FOZIO, PATRIARCA DI COSTANTINOPOLI

PHOTIUS, Patriarch of CONSTANTINOPLE. — Without repeating what is said on the schism of P. under the heading Byzantium, a brief biography of P. is given here, together with some notes to characterize his personality as a writer and patriarch.

I. LIFE

P. was born at Constantinople of a noble and religious family about the year 800; his father and mother suffered for the faith during the iconoclastic persecution, according to P.’s own testimony (PG 120, 1020 A).

P. received an exceptionally broad education, ranging from grammar to philosophy and theology, and including even medicine and jurisprudence. He became a master of philosophy and theology and enjoyed great success in teaching and in the art of attracting disciples. But soon he was called to the imperial court, where his brothers Sergius and Tarasius had already found a place. Here he secured the post of president of the imperial chancery (protasecretis with the rank of protospatharios), and was then chosen for a diplomatic mission to the court of the Caliph of Baghdad. It is highly significant that throughout the reign of Michael III (842–67) P. enjoyed the favor of influential persons, first of Theoktistos (killed in 855) and then of Bardas. It is therefore not surprising that the latter, after his conflict with Patriarch Ignatius, should have offered the dignity of patriarch to his protégé, who was certainly one of the most celebrated and gifted men at court. As to whether P. was canonically elected after a possible abdication of the legitimate patriarch, it may be said with probability that Ignatius had made his consent conditional, but that P. did not observe the condition of abdication. Moreover, he received the tonsure and the orders of lector, subdeacon, deacon, priest, and bishop within six days (22–25 Dec. 858) from Gregory Asbestas, an archbishop deposed by St Ignatius and suspended by Pope Benedict III. Despite this, P. sought to gain the approval of Pope Nicholas I, to whom he sent in the spring of 860 a letter containing also his profession of faith. The Supreme Pontiff, while praising this profession, did not yet approve P. as patriarch, but nevertheless sent the bishops Radoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni to Constantinople to investigate the internal religious situation without, however, taking any decision in the dispute between Ignatius and P. The two Latin bishops, exceeding their competence, gave their consent to the deposition of Ignatius decreed in their presence at a synod of Constantinople (Apr.–Sept. 867). The Pope disapproved of this synod, rejected the apology for his own conduct made by P. in a second letter to Nicholas I, and also informed the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem of his decision, urging them not to recognize P. At a Roman synod in April 863 he solemnly condemned P. and his followers. The Pope’s firm attitude provoked the anger of P., who began his open struggle against him, culminating in the sentence of 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, Adrian II, found the situation of the Byzantine patriarch changed, since the new emperor Basil had deposed P. and recalled Ignatius, and desired papal legates for a council to be held at Constantinople. The Pope consented and sent thither the bishops Donatus of Ostia, Stephen of Nepi, and the deacon Marinus. These took part in the Eighth Ecumenical Council (5 Oct. 869–28 Feb. 870). The Pope approved the decrees of this council, among which was a new condemnation of P., but P. had already regained the imperial favor before the death of Ignatius (23 Nov. 877); indeed, the emperor entrusted him with the education of his own sons. When the legitimate patriarch died, nearly two decades had passed since the Byzantine schism broke out in 858. When the new Pope John VIII was faced with the fact of the death of St Ignatius and the installation of P. in the vacant see, and had received letters from the emperor and from P. himself requesting papal consent, he declared himself ready to recognize P. if the latter would ask pardon at a new synod of Constantinople (879–80), renounce jurisdiction in Bulgaria, show mercy to the Ignatians, and accept the canon that in future no layman should be raised to the dignity of bishop. Although P. did not fully comply with these conditions, it seems that John VIII was satisfied with a mild reproof in the letter addressed to him in August 880. According to the historians Grumel and Dvornik, neither John VIII nor his successors excommunicated P., so that the second schism of P. should be regarded as non-existent. Their opinion is at least probable, but it does not consider the further question whether P., after his deposition under the new emperor Leo VI in 886 until his death in the last decade of the 9th century, entertained Catholic sentiments, nor does it emphasize P.’s open opposition after his deposition to the *Filioque* (q.v.).

II. PERSONALITY

P.’s great merits in the fields of philology and exegesis are frankly acknowledged, as evidenced by his lexicon, his *Anthologia*, and his biblical commentaries recently edited by Staab or noted by Devreesse and Reuss; his literary erudition is also praised, for he has preserved in his *Myriobiblion* so many extracts from classical and Christian works now lost. Even in his letters, apart from those of a polemical nature, there are qualities, especially in those of an ascetical content; his discourses, partly preserved, are rich in Christian thought and elevated in style. Some books formerly attributed to him are now disputed (thus his book against the Paulicians), or certainly by other authors, such as the *Nomocanon*, although some revision of this work may have been his. P. gave proof above all of his receptive nature; he was ignorant of Latin and of the treasures of Western patristics, except for a few texts already translated into Greek. A knowledge of the works of St Augustine, especially the *De Trinitate*, would have been useful to him. As a controversialist he displayed great skill in defending his position, but he also used illegitimate means in the course of his struggle against the papacy. He was not lacking in pastoral zeal and interest in the propagation of the Gospel among pagans; he also worked for the union of heterodox Christians (Armenians, etc.). The intelligent and forceful character of P. thus presents problems not always easy for the scholar who wishes to go back to the sources, which unfortunately are partly lost, so that even on important questions historical certainty cannot yet be attained.