Caesar Bardas appears to have had disputes with him, either influenced by the natural jealousy between the secular and ecclesiastical powers, or, perhaps, disappointed at not finding in Photius the subserviency he had anticipated. The letters of Photius addressed to Bardas (Epistole, 3, 6, 8) contain abundant complaints of the diminution of his authority, of the ill-treatment of those for whom he was interested, and of the inefficacy of his own intercessions and complaints. However, the opposition :among his own clergy was gradually weakened, until only five bishops remained who supported the cause of Ignatius. Yet, notwithstanding these defections from the deposed patriarch, Photius labored zealously for a restoration of friendly feelings between himself and the Western patriarch. Nicholas, however, spurned all advances, and in A.D. 863 anathematized and deposed Photius anew. Of course the Roman patriarchate, failing to secure the aid of the Eastern emperor, could not give practical effect to the deposition, and Photius remained in his place. In order to retaliate on Rome, he now assembled a council of the Eastern clergy at Constantinople (A.D. 867), in which the question was removed from the region of a personal dispute between the bishops to a controversy of doctrine and discipline between the churches of the East and West themselves. In this council Photius first brought forward distinctly certain grounds of difference between the churches, which, although considerably modified, afterwards led to their final separation. In all these doctrinal differences, the council condemned the Western Church, excommunicated Nicholas and his abettors, and withdrew from the communion of the see of Rome. The charge of heresy against the Church of Rome in general was embraced in the following articles:
1. That the Church of Rome kept the Sabbath as a fast;
2. That it permitted milk and cheese in the first week of Lent;
3. That it prohibited the marriage of priests;
4. That it con fined the rite of anointing persons baptized to the bishops alone;
5. That it had corrupted the Nicene Creed by the addition of the words filioque.
As neither party had the secular power wherewith to carry its sentence into effect, the separation of the Eastern' and Western churches became simply a schism, and as such lasted until the actual deposition of Photius, A.D. 869.
Of the conduct which controlled Photius as patriarch, in matters not connected with the struggle to maintain his position, it is not easy to judge. That he aided Bardas, who was elevated to the dignity of Caesar, in his efforts for the revival of learning, perhaps suggested those efforts to him, is highly probable from his indisputable love of literature (Theoph. Contin. De Mich. Theophili 1ilio, c. 26). That he possessed many kindly dispositions is indicated by his letters. The charges of the forgery of letters, and of cruelty in his struggles with the party of Ignatius, are, there is reason to believe, too true; but as almost all the original sources of information respecting his character and conduct are from parties hostile to his claims, we cannot confidently receive their charges as true in all their extent. The murder of Caesar Bardas (A.D. 866 or 867), by the emperor's order, was speedily followed by the assassination of Michael himself (A.D. 867), and the accession of his colleague and murderer, Basil I (the Macedonian). Photius had consecrated Basil as the colleague of Michael; but after the murder of the latter he refused to admit him to the communnion, reproaching him as a robber and a murderer, and unworthy to partake of the sacred elements. Photius was for this offence immediately banished to a monastery, and Ignatius restored: various papers which the servants of Photius were about to conceal in a neighboring reed-bed were seized, and afterwards produced against Photius, first in the senate of Constantinople, and afterwards at the council held against him. This hasty change in the occupants of the patriarchate had been too obviously the result of the change of the imperial dynasty to be sufficient of itself. But the imperial power had now the same interest as the Western Church in the deposition of Photiuls.
A council (recognised by the Romish Church as the eighth oecumenical or fourth Constantinopolitan) was therefore summoned, A.D. 869, at which the deposition of Photius and the restoration of Ignatius were confirmed. The cause was in fact prejudged by the circumstance that Ignatius took his place as patriarch at the commencement of the council. Photius, who appeared before the council, and his partisans were anathematized and stigmatized with the most opprobrious epithets. He subsequently acquired the favor of Basil, but by what means is uncertain; for we can hardly give credence to the strange tale related by Nicetas (ibid.), who ascribes it to the forgery and interpretation by Photius of a certain genealogical document containing a prophecy of Basil's exaltation. It is certain, however, not only that he gained the favor of the emperor, but that he soon acquired a complete ascendency over him; he was appointed tutor to the sons of Basil, had apartments in the palace assigned to him; and on the death of Ignatius, about A.D. 877, was immediately restored to the patriarchal throne. With writers of the Ignatian party and of the Romish Church this restoration is, of course, nothing less than a new irruption of the wolf into the sheepfold. According to Nicetas, he commenced his patriarchate by beating, banishing, and in various ways afflicting the servants and household of his defunct rival, and by using ten thousand arts against those who objected to his restoration as uncanonical and irregular. Some he bribed by gifts and honors, and by translation to wealthier or more eligible sees than those they occupied; others he terrified by reproaches and accusations, which, on their embracing his party, were speedily and altogether dropped. That, in the corrupt state of the Byzantine empire and Church, something of this must have happened at such a crisis, there can be little doubt; though there can be as little doubt that these statements are much exaggerated. It is probable that one great purpose of Basil in restoring Photius to the patriarchate was to do away with divisions in the Church, for it is not to be supposed that Photius was without his partisans. But to effect this purpose he had to gain over the Western Church. Nicholas had been succeeded by Hadrian II, and he by John VIII (some reckon him to be John IX), who now occupied the papal chair.
John was more pliant than Nicholas, and Basil was a more energetic prince than the dissolute Michael; the pope therefore yielded to the urgent entreaties of a prince whom it would have been dangerous to disoblige; recognised Photius as lawful patriarch, and excommunicated those who refused to hold communion with him. Pope John's yielding attitude in this case betrayed so much womanly weakness that it is, in the opinion of some, thought to have been the origin of that fable about popess Joan (q.v.), in that it obtained for him the feminine sobriquet Joanna. But the recognition was on condition that he should resign his claim to the ecclesiastical superiority of the Bulgarians, whose archbishops and bishops were claimed as subordinates by both Rome and Constantinople; and is said to have been accompanied by strong assertions of the superiority of the Roman see. The copy of the letter in which John's consent was given is a re-translation from the Greek, and is asserted by Romish writers to have been falsified by Photius and his party. It is obvious, however, that this charge remains to be proved; and that we have no more security that the truth lies on the side of Rome than on that of Constantinople. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Bulgaria was no new cause of dissension: it had been asserted as strongly by the pious Ignatius as by his successor (comp. Joan. VIII Papae Epistol. 78, apud Concil. page 63, etc.). Letters from the pope to the clergy of Constantinople and to Photius himself were also sent, but the extant copies of these are said to have been equally corrupted by Photius. Legates were sent by the pope, and even the copies of their Commonitorium, or letter of instruction, are also said to be falsified; but these charges need to be carefully sifted. Among the asserted additions is one in which the legates are instructed to declare the council of A.D. 869 (reputed by the Romish Church to be the eighth oecumenical or fourth Constantinopolitan), at which Photius had been deposed, to be null and void. Another council, which the Greeks assert to be the eighth cecunfenical one, but which the Romanists reject, was held at Constantinople A.D. 879. The papal legates were present, but Photius presided, and had everything his own way. The restoration of Photius and the nullity of the council of A.D. 869 were affirmed: the words "filioque" (q.v.), which formed one of the standing subjects of contention between the two churches, were ordered to be omitted from the creed, and the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Church was referred to the emperor as a question affecting the boundaries of the empire. The pope refused to recognise the acts of the council, with the exception of the restoration of Photius, though they had been assented to by his legates, whom on their return he condemned, and then anathematized Photius afresh (Baron. Annal. Eccles. ad ann. 880, volumes 11, 13). The schism and rivalry of the churches became greater than ever, and has never since been really healed. (See GREEK CHURCH).
Photius, according to Nicetas (ibid.), had been assisted in regaining the favor of Basil by the monk Theodore or Santabaren; but other writers reverse the process, and ascribe to Photius the introduction of Santabaren to Basil. Photius certainly made him archbishop of Euchaita, in Pontus; and he enjoyed, during Photius's patriarchate, considerable influence with Basil. By an accusation, true or false, made by this man against Leo, the emperor's eldest surviving son and destined successor, of conspiring his father's death, Basil had been excited to imprison his son. So far, however, was Photius from joining in the designs of Santabaren, that it was chiefly upon his urgent entreaties the emperor spared the eyes of Leo, which he had intended to put out. Basil died A.D. 886, and Leo VI succeeded to the throne. He inmediately set about the ruin of Santabaren; and, forgetful of Photius's intercession, scrupled not to involve the patriarch in his fall. Andrew and Stephen, two officers of the court, whom Santabaren had formerly accused of some offence, now charged Photius and Santabaren with conspiring to depose the emperor, and to place a kinsman of Photius on the throne. The charge appears to have been utterly unfounded, but it answered the purpose. An officer of the court was sent to the church of St. Sophia, who ascended the ambo, or pulpit, and read to the assembled people articles of accusation against the patriarch. Photius was immediately led into confinement, first in a monastery, afterwards in the palace of Pegae; and Santabaren was brought in custody from Euchaita and confronted with him; the two accusers, with three other persons, were appointed to conduct the examination, a circumstance sufficient to show the nature and spirit of the whole transaction. The firmness of the prisoners, and the impossibility of proving the charge against them, provoked the emperor's rage. Santabaren was cruelly beaten, deprived of his eyes, and banished; but was afterwards recalled, and survived till the reign of Constantine Porph'rogenitus, the successor of Leo. Photius was banished to the monastery of Bordi, in Armenia (or rather in the Thema Armeniacum), where he seems to have remained till his death. He was buried in the church of a nunnery at Merdosagares. The year in which his death occurred is not ascertained. Pagi, Fabricius, and Mosheim fix it in A.D. 891; but the evidence on which their statement rests is not conclusive. He must have been an aged man when he died, for he must have been in middle age when first chosen patriarch, and he lived after that event thirty years, and probably more. He was succeeded in the patriarchate by the emperor's brother Stephen, first his pupil, then his syncellus, and one of his clergy. (Theoph. Continuat. lib. v, c. 100; lib. 6, c. 1-5; Symeon Magister, De Basil. Maced. c. 21; De Leone Basil. 2. c. 1; Georg. Monach. De Basil. c. 24; De Leone, c. 1-7.)
The character of Photius is by no means worthy of much respect. He was an able man of the world, but not influenced by the high principles which befitted his sacred office. Yet he was probably not below the average of the statesmen and prelates of his day; and certainly was not the monster that the historians and other writers of the Romish Church, whose representations have been too readily adopted by some moderns, would make him. A writer in the Edinburgh Review, 21:329, says, "He seems to have been very learned and very wicked — a great scholar and a consummate hypocrite — not only neglecting occasions of doing good, but perverting the finest talents to the worst purposes." This is unjust; he lived in a corrupt age, and was placed in a trying position; and, without hiding or extenuating his crimes, it must be remembered that his private character remains unimpeached; the very story of his being a eunuch, which, though not having the appearance of truth, shows at least that he was not open to the charge of licentiousness; his firmness is attested by his repulse of Basil from the communion of the Church, and his mercifulness by his intercession for the ungrateful Leo. It must be borne in mind also that his history has come down to us chiefly in the representations of Ihis enemies. The principal ancient authorities have been referred to in the course of this narrative, though we have by no means cited all the places. We may add, Leo Grammaticus, Chronogralphia, pages 463-476, ed. Paris; Zonar. 16:4, 8, 11, 12; Cedren. Compend. pages 551, 569, 573, 593, ed. Paris; 2:172, 205, 213, 248, ed. Bonn; Glycas, Annal. pars 4, pages 293, 294, 297, etc., ed. Paris; pages 226, 228, 230, etc., ed. Venice; pages 544, 547, 552, ed. Bonn; Genesius, Reges, lib. 4, page 48, ed. Venice; page 100, ed. Bonn; Constantin. Maneass. Comnpend. Chron, verses 5133-5163, 5233, etc., 5309, etc.; Joel, Chronog. Compend. page 179, ed. Paris; pages 55, 56, ed. Bonn; Ephraem. De Patriarchis CP. col. 962:10,012-10,025, ed. Bonn.
Various notices and documents relating to his history generally, but especially to his conduct in reference to the schism of the churches, may be found in the Concilia, volumes 8, 9, ed. Labbe; volumes 5, 6, ed. Hardouin; volumes 15, 16, 17, ed. Mansi. Of modern writers, Baronius (Annal. Eccles. A.D. 858-886) is probably the fullest, but at the same time one of the most unjust. Hankius (De Byzantin. Rerum Scriptoribus, pars 1, c. 18) has a very ample memoir of Photius, which may be advantageously compared with that of Baronius, as its bias is in the opposite direction. See also Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclsiastiques, Siecle 9, page 270, 2d ed. 1698. An essay by Francesco Fontani, De Photio Nove Romnce Episcopo ejusque Scriptis Dissertatio, prefixed to the first volume of his Novae Eruditorum Delicicte (Florence, 1785, 12mo), is far more candid than most of the other works by members of the Romish Church; and is in this respect far beyond the Memoire sur le Patriarche Photius, by M. Weguelin, in the Memoires de l'Academie Royale (de Prusse) des Sciences et Belles-Lettres, annee 1777 (Berlin, 1779, 4to), page 440, etc. Shorter accounts may be found in Mosheim (Eccles. Hist. by Murdock, book 3, cent. 9, part 2, c. 3, § 27-32), and in the works cited at the close of this article. Fabricius has given a list of the councils held to determine questions arising out of the struggle of Ignatius and Photius for the patriarchate, or out of the contests of the Eastern and Western churches with regard to Photius. He has also given a list of writers respecting Photius, divided into — 1. Those hostile to Photius; and 2. Those more favorable to him. Of the historians of the lower empire, Le Beau (Bas Empire, 54, 70, 38, etc.; 71, 72:1-3) is outrageously partial, inflaming the crimes of Photius, and rejecting as untrue, or passing over without notice, the record of those incidents which are honorable to him. Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. 53, 60), more favorable, has two separate, but brief and unsatisfactory, notices of the patriarch.
Writings. — The published works of Photius are the following:
1. Μυριόβιβλον ἢ Βιβλιοθήκη , Myriobiblon seu Bibliotheca. This is the most important and valuable of the works of Photius. It may be described as an extensive review of ancient Greek literature by a scholar of immense erudition and sound judgment. It is an extraordinary monument of literary energy, for it was written while the author was engaged in his embassy to Assyria, at the request of Photius's brother Tarasius, who was much grieved at the separation, and desired an account of the books which Photius had read in his absence. It thus conveys a pleasing impression, not only of the literary acquirements and extraordinary industry, but of the fraternal affection of the writer. It opens with a prefatory address to Tarasius, recapitulating the circumstances in which it was composed, and stating that it contained a notice of two hundred and seventy-nine volumes. The extant copies contain a notice of two hundred and eighty: the discrepancy, which is of little moment, may have originated either in the mistake of Photius himself, or in some alteration of the divisions by some transcriber. It has been doubted whether we have the work entire. An extant analysis, by Photius, of the Historia Ecclesiastica of Philostorgius (q.v.), by which alone some knowledge of the contents of that important work has been preserved to us, is so much fuller than the brief analysis of that work contained in the present text of the Bibliotheca, as to lead to the supposition that the latter is imperfect. "It is to be lamented," says Valesius (De Critica, 1:29), "that many such abridgments and collections of extracts are now lost. If these were extant in the state in which they were completed by Photius, we should grieve less at the loss of so many ancient writers." But Leiche has shown (Diatribe in Phot. Biblioth.) that we have no just reason for suspecting that the Bibliotheca is imperfect; and that the fuller analysis of Philostorgius probably never formed part of it, but was made at a later period. The two hundred and eighty divisions of the Bibliotheca must be understood to express the number of volumes (codices) or manuscripts, and not of writers or of works: the works of some writers, e.g. of Philo Judaeus (codd. 103-105), occupy several divisions; and, on the other hand, one division (e.g. cod. 125, Justini Martysris Scripta Varia), sometimes comprehends a notice of several different works written in one codex.
The writers examined are of all classes: the greater number, however, are theologians, writers of ecclesiastical history, and of the biography of eminent churchmen; but several are secular historians, philosophers, and orators, heathen or Christian, of remote or recent times, lexicographers, and medical writers; only one or two are poets, and those on religious subjects, and there are also one or two writers of romances or love tales. There is no formal classification of these various writers; though a series of writers or writings of the same class frequently occurs, e.g. the Acta of various councils (codd. 15-20); the writers on the Resurrection (codd. 21-23); and the secular historians of the Byzantine empire (codd. 6267). In fact, the works appear to be arranged in the order in which they were read. The notices of the writers vary much in length: those in the earlier part are very briefly noticed, the later ones more fully; their recent perusal apparently enabling the writer to give a fuller account of them; so that this circumstance confirms our observation as to the arrangement of the work. Several valuable works, now lost, are known to us chiefly by the analyses or extracts which Photius has given of them; among them are the Persica and Indica of Ctesias (q.v.), in cod. 72; the De Rebus post Alexandrum Mognum gestis, and the Parthica and the Bithynica of Arrian, in codd. 53, 92, and 93; the Historiae of Olympiodorus (q.v.), in cod. 80; the Narrationes of Conon, in cod. 186; the Nova Historia of Ptolemy Hephaestion, in cod. 190; the De Heracleae Ponticae Rebus of Memnon, in cod. 224; the Vita Isidori by Damascius, in cod. 242; the lost Declamationes of Himerius, in cod. 243; the lost books of the Bibliotheca of Diodorus Siculus, in cod. 244; the De Erythraeo (s. Rubro) Mari of Agatharchides, in cod. 250; the anonymous Vita Pauli CPolitani and Vita Athanasii, in codd. 257 and 258; the lost Orationes, genuine or spurious, of Antiphon, Isocrates, Lysias, Iseaus, Demosthenes, Hyperides, Deinarchus, and Lycurgus, in codd. 259-268; and of the Chrestomatheia of Helladius of Antinoopolis, in cod. 279; besides several theological and ecclesiastical and some medical works. The above enumeration will suffice to show the inestimable value of the Bibliotheca of Photius, especially when we reflect how much the value of his notices is enhanced by the soundness of his judgment. The first edition of the Bibliotheca was published by David Hoeschelius, under the title of Βιβλιοθήκη τοῦ Φωτίου , Liborum quos legit Photius Patriarcha Excerpta et Censurae (Augsburg, 1601, fol.). Some of the Epistolae of Photius were subjoined. The text of the Bibliotheca was formed on a collation of four MSS., and was accompanied with notes by the editor; but there was no Latin version. A Latin version and scholia, by Andreas Schottus of Antwerp, were published (ibid. 1606, fol.); but the version is inaccurate, and has been severely criticised. It was, however, reprinted, with the Greek text, under the title of Φωτίου Μυριόβιβλον ἢ Βιβλιοθήκη, Photii Myriobiblon site Bibliotheca (Geneva, 1612, fol., and Rouen, 1653, fol.). This last edition is a splendid one, but inconvenient from its size. An edition, with a revised text, formed on a collation of four MSS. (whether any of them were the same as-those employed by Hoeschelius is not mentioned), was published by Immanuel Bekker (Berlin, 1824-25, 2 thin volumes 4to): it is convenient from its size and the copiousness of its index, but has neither version nor notes.
2. Ε᾿πιτομὴ ἐκ τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἱστοπιῶν Φιλοστοργίου ἀπὸ φωνῆς Φωτίου πατριάρχου , Compendium Historie Ecclesiasticae Philostorgii quod dictavit Photius patriarcha. Cave regards this as a fragment of another work similar to the Bibliotheca, but his conjecture rests on no solid foundation. The Compendium is of great importance as preserving to us, though very imperfectly, an Arian statement of the ecclesiastical transactions of the busy period of the Arian controversy in the 4th century. It was first published, with a Latin version and copious notes, by Jacobus Gothofredus (Godefroi) (Geneva, 1643, 4to); and was reprinted with the other ancient Greek ecclesiastical historians by Henricus Valesius (Henri Valois) (Paris, 1673, fol.) and by Reading (Cambridge, 1720, fol.).
3. Νομοκανών or Νομοκάνονον , Nomocanon, s. Nomocanonon, a. Nomocanonus, s. Canonumn Ecclesiasticorum et Legum Imperialium de Ecclesiastica Disciplina Conciliatio s. Harmonia. This work, which bers ample testimony to the extraordinary legal attainments of its author, is arranged under fourteen τίτλοι, Tituli, and was prefixed to a Σω῏ / νταγμα τῶν κανόνων , Canonum Syntagma, or collection of the Cazones of the apostles and of the ecclesiastical councils recognised'by the Greek Church, compiled by Photius; from which circumstance it is sometimes called Προκάνων, Procanon. It has been repeatedly published, with the commenta" ries of Theodore Balsamon, who strongly recommended it, in preference to similar works of an earlier date: it appeared in the Latin version of Gentianus Hervetus (Paris, 1561, fol.), and in another Latin version of Henricus Agyvaeus (Basle, 1561, fol.), and in the original Greek text with the version of Agylaeus, edited by Christophorus Justellus (Paris, 1615, 4to). It was reprinted, with the version of Agylaeus, in the Bibliotheca Juris Canonici, published by Guillelmus Voellus and Henricus Justellus (Paris, 1661, fol.), 2:785, etc. The Nomocanon of Photius was epitomized in the kind of verses called politici by Michael Psellus. whose work iwas published, with one or two other of his pieces, by Franciscus Bosquetus (Paris, 1632, 8vo).
4. Περὶ τῶν ζ᾿ οἰκουμενικῶν συνόδων , De Septem Conciliis OEcumenicis. This piece subjoined, with a Latin version, to the Nomocanon in the Paris editions of 1615 and 1661, and often published elsewhere, is really part of one of the Epistolae of Photius, and is noticed in our account of them.
5. Ε᾿πιστολαί , Epistolas. There are extant a considerable number of the letters of Photius. The MSS. containing them are enumerated by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. 11:11). It is much to be regretted that no complete collection of them has been published. David Hoeschelius subjoined to his edition of the Bibliotheca (Augsburg, 1601, fol.), mentioned above, thirty-five letters selected from a MS. collection which had belonged to Maximus Margunius, bishop of Cerigo, who lived about the end of the 16th century. One consolatory letter to the nun Eusebia on her sister's death was published by Conrad Rittershausius, with a Latin version, with some other pieces (Ntirnberg, 1601, 8vo). But the largest collection is that prepared with a Latin version and notes by Richard Mountagu (Latinized Montacutius), bishop of Norwich, and published after his death (Lond. 1651, fol.). The Greek text was from a MS. in the Bodleian Library. The collection comprehends two hundred and forty-eight letters translated by the bishop, and a supplement of five letters brought from the East by Christianus Ravius, of which also a Latin version by another person is given. The first letter in Mountagu's collection is addressed to Michael, prince of the Bulgarians, on the question Τί ἐστιν ἔργον ἄρχοντος, De Officio Principis: it is very long, dnd contains the account of the seven general councils already mentioned (No. 4), as subjoined to the printed editions of the Nomocanon. This letter to prince Michael was translated into French verse by Bernard, a Theatin monk, dedicated to Louis XV, and published (Paris, 1718, 4to).
The second letter, also of considerable length, is an encyclical letter on various disputed topics, especially on that of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the leading theological question in dispute between the Eastern and Western churches. Mountagu's version has been severely criticised by Combefis (Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. 1:701, note f f f). Several important letters are not included in the collection, especially two to pope Nicholas I, and one to the archbishop or patriarch of Aquileia, on the procession of the Holy Spirit, of all of which Baronius had given a Latin version in his Annales Ecclesiastici (ad ann. 859, 61, etc.; 861, 34, etc.; and 883:5, etc.). Fragments of the Greek text of the letters to pope Nicholas were cited by Allatius in different parts of his works; the original of the letter to the archbishop of Aquileia was published in the Auctarium Novissinmum of Combefis, part 1, page 527, etc. (Paris, 1672, fol.), with a new Latin version and notes by the editor; and the original of all the three letters, together with a previously unpublished letter, Ad OEconomum Ecclesive Antiochiae, and the encyclical letter on the procession of the Holy Spirit (included in Mountagu's collection), the Acta of the eighth cecumenical council (that held in 879, at which the second appointment of Photius to the patriarchate was ratified), and some other pieces, with notes by Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem, were published by Anthimus "Episcopus Remnicus," i.e., bishop of Rimnik, in Wallachia, in his Τᾠμος χαρᾶς (Rimnik, 1705, fol.). A letter, Ad Theophanem Monachum, i.e., to Theophanes Cerameus, with a Latin version by Sirmond, was published by the Jesuit Franciscus Scorsus, in his Proommiune Secundum, § 3, to the Homilice of Cerameus (Paris, 1644, fol.), and another letter, Stauracio Spatharo-candidato, Praefecto insule Cypri, was included in the Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta of Cotelerius (2:104), together with a short piece, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν πρὸς τὰ ἐν τῷ βίῳ λυπηρὰ ἐπιστρέφεσθαι, Quod non oporteat adpresentis vitce molestias attendere, which, though not bearing the form of a letter (perhaps it is a fragment of one), is in the MS. classed with the Epistole. A Latin version, from the Armenian, of some fragments of an Epistola Photii ad Zachariam Armeniae Patriarcham, in support of the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon, is given in the Conciliatio Ecclesiae Armeniae cum Romana of Galanus (Rom. 1650, fol.). To all these we may add the Epistola Tarasio Fratri, usually subjoined to the Bibliotheca. The Epistola ad Zachariam, just mentioned, and another letter, Ad Principem A rmenium A sutium, are extant in MS. in an Armenian version (comp. Mai, Scriptor. Veterum Nov. Collectio, Proleg. in volume 1, Rom. 1825, 4to).
6. Λέξεων συναγωγή s. Λεξικόν, Lexicon. Marquardus Gudius, of Hamburg, had an anonymous MS. lexicon, which he believed and asserted to be that of Photius; but the correctness of his opinion was first doubted by some, and is now given up by most scholars; and another lexicon, much shorter, and.which is in the MSS. ascribed to Photius, is now admitted to be the genuine work of that eminent man. Of this Lexicon there exist several MSS., but that known as the Codex Galeanus, because given by Thomas Gale to the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, is considered to be the archetype from which the others have been transcribed; but this MS. is in itself very imperfect, containing in fact not much more than half the original work. Nearly the whole of the lexicon known as the Lexicon Sangermanease, a portion of which was published in the Anecdota Grceca of Immanuel Bekker (Berlin, 1814, 8vo), 1:319, etc., appears to have been incorporated in the Lexicon of Photius, of which, when entire, it is estimated to have formed a third part (Prcefat. to Porson's edition). The Lexicon of Photius was first published, from Continental MSS., by Gothofredus Hermannus (Leips. 1808, 4to). It formed the third volume of a set, of which the first two volumes contained the Lexicon ascribed to Joannes Zonaras. The publication of the Lea icon was followed by that of a Libellus Aninadversionum ad Photii Lexicon (Leips. 1810, 4to), and Curce Novissimce sive Appendix Notarunm et Emendationum in Photii Lexicon (Leips. 1812, 4to), both by Jo. Fried. Schleusner. But the edition of Hermann having failed to satisfy the wants of the learned, an edition from a transcript of the Codex Galeanus, made by Porson, was published after the death of that eminent scholar (Lond. 1822, 4to and 8vo). (Comp. Edinb. Rev. 21:329, etc., No. 42, July 1813, and Class. Journ. l.c.)
7. Ἀμφιλόχια , Amphilochia. This work, which Allatius, not a friendly censor, declared to be "a work filled with vast and varied learning, and very needful for theologians and expositors of Scripture," is in the form of answers to certain questions, and is addressed to Amphilochius, archbishop of Cyzicus. The answers are said in one MS. (apud Fabricius, Bibl. Grce. 11:26) to be two hundred and ninety-seven in number; but Montfaucon (l.c.) published an index of three hundred and eight, and a Vatican MS., according to Mai (Script. Vet. Nova Collectio, volume 1, Proleg. page 39), contains three hundred and thirteen. Of these more than two hundred and twenty have been published, but in various fragmentary portions (Mai, l.c.). The first portion which appeared in print was in the Lectiones A ntiquce of Canisius (Ingolstadt, 1604, etc., 4to), 5:188, etc., who gave a Latin version, by Franciscus Turrianus, of six of the Quaestiones; but the work to which they belonged was not mentioned. In the subsequent edition of the Lectiones by Basnage (Amsterd. 1725, 4to, volume 2, part 2, page 240, etc.), the Greek text of five of the six was added (the original of the sixth seems never to have been discovered), as well as the Greek text of a seventh Quaestio, "De Christi Voluntatibus Gnomicis," of which a Latin version by Turrianus had been published in the Auctarium Antiquarum Canisii Lectionuml of the Jesuit Petrus Stewartius (Ingolstadt, 1616, 4to); also without notice that it was from the Ampshilochia. Further additions were made by Combefis, in his SS. Patrum Amphilochii, etc., Opera (Paris, 1644, 2 volumes, fol.) (by a strange error he ascribed the work not to Photius, but to Amphilochius of Iconium, a much older writer, from whose works he supposed Photius had made a selection), and in his Novum Auctarium (Paris, 1648), 2 volumes, fol.; by Montfaucon, in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana (Paris, 1715, fol.); and by Jo. Justus Spier, in Wittenbergische Anmerkungen uber theologische, philosophische, historische, philologische, und kritische Materien (Wittenberg, 1738, 8vo), part 1 (Harles, Introd. in Historiam Linguae Graec. Supplem. 2:47). But the principal addition was made by Jo. Chr. Wolff, of forty-six Quaestiones, published, with a Latin version, in his Curae Philologicae (Hamb. 1735, 4to), volume 5 ad fin.; these were reprinted in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland (Venice, 1779, fol.), volume 13. A further portion of eighteen Quaestiones, under the title Ε᾿κ τῶν Φωτίου Ἀμφιλοχίων τινα, Ex Photii Amphilochiis qucedam, was published, with a Latin version, by Angelus Antonius Schottus (Naples, 1817, 4to); and some further portions, one of twenty Quaestiones, with a Latin version by Mai, in his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, 1:193, etc., and another of a hundred and thirty Quaestiones, in 9:1, etc. As many of the Quaestiones were mere extracts from the Epistolce and other published works of Photius, Mai considers that with these and with the portions published by him, the whole of the Amphilochia has now been published. He thinks (Scriptor. Vet. Nova Collect. volume 1, Proleg. p. 40) that the patriarch, towards the close of his life, compiled the work from his own letters, homilies, commentaries, etc., and addressed it to his friend Amphilochius, as a mark of respect, and not because the questions which were solved had actually been proposed to him by that prelate; and he thus accounts for the identity of many passages with those in the author's other works.
8. Adversus Manichaeos s. Paulicianos Libri Quatuor. No Greek title of the whole work occurs, but the four books are respectively thus described: 1. Διήγησις περἱ τῆς Μανιχαίων ἀναβλαστήσεως, Narratio de Manicheeis recens repullulantibus. 2. Ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις τῶν Μανιχαίων , Dubia et Solutiones Manichceorum. 3. Τοῦ Φωτιου λόγος, Photii Sernmo II. 4. Κατὰ τῆς τῶν Μανιχαίων ἀρτιφυοῦς πλανῆς, Ἀρσενίῳ τῷ ἁγιωτάτῳ μοναχῷ πρεσβυτέρῳ καὶ ἡγουμενῳ τῷν ἱερῶν,, Contra repulluiantem Manicheorum Eirrorem ad Arsenium Monachum Sanctissimum Presbyterumn et Praefectum Sacrorum. The title of the second book is considered by Wolff to apply to the second, third, and fourth books, which formed the argumentative part of the work. and to which the first book formed a historical introduction. The second book is intended to show that the same God who created spiritual intelligences also created the bodies with which they are united, and the material world generally; the third vindicates the divine origin of the Old Testament; and the fourth reiterates some points of the second and third books, and answers the objections of the Paulicians. The first book has several points in common with the historical work of Petrus Siculus on the same subject, so as to make it probable that one writer used the work of the other, and it is most likely Photius availed himself of that of Petrus. This important work of Photius was designed for publication by several scholars (see Wolff, Praefat. in Anecdot. Graec. volume 1; and Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. 7:329; 11:18), but they were prevented by death from fulfilling their purpose. Montfaucon published the first book, with a Latin version, in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana (page 349, etc.); and the whole work was given by Jo. Christoph. Wolff, with a Latin version and notes, in his Anecdota Grceca (Hamb. 1722, 12mo), volumes 1:ii, from which it was reprinted in volume 13 of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland (Venice, 1779, fol.). A sort of epitome of this work of Photius is found in the Panoplia of Euthymius Zigabenus. Oudin contended that the work of Metrophanes of Smyrnla. on the Manichaeans and on the Holy Spirit, was identical with this work of Photius; but this opinion is erroneous.
9. Κατὰ τῶν τῆς παλαῖας ῾Ρώμης ὅτι ἐκ Πατρὸς μόνου ἐκπορεύεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἃγιον ἀλλ᾿ οὐχὶ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υίοῦ , A dversus Latinos de Processione Spiritus Sacfti. This work is incorporated in the Greek text of the Panoplia of Euthymius Zigabenus (Tergovist. 1710, fol., pages 112, 113), of which it constitutes the thirteenth τίτλος or section. It.is omitted in the Latin versions of Euthymius. The work of Photius contains several syllogistic propositions, which are quoted and answered seriatim in the De Unione Ecclesiarum Oratio I, of Joannes Veccus, published in the Graecia Orthodoxa of Allatius (Rome, 1652, 4to), 1:154, etc. It is apparently the work entitled by Cave Disputatio Compendiaria de Processione Spiritus Sancti a solo Patre.
10. Homiliae. Several of these have been published:
(1.) ῎Εκφρασις τῆς ἐν τοῖς βασιλείου τοῦ ἐκκλησίας τῆς ὑπεραγίας θεοΦτόκου ὑπὸ Βασιλειου τοῦ Μακεδόνος οἰκοδομηθείσης , Descriptio Novae Sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Ecclesiae, in Palatio a Basilio Macedone exstsructae; a discourse delivered on the dav of the dedication of the church described. It was first printed by Lambecius, in his notes to the work of Georgius Codinus, De Originibus CPolitanis (Paris, 1655, fol.), page 187, and is contained, with a Latin version. in the Bonn reprint of Codinus (1839, 8vo). It is also contained in the Originumn CPolitanarum Manipulus of Coamefis (Paris, 1664, 4to), page 296, with a Latin version and notes; and in the Imperium Orientale of Bandurius (Paris, 1711, fol.), pars 3, page 117.
(2.) Εἰς τὸ γενέσιον τῆς ὑπεραγίας θεοτόκου , Homilia in Sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Natalem Diem, published by Combefis in his Auctarium Novumn (Paris, 1648, fol.), volume 1, col. 1583, and in a Latin version, in his Bibliotheca Patrum concionatoria (Paris, 1662, fol. etc.). Both text and version are reprinted in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland.
(3.) In Sepulturam Domini; a fragment, probably from this, is given by Mai (Scriptor, Vet. Nova l Collect. Proleg. in volume 1, page 41).
(4.) Περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν πρὸς τὰ ἐν τῷ βιῳ λυπηρὰ ἐπιστρέφεσθα , Quod nomn oporteat ad prcesentis Vitce Molestios attendere.' — This piece, which is perhaps not a homily, but the fragment of a letter, was published in the Ecelesie Greece Monumenta of Cotelerius, and has already been noticed in speaking of the Epistolae of Photius.
11. Ε᾿ρωτήματα δέκα σὺν ἴσαις ταῖ ἀποκρίσεσι , Interrogationes decemn cune totidem'Responsionibus, s. Συναγωγαὶ καὶ ἀποδείξεις ἀκριβεῖς συνειλεγμέναι ἐκ τῶν συνοδικῶν καὶ ἱστορικῶν γραφῶν περὶ ἐπισκόπων καὶ μητροπολιτῶν καὶ λοιπῶν ἐτερων ἀναγκαίων ζητημάτων, Collectiones accurataeque Demonstrationes de Episcopis et Metropolitis et reliquis allis necessariis Quaestionibus ex Synodicis et Historicis Monumentis excerptae. This piece was published, with a Latin version and notes, by Francesco Fontani, in the first volume of his Notae Eruditorum Deliciae (Florence; 1785, 12mo). The notes were such as to give considerable offence to "the stricter Romanists. (Mai, Scriptor. Veteo. Nov. Collect. Proleg. ad volume 1, page 44).
12. Εἰς τὸν Λουκᾶν ἑρμηνείαι, In Lucam Expositiones. Some brief Scheoliaon the Gospel of Luke from MSS. Cafenae, are given, with a Latin version, in volume 1 of the Scriptorum Vetesume Nova Collectio of Mai, page 189, etc., but from which of Photius's' works they are taken does not appear.
13. Canonica Responsa, addressed to Leo, archbishop of Calabria; also published, with a Latin version, by Mai (ibid. page 362), from a Palimpsest in the Vatican Library.
Many works of this great writer still remain in MS.:
1. Commentarius in D. Paculi Epistolas, a mutilated copy of which is (or was, according to Cave) in the public library at Cambridge. It is largely cited by OEcumenius.
2. Catena in Psalmos. formerly in the Coislinian library, of which, according to Montfalcon (Bibl. Coislin. pages 58, 59), Photius appears to have been the compiler. Bunt the Commentary on the Prophets, Prophetarum Libe; ascribed to him by Cave, Fabricius, and others, appears to have no real existence; the supposition of its existence was founded on the misapprehension of a passage in Possevino's Apparatus Sacer (Mai, Proleg. ut sup. page 1).
3. Homiice XIV, extant in MS. at 3 Moscow, of the subjects of which a list is given in the Auctarium Novissimum (ad calc. volume 1) of Combefis, in the De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis of Oudin (col. 210, etc.), and in the Ribl. Graeca (11:80, etc.) of Fabricius. To these may be added two other homilies, De Ascensione, and In Festo Epiphaniae, and an Enconmium Poto Martyis Theole (Fabricius, ibid.).
4. Odae. Nine are or were extant in a MS. formerly belonging to the college of Clermont, at Paris, and three in an ancient Barberini MS. at Rome. The latter are described bv Mai (Proleg. page 44) as of moderate length, and written in pleasing verse. Some Epigrammata of Photius are said to be extant (Montfaucon, Bibl. Coislin. page 520); but the Στιχηρόν, In Methodiunt Col., said to be given in the Acta Sanctorum, Junii, 2:969, is not to be found there.
5. Ε᾿πιτομὴ τῶν πρακτικῶν τῶν ἑπτὰ οἰκουμενικῶν συνοδων , Epitome Actorum Conciliorum septem Generalium. This is described by Cave and Fabricius as a different work from the published piece (No. 4, above). Some critics have doubted whether it is different from the similar work ascribed to Photius of Tyre; but as this prelate lived in the time of the third or fourth councils, he could not have epi
These files are public domain.
McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Photius of Constantinople (3)'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/p/photius-of-constantinople-3.html. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1870.
