3. Of CONSTANTINOPLE (3). Of the eminent men whose names occur in the long series of the Byzantine annals, there is hardly one who combines so many claims upon our attention as Photius.
The varied information, much of it not to be found elsewhere, contained in his works, and the sound critical judgment displayed by him, raise him to the very highest rank among the Byzantine writers : his position, asone of the great promoters of the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, give him an almost equal eminence in ecclesiastical history ; and his position, striking vicissitudes of fortune, and connection with the leading political characters of his day, make him a personage of importance in the domestic history of the Byzantine empire.
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,
138), Tarasius, Constantine, Theodore, and Sergius, of whom the first 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; but the rhetorical style of the letter in which the notice occurs (Epist. 234, Tarasio Patricio fratri
) pre vents our drawing any very distinct inference from his words; though they may perhaps indicate that his parents suffered some severities or privations during the reign of Theophilus or some other of the iconoclast emperors.
This is the more likely, as Photius elsewhere (Epistol.
§ 42, and Epistol. ad Nieol. Papam
) claims Tarasius, patri arch of Constantinople, who was one of the great champions of image worship, as his relative, which shows the side taken by his family in the controversy. What the relation between himself and Tarasius was is not clear. Photius (ll. cc.
) calls him πατρόθειος
, which probably means great uncle.
But the ability of Photius would have adorned any lineage, and his capacious mind was cultivated, as both 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 favour : natural adaptation, diligence, wealth, which enabled him to form an all-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." (Nicet. Vita Iynatii apud Conlcil.
vol. viii. 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 analysed, 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.
There is not sufficient evidence to support the statement of Baronius, that Photius was an eunuch.
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 tice (Codin. De Officiis CP.
p. 36, ed. Bonn) ; and, if we trust the statement of Nicetas David (l.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. p. 33.) To these dignities may be added, on the authority of Anastsiusa sius Bibliothecarius (Concil. Octavi Hist.
vol. viii. col. 962, ed. Labbe), that of seilator ; but this is perhaps only another title for the office of "Proto-a-Secretis." (Gretser. et Goar. Not. in Codin.
Though his official duties would chiefly confine him to the capital, it is probable that he was occasionally employed elsewhere.
It was during an embassy "to the Assyrians" (a vague and unsuitable term, denotiing 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. 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 means of judging.
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 ninth century by Ignatius [IGNATIUS, No. 3], who had the misfortune to incur the enmity of some few bishops and monks, of whom the principal was Gregory Asbestus, an intriguing bishop, whom he had deposed from the see of Syracuse in Sicily [GREGORIUS, No. 35], and also of Bardas, who was then a minor. [MICHAEL III.] Ignatius had excomninunicated Bardas. on a rumnour of his being guilty of incest, and Bardas, in retaliation, threatened the patriarch with deposition.
It was important from the high character of Ignatius. that wnoever was proposed as his successor should be able to compete with him in reputation, and the choice of Bardas fell upon Photins, who had already given countenance to Gregory and the other opponents of the patriarch. Ignatius was deposed, and Photius elected in his place.
The latter was a layman, and, according to some statements, was under excommunication for supporting Gregory ; but less than a week served, according to Nicetas David (ibid.), for his rapid passage 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, sub-deacon; 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 irregularly committed to him by secular hands. Photius himself, however, in his apologetic epistle to Pope Nicolats I. (apud Baron. Annal.
ad ann. 859, § lxi. &c.), states that the patriarchate was pressed upon his acceptance 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 subseerviellt bishops, to give to the appointment every possible appearance of regularity.
A consciousness that the whoie 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 mant of too lofty a spirit to consent to his own degradation, and his pertinacious refusal entailed severe persecution both on himself and his friends. [IGNATIUS, No. 3.] Photius, however, retained his high dignity; the secular power was onl his side; the clergy of the patriarchate, in successive councils, confirmed his appointment, though we are told by Nicetas David (ibid.) that the metropolitans exacted from him a written engagement 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 the Pope Nicolautis J The engagement to treat Ignatius with kindness was not kept; in such a struggle its observance could hardly be expected; but how fatr 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 Nicolaus, in a council at Rome, 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 himself, were shocked by the treatment of the unhappy Ignatius. To add to his troubles, the Caesar Bardas appears to have had disputes with him, either influenced by the natural jealousy between the secular and eccleallsiastical powers, or, perhaps, disappointed at not finding in Photius the subserviency he had anticipated.
The letters of Photius addressed to Bardas (Epistolae,
3, 6, 8) contain abundant complaints of the diminution of his authority, of the ill-treat-ment 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 lgnatins
The quarrel between Nicolaus and Photius of course separated the Eastern and Western Churches for the tire. Photius wrote to Nicolaus to endeavour to conciliate his favour, but without effect. Photius was anathematized, and deposed by Nicolaus (A. D. 863); and a counter anathema and sentence of deposition was pronounced against Nicolaus by a council assembled at Constantinople by Photius.
The schism, as neither party had power to carry its sentence into effect, continued until the actual deposition of Photius.
Of the conduct of 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. Teophili Filio,
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 Ignatis. 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 [MICHAEL III.], was speedily followed by the assassination of Michael himself (A. D. 867) and the accession of his colleague and murderer Basil I. (the Macedonian) [BASILIUS I. MACEDO]. Photius had consecrated Basil as the colleague of Michael; but after the murder of the latter he refused to admit him to the communion, reproaching him as a robber and a murderer, and unworthy to partake of the sacred elements. Photius was immediately banished to a monastery, and Ignatius restored : various papers which the servants of Photins were about to conceal in a neighboring reed-bed were seized, and afterwards produced against Photins, first in the senate of Constantinople, and afterward 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 Photius.
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 partizans were anathematized and stigmatized with the most opprobrious epithets.
He subsequently acquired the favour 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 favour of the emperor, but that he soon acquired a complete ascendancy 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 [IGNATIUS, No. 3], 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 honours 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. Nicolaus 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 Nicolaus, and Basil 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.
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 Eistol.
78, apud Concil.
p. 63, &c.) 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 oecumenical 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," 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 recognize 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 he anathematized Photius afresh. (Baron. Annal. Eccles.
ad ann. 880. xi. xiii.)
The schism and rivalry of the churches became greater than ever, and has never since been really healed.
Photius, according to Nicetas (ibid.), had been assisted in regaining the favour 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' 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 eves of Leo, which he had intended to put out. Basil died A. D. 886, and Leo [LEO VI.] succeeded to the throne.
He immediately set about the ruin of Santabaren; and, forgetful of Photius' 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 Porphyrogenitus, 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 survived 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. 5. c.100 lib. 6.1-5; Symeon Magister, De Basil. Maced.
100.21, De Leone Basil. fil.
100.1; Georg. Monach. De Basil.
100.24, De Leone,
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,
vol. xxi. p. 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 an eunuch shows that he was not open to the charge of licentiousness; his firmness is attested by his repulse of Basil from the commnnion 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 his 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, Chronographia,
pp. 463-476,ed. Paris; Zonar. 16.4
; Cedren. Compend.
pp. 551, 569, 573, 593, ed. Paris, vol. ii. p. 172, 205, 213, 248, ed. Bonn; Glycas, Annal.
pars iv. pp. 293, 294, 297, &c., ed. Paris, pp. 226, 228, 230, &c., ed. Venice, pp. 544, 547, 552, ed. Bonn ; Genesius, Reges,
lib. iv. p. 48, ed. Venice, p. 100, ed. Bonn; Constantin. Manass. Compend. Chron.
vs. 5133-5163, 5253, &100.5309, &c.; Joel, Chronog. Compend.
p. 179, ed. Paris, pp. 55, 56, ed. Bonn; Ephraem. De Patriarchis C. P.
vs. 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,
vols. viii. ix. ed. Labbe, vols. v. vi. ed. Hardouin, vols. xv. xvi. xvii. 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 1.100.18) has a very ample memoir of Photins, which may be advantageously compared with that of Baronius, as its bias is in the opposite direction.
See also Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Ecclesias-tiques, Siècle
ix. p. 270, 2de edit. 1698.
An essay by Francesco Fontani, De Photio Novae Romae Episcopo ejusque Scriptis Dissertatio,
prefixed to the first volume of his Novae Eruditorum Deliciae,
12mo, Florence, 1785, is far more candid than most of the other works by members of the Romish Church; and is in this respect far beyond the Mènzoire sur le Patriarche Photius,
by M. Weguelin, in the Mémoires de l' Academie Royale
(de Prusse) des Sciences et Belles-Lettres, Ainné
MDCCLXXVIL. 4to. Berlin, 1779. p. 440, &c. Shorter accounts may be found in Mosheim (Eccles Hist.
by Murdock, book iii. cent. ix. pt. ii. 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 patriarchat 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 favourable to him. Of the historians of the lower empire, Le Beau (Bas Empire,
54.70.38, &c., 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 honourable to him. Gibbon (Decline and Fall,
100.53, 60), more favourable, has two separate, but brief and unsatisfactory, notices of the patriarch.
The published works of Photius are the following :--
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' brother Tarasius, who was much grieved at the separation, and desired an account of the books whieh 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 [PHILOSTORGIUS], 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," said 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.
A hasty and supercilious writer in the Edinburgh Review
(vol. xxi. p. 329, &c.), whose harsh and unjust censure of Photius we have already noticed, affirms on the other hand that the work has been swelled out to its present size by spurious additions. "Our younger readers, however, who take the Myriobiblon
in hand, are not to suppose that the book which at present goes under that name, is really the production of Photius; we believe that not more than half of it can be safely attributed to that learned and turbulent bishop ; and we think it would not be very difficult to discriminate between the genuine and supposititious parts of that voluminous production."
As the reviewer has not attempted to support his assertion by evidence, and as it is contradicted by the express testimony of Photius himself, who has mentioned the number of volumes examined, his judgment is entitled to but little weight.
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 Philon Judaeus (codd. 103-105), occupy several divisions; and on the other hand, one division (e. g. cod.
125, Justini Martyris 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.
of various councils (codd. 15-20); the writers on the Resurrection
(codd. 21-23); and the secular historians of the Byzantine empire (codd. 62-67).
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 [CTESIAS
] in cod. 72; the De Rebus post Alexandrum Magnum gestis,
and the Parthica
and the Bithynica
of Arrian [ARRIANUS, No. 4], in codd. 58, 92, and 93; the Historiae
of Olympiodorus [OLYMPIODORUS, No. 3], in cod. 80; the Narrationes
of Conon [CONON, No. 1], in cod. 186 ; the Nova Historia
of Ptolemy Hephaestion [PTOLEMAEUS], in cod. 190; the De Heracleae Ponticae Rebus
of Memnon [MEMNON], in cod. 224 ; the Vita Isidori
[ISIDORUS, No. 5, of Gaza] by Damascius [DAMASCIUS], in cod. 242; the lost Declamatiowes
of Himerius [HIMERIUS, No. 1], in cod. 243; the lost books of the Bilbliotheca
of Diodorus Siculus [DIODORUS, No. 12], in cod. 244 ; the De Erythraeo
of Agatharchides [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 [ANTIPHON, No. 1], Isocrates [ISOCRATES, No. 1], Lysias [LYSIAS], Isaeus [ISAEUS, No. 1], Demosthenes [DEMOSTHENES
], Hyperides [HYPERIDES], Deinarchus [DEINARCHUS, No. 1], and Lycurgus [LYCURGUS
, p. 858], in codd. 259-268; and of the Chrestomatheia
of Helladius of Antinoopolis [HELLADIUS, No. 2] 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, Librorum quos legit Photius Patriarcha Excerpla et Censurae, fol. Augsburg, 1601.
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, fol. Augsburg, 1606
; 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, fol. Geneva, 1612, and fol. Rouen, 1653.
This last edition is a very 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, 2 thin vols. 4to. Berlin, 1824-1825
: it is convenient from its size and the copiousness of its index, but has neither version nor notes.
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 fourth century.
It was first published, with a Latin version and copious notes, by Jacobus Gothofredus (Godefroi), 4to, Geneva, 1643
; and was reprinted with the other ancient Greek ecclesiastical historians by Henricus Valesius (Henri Valois), folio, Paris, 1673, and by Reading, fol. Cambridge, 1720.
s. Canonum Ecclesiasticorum et Legum Imperialium de Ecclesiastica Disciplina Conciliatio
This work, which bears ample testimony to the extraordinary legal attainments of its author, is arranged under fourteen τίτλοι
and was prefixed to a Σύνταγμα τῶν κανόνων
, Canonum Syntagma,
or collection of the Canones
of the Apostles and of the ecclesiastical councils recognised by the Greek Church, compiled by Photius; from which circumstance it is sometimes called Προκάνων
It has been repeatedly published, with the commentaries 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, fol. Paris, 1561
, and in another Latin version of Henricus Agylaeus, fol. Basel. 1561
, and in the original Greek text with the version of Agylaeus, edited by Christophorus Justellus, 4to. Paris, 1615. It was reprinted, with the version of Agylaeus, in the Bibliotheca Juris Canonici, published by Guillelmus Voellus and Henricus Justellus, vol. ii. p. 785, &c. fol. Paris, 1661.
of Photits was epitomised in the kind of verses called politici [see PHILIPPUS, No. 27, note] by Michael Psellus, whose work was published, with one or two other of his pieces, by Franciscus Bosquetus, 8vo. Paris, 1632.
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.
There are extant a considerable number of the letters of Photius. The MSS. containing them are enumerated by Fabricius, Bibl. Graec.
vol. xi. p. 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
(fol. Augsburg, 1601) 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 sixteenth 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, 8vo. Nürnberg, 1601. 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, fol. London, 1651.
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, and 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, 4to. Paris, 1718.
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 criticized by Combéfis. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
vol. i. p. 701 note f f f.) Several important letters are not included in the collection, especially two to Pope Nicolaus I., and one to the archbishop or patriarch of Aquileia, on the procession of the Holy Spirit, of all which Baronius had given a Latin version in his Annales Ecclesiastici
(ad ann. 859, lxi. &c., 861, xxxiv. &c., and 883, v. &c.). Fragments of the Greek text of the letters to Pope Nicolaus 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 Novissismum of Combéfis, pars i. p. 527, &c. (fol. Paris, 1672), 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 Ecclesiae Antiochiae,
and the encyclical letter on the procession of the Holy Spirit (included in Mountagu's collection), the Acta
of the eighth oecumenical 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 Walachia, in his Τόμος χαρᾶς. Fol. Rimnik, 1705.
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 Plrooemium Secundum, § 3, to the Homiliae of Cerameus, fol. Paris, 1644
[CERAMEUS, THEOPHANES], and another letter, Stauracio Spatharo-candidato, Praefecto insulae Cypri,
was included in the Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta
of Cotelerius, vol. ii. p. 104, together with a short piece, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν πρὸς τὰ ἐν τῷ βίῳ λυπηρὰ ἐπιστρέφεσθαι
, Quod non oporteat ad praesentis vitae 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 Epistolae. 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, fol. Rom. 1650.
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 Armenium Asulium,
are extant in MS. in an Armenian version. (Comp. Mai, Scriptor. Veteram Nov. Collectio.
Proleg. in vol. 1.4to. Rom. 1825.)
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.
A writer in the Classical Journal
(No. 54. p. 358) has indeed expressed his conviction that, "in the composition of it the patriarch never stirred a finger," and that it received his name merely from having been in his possession; but we are not aware that his opinion has found any supporters. Of this Leaicon
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 itself very imperfect, containing in fact not much more than half the original work.
Nearly the whole of the Lexicon,
known as the Lexicon Sangermanense,
a portion of which was published in the Anecdota Graeca
of Immanuel Bekker, vol. i. p. 319, &100.8vo. Berlin, 1814, appears to have been incorporated in the Lexicon
of Photius, of which, when entire, it is estimated to have formed a third part (Praefat.
to Porson's edition).
of Photius was first published, from Continental MSS., by Gothofredus Hermannus, 4to Leipzig, 1808.
It formed the third volume of a set, of which the two first volumes contained the Lexicon
ascribed to Joannes Zonaras [ZONARAS, JOANNES].
The publication of the Lexicon
was followed by that of a Libellus Animadversionum ad Photii Lexicon,
4to. Leipzig, 1810, and Curae Novissimnae sive Appendix Notarum et Emendationum in Photii Lexicon,
4to. Leipzig, 1812, both by Jo. Frid. 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, 4to. and 8vo. London, 1822. (Comp. Edinb. Rev.
vol. xxi. p. 329, &c. No. 42, July 1813, and Class. Journ. l.c.
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 Amphilochus, archbishop of Cyzicus.
The title is thus given in full by Montfaucon (Bib1ioth. Coislin.
fol. Paris, 1715, p. 326) : Τὰ Ἀμφιλόχια ἢ λόγων ἱερῶν καὶ ζητημάτων ἱερολογίαι πρὸς Ἀμφιλόχιον τὸν ὁσιώτατον μητροπολίτην Κυζικου ἐν τῷ καίφῳ τῶν πειρασμῶν, ζητημάτων διαφόρων εἰς ἀριθμὸν τριακοσίων συντεινόντων ἐπίλυσιν αἰτησάμενον
s. Sermones et Quaestiones Sacrae ad Amphilochium Metropolitam Cyzicenum in Tempore Tentationum ; Quaestiones Variae sunt Numero trecentae.
The answers are said in one MS. (apud Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
vol. xi. p. 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,
vol. i. proleg. p. xxxix.), 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 Antiquae of Canisius (4to. Ingolstadt, 1604, &c. vol. v. p. 188, &c.), 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 (4to. Amsterdam, 1725, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 420, &c.)
, 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 Antiquaram Canisii Lectionum of the Jesuit Petrus Stewartius, 4to. Ingolstadt, 1616
; also without notice that it was from the Amphilochia. Further additions were made by Combéfis, in his SS. Patrum Amphlilockii, &e. Opera, 2 vols. fol. Paris. 1644 (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, 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1648
; by Montfaucon, in his Bibliotheca Coislinian fol. Paris, 1715
; and by Jo. Justus Spier, in Wittenbergischen Anmerkungen ueber theologische, philosophische, historische, phiologlische, und kritische Materien. part 1.8vo. Wittenberg, 1738 (Harles, Introd. in Historiam Linguae Graec. Supplem. vol. ii. p. 47). But the principal addition was made by Jo. Chr. Wolff, of forty-six Quaestiones, published, with a Latin version, in his Curae Philoloqicae, vol. v. ad fin. 4to. Hamb. 1735
: these were reprinted in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland, vol. xiii. fol. Venice, 1779
. A further portion of eighteen Quaestiones, under the title Ἐκ τῶν Φωτίοι Ἀμφιλοχίων τινα, Ex Photii Amphilochiis quaedam, was published, with a Latin version, by Angelus Antonius Schottus, 4to. Naples, 1817
; and some further portions, one of twenty Quaestiones, with a Latin version by Mai, in his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, vol. i. pp. 193, &c.
, and another of a hundred and thirty Quaestiones, in vol. ix. p. 1, &c.
As many of the Quaestiones
were mere extracts from the Epistolae
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.
vol. i. proleg. p. xl.) that the patriarch, toward the close of his life, compiled the work from his own letters, homilies, commentaries, &c., 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.
No Greek title of the whole work occurs, but the four books are respectively thus described : 1. Διήγησις περὶ τῆς Μανιχαίων ἀναβλαστήσεως
, Narratio de Manichaeis recens repullulantibus.
2. Ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις τῶν Μανιχαίων
, Dubia et Solutiones Manichaeorum.
3. Τοῦ Φωτίου λόγος Γ
, Photii Sermo III.
4. Κατὰ τῆς τῶν Μανιχαίων ἀρτιφυοῦς πλᾶνης, Ἀρσενίῳ τῷ ἁγιωτάτῳ μοναχῷ πρεσβυτέρῳ καὶ ἡγουμένῳ τῶν ἱερῶν
, Contra repullalantem pullalantem Manichaeorum Errorem ad Arsenium Monachum Sanctissimum Presbyterum 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 an 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 original 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 [PETRUS, No. 7] 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 (vid. Wolff, Prae>fat. in Anecdot. Graec.
vol. i. and Fabric. Biblioth. Graec.
vol. vii. p. 329, vol. xi. p. 18), but they were prevented by death from fulfilling their purpose. Montfaucon published the first book, with a Latin version, in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana,
p. 349, &c. ; and the whole work was given by Jo. Christoph. Wolff, with a Latin version and notes, in his Anecdota Graeca, vols. 1.2.12mo. Hamb. 1722, from which it was reprinted in vol. xiii. of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland, fol. Venice, 1779.
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 Smyrna, on the Manichaeans and on the Holy Spirit, was identical with this work of Photius; but this opinion, which is countenanced in a foregoing article [METROPHANES]. is erroneous.
This work is incorporated in the Greek text of the Panoplia
of Euthymius Zigabenus (fol. Tergovist. 1710, fol. 112, 113), of which it constitutes the thirteenth Τίτλος
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 Orati I.
of Joannes Veccus [VECCUS], published in the Graec. Orthodoxa
of Allatius, vol. i. p. 154, &100.4to. Rome, 1652.
It is apparently the work entitled by Cave Disputatio Compendiaria de Processione Sp]iritus Sancti a solo Patre.
Several of these have been published :--
A discourse delivered on the day 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, p. 187, fol. Paris, 1655
, and is contained, with a Latin version, in the Bonn reprint of Codinus, 8vo. 1839
. It is also contained in the Originum CPolitanarum Manipulus of Combéfis, 4to. Paris, 1664, p. 296, with a latin version and notes
; and in the Imperium Orientale of Bandurius, pars iii. p. 117, fol. Paris, 1711
Published by Combéfis, in his Auctarium Nouum, vol. i. col. 1583, fol. Paris, 1648
, and in a Latin version, in his Bibliotheca Patrum concionatoria, fol. Paris, 1662, &c. Both text and version are reprinted in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland.
A fragment, probably from this, is given by Mai (Scriptor. Vet. Nova Collect.
proleg. in vol. i. p. xli).
This piece, which is perhaps not a homily, but the fragment of a letter, was published in the Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta
of Cotelerius, and has been already noticed in speaking of the Epistolae
Ἐρωτήματα δέκα σὺν ἴσαις ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσι
, Interrogationes decem cum totidem Responsionibus,
s. Συναγωγαὶ καὶ ἀποδείξεις ἀκριβεῖς ἀκριβεῖς συνειλεγμέναι ἐκ τῶν συνοδικῶν καὶ ἱστορικῶν γραφῶν περὶ ἐπισκόπων καὶ μητροπολιτῶν καὶ λοιπῶν ἑτέρων ἀναγκαίων ζητηματων
, Collectiones accurataeque Demonstrationes de Episcopis et Metropolitis et reliquis aliis 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 Novae Eruditorum Deliciae, 12mo. Florence, 1785
The notes were such as to give considerable offence to the stricter Romanists. (Mai, Scriptor. Veter. Nou. Collect.
Proleg. ad vol. i. p. xliv.)
Εἰς τὸν Λουκᾶν ἑρμηνείαι
, In Lucam Expositiones.
Some brief Scholia
on the gospel of Luke from MSS. Catenae,
are given, with a Latin version, in vol. i. of the Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio
of Mai, p. 189, &c., but from which of Photius's works they are taken does not appear.
addressed to Leo, archbishop of Calabria; also published, with a Latin version, by Mai ibid.
p. 362), from a Palimpsest in the Vatican library.
Unpublished works still in MS
Many works of this great writer still remain in MS.
Commentarius in D. Paidi Epistola,
a mutilated copy of which is (or was, according to Cave) in the public library at Cambridge.
It is largely cited by Oecumenius.
Catena in Psalsmas, formerly in the Coislinian library, of which, according to Montfaucon (Bibl. Coislin.
pp. 58, 59), Photius appears to have been the compiler.
But the Cornmentary on the Prophets, Prophetarum Liber,
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.
ut sup. p. l.)
Homiliae XIV., exstant in MS. at Moscow, of the subjects of which a list is given in the Auctarium Novissimum
(ad cale. vol. i.) of Combéfis, in the De Scriptoribus Ecelesiasticis
of Oudin (col. 210, &c.), and in the Bibliotheca Graeca
(vol. xi. p. 30, &c.) of Fabricius. To these may be added two other homilies, De Ascensione,
and In Festo Epiphaniae,
and an Encomium Proto-Martyris Theclae
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 by Mai (Proleg.
p. xliv.) as of moderate length, and written in pleasing verse. Some Epigrammata
of Photius are said to be extant (Montfaucon, Bibl. Coislin.
p. 520); but the Στιχηρόν
, In Methodium CPlol.,
said to be given in the Acta Santctorum, Junii,
vol. ii. p. 969, is not to be found there.
Ἐπιτομὴ τῶν πρακτικῶν τῶν ἑπτὰ οἰκουμενικῶν συνόδων
, 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 front the similar work ascribed to Photius of Tyre [No. 3] : but as this prelate lived in the time of the third or fourth councils, he could not have epitomised the Acta
of the fifth, sixth, and seventh. So that the Epitome
cannot be by Photius of Tyre, whatever doubt there may be as to its being the work of our Photius.
The Syntagma Canonum
has been already mentioned in speaking of the Nomocanon.
Περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος μυσταγωγίας
, De Spiritus Sancti Disciplina Arcana,
s. Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ καὶ προσκυνητοῦ πνεύματος
, Liber de Spiritu Saneto,
addressed to a bishop Bedas, and different from the published work, No. 9.
It is described by Mai, who has given some extracts (Proleg.
p. xlv.), as "liber luculentus, various, atque prolixus."
It is ascribed in one MS., but by an obvious error, to Metrophanes of Smyrna.
Τὰ παρὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῶν Λατίνων αἰτιώματα μερικά
, Adversus Latinorum Ecclesiam Criminationes Pariculares.
9. Contra Francos et Latinos
p. xlviii.) ; a very short piece.
Various other pieces are mentioned by Cave, Lambecius, Fabricius, and Mai, as extant in MS.; but some of these are only fragments of the published writings (Mai, Proleg.
p. l) enumerated by mistake as separate works.
The work In Categorias Aristotelis,
now or formerly extant in Vienna and Paris, is apparently a part of the Amphlilochia
The works De Episcopis et Metropolitis,
and the Annotatio de Patriarchis sede sua injuste pulsis,
mentioned by Cave and Fabricius, appear to be either the Interrogationes decem
published by Fontani, or a part of that work. (See No. 11
of the published works.) The Symbolum Fidei
mentioned by Lambecius, Cave, and Harles (Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
vol. xi. p. 30), is part of one of the letters to Pope Nicolaus : and the Liber de Pulsione Ignatii ac Restitutione
mentioned by Montfaucon (Bibl. Bibliothecarum.
p. 123), is also part of a letter of Pope Nicolaus ; and the fragment De decem Oratoribus,
mentioned by Vossius and others, and extant in MS. in the King's Library at Paris, is probably from the Bibliotheca
p. 1.). Some works have perished, as that against the heretic Leontius of Antioch, mentioned by Suidas (s.v. Λεύντιος
). Photius wrote also against the emperor Julian (Phot. Epist.
187, ed. Montac.), and in defence of the use of images. Some writings, or fragments of writings of his on this subject (Adversus Iconomachos et Paulicianos,
and De Differentia inter sacras Imagines atque Idola
) are extant in the Imperial Library at Vienna, but whether in distinct works, or under what title, loes not appear to be known.
In the Pynodicon
of Bishop Beveridge (vol. ii. ad fin. part i.) a short piece is given, of which the running title is Balsamon in Photii Interrogationes quorundam Monachorum ;
but the insertion of the name of Photius is altogether incorrect; the work belongs to the time of the emperor Alexius I. Comnenns. The Exegesis,
or Commentary of Elias Cretensis [ELIAS, No. 5] on the Scala Paradisi
of Joannes Climacus. is, in a MS. of the Coislinian library (Montfaucon, Bibl. Coisin.
p. 141), improperly ascribed to Photins.
Two learned Romanists, Joannes Andresius and Jacobus Morellius, have in recent times contemplated the publication of a compllete edition of the works of Photius; the latter proceeded so far as to draw up a Conspectus
of his proposed edition (Mai, Proleg.
But unfortunately the design has never been completed; and the works of the greatest genius of his age have yet to be sought in the various volunes and collections, older or more recent, in which they have appeared.
Cave, Hist. Litt.
vol. ii. p. 47, &c. ed. Oxford, 1740-1743; Fabric. Biblioth. Graec.
vol. i. p. 701, vol. vi. p. 603, voi. vii. p. 803, vol. x. p. 670, to vol. xi. p. 37, vol. xii. pp. 185, 210, 216, 348; Oudin, Comment. de Scriptorib. et Scriptis Eccles.
vol. ii. col. 200, &c.; Hankius, De Rerum Byzantin. Scriptorib.
pars 1.100.18 ; Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Eccles. IXme Siècle, p.
346, 2me edit. 1698; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés,
vol. xix. p. 426, &c.; Ittigius, De Bibliothecis Patrum,
passim; Gallandius, Biblioth. Patrum,
prolegom. in vol. xiii.; Fontani, De Photio Novae Romae Episcopo ejuscque Scriptis Dissertatio,
prefixed to vol. i. of the Novae Eruditorum Deliciae ;
Mai, Scriptor. Vet. Nova Collectio,
proleg. in vol. i.; Assemani, Bibliotheca Juris Orientalis,
lib. 1. c.2, 7, 8, 9; Vossius, De Historicis Graecis,
lib. 2. c.25.