FOZIO, patriarch of COSTANTINOPLE. — Without repeating what is said about the schism of F. under the heading Byzantium, a brief biography of F. is given here, together with some notes intended to characterize his personality as a writer and patriarch.
I. LIFE. — F. was born in Constantinople of a noble and religious family around 801; his father and mother suffered for the faith during the iconoclast persecution, according to F.’s own testimony (PG 120, 1020 A).
F. received an exceptionally broad education, extending from grammar to philosophy and theology, and including medicine and jurisprudence. He became a teacher of philosophy and theology and achieved great success in teaching and in the pedagogical art of attracting disciples. But he was soon called to court life, where his brothers Sergio and Tarasio had already found positions. There he rose to become head of the imperial chancery (protosecretary with the rank of protosecretary), and was subsequently chosen for a diplomatic mission to the court of the caliph of Baghdad. It is highly significant that throughout the reign of Michele III (842–67) F. enjoyed the favor of the influential and cultured figures, first Teoctisto (killed in 853) and then Barda. It is therefore not surprising that the latter, after his conflict with the patriarch Ignazio, offered the patriarchal dignity to his favorite, who was certainly one of the most distinguished and learned persons at court. Regarding the question of whether F. was canonically elected after a possible abdication by the legitimate patriarch, it may probably be said that Ignazio abdicated conditionally, but that F. did not observe the condition attached to the abdication. Moreover, he received all the clerical orders—those of lector, subdeacon, deacon, priest, and bishop—within the six succeeding days (22–25 December 853), from Gregorio Asbesta, an archbishop deposed by s. Ignazio and suspended by Pope Benedetto III. Nevertheless, F. sought to win the consent of Pope Niccolò I, to whom he sent a letter in the spring of 860 that also contained his profession of faith. The Supreme Pontiff, while praising this profession, did not yet approve F. as patriarch, but commissioned the bishops Radualdo of Porto and Zaccaria of Anagni to go to Constantinople to investigate the internal religious situation, without, however, taking a decision on the dispute between Ignazio and F. The two Latin bishops, exceeding their authority, consented to the deposition of Ignazio, decreed in their presence at a Synod of Constantinople (April–September 861). The Pope disapproved this Synod, rejected the defense of his cause presented by F. in a second letter to Niccolò I, and also informed the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem of his decision, exhorting them not to recognize F.; at a Roman Synod in April 863 he solemnly condemned F. and his followers. The Pope’s firm attitude aroused F.’s anger, and he began his open struggle against him, culminating in the excommunication pronounced by the Photian Synod of 867 against the Supreme Pontiff, a month and a half before the latter’s death. The successor of the deceased Pope, Adriano II, found the situation of the Byzantine patriarchate changed, since the new emperor Basilio had deposed F. and recalled Ignazio, and desired papal legates for a council to be held in Constantinople. The Pope agreed and sent there the bishops Donato of Ostia and Stefano of Nepi, together with the deacon Marino. They presided over the Eighth Ecumenical Council (5 October 869–28 February 870). The Pope approved the decrees of this Council, among which was a new condemnation of F.; but F. had already regained imperial favor before Ignazio’s death (23 November 877). Indeed, the Emperor entrusted him with the education of his sons. When the legitimate patriarch died, almost two decades had already passed since the Byzantine schism had broken out in 858. Finding himself faced with the death of s. Ignazio and F.’s installation in the vacant see, and having received letters from the Emperor and from F. himself requesting papal consent, the new Pope Giovanni VIII declared himself ready to recognize F. if he asked forgiveness at the new Synod of Constantinople (879–80), renounced jurisdiction in Bulgaria, showed mercy toward the Ignatians, and accepted the canon stipulating that henceforth no layman should be raised to the dignity of bishop. Although F. largely failed to fulfill these conditions, Giovanni VIII seems to have been content with a mild reprimand in the letter addressed to him in August 880. According to the historians Grumel and Dvornik, neither Giovanni VIII nor his successors excommunicated F.; consequently, the second schism of F. should be eliminated. Their view is at least probable, but it does not consider the further question of whether F., after his deposition under the new emperor Leone VI in 886 and until his death in the last decade of the ninth century, retained Catholic sentiments; nor does it emphasize F.’s open struggle against the Filioque (v.) after his deposition.
II. PERSONALITY. — F.’s great merits in philology and exegesis are frankly acknowledged, as is demonstrated by his glossary, his book An-filoschia, and his biblical commentaries recently edited by Staab or indicated by Devreese and Reuss. His literary erudition is also praised, for in his book Myriobibion he has preserved so many excerpts from classical and Christian works that are now lost. His letters too, with the exception of the polemical ones, are not without merit, especially those dealing with ascetic subjects; his discourses, preserved in part, are rich in Christian thought and elevated in form. Some books formerly attributed to him are now disputed (such as his book against the Paulicians), while others are certainly by different authors, such as the aforementioned Nomocanone, although he may have been responsible for one revision of this work. F. gave primary evidence of his receptive disposition; he was ignorant of the Latin language and of the treasures of Western patristic literature, apart from a few texts that had already been translated into Greek. Knowledge of the works of s. Agostino, especially the De Trinitate, would have been useful to F. As patriarch, he displayed considerable skill in defending his position, but he also employed illegitimate means during his struggle against the papacy. He was not lacking in pastoral zeal or interest in spreading the Gospel among the pagans; he also worked for the union of heterodox Christians (Armenians, etc.). F.’s intellectual and moral character therefore presents problems that are not always easy for the scholar who wishes to return to the sources, which unfortunately have been partly lost; consequently, even on important questions, historical certainty cannot yet be attained.
BIBLI: V. Grumel, Les regesies des actes du patriarcat de Costantinople, I, s. Les regesies de 715 à 1843, Paris 1925, nos. 456–497, 528–89; M. Amann, Phonics, in DTRC, XII, cols. 1536–604; Fliche-Martin-Frunz, VI, Turin 1948, pp. 481–520; K. Amann, Teologia von Βυζαντινόφων Κράτους, II, Athens 1947, pp. 36–42; Fr. Dvornik, The Phonian Schism, History and Legend, Cambridge 1948; G. Hofmann, La voce presente della questione circa la riconciliazione di F. con la Chiesa romana, in Civ. Catt., 1948, III, pp. 47–60.