Religious politics played an important role in the Byzantine Empire's diplomatic relations. It was a soft power that was effectively used by the empire in its plans of conquest. Conquering the ‘hearts and souls’ of its adversaries, rather than using military might, they were winning victories and expanding the borders of the empire. The process of assimilating nations was taking place under the influence of their common Orthodox faith. In this regard, the French Byzantine scholar Charles Diehl noted that ‘Byzantine diplomacy achieved its greatest success through religious propaganda and conversion to Christianity.’Footnote 1
The religious factor occupied a significant place in the paradigm of Armenian-Byzantine relations. The Armenian-Byzantine theological disputes, which had their roots in the Council of Chalcedon of 451,Footnote 2 revived in the second half of the ninth century. Byzantium was playing the traditional card: the union of the Armenian and Greek Churches, under which were subsumed the real political goals of the empire. ‘Byzantium could not achieve its goals until the Armenian people were ecclesiastically subordinated to it and while it stood against the Chalcedonian creed adopted by the empire’, wrote H. Bartikyan.Footnote 3 Therefore, the empire spared no efforts in its attempts to impose Dyophysitism on the Armenians, which would facilitate the unification of the two Churches. The Armenian Church fought for its independence because being separated from the Byzantine Church allowed Armenians to establish mutually acceptable relations with the influential Islamic regimes in the region.Footnote 4
This outwardly religious process was led by powerful and charismatic leaders of the imperial Church who consistently promoted the Byzantine agenda of conquest. Photios, the patriarch of Constantinople (858–67, 877–86) did serious work in this field. In the second half of the ninth century he began a theological correspondence with the Armenian Catholicos, Zak'aria Dzagec'i (855–77), and the Armenian Prince of Princes, Ašhot Bagratuni (862–85). This began a new phase in Armenian-Byzantine ecclesiastical relations. By offering the Armenians a ‘Unity of faith’, the patriarch was trying to eliminate the independence of the Armenian Church and subordinate it to the patriarchate of Constantinople. In his first period in office, Photios achieved some success, but in the second term, despite conciliatory letters, and diplomatic missions involving the despatch of a fragment of the True Cross, his initiatives were rebuffed. The final letters show both sides reverting to their traditional positions, defining and rebutting in meticulous detail the doctrinal errors of the other. However, this does not mean that Photios had failed completely, because a later Catholicos, Maštoc’ Yeghivardec'i (897–8), acknowledged that he had been disciplined by his predecessor for ‘Removing the difference between us and the Chalcedonians’,Footnote 5 and the fractious debates within the Armenian Church over the next two centuries over the status of Chalcedon, suggest that Photios did much to re-establish or promote a Chalcedonian faction within Armenia.
The actions taken by this powerful spiritual leader of Byzantium towards Armenia (correspondence, ecclesiastical missions, awarding important titles to pro-Byzantine princes) were serious challenges to the identity and spiritual values of the Armenian people; unity and determination was required from their political and religious elite to protect their values.
Correspondence between Patriarch Photios and Catholicos Zak'aria Dzagec'i
In the second half of the ninth century, the aspirations of the Byzantine Empire were manifested in the most important figure in the Greek Church, Patriarch Photios of Constantinople.Footnote 6 Having reached his position through machination and intrigue, this ambitious individual, and scholar, challenged the see of Rome and announced his intention to lead Eastern Christendom. Photios's ambition strained the relationship between the Church of Rome and the patriarchate of Constantinople to such an extent that schism ensued.Footnote 7 Photios tried to create an alliance of Eastern Christian countries against Pope Nicholas i (858–67). For this purpose, he sent letters to the Christian spiritual leaders of the East. Since the Armenian Church did not belong to any patriarchate, he addressed their leader separately.Footnote 8 Photios's special approach to the Armenians testifies to his close knowledge of Armenian historical and ecclesiastical traditions and the connection of Hellenised figures in Constantinople with Armenia.Footnote 9 Enjoying the active political, military and cultural support of Armenians in Constantinople,Footnote 10 Photios embarked on his quest for the union of the Armenian and Byzantine Churches. The main prerequisite for this was the recognition of the Council of Chalcedon by the Armenian Church as a universal holy assembly, and the acceptance of its Dyophysite (the divine and human natures of Christ) formula.
Photios's letter to Zak'aria Dzagec'i, which was originally written in Greek,Footnote 11 has been preserved only in Armenian.Footnote 12 It has a small introductory colophon: ‘In 311 of the Armenian era [25 April 862–24 April 863], Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, sent Vahan, archbishop of Nicaea, to Armenia, to Zak‛aria Catholicos of Greater Armenia for the sake of the union of faith.’Footnote 13 The author of this must have been an Armenian who was clearly well-informed about the situation in Armenia; most likely he was also the translator of the text.Footnote 14 In sending his letter via Vahan Taronac'i, who was probably Photios's advisor in Armenian affairs,Footnote 15 Photios made his ‘message’ more powerful and emphasised the importance of his goal.Footnote 16 Taronac'i had converted to Orthodoxy: baptised in the Chalcedonian rite, he had taken the name John and been granted the see of NicaeaFootnote 17. His task was to verbally clarify and convince the Catholicos of the problems caused by the friction between Armenians and Greeks.Footnote 18 He was also to provide additional explanation of the contents of the letter.
Photios began his long letter with a greeting, words of honour addressed to the Armenian Catholicos. The eloquence of his terminology testifies to his awareness of Zak'aria's excellent qualities: ‘Everlastingly glorious and honorable, famous and shining with all kinds of glory.’Footnote 19 He described the Catholicos as the heir of ‘the Apostle T‛adēos and All-Blessed Saint Gregory’, calling him ‘Holy overseer and legislator of your Ayraratean country, the prelate of your northern nation and shepherd of your Azk‛anazean host.’Footnote 20 Photios is here tacitly recognising the autocephaly of the Armenian Church as an apostolic foundation through greeting Zak'aria as the successor of St Thaddeus, and suggesting that the Armenians were orthodox in doctrine and consonant with that of the Greeks.Footnote 21 In the preface, Photios does not forget to emphasise his own title, which is influential in its simplicity: ‘Photios, archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome’.Footnote 22
Pհotios's ‘message’ is divided into two parts: historical and theological-polemical. The first aims to prove that the Armenian Church had over the centuries accepted the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, and that the Armenians had connections with the Greek Church. He demonstrates his awareness of the reasons why Armenians did not participate in the Council of Chalcedon. ‘[A]rmed with facts’ he tries to convince the Catholicos that ‘Opposition to the Council (i.e. Chalcedon) does not exist among Armenians, on the contrary, they accepted the canons of the Council of Chalcedon until the Council of Dvin’,Footnote 23 which was convened in 554 during the reign of Catholicos Nerses ii Bagrevandc'i. Agreeing that the second Council of Dvin rejected Chalcedonianism, Photios writes that the Armenians next accepted Chalcedonianism in Constantinople, at what he calls the Fifth Council.Footnote 24 Photios is here confusing the Universal Council of Constantinople in 553 with the council of 572, when an assembly of Armenian and Greek bishops took place during the time of Vardan Mamikonean. Asoghik, an Armenian historian of the tenth-eleventh centuries, does not remember the aforementioned council but writes: ‛Then Vardan took his family and the other nobles took flight and escaped to the country of the Greeks, to the royal city of Constantinople. And he came before Justinian who built [the church of] St Sophia, and he took communion with him and he named the main door of St Sophia in his name, which down to today is called the door of the Armenians.’Footnote 25
Photios claimed that not long afterwards, during the reign of Catholicos Movses Yeghivardec'i (574–604), a council was convened in Constantinople with the participation of twenty-one Armenian bishops, ‘And Armenians once again openly adopted the Chalcedonian Definition.’Footnote 26 Historical facts testify that in 591 the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (582–602) did convene a Council in Constantinople and demanded from the Armenian Catholicos Movses Yeghivardec'i that the Armenian Church adopt the doctrine of Chalcedon. The goal was to unite the Armenian Church with the Byzantine one and ideologically strengthen the empire's rule in Armenia. However, this was rejected, after which the emperor appointed Hovhannes Bagaranc'i (591–611) as anti-Catholicos in Avan, the Byzantine part of Armenia.
Asoghik goes on to remind us that, with the participation of the Armenian Catholicos Ezr Pařazhnakerc'i (630–41) and many other bishops, the Emperor Heraclius i (610–41) convened a ‘Thirty-day council’ in Karin, where ‘Again the Armenians agreed willingly and non-violently have adopted the Council of Chalcedon.’Footnote 27 It is necessary to state that Pհotios was distorting the historical facts because Ezr Parazhnakertc'i did not adopt the canons of Chalcedon. He did participate in the Council of Karin in 632, where the Armenian clergy signed a document agreeing to the confession of faith proposed by the Emperor Heraclius. This, however, was not Chalcedonian, but Monothelite. The signing of the confession of faith was an act forced upon them by complex political realities, which did not have any consequences for the Armenian Church.
After stating all this, Pհotios asserted that the Armenian Church rejected the Chalcedon formula and Dyophysitism at the Council of Manazkert convened by Hovhan Odznec'i in 726.Footnote 28 All Photios's historical references were in pursuit of one goal, that is, to facilitate the adoption of the ‘Unity of faith’ he proposed, which essentially meant acceptance of the supremacy of Constantinople. But this letter does demonstrate that Photios was well aware that the Armenian Church possessed a different historical tradition from that of the Byzantine Church.
In the theological part of the message, Photios asserts the inadmissibility of the idea that the entire Church has lost the truth and only the Armenians had preserved it and explains how the Council of Chalcedon was in agreement with three previous ones. Photios stresses the great authority of the Greek Church in matters of faith and that the significance of the Greek world for Christianity is enhanced by the use of the Greek language in theological literature.Footnote 29 The author invites the addressee
Not to get carried away with your own opinions, but to follow the Holy God-inspired Scriptures, without considering them artificially and perversely (like) those who interpret the Holy Scripture arbitrarily, according to their understanding, and seduce the hearts of the innocent, like the false prophets of old, who spoke according to the inspiration of their hearts, and not according to the will of God.Footnote 30
The patriarch seeks to justify the ‘Faith formula’ adopted by the Council of Chalcedon, which Monophysites considered heresy.
This letter is undoubtedly at least the second communication between Photios and Zak'aria This is evidenced by specific lines in his letter: ‛Before that, I had requested an explanation about the Council of Chalcedon in a letter, because they [i.e. the Armenians] had heard about the aforementioned council, and that it did not agree with the previous three universal councils.’ In that letter, which is no longer extant, Zak'aria confirmed that ‘We [i.e. Armenians] have a true religion like other nations and we do not follow Hakob Ts'anc’alos or Julian of Halicarnassus, Peter of Antioch or Eutyches, but we are the disciples of St Grigor the Illuminator.’Footnote 31
In the spring of 862 Zak'aria convened a council at Širakawan, to which the Armenian religious and political nobility were summoned, to examine and take a position on Photios's religious proposals:
Then Zak'aria Catholicos of Armenia assembled a Council at Širakawan of many bishops and monks in the presence of Ašot, sparapet of Armenia, because he had settled there in a camp with his azatagund forces which he had gathered because of a rebellion in the northern regions. There also was Nanan the Syrian, a great deacon and renowned philosopher.Footnote 32
In the introductory colophon, Ašot Bagratuni is not described as being responsible for convening the council; it was Zak‛aria who had done so. Although the list of participants of the council has not been preserved, it is assumed that representatives of the various elements in the Armenian clergy were present, including Armenian religious figures who defended Chalcedonianism. The Council of Širakawan was a tense affair: there was a struggle between the followers of Armenian Monophysitism and those who defended the resolutions of Chalcedon. Photios's representative, Vahan of Nicaea, presented a theological treatise to the council. Its three elements comprised an introductory colophon, the purported submission by Vahan to the council and a set of fifteen anathemas allegedly promulgated by that council.Footnote 33 This treatise was probably drafted amid ongoing negotiations with the imperial Church: Photios was prepared to adopt an Armenian version of church history in his pursuit of ecclesiastical reconciliation, while the author of the treatise was prepared to adopt a new definition of Monophytitism which conspicuously avoided traditional, antagonistic terminology.Footnote 34 The final version of the treatise was probably edited by an Armenian Monophysite cleric.Footnote 35
A document, with fifteen canons, was brought from Constantinople to be adopted by the council. Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev has demonstrated clear parallels between these canons and the treatise.Footnote 36 Twelve canons address a wide range of unorthodox beliefs, both Christological and Trinitarian in nature, against which both the Armenian and Byzantine Churches were united in opposition. By condemning both Nestor and Eutyches in the fifth and sixth canons, they dispelled lingering doubts among both Byzantines and Armenians: Armenians considered the Byzantine Church to be Nestorian; the Greeks accused the Armenian Church of Eutychism.Footnote 37 Canon 12 acknowledges that the first three church councils were fully consistent with the apostolic and prophetic traditions.Footnote 38 Arguably these canons defined and were intended to highlight the common ground between the two Churches. Once again there are no references to Chalcedon or to contentious formulations.Footnote 39 This could be construed as a confidence-building measure. However, it is canons 13 and 14 that have attracted the most attention:
13. If anyone should find the Council of Chalcedon and its successors as opposed to or in conflict with the prescribed apostolic or prophetic tradition, or the regulation of the three holy councils, and for the sake of pleasing men or out of a love of possessions, does not condemn it, may he be condemned.
14. If anyone should find the Council of Chalcedon or those succeeding it, the Fifth Council and the Sixth and the Seventh as following and concordant with the apostolic and prophetic traditions and the three holy councils and dares to condemn or to slander as speaking in accordance with the filthy Nestor, such a person condemns himself. For it is written, ‛If anyone condemns that which is not worthy of condemnation, the condemnation shall be to him and on his head’, and he will be condemned.Footnote 40
These two canons are not directed at matters of doctrine or confession but rather at attitudes.Footnote 41 Canons 13 and 14 respectively condemn two groups: firstly, convinced Monophysites who masquerade as Chalcedonians for personal gain; and secondly, those who have apparently accepted Chalcedon, but still cannot help maintaining the traditional Armenian assertion that the council's ruling on the unity of Christ's person was, in fact, Nestorian.Footnote 42 The canons thus propose the existence of two Christian communities. One accepts Chalcedon and the subsequent councils as consistent with the apostolic and prophetic traditions whilst the other rejects that position. In other words, these canons contemplate mutual recognition. Admittedly they are weighted in favour of those who accept Chalcedon but they do not anathematise those who do not.Footnote 43
Historical records attest that Catholicos Zak‛aria was convinced of the orthodoxy of the rules of the Širakaոan Council because he used them in his religious speeches.Footnote 44 As Greenwood observes:
The Canons of the Council of Širakawan can only be understood if one accepts the proposition that Zak'aria was sympathetic to the arguments advanced by Photios. Much of the impetus for reconciliation seems to have derived from the personal relationship which developed between Photios and Zak'aria and which was bolstered by the involvement of John, archbishop of Nike.Footnote 45
K. Maksoudian maintains that Širakawan's decisions were designed to establish ‘a modus vivendi between Monophysite and Chalcedonian elements in Christian Caucasia’ and that they were consistent with Ašot Bagratuni's ‘general policy of unifying Christian Caucasia under the Bagratid banner’.Footnote 46 Nina Garsoyan observes that ‘A partial rapprochement was achieved at the Council of Širakawan of 862 at which the assembled bishops pacifically agreed to disagree.’Footnote 47
In general, the Council of Širakawan should be considered as a response to the challenge addressed to the Armenian Church, but by which tensions between the Churches were temporarily relieved. Bypassing a number of sharp theological formulations, Greeks and Armenians managed to achieve a certain religious rapprochement. It was a compromise which attempted to adapt the Armenian ecclesiastical tradition to new purposes.
P. Ananyan, a member of the Mkhitaryan congregation, assumes that the reason for the Armenians’ caution was the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which defined the supremacy of the patriarchate of Constantinople over the Christians of the East. This rule gives the patriarch the authority to ordain the head of the Armenian Church.Footnote 48
In Photios's estimation, the Širakawan Council had reached a positive conclusion, that is, a union of the Churches had taken place and communion had been established. Before his deposition in 867, in a letter which bears the title ‛An encyclical letter to the archbishops holding thrones throughout the East, that is to say Alexandrian, and others’ Photios recorded that the Armenians had been restored from doctrinal error:
Those dwelling in Armenia made the Jacobite irreverence their own, and insolently turned their backs on the right, reverent doctrine but since the many-peopled sacred council of our Fathers was summoned at Chalcedon, with the help of our prayers, they found the strength to abolish that long-established error. And today the covenant of the Armenians worships purely and in orthodox fashion, and Eutyches and Severus and Dioscorus, and the Peters who threw stones against true belief, and Julian of Halicarnasus and the many scattered seeds of these, like the Catholic Church, they abhor and place them in the insoluble chains of condemnation’.Footnote 49
Although Photiօs may have overstated his success in an effort to impress his fellow patriarchs, the letter implies that the relationship established at Širakawan was both current and progressing at the end of Photios's first term in office.Footnote 50 However, the success he achieved at the Council of Širakawan did not last long. After the death of Catholicos Zak‛aria, communication ceased.
It can be assumed that the achievements of the Council of Širakawan did not fully meet the expectations of the Byzantine elite: there were serious political issues based on regional realities. An excessive rapprochement with Byzantium would be seen by the Arabs as an alliance against them and would undoubtedly strain Armenian-Arab relations. And the Armenian nobility understood very well that the arbiter of the situation in Armenia was still the caliphate.Footnote 51
Patriarch Photios's messages to the Armenian prince of princes and the Catholicos
By the time Photios was reappointed patriarch on 26 October 877,Footnote 52 the situation had altered dramatically. His ‘most pious and holy brother and colleague’ Zak'aria had died and the prince of princes, Ašot Bagratuni (862–85), was now entrenched as the pre-eminent client of the caliph and was wary of Byzantine initiatives.Footnote 53 Nevertheless, Photios does not deviate from his Armenian agenda, and the situation did not prevent him from continuing to urge the Armenians to accept the Chalcedonian definition. He now addressed Ašot Bagratuni. A copy of this letter, entitled ‘A copy of the letter of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople to Prince of Princes Ašot’, is preserved in a book of letters.Footnote 54 It was written in late 877Footnote 55 at a time when the Catholicos of Armenia was Gēorg Garnec'i (877–97). Photios perhaps hoped that Ašot would influence the new Armenian Catholicos who might not demonstrate the stubbornness of his predecessor, Zak'aria Dzagec'i.Footnote 56
According to the rules of the genre, Photios, ‘Head of the bishops of New Rome and universal patriarch’, begins the letter with expressions flattering the dignity of the prince of princes: ‘Your most eminent piety, your most powerful authority, your Highness among the same stock, you Ašot prince of Greater Armenia.’Footnote 57 The affection with which the patriarch begins his letter testifies to a warm relationship between the two parties, as well as to the existence of previous, similar exchanges. Photios observes that in his previous letters Ašot had declared his ‘true love which you have for us’, appreciating both the ‘sorrow which you experienced on account of our perilous encounters and again the joy at our returning a second time to this royal city’.Footnote 58 Photios notes that his restoration to the patriarchate had a divine purpose, namely ‘the confirming of the faith for the preservation of your holy church and the correcting of error through orthodox instruction’. He acknowledges that ‘Your country was guarded by heavenly grace and was a part of the universal Church in everything except in one matter, which is that you have defined us as against God, contrary to the truth of the fourth council’. Remarkably, therefore, Photios was prepared to concede that Ašot enjoyed divine protection, even stating that ‘Your people are the people of God.’ The only remaining obstacle between the Churches was the recognition of Chalcedon. The letter contains a short exposition justifying why Chalcedon should be accepted, which concludes: ‘If this letter had been to an ordinary man, perhaps there would have been need of more words in order to expound the truth. But for your Majesty, desirous of the truth, who delights in the bond of love, these statements are sufficient, especially because, on many occasions, we have written at length to your prelate and chief priest.’Footnote 59 Finally Photios holds out to Ašot the prospect of increased security and power and amicably asks him to ‘confirm the spotless faith with the holy assembly, and not deviate from the royal path’. Emphasising Ašot's wisdom and genius, Pհotius does not overlook another of Ašot's virtues, namely his loyalty to the ‘Orthodox holy kings’ of Byzantium,Footnote 60 remembering Ašot's services to the emperors.Footnote 61
From the content of the letter it is clear that in a previous ‘paper’, Ašot had considered the resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon unacceptable, because Photios complains that groundless reasons had been given ‘in the manuscript you sent’. He tries to persuade the Armenians by means of a logical trick, saying that if the Armenian Church is faithful to the doctrines established by the first three ecumenical councils (i.e. the Council of Nicaea in 325, the Council of Constantinople in 381 and the Council of Ephesus in 431), then ‘As with the three previous councils, you should confess and glorify the fourth council [i.e. the Council of Chalcedon in 451] and accept its provisions’.Footnote 62
Along with referring to the arguments confirming Chalcedon's orthodoxy, Photios criticises the Armenian ‘One nature’ formula and tries to demonstrate its illogicality. He tries to equate it with the extreme Monophysitism of Eutyches, a doctrine which is not only unacceptable to Armenians but also offensive. He distorts the essence of the Monophysitism professed by the Armenian Church by declaring that ‘Those who accept the ‘‘One nature’’ of Christ are as reprehensible as Eutychus.’Footnote 63 One of the important reasons for the formation of the opposition to Photios among the Armenian clergy was the intentional falsification of the meaning of Armenian Monophysitism.Footnote 64
Throughout the letter to Ašot, Photios's principle objective is to demonstrate that the acceptance of Chalcedon does not imply a Nestorian Christology. He argues that Chalcedon should be recognised because it upheld the Third Ecumenical Council's condemnation of Nestorius.Footnote 65
The letter concludes with a short coda which is consistent with Photios's conciliatory approach: ‘We send to your Nobility and Excellence a memorial of blessing from this venerable Cross which received Christ.’Footnote 66 The letter was accompanied by a relic of the True Cross.Footnote 67 Ašot also received a diplomatic mission, in the course of which he was informed of the recent discovery in Constantinople of the relics of the holiest Armenian saint, Grigor. Reference is also made to the relics of two holy women long venerated in Armenian tradition, St Hřip'simē and St Gayianē.Footnote 68
Photios did not limit himself to writing to Ašot. It is very likely that he also corresponded with the newly elected Armenian Catholicos, Gēorg Gařnec'i:Footnote 69 he had been successful in dealing with the previous Catholicos and wished to continue that process. His message, a ‛Letter to the Armenians’, was clearly written to an unnamed cleric rather than a secular prince since the addressee is titled ‘Your Holiness’ on two occasions.Footnote 70 It was not the first letter in the exchange.Footnote 71 Photiօs is responding to ‘Your letter’ which seems to have been a hostile reply to an earlier first letter from him.Footnote 72 Only his ‘Letter to the Armenians’ survives.Footnote 73
It seems that Photios wrote to both Gēorg and Ašot as soon as he was restored as patriarch. His ‘Letter to the Armenians’ was only the second in the series so it too dates from 878 or shortly afterwards. It has a theological content, in which Monophysitism is dismissed as an intolerant belief and the validity of the canons of Chalcedon is confirmed. Unlike previous letters, this message was aggressive and offensive in tone.
The response of the Ašot Bagratuni
Since at the time the Armenian Catholicos Gēorg was in a separate dialogue with Photios, Ašot assigned the preparation of a reply to the patriarch to the vardapet Sahak Mřut, ‘who by surname was called Apikurēš. His reply letter of Photios the patriarch of the Greeks, which was filled with wisdom and knowledge’.Footnote 74
The content of the letter can be divided into three parts: a comparative analysis and refutation of the tenets of the Council of Chalcedon and Nestorianism; denial of the extreme Monophysitism of Eutyches and the difference between the Armenian ‘One Nature’ doctrine and that of Eutyches; and justification of the Armenian Church's own ‘One Nature’ creed.
Whilst repeating similar protestations of the love between them, the letter concentrates upon points of difference and is deliberately combative and confrontational.Footnote 75 Sahak analyses and points out the commonalities between the formula of the Council of Chalcedon, the ‘Tome of Leo’Footnote 76 (Pope Leo i [440–61] the Great) and the ideas of Nestorianism.Footnote 77 Without excessive politeness or tact, Sahak accuses Photios of bias: ‘You did not judge correctly, because the irreconcilable Eutyches said that one nature in Christ is subject to change.’Footnote 78 Ašot criticised Photios openly: ‘So why did your most perfect Intellect agree to attribute to us such strange nonsensical ideas and disparage us; it is not fitting for your Holiness to ascribe to us something that is condemned?’Footnote 79 According to Greenwood, these insulting phrases seem a deliberate attempt to fracture the relationship between Ašot and Photios.Footnote 80 Sahak brings testimonies from the Bible and the works of the Fathers to defend the formula of faith promulgated at the Council of Ephesus.
Sahak declared that the Armenian Church was faithful to the doctrines handed down from St Grigor the Illuminator, who removed Armenia from the darkness of idolatry and prohibited the entry of various heresies. ‘Till this day, it has not deviated either to the right or to the left. New doctrines, which try to establish new items of faith, should not be created by councils.’Footnote 81
The last part of the letter has more political and diplomatic content. Ašot Bagratuni understood that in order to receive the royal crown, he must not only have the favour of the Arab caliphate but also a positive relationship with Byzantium.Footnote 82 Therefore, in undisguised pursuit of that goal, in the final part of the letter he sent a political message to the Byzantine authorities, promising to faithfully to ‘Serve your holy and God-given kingdom’.Footnote 83
The letter concludes with a discreet expression of Ašot's gratitude for the relic of the True Cross: ‘I humbly worship and thank you, and I also give you a pleasant greeting.’Footnote 84
Both parties to the correspondence between Photios and the Armenians persistently accuse each other of deviating from orthodoxy: Photios ascribes to the Armenian Church the extreme Monophysitism of Eutyches, and the Armenians reject the Council of Chalcedon on the grounds of its being Nestorian. The final letters chart the breakdown in their discussions. Both sides reverted to their traditional positions, defining and rebutting in meticulous detail the doctrinal errors of the other.Footnote 85 The content of their messages conveys the clear impression that neither the Byzantines nor the Armenians were ready to make concessions in the matter of religion. According to Ananean's accurate description, their correspondence ‘can be described as a dialog between the deaf, because both sides try to assert and repeat their point of view, without paying attention to the other's point of view’.Footnote 86
Analysis of the letters shows that neither party to the correspondence shrank from deliberate distortion of the original text nor quoting material out of context in order to justify their theses. The use of these methods is evidence of their unbridled desire to prove the opponent wrong and achieve their goals at any cost.
Photios's reply to Ašot Bagratuni
Pհotios had not yet reached the end of the line; in order to salvage his mission he had to continue the correspondence. Sahak's letter precipitated two responses: a letter from Photios, and a separate reply from Nicetas, apparently composed on behalf of the patriarch.Footnote 87 Nicetas's composition contains numerous allusions to Sahak's letter and there can be little doubt that the letter was addressed to Ašot himself.Footnote 88 In the first letter, ‘Against the heresy of the Theopaschites’ (Theopaschism is the belief that a god can suffer), Photios reports that he has tried to bridge the doctrinal divide between the two Churches and achieved some success. He refers specifically to those Armenians whose return and correction had been achieved recently thanks to instruction and to efforts of the very blessed Vahan/John, archbishop of Nicaea.Footnote 89 Here he is describing those Armenians who had come to accept Chalcedon. This reveals the true intent of his initiatives.Footnote 90 Photios refers to his ‘second letter sent to Zak'aria’ as supplying further information and explanation on certain issues which have not already been examined. This is none other than the hitherto disputed letter, addressed to ‘those Armenians, who have become Orthodox’. It was sent after the death of Zak'aria.Footnote 91 Photios defines those same orthodox Armenians more precisely – ‘I am talking of the Taronites who inhabit Fourth Armenia.’Footnote 92 Whatever the confessional attitudes of the princes of Taron may have been in the mid-850s, before Photios embarked upon his correspondence with Zak'aria, it seems that they had become Chalcedonian by the late 870s.Footnote 93 At that time, the prince of Taron was Ašot, to whom the Byzantines awarded the title of kouropalates.Footnote 94 He was a cousin of Ašot, prince of princes. As Greenwood writes, ‘It may well be the case that Ašot was rewarded for his orthodoxy. Alternatively, the relative proximity of Taron to imperial territory may have influenced the appointment. Either way, Byzantium developed ties simultaneously with several Bagratuni princes.’Footnote 95 The existence of Armenians of the Chalcedonian faith created an opportunity for Byzantium to encroach on Taron under the guise of protecting the interests of their co-believers. It seems that a Byzantine ‘fifth column’ had already formed and functioned quite effectively in these regions.
The emphasis on the religious differences that existed before the Catholicos Zak'aria can be explained by the following circumstances. In the first place, Photiօs had engaged from the outset with Zak'aria and not with Ašot Bagratuni. The canons of the Council of Širakawan can only be understood if one accepts the proposition that Zak'aria was sympathetic to the arguments advanced by Photios. Much of the impetus for reconciliation had derived from the personal relationship that developed between the two men. This collapsed when Photios was deposed on 23 November 867. When Photios regained office in late October 877, he faced a new Catholicos, Gēorg Gařnec'i, appointed by Ašot Bagratuni. The position of Ašot had also changed. In 862, he had been in the process of establishing himself within Armenia. By 877, there was no doubt that he was the pre-eminent prince. Arguably he now had first-hand experience of the consequences of Byzantine intervention in Armenian affairs through its backing of newly-converted Chalcedonian Armenian princes, such as Ašot prince of Taron. His choice of an inveterate opponent of Chalcedon, Sahak Mřut, when responding to Photios should therefore be interpreted as a political as much as a confessional appointment. Although Photios worked extremely hard at re-engaging with Armenia once he had been restored to power, as his remarkable letter to Ašot and his presumed involvement in the composition of the account of the discovery of the relics of St Grigor in Constantinople attest, it is clear that circumstances had changed. Instead of promoting good relations, his efforts at re-engagement simply provoked hostility. The powerful letter from Photios and the refutation from Nicetas mark an end to this phase of relations between the two Churches.Footnote 96 It took place, of course, before 882 when the Byzantines suffered a disastrous defeat at Tarsus.Footnote 97
Religious policy traditionally had a weighty place in the arsenal of Byzantine foreign policy. Thanks to the soft power of ecclesiastical diplomacy, the empire was creating the necessary prerequisites for conquering new territories. Under the guise of eliminating religious difference, Byzantium was advancing its political, cultural and socio-economic interests. This tactic was put into active use from the middle of the ninth century when the issue of the conquest of Armenia entered the empire's agenda.
In the second half of the ninth century, Photios, patriarch of Constantinople, personified the aspirations of the Byzantine Empire. Photios was very familiar with Armenian historical and ecclesiastical traditions. The correspondence he initiated with Armenian spiritual and political figures marks the beginning of a new phase in relations between the Armenian and Byzantine Churches. In theological messages addressed to the Armenian Catholicos Zak‛aria Dzagec‛i, Gēorg Gařnec‛i and the prince of princes Ašot, the empire's far-reaching goal of placing the Armenian catholicosate under the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople is clearly outlined.
In the autumn of 861, Photios sent a letter to the Armenian Catholicos Zak‛aria, which was at least the second episode in their correspondence. Emphasising the apostolic origin of the Armenian Church and showing respect for his interlocutor, Photios employed various historical and theological facts to try to persuade the Armenians to accept the ‘Two Natures’ formula. He claimed that the Armenian Church, although rejecting the provisions of the Council of Chalcedon, had long had close ties with the Greek Church. Photios tried to prove that the resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon did not contradict the decisions of the first three ecumenical councils that Armenians accepted. Therefore, the separation of the Armenian Church from the universal Church could be considered illegal.
This letter had a decisive impact on Zak‛aria. The council convened by him at Širakawan in 862 produced a subtle compromise, albeit one that was weighted in favour of Byzantium. Both sides were determined to seek mutual recognition, if not outright union, by refraining from using antagonistic formulae or referring to historic confrontations. Catholicos Zak‛aria sympathised with Photios's arguments.
Photios's efforts continued into the second term of his patriarchy. He sent conciliatory letters to the prince of princes, Ašot Bagratun, and to the newly appointed Catholicos, Gērog Gařnec‛i, and tried to convince them that by accepting Chalcedonianism Armenians would be safe, protected from enemies and stronger. He also sent Ašot a relic of the True Cross and even news that there were miracle-working relics of St Grigor the Illuminator in Constantinople, but he was unable to recover the position he had been forced to abandon in 867. This was because circumstances had changed dramatically: his spiritual brother, the Catholicos Zak‛aria, had died and Ašot Bagratuni was wary of Byzantine initiatives. The Armenian political and ecclesiastical establishment realised that the establishment of too close relations with Byzantium would undoubtedly arouse the hostility of the Arab caliphate, which still had a great influence in the region. The consequences of that could be devastating for Armenia. In the light of new realities, the author of Ašot's response letter, Sahak Mřut, refuted Photios's arguments and affirmed his loyalty to the confessional tenets of the Armenian Church. The reply also contained a political message from Ašot Bagratuni in which he affirmed his intention to serve the empire faithfully. This was important because in order to maintain his position Ašot needed not only the favour of the Arab caliphate but also the positive attitude of Byzantium. It is noteworthy that political issues for the empire had a confessional dimension, as the prince of Taron Ašot Bagratuni acknowledged Chalcedon and was rewarded with the imperial title of curopalates.
To the extent that Photios did not oversee a conclusive, permanent union of the Churches, his initiatives towards Armenia must be regarded as a failure. However, fractious internal debates within the Armenian Church in subsequent decades over its stance on Chalcedon, indicates that a Chalcedonian faction was either re-established or bolstered through Photios's support.
