+ mm iL sie ie wd | a . % Fie
~ a
Py, — ws | SS Py : ys
OLNOHOL 4O ALISHSAINN
THE PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Qondon: FETTER LANE, E.C. C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
ii
"st THe rye
Ae.
o
vinburgh: 100, PRINCES STREET Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO. Leipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS few Bork: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS Bombay anv Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltp.
All rights reserved
Ee
THE PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE
BY
EEAUDE DELAVAL COBHAM, C.M.G. yi
WITH INTRODUCTIONS BY THE
Rev. ADRIAN FORTESCUE, Px.D., D.D.
AND THE
Rev. H. T. F. DUCKWORTH, M.A.
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, TRINITY COLLEGE, TORONTO CANADA
Cambridge: at the University Press ADO BG IgII 4562 AD
Cambridge: - PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
is oa ae “
er tent ity > | f n Ne Bates 5 eect aie e “ >
* ¢ “ g @ rs ~~ na rz
PAGE
PREFATORY NOTE . 2 ; : j . F , 7
INTRODUCTION I. By the Rev. Adrian Fortescue . 21 II. By the Rev. H. T. F. Duckworth 41
_ LIST OF THE PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, with GBCCE OLE ES Ge ee ee ee a a eee
PREPATORY NOTE
The real Preface to this pamphlet is supplied by my learned and kind friends the Revs. Adrian Fortescue and H. T. F. Duckworth, but a few words from me are necessary to explain its origin and purport.
I do not claim an acquaintance with the original sources of the history of the Patriarchate of Constanti- nople. I do not know if the subject has received at later hands the treatment it deserves. But I lighted on a work entitled Ilatpsapysxoi Iivares, by Manuel I. Gedeon, printed at Constantinople (without date of publication, but written between 1885 and 1890), con- taining short lives of the bishops of Constantinople from the Apostle St Andrew to Joakim III! It is a useful book, but an index was wanting, and this I now supply in two forms, chronological and alphabetical, as well as a list of the Patriarchs who are numbered with the Saints. Besides this I have done little but summarise Gedeon’s text.
It may be noted that ninety-five Patriarchs reigned
for less than a year. Also that of 328 vacancies between A.D. 36 and 1884
1 It received the tmprimatur of the Imperial Ministry of Public Instruc- . tion 25 Rabi’al-awwal, 1304—Dec. 23, 1887.
8 Prefatory Note
140 were by deposition, 41 by resignation, 3 Patriarchs were poisoned, 2 murdered, beheaded, blinded, drowned, hanged, strangled. In all 191: so that 137 only closed their term of office by a natural death.
After the fall of Jerusalem the Jews had leaders, at least in Alexandria and Tiberias, whom they called Patriarchs, and this office was recognized from the reign of Nerva to that of Theodosios II. (A.D. 420). Among Christians the bishop of Antioch was the first to be called Patriarch, but he probably shared the title with other leading metropolitans. Later it was held that ‘as there are five senses,’ so there should be five Patriarchs, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. From 1589 to 1700 the Patriarch of Moscow was reckoned the fifth—Rome had fallen away in 1054— but only in 1723 the Great Church recognized the canonicity of the Russian Synod.
Patriarchs were elected by a synod of the bishops of the province, acting under the consent, the counsel or perhaps the orders, of the Emperor. Nor was the practice changed after the Turkish conquest of Constan- tinople, and in 1741 a firman of Mahmud I. sanctioned an orderly procedure, providing (iter alia) that the candidate should first have the approval of the bishops of Heracleia, Cyzicos, Nicomedeia, Nicaia and Chalcedon.
— = et
Prefatory Note Y
The laity took some part, not well defined, in the election. The expenses amounted in 1769 to 150,000 francs, in 1869 to less than 500.
The order of consecration of a bishop, following the Fourth Canon of Nicaia, and according to the form prepared by Metrophanes, bishop of Nyssa (Euchologion Mega, 176), is performed by the ’Apyepeds and Svo oudAerToupyot, elsewhere in the rubric called of rpeis apxvepets. The earliest Patriarchs were generally priests or monks, and rarely before the fall of Constantinople chosen from among the bishops of the province: the translation of bishops from one see to another being held at least irregular. Latterly it has been the rule that they should have for at least seven years filled a metropolitical see within the province. The Patriarch- elect should be consecrated or installed by the bishop of Heracleia, or, in his absence, by the bishop of Caisareia,
An interval of more than four years occurred between the retirement of Athanasios II. and the appointment of Gennadios II., and again between the patriarchates of Antonios ITI. and Nicolaos II. M. Gedeon cannot say who ought to administer the affairs of the cecumenical throne during a vacancy.
The Patriarch-elect was received by the Byzantine Emperors in great state, and, after the fall of Constanti- nople, by the earliest Ottoman Sultans. He is still presented to the sovereign, but with little pomp or ceremony.
Disputes arising in sees other than his own should be referred to him for decision: generally, he may pronounce judgment in all questions between the Or- thodox—and woe betide him who appeals from such
S. 2
10 Prefatory Note
judgment to a secular court. He may give the rights of otavpotnyia to churches not already consecrated, though they may be in another province. He only can receive clerics from another province without an azrodv- tnpvov (letters dimissory) from their own diocesan.
Upon taking up his duties the new Patriarch sends a letter, called év@pov.crtvxy, to his brother Patriarchs, to which they reply in letters called eipnvixai. >
Homonymous Patriarchs are distinguished by the name of their birthplace, the see they had held, or by a nickname, never by numbers.
Probably no series of men, occupying through nearly eighteen centuries an exalted position, claim so little personal distinction as the Patriarchs of Constantinople. The early bishops are mere names :—
S. Andrew, Apostle and Martyr _Laurentios
Stachys Alypios Onesimos Pertinax Polycarpos I Olympianos Plutarchos Marcos I Sedekion Philadelphos Diogenes Cyriacos I Eleutherios Castinos Felix Eugenios I Polycarpos II Titos Athenodorus Dometios Euzoios Ruphinos
Probos. The twenty-fifth in order of time.
Metrophanes I, A.D. 315-325, who saw the foundation of Con- stantinople, was too old to attend the first cecumenical council, and was represented in it by his successor,
Alexander, who was to have communicated with Arius on the very day of the heresiarch’s appalling death.
Paulos, thrice expelled and twice restored, his place being first filled by
Prefatory Note II
Eusebios, the Arian bishop of Nicomedeia, who consecrated S. Sophia: secondly by another Arian
Macedonios. Paulos was at last exiled to Armenia, and there strangled with his own pall by Arians.
Macedonios? deposed, anathematised by second cecumenical council, 381.
Eudoxios, Arian, bishop of Antioch. Consecrated S. Sophia, Feb. 15, 360.
Demophilos
Evagrios, banished by Valens.
Gregorios I, bishop of Nazianzum. Censured at second cecumenical council and resigned.
Maximos I, deposed as a heretic by the same council.
Nectarios, a senator of Tarsus, chosen while yet unbaptized, and installed by 150 bishops of the same council, at the bidding apparently of the Emperor Theodosios.
Ioannes Chryostomos, born at Antioch, twice banished, died Sept. 14, 407, at Komana in Pontus. S. Sophia burnt, 404.
Arsacios, brother of the Patriarch Nectarios.
Atticos, consecrated in 415 the restored church of S. Sophia.
Sisinios I
Nestorios, the heresiarch, condemned as a monophysite by the third general council, of Ephesus, 431. Exiled to an oasis in Egypt, where he died, 440.
Maximianos
Proclos, bishop of Cyzicos.
Flavianos, died of wounds received at the ‘robber-synod’ of Ephesus.
Anatolios, installed by Dioscuros of Alexandria, fourth cecumenical council, of Chalcedon, 431, condemned the heresy of Eutyches: crowned the Emperor Leo I.
Gennadios I
Acacios. The first quarrel between the Church of the East and Pope Felix III. The ‘Henoticon’ of the Emperor Zenon. The finding of the body of S. Barnabas, and the independence of the Church of Cyprus, 478.
Phravitas
Euphemios, deposed and banished.
12 Prefatory Note
Macedonios II, deposed and banished.
(50) Timotheos I, Kelon.
Ioannes II, Cappadoces.
Epiphanios. Pope John II visited Constantinople.
Anthimos I, bishop of Trapezus, promoted by the Empress Theodora, deposed by Pope Agapetus.
Menas. Consecrated by Pope Agapetus. Menas in turn conse- crated Pope Agathon. Controversy with Vigilius,
Eutychios!. Fifth cecumenical council, of Constantinople, 553. Second consecration of S. Sophia.
Ioannes IV, Nesteutes. A synod at Constantinople, 587, declared the patriarch ‘ cecumenical.’
Cyriacos
Thomas I
Sergios, monotholete. Incursion of the Avars, 626.
Pyrrhos!, monothelete, deposed.
Pyrrhos?
Petros, monothelete.
Thomas II
Ioannes V
Constantinos I
Theodoros I!, deposed by Constantine Pogonatus.
Gregorios I. Sixth cecumenical council, of Constantinople, 680, counted Pope Honorius among the monothelete heretics.
Theodoros 1?
Paulos III. Council of Constantinople, ‘Penthektes’ or ‘in Trullo II,’ 692.
Callinicos I, blinded, and banished to Rome by Justinian II.
Cyros, deposed by Philippicus.
Ioannes VI, monothelete.
Germanos I, bishop of Cyzicos, a eunuch, resigned.
Anastasios. The Patriarchate of Constantinople now conterminous with the Byzantine Empire.
Constantinos II, bishop of Sylaion, blinded, shaved and beheaded by Constantine Copronymus.
Nicetas I, a slave.
Paulos IV, a Cypriot, resigned.
Tarasios, a layman. Seventh cecumenical council, of Nicaia, 787.
Prefatory Note 13
Nicephoros I, a layman, deposed and banished by Leo the Armenian.
Theodotos, illiterate. eixovoyuayos. :
Antonios I, Kasymatas ; a tanner, then bishop of Sylaion. «ixovo- peaxos,
Ioannes VII, Pancration. «ixovoydxos, deposed by THeodord:
Methodios I, bishop of Cyzicos, promoted by Theodora. First mention of M. Athos.
Ignatios', son of the Emperor Michael Rhangabe and Procopia, eunuch; deposed-and banished by Baidas. Conversion of the Bulgarians.
Photios!, a layman, deposed and banished by Basil the Macedonian. Conversion of the Russians.
Ignatios*, canonised by Rome. Fourth council, of Constantinople, 869.
Photios*, deposed and confined to a monastery by Leo the Wise. Synod of 879.
Stephanos I, son of Basil the Macedonian and Eudocia.
Antonios II, Kauleas.
Nicolaos I!, mysticos ; deposed by Leo the Wise.
Euthymios I, deposed and banished by Alexander.
Nicolaos I%, restored by Constantine Porphyrogennetos.
Stephanos II, bishop of Amaseia; eunuch.
Tryphon
Theophylactos, a lad of sixteen, eunuch. Son of Romanus Lecapenus. Conversion of the Hungarians.
Polyeuctos, eunuch.
Basileios I, Scamandrenos. Deposed by John Tzimisces.
Antonios III, Studites
Nicolaos II, Chrysoberges
Sisinios I]
Sergios II, The Patriarch of Alexandria declared KpiTns THs oikoupeévns.
Eustathios
(100) Alexios, appointed by Basil II.
Michael I, Cerularios, appointed by Constantine IX, deposed and banished by Isaac Comnenos. Excommuntcated by Papal legates (the see of Rome was vacant), July 16, 1054.
Constantinos III, Leuchoudes: eunuch.
14 Prefatory Note
Ioannes VIII, Xiphilinos
Cosmas I, Hierosolymites
Eustratios, eunuch.
Nicolaos III, Grammaticos
Ioannes IX, Agapetos
Leon, Styppe
Michael II, Kurkuas
Cosmas II, deposed by a synod of bishops.
Nicolaos IV, Muzalon, archbishop of Cyprus.
Theodotos
Neophytos I
Constantinos IV, Chliarenos
Lucas .
Michael III, bishop of Anchialos.
Chariton
Theodosios I
Basileios II, Camateros, deposed by Isaac Angelus.
Nicetas II, Muntanes
Leontios
Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem. (In 1192 five ex-Patriarchs were alive.)
Georgios II, Xiphilinos
Ioannes IX, Camateros. Latin conquest of Constantinople, April 12, 1204.
Michael IV, Antoreianos
Theodoros II, Copas
Maximos II
Manuel, Sarantenos
Germanos II
Methodios II
Manuel II
Arsenios!
Nicephoros II
Arsenios? |
Germanos III, present (after his deposition) at the second council of Lyons, 1274.
Ioseph I!
Ioannes XI, Beccos
Prefatory Note 15
Joseph I?
Gregorios II, a Cypriot.
Athanasios I!
Ioannes XII, Cosmas
Athanasios I?
Nephon I
Ioannes XIII, Glykys, a layman.
Gerasimos I
Hesaias
Ioannes XIV, Calekas
Isidoros
Callistos I!
Philotheos!
Callistos I?
Philotheos?
Macarios}
Neilos
Antonius IV!, Macarios
Macarios?
(150) Antonios IV?
Callistos II
Matthaios I, sent the monk Joseph Bryennios to Cyprus, 1405.
Euthymios II
Joseph II, metropolitan of Ephesus: died at Florence, 1439, during the Council.
Metrophanes II, metropolitan of Cyzicos.
Gregorios III, died at Rome, 1459.
Athanasios II, resigned, 1450. Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453. [The vestments and ornaments of the Patriarch, imitated from those of the Byzantine Court, could hardly have been assumed before the fall of the city.]
Gennadios II, Scholarios, resigned May, 1456.
Isidoros II
Sophronios I, Syropulos é
Ioasaph I, Kokkas: thrust forth about 1466 because he would not sanction the marriage of a Christian girl to a Moslem courtier. The Sultan, Mohammed II, spat in his face, and mowed away his beard with his sword. The Patriarch threw himself down. a well.
Prefatory Note
Marcos II, Xylocaraves. 7 Dionysios I. [The Lazes for a thousand florins buy the Patriarch-
ate for Symeon, a monk of Trebizond. He gave way to Dionysios, metropolitan of Philippopolis, for whom Maros, mother of Sultan Bayazid, bought the Patriarchate for 2000 sequins: after a reign of five years he was rejected as a eunuch. Symeon was recalled, and the synod paid 2000 sequins; but the Serb Raphael offered 2500. Symeon was deposed, and Raphael, an unlettered sot, succeeded; but as the money was not paid he was led chained hand and foot through the city to
beg it from his flock; he failed, and died in prison.] Symeon! ‘ Raphael Maximos III Symeon? Nephon II! Dionysios I? Maximos IV, paid 2500 florins. Deposed and died at M. Athos. Nephon II? Ioakeim I} Nephon II Pachomios I} Ioakeim I? Pachomios I”, poisoned by a servant. Theoleptos I, bishop of Ioannina. Ieremias I, bishop of Sophia: visited Cyprus, 1520. Ioannikios I Hieremias |? Dionysios II! Hieremias I* Dionysios II? Ioasaph II, metropolitan of Adrianople. Metrophanes III?, metropolitan of Caisareia. Hieremias II!, Tranos, metropolitan of Larissa. Metrophanes III? Hieremias I1*, banished to Rhodes. Pachomios II, Palestos: banished to Wallachia. Theoleptos II Hieremias II
Prefatory Note 17
Matthaios II!
Gabriel I
Theophanes I, Carykes, metropolitan of Athens.
[Meletios Pegas, Patriarch of Alexandria, érirnpyntns, April, 1 597, to early in 1599.]
Matthaios II?
Neophytos II, metropolitan of Athens.
Raphael II, moved in 1603 his residence from S. Demetrios to S. George (the Phanar).
Neophytos II?, deposed and banished to Rhodes.
Cyrillos I, Lucaris, Patriarch of Alexandria,
Timotheos II, poisoned.
Cyrillos [?
Gregorios IV, metropolitan of Amaseia, deposed and banished to Rhodes.
Anthimos II
_Cyrillos [3
Isaac
Cyrillos I#
Cyrillos II1, metropolitan of Berrhoia.
Athanasios III!, Pantellarios, metropolitan of Thessalonica.
Cyrillos I
Cyrillos II*, Contares
Neophytos III
Cyrillos [6
Cyrillos II
Parthenios I, Geron: deposed and banished to Cyprus; died of poison at Chios.
Parthenios II1, metropolitan of Adrianople, deposed and banished.
Ioannikios II+, metropolitan of Heracleia, Lindios.
Parthenios II*, Oxys: murdered at the instigation of the Princes of Wallachia and Moldavia.
Ioannikios II?
Cyrillos III!, Spanos: metropolitan of Tornovo.
Athanasios IIT3, fifteen days, resigned and died in Russia.
Paisios I} .
Ioannikios II? .
Cyrillos III?, deposed and banished to Cyprus.
18 Prefatory Note
Paisios I?
Ioannikios II* .
Parthenios III
(200) Gabriel II, twelve days.
Theophanes I], three days.
Parthenios IV}, Mogilalos
Dionysios III, Bardalis
Parthenios IV?
Clemes, a few days, deposed and banished.
Methodios III, Morones, resigned and died at Venice. Parthenios IV%, six months, deposed and banished to Cyprus. Dionysios IV!, Muselimes. Synod of Jerusalem, 1672. Gerasimos II
Parthenios IV4
Dionysios IV*. First Orthodox church built in London, 1677. Athanasios IV, a week, deposed and banished.
Iacobos!
Dionysios IV3
Parthenios IV, seven months.
Iacobos?
Dionysios IV4
Iacobos?’, four months.
Callinicos II!, Acarnan, nine months.
Neophytos IV, five months.
Callinicos II?
Dionysios IV, seven months, deposed and died at Bucarest. Callinicos II?
Gabriel III
Neophytos IV, election not confirmed by the Porte. Cyprianos!, deposed and banished to M. Athos.
Athanasios V
Cyrillos IV
Cyprianos?, three months. °
Cosmas III
Hieremias III!
Callinicos III, died of joy on hearing of his election, Nov. 19, 1726. Paisios I11, Kynmurji-oghlu, deposed and banished to Cyprus. Hieremias I11%, six months.
Prefatory Note 19
Serapheim I, a year, deposed and banished to Lemnos.
Neophytos VI?
Paisios II?
Neophytos VI?, ten months, deposed and banished to Patmos.
Paisios II?
Cyrillos V1, Caracalos
Paisios II4
Cyrillos V2, deposed and banished to M. Sinai.
Callinicos IV, deposed and banished to M. Sinai.
Serapheim II, an Imperial Rescript of 1759 decreed that the expenses of the election, reckoned at 120,000 francs, should be met by the new Patriarch.
Ioannikios III, Carajas, deposed and banished to M. Athos.
Samuel!, Khanjeris, deposed and banished to M. Athos.
Meletios II, six months, resigned and died in penury at Mitylene.
Theodosios II, Maridakes, deposed and banished to Chalcis.
Samuel?, 13 months, deposed.
Sophronios II, Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Gabriel IV
Procopios, deposed and banished to M. Athos.
Neophytos VII!, deposed and banished to Rhodes.
Gerasimos III, a Cypriot.
Gregorios V!, deposed and banished to M. Athos.
Neophytos VII*, deposed and banished to M. Athos.
Callinicos V1
Gregorios V*, deposed and banished to M. Athos.
Callinicos V*, eight months.
Hieremias IV
Cyrillos V1, Serbetoghlu
Gregorios V*, on Easter Day, April 22, 1821, hanged over the gate of the Patriarchate.
Eugenios II
Anthimos III, deposed and banished to Caisareia.
Chrysanthos, deposed and banished to Caisareia.
Agathangelos, deposed and banished to Caisareia.
Constantios I, archbishop of Sinai.
Constantios II
Gregorios VI}, Khatti-Sherif of Giilkhane, Nov. 2, 1839.
20 Prefatory Note
Anthimos IV!, Bambakes
Anthimos V
Germanos IV!
Meletios III, seven months.
Anthimos VI!, Ioannides
Anthimos IV?
Germanos IV, nine months.
(250) Anthimos VI?
Cyrillos VII, Khatti-Humayun, Feb. 18, 1856.
Ioakeim II2, Kokkodes
Sophronios III, deposed 1866, elected 1870 Patriarch of Alexandria.
Gregorios VI?
Anthimos VI8
Ioakeim II?
Ioakeim III1, born 1834, metropolitan of Thessalonica; resigned 1884.
Neophytos VIII, deposed Oct. 1894. -
Anthimos VII, deposed Feb. 1897.
(257) Constantinos V, deposed 1gol.
Ioakeim III, re-elected June, 1901. eis moAAa ern.
C.D.
INTRODUCTION 1
HE rise of the see of Constantinople, the ‘Great Church of Christ,’ is the most curious development
in the history of Eastern Christendom. For many cen- turies the patriarchs of New Rome have been the first ‘bishops in the East. Though they never succeeded in the claim to universal jurisdiction over the whole Ortho- dox Church that they have at various times advanced, though, during the last century especially, the limits of their once enormous patriarchate have been ruthlessly driven back, nevertheless since the fifth century and still at the present time the Patriarch of New Rome fills a place in the great Christian body whose importance makes it second only to that of the Pope of Old Rome. To be an orthodox Christian one must accept the orthodox faith. That is the first criterion. And then as a second and visible bond of union all Greeks at any rate, and probably most Arabs and Slavs, would add that one must be in communion with the cecumenical patriarch. The Bulgars are entirely orthodox in faith, but are excommunicate from the see of Constantinople; a rather less acute form of the same state was until lately the misfortune of the Church of Antioch. And - the great number of orthodox Christians would deny
22 Introduction I
a share in their name to Bulgars and Antiochenes for this reason only. Since, then, these patriarchs are now and have so long been the centre of unity to the hundred millions of Christians who make up the great Orthodox Church, one might be tempted to think that their position is an essential element of its constitution, and to imagine that, since the days of the first general councils New Rome has been as much the leading Church of the East as Old Rome of the West. One might be tempted to conceive the Orthodox as the subjects of the cecumenical patriarch, just as Roman Catholics are the subjects of the pope. This would be a mistake. The advance of the see of Constantinople is the latest development in the history of the hierarchy. The Byzantine patriarch is’ the youngest of the five. His see evolved from the smallest of local dioceses at the end of the fourth and during the fifth centuries. And now his jurisdiction, that at one time grew into something like that of his old rival the pope, has steadily retreated till he finds himself back not very far from the point at which his predecessors began their career of gradual advance. And the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox, although they still insist on communion with him, indignantly deny that he has any rights over them. Though they still give him a place of honour as’ the first bishop of their Church, the other orthodox patriarchs and still more the synods of national churches show a steadily growing jealousy of his assumption and a defiant insistence on their equality with him. An out- line of the story of what may perhaps be called the rise and fall of the see of Constantinople will form the natural introduction to the list of its bishops.
Introduction [ 23
We first hear of a bishop of Byzantium at the time of the first General Council (Nicaea, 325). At that time Metrophanes (315—325) ruled what was only a small local see under the metropolitan of Thrace at Herakleia, Long afterwards his successors claimed St Andrew the Apostle as the founder of their see. This legend does not begin till about the ninth century, after Constanti- nople had become a mighty patriarchate. There was always a feeling that the chief sees should be those founded by apostles; the other patriarchates—Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem—were apostolic sees (Alexandria claimed St Peter as her founder too), and now that Constantinople was to be the equal of the others, indeed the second see of all, an apostolic founder had to be found for her too. The legend of St Andrew at Constantinople first occurs in a ninth century forgery attributed to one Dorotheos, bishop of Tyre and a martyr under Diocletian. St Andrew’s successor is said to be the Stachys mentioned in Rom. xvi. 9; and then follow Onesimos and twenty-two other mythical bishops, till we come to a real person, Metrophanes I. The reason why St Andrew was chosen is the tradition that he went to the North and preached in Scythia, Epirus and Thrace. No one now takes this first line of Byzantine bishops seriously. Their names are interesting as one more example of an attempt to connect what afterwards became a great see with an apostle. Before the ninth century one of the commonest charges brought against the growing patriarchate was that it is not an apostolic see (e.g. Leo I. Ep. 104, ad Marcianum), and its defenders never think of denying the charge; they rather bring the question quite candidly to its real issue by answering
24 Introduction I
that it is at any rate an imperial one. So the first historical predecessor of the cecumenical patriarch was Metrophanes I. And he was by no means an cecu- menical patriarch. He was not even a metropolitan. His city at the time of the first Nicene synod was a place of no sort of importance, and he was the smallest of local bishops who obeyed the metropolitan of Hera- kleia. The council recognized as an ‘ancient use’ the rights of three chief sees only—Xome, Alexandria and Antioch (Can. 6). The title ‘ patriarch’ (taken, of course, from the Old Testament as ‘Levite’ for deacon) only gradually became a technical one. It is the case of nearly all ecclesiastical titles. As late as the sixth century we still find any specially venerable bishop called a patriarch (Greg. Naz. Orat. 42, 43, Acta SS. Febr. 111. 742, where Celidonius of Besangon is called ‘the venerable patriarch’), But the thing itself was there, if not the special name. At the time of Nicea I. there were three and only three bishops who stood above other metropolitans and ruled over vast provinces, the bishops first of Rome, then of Alexandria and thirdly of Antioch. It should be noticed that conservative people, and especially the Western Church, for centuries resented the addition of the two new patriarchates— Jerusalem and Constantinople—to these three, and still clung to the ideal of three chief Churches only. Con- stantinople eventually displaced Alexandria and Antioch to the third and fourth places: they both refused to accept that position for a long time. Alexandria constantly in the fifth and sixth centuries asserts her. right as the ‘second throne,’ and Antioch demands to be recognized as third. The Roman Church especially maintained the
Introduction L 25
older theory ; she did not formally recognize Constanti- nople as a patriarchate at all till the ninth century, when she accepted the 21st Canon of Constantinople IV. (869) that establishes the order of five patriarchates, with Constantinople as the second and Jerusalem as the last. Dioscur of Alexandria (444—451) bitterly resented the lowered place given to his see. St Leo I. of Rome (440—461) writes: ‘Let the great Churches keep their dignity according to the Canons, that is Alexandria and Antioch’ (Ep. ad Rufin. Thess., Le Quien, Or. Christ. 1. 18), and he constantly appeals to the sixth Canon of Niczea against later innovations (Ep. 104, ad Mare.). He says: ‘The dignity of the Alexandrine see must not perish’ and ‘the Antiochene Church should remain in the order arranged by the Fathers, so that having been put in the third place it should never be reduced to a lower one’ (Ep. 106, ad Anatolium). St Gregory I. (590—604) still cherished the older ideal of the three patriarchates, and as late as the eleventh century St Leo IX. (1045—1054) writes to Peter III. of Antioch that ‘Antioch must keep the third place’ (Will, Acta et scripta de controversits eccl. graecae et latinae, Leipzig, 1861, p. 168). However, in spite of all opposition the bishops of Constantinople succeeded, first in being recognized as patriarchs and eventually as taking the second place, after Rome but before Alexandria. It was purely an accident of secular politics that made this possible. The first general council had not even mentioned the insigni- ficant little diocese of Byzantium. But by the time the second council met (Constantinople I.,381) a great change had happened. Constantine in 330 dedicated his new capital ‘amid the nakedness of almost all other cities’
c ; 3
26 Introduction I
(St Jerome, Chron. A.D. 332). He moved the seat of his government thither, stripped Old Rome and ransacked the Empire to adorn it, and built up what became the most gorgeous city of the world. So the bishop of Byzantium found himself in a sense the special bishop of Czsar. He at once obtained an honoured place at court, he had the ear of the emperor, he was always at hand to transact any business between other bishops and the government. Politically and civilly New Rome was to be in every way equal to Old Rome, and since the fourth century there was a strong tendency to imitate civil arrangements in ecclesiastical affairs. Could the prelate whose place had suddenly become so supremely important remain a small local ordinary under a metro- politan? And always the emperors favoured the ambi- tion of their court bishops; the greater the importance of their capital in the Church, as well as in the State, the more would the loyalty of their subjects be riveted to the central government. So we find that the advance of the Byzantine see is always as desirable an object to the emperor as to his bishop. The advance came quickly now. But we may notice that at every step there is no sort of concealment as to its motive. No one in those days thought of claiming any other reason for the high place given to the bishop except the fact that the imperial court sat in his city. There was no pretence of an apostolic foundation, no question of St Andrew, no claim to a glorious past, no record of martyrs, doctors nor saints who had adorned the see of this new city ; she had taken no part in spreading the faith, had been of no importance to anyone till Constantine noticed what a splendid site the Bosphorus and Golden Horn offer,
Introduction I 27
This little bishop was parvenu of the parvenus ; he knew it and everyone knew it. His one argument—and for four centuries he was never tired of repeating it—was that he was the emperor’s bishop, his see was New Rome. New Rome was civilly equal to Old Rome, so why should he not be as great, or nearly as great, as that distant patriarch now left alone where the weeds choked ruined gates by the Tiber? Now that the splendour of Cesar and his court have gone to that dim world where linger the ghosts of Pharaoh and Cyrus we realize how weak was the foundation of this claim from the beginning. The Turk has answered the new patriarch’s arguments very effectively. And to-day he affects an attitude of conservatism, and in his endless quarrels with the inde- pendent Orthodox Churches he talks about ancient rights. He has no ancient rights. The ancient rights are those of his betters at Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. His high place is founded on an accident of politics, and if his argument were carried out con- sistently he would have had to step down in 1453 and the chief bishops of Christendom would now be those of Paris, London and New York. We must go back to 381 and trace the steps of his progress. The: first Council of Constantinople was a small assembly of only 150 eastern bishops. No Latins were present, the Roman Church was not represented. Its third canon ordains that: ‘The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour (ra mpeoBeia Ths tiywhs) after the bishop of Rome, because that city is New Rome. This does not yet mean a patriarchate. There is no question of extra-diocesan jurisdiction. He is to have an honorary place after the pope because his city has become politic-
Spee
28 Introduction I
ally New Rome. The Churches of Rome and Alexandria definitely refused to accept this canon. The popes in accepting the Creed of Constantinople I. always rejected its canons and specially rejected this third canon. Two hundred years later Gregory I. says, ‘The Roman Church neither acknowledges nor receives the canons of that synod, she accepts the said synod in what it defined against Macedonius’ (the additions to the Nicene Creed, Ep. Vil. 34); and when Gratian put the canon into the Roman canon law in the twelfth century the papal cor- rectors added to it a note to the effect that the Roman Church did not acknowledge it. The canon and the note still stand in the Corpus juris (dist. XXII. c. 3), a memory of the opposition with which Old Rome met the first beginning of the advance of New Rome. The third general council did not affect this advance, although during the whole fourth century there are endless cases of bishops of Constantinople, defended by the emperor, usurping rights in other provinces—usurpations that are always indignantly opposed by the lawful primates. Such usurpations, and the indignant oppositions, fill up the history of the Eastern Church down to our own time. It was the fourth general council (Chalcedon in 451) that finally assured the position of the imperial bishops. Its 28th canon is the vital point in all this story. The canon—very long and confused in its form—defines that ‘the most holy Church of Constan- tinople the New Rome’ shall have a primacy next after Old Rome. Of course the invariable reason is given: ‘the city honoured because of her rule and her Senate shall enjoy a like primacy to that of the elder Imperial Rome and shall be mighty in Church affairs just as she
Introduction I 29
is and shall be second after her.” The canon gives authority over Asia (the Roman province, of course— Asia Minor) and Thrace to Constantinople and so builds up a new patriarchate. Older and infinitely more vener- able sees, Herakleia, the ancient metropolis, Caesarea in Cappadocia, that had converted all Armenia, Ephesus where the apostle whom our Lord loved had sat—they must all step down, because Constantinople is honoured for her rule and her senate. The Roman legates (Lucen- tius, Paschasius and Boniface) were away at the fifteenth session when this canon was drawn up. When they arrive later and hear what has been done in their absence they are very angry, and a heated discussion takes place in which they appeal to the sixth canon of Nicza. The council sent an exceptionally respectful letter to Pope Leo I. (440—461) asking him to confirm their acts (Ep. Conc. Chal. ad Leonem, among St Leo’s letters, No. 98). He confirms the others, but rejects the twenty-eighth categorically. ‘He who seeks undue honours, he says, ‘loses his real ones. Let it be enough for the said Bishop’ (Anatolios of Constantinople) ‘that by the help of your’ (Marcian’s) ‘piety and by the consent of my favour he has got the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not despise a royal see because he can never make it an apostolic one’ (no one had dreamed of the St Andrew legend then); ‘nor should he by any means hope to become greater by offending others.’ He also appeals to canon 6 of Nicaea against the proposed arrangement (£7. 104). So the 28th canon of Chalcedon, too, was never admitted at Rome. The Illyrian and various other bishops had already refused to sign it. Notwithstanding this opposition the new patriarch con-
30 Introduction [
tinued to prosper. The Council of Chalcedon had made the see of Jerusalem into a patriarchate as well, giving it the fifth place. But all the eastern rivals go down in importance at this time. Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were overrun with Monophysites ; nearly all Syria and Egypt fell away into that heresy, so that the orthodox patriarchs had scarcely any flocks. Then came Islam and swept away whatever power they still had. Meanwhile Czesar was always the friend of his own bishop. Leo III., the Isaurian (717—741), filched his own fatherland, Isauria, from Antioch and gave it to Constantinople ; from the seventh to the ninth centuries the emperors continually affect to separate Illyricum from the Roman patriarchate and to add it to that of their own bishop. Since Justinian conquered back Italy — (554) they claim Greater Greece (Southern Italy, Cala- bria, Apulia, Sicily) for their patriarch too, till the Norman Conquest (1060—I091) puts an end to any hope of asserting such a claim. It is the patriarch of Constantinople who has the right of crowning the emperor; and the patriarch John IV., the Faster (Nnotevtys, 582—595), assumes the vaguely splendid title of ‘CEcumenical Patriarch” The new kingdom of the Bulgars forms a source of angry dispute between Rome and Constantinople, till just after the great schism the cecumenical patriarch wins them all to his side, little thinking how much trouble the children of these same Bulgars will some day give to his successors. Photios (857—867, 878—886) and Michael Kerularios (Michael I., 1043—1058) saw the great schism between East and West. Meanwhile the conversion of the Russians (988) added an enormous territory to what
Introduction I 31
was already the greatest of the Eastern patriar- chates.
The Turkish conquest of Constantinople (1453), strangely enough, added still more to the power of its patriarchs. True to their unchanging attitude the Mohammedans accepted each religious communion as a civil body. The Rayahs were grouped according to their Churches. The greatest of these bodies was, and is, the Orthodox Church, with the name ‘ Roman nation’ (rum millet), strange survival of the dead empire. And the recognized civil head of this Roman nation is the cecumenical patriarch. So he now has civil jurisdiction over all orthodox Rayahs in the Turkisk empire, over the other patriarchs and their subjects and over the autocephalous Cypriotes as well as over the faithful of his own patriarchate. No orthodox Christian can approach the Porte except through his court at the Phanar. And the Phanar continually tries to use this civil jurisdiction for ecclesiastical purposes.
We have now come to the height of our patriarch’s power. He rules over a vast territory second only to that of the Roman patriarchate. All Turkey in Europe, all Asia Minor, and Russia to the Polish frontier and the White Sea, obey the great lord who rules by the old lighthouse on the Golden Horn. And he is politically and civilly the overlord of Orthodox Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Cyprus as well. So for one short period, from 1453 to 1589, he was not a bad imitation of the real pope. But his glory did not last, and from this point to the present time his power has gone down almost as fast as it went up in the fourth and fifth centuries. The first blow was the independence of
32 Introduction I
Russia. In 1589 the czar, Feodor Ivanovich, made his Church into an autocephalous patriarchate (under Moscow), and in 1721 Peter the Great changed its government into that of a ‘Holy directing Synod.’ Both the independence and the synod have been imi- tated by most Orthodox Churches since. Jeremias II. of Constantinople (1572—1579, 1580—1584, 1586—1595) took money as the price of acknowledging the Russian Holy Synod as his ‘sister in Christ.’ It was all he could do. His protector the Sultan had no power in Russia, and if he had made difficulties he would not have prevented what happened and he would have lost the bribe. Since then the cecumenical patriarch has no kind of jurisdiction in Russia ; even the holy chrism is prepared at Petersburg. In two small cases the ‘Phanar gained a point since it lost Russia. Through the unholy alliance with the Turkish government that had become its fixed policy, it succeeded in crushing the independent Servian Church of Ipek in 1765 and the Bulgarian Church of Achrida (Ochrida in Macedonia) in 1767. The little Roumanian Church of Tirnovo had been forced to submit to Constantinople as soon as the Turks conquered that city (1393). In these three cases, then, the Phanar again spread the boundaries of its jurisdiction. Otherwise it steadily retreats. In every case in which a Balkan State has thrown off the authority of the Porte, its Church has at once thrown off the authority of the Phanar. These two powers had been too closely allied for the new independent govern- ment to allow its subjects to obey either of them. The process is always the same. One of the first laws of the new constitution is to declare that the national
Introduction I 33
Church is entirely orthodox, that it accepts all canons, decrees and declarations of the Seven Holy Synods, that it remains in communion with the cecumenical throne and with all other Orthodox Churches of Christ; but that it is an entirely autocephalous Church, acknow- ledging no head but Christ. A Holy Synod is then set up on the Russian model, by which the theory ‘no head but Christ’ always works out as unmitigated Erastianism. The patriarch on the other hand is always filled with indignation; he always protests vehemently, generally begins by excommunicating the whole of the new Church, and (except in the Bulgarian case) Russia always makes him eventually withdraw his decree and recognize yet another sister in Christ.
In 1833 the first Greek parliament at Nauplion declared the Greek Church independent ; Anthimos IV. of Constantinople first refused to acknowledge it at all and then in 1850 published his famous Zomos, allowing some measure of self-government. The Greek Church refused to take any notice of the Zomos, and eventually Anthimos had to give way altogether. In 1866 the cession of the Ionian Isles, and in 1881 the addition of Thessaly and part of Epirus to the kingdom of Greece, enlarged the territory of the Greek Church and further reduced the patriarchate. In 1870 the Bulgars founded an independent national Church. This is by far the worst trouble of all, They have set up an Exarch in Constantinople and he claims jurisdiction over all Bulgars, wherever they may live. The Bulgarian Church is recognized by Russia, excommunicate and most vehe- mently denounced by the patriarch. The inevitable moment in which the Phanar will have to give way
34 , L[nutroduction I
and welcome this sister too has not yet come. The Serbs set up their Church in 1879, the Vlachs in 1885— both establishments led to disputes that still distress the Orthodox Church. The Austrian occupation of lands inhabited by orthodox Christians has led to the estab- lishment of independent Churches at Carlovitz in 1765, at Hermannstadt (Nagy-Szeben) in 1864, at Czernovitz in 1873 and of a practically independent one in Herce- govina and Bosnia since 1880. The diminishing power of the cecumenical patriarch is further shown by the resistance, always more and more uncompromising, shown when he tries to interfere in the affairs of the other patriarchates and autocephalous Churches. In 1866 Sophronios III. of Constantinople wanted to judge a case at the monastery of Mount Sinai. Immediately the Patriarch of Jerusalem summoned a synod and indignantly refused to acknowledge his ‘ anti-canonical interference and his foreign and unknown authority.’ The Church of Greece since its establishment has had many opportunities of resisting the patriarch’s foreign authority. She has not failed to use each of them. The see of Antioch still bears the excommunication proclaimed against her late Patriarch Meletios (+ Feb. 8, 1906) rather than allow the Phanar to interfere in her affairs. The patriarch of Alexandria (Photios) has sent away the legate whom the Phanar wished to keep at his court. The Church of Cyprus, now for nearly nine years in the throes of a quarrel that disturbs and scan- dalizes the whole orthodox world, has appealed to every sort of person—including the British Colonial Office—to come and help her out of her trouble. From only one will she hear of no interference. Every time
Introduction [ 35
the Phanar volunteers a little well-meant advice it is told sharply that it has no authority in Cyprus; the Council of Ephesus in 431 settled all that, and, in short, will his All-Holiness of Constantinople mind his own business ?
The diminished authority of the cecumenical throne now covers Turkey in Europe (that is, Thrace, Macedonia and part of Epirus) and Asia Minor only. And in Mace- donia its rights are denied by the Bulgars; and both Serbs and Vlachs are on the point of setting up inde- pendent Churches here too.
The patriarch however takes precedence of all other orthodox bishops. His title is ‘Archbishop of Con- stantinople, New Rome and CEcumenical Patriarch’ (O mavaywratos, 6 Oeotatos, 6 copwTaTos KUPLOS, 0 "Apyterrioxotos KavotavtivouvTodews, Néas ‘Pons Kat oixoupevixos Ilatpsapyns). He is addressed as ‘ Your most divine All-Holiness’ ((H ‘Twetépa Oevoratn Llava- ytorns). To assist him in his rule he has two tribunals, a synod for purely ecclesiastical affairs and a ‘mixed national council (wx«rov eOvixov cvpBovror)’ for affairs that are partly ecclesiastical and partly secular.
Since 1860 the patriarchs are elected—nominally for life—in this way: a committee of the metropolitan bishops present in Constantinople, with certain laymen and representatives of twenty-six provincial bishops, meets not less than forty days after the vacancy and submits to the Porte the names of all for whom their votes have been recorded. From this list the Sultan may strike out not more than three names. Out of the corrected list the mixed council chooses three; and the synod finally elects one of the three. But the
36 Introduction I
candidate who has steered his way through all these trials is not yet appointed. He must be confirmed by the Sultan, who may even now reject him. The patriarch- elect at last receives a derat, that is a form of appoint- ment by the Sultan, in which his civil and ecclesiastical rights are exactly defined, is solemnly invested by the Great Wazir in the Sultan’s name, pays certain visits of ceremony to various Turkish officials and is finally enthroned in the Church of St George in the Phanar. The enthronement is performed by the metropolitan of Herakleia (last shadow of his old jurisdiction over Byzantium) after the Turkish officer has read out the berat. The patriarchs are still obliged to pay heavy bribes for their berat. Their dress is the same as that of other orthodox bishops, except that the veil of the patriarch’s Kalemaukion is often violet. As arms on their seal they bear a spread eagle imperially crowned.
The first glance at the list will reveal what is the greatest abuse of the cecumenical throne, namely the enormous number of its occupants and the short length of their reigns. Even before 1453, and very much more since the Turk has reigned here, the patri- archs are deposed incessantly. Sometimes it is the government, more often the endless strife of parties in the Church, that brings about this everlasting course of deposition, resignation and reappointment. The thing has reached incredible proportions. Scarcely any patri- arch has reigned for more than two or three years before he has been forced to resign. Between 1625 and 1700, for instance, there were fifty patriarchs, an average of eighteen months’ reign for each. But when a patriarch is deposed he does not take final leave of the cecumenical
Introduction I 37
throne. He always has a party on his side and that party immediately begins intriguing for his restoration. Generally there are three or four candidates who go backwards and forwards at short intervals; each is deposed and one of his rivals reappointed. All the Phanariote Greeks then naturally swerve round to the opposition and move heaven and earth to have the present occupier removed and one of the ex-patriarchs re-elected. They quarrel and criticize all the reigning patriarch’s actions, the metropolitans refuse to work with him; everyone besieges the Turkish Minister of Police with petitions till he is made to resign. Then one of his old rivals is appointed again and everyone begins trying to oust him. So the proceeding goes on round and round. And the Porte gets its bribe for each new berat. Some patriarchs have had as many as five tenures at intervals (Cyril Lukaris had six). There are always three or four ex-patriarchs waiting in angry retirement at Athos or Chalki for a chance of reap- pointment; so unless one has just seen the current number of the "ExxAnotacrtixy 'AdnOeva it is never safe to say certainly which is the patriarch and which an ex-patriarch.
The reigning patriarch, Joakim III., had already occupied the see from 1878 to 1884. When Constan- tine V. fell in 1901 he was re-elected and has reigned for nearly seven years—an almost unique record. There are now three ex-patriarchs, each with a party angrily demanding its favourite’s reappointment, Neo- phytos VIII, Anthimos VII. and Constantine V. Anthimos VII. has made himself specially conspicuous as a critic of his successor’s actions. He constantly
38 Introduction I
writes to point out how much better he managed things during his reign (1884—1897) and how much better he would manage them again if he had the chance. In 1905 nine metropolitans (led by Joakim of Ephesus and Prokopios of Durazzo) proceeded to depose Joakim ITI. They telegraphed to Petersburg, Athens, Belgrade and Bucharest that the patriarchal see was again vacant. Joakim of Ephesus was the popular candidate for the succession. This was all natural and right, and would have four ex-patriarchs instead of three—till they had ousted the Ephesian. Only this time they counted without their host. The Porte means—or meant then—to keep Joakim III.; and the only thing that really ever matters in the Byzantine patriarchate is what the Sultan decides. So these metropolitans were severely lectured by Abdurrahman Pasha, the Minister of Police; Joakim was lectured too and his duty as patriarch was plainly explained to him, but he kept his place, and for once the Porte threw away a chance of selling another berat. Abdurrahman seems to be the normally appointed person to point out the laws of the Orthodox Church to its metropolitan, and there is an inimitable touch of irony in the date,‘ 18 Rabi’al-awwal, 1323, for instance, that he puts at the end of his canonical epistles to the patriarch.
The list that follows contains an astonishingly small number of great names. One is always reminded that but for the protection of the emperor and then of the Sultan the see of Constantinople has no claim to dignity. Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem have all incompar- ably more honourable memories. At Constantinople only two really great patriarchs have brought honour
Introduction I 39
to their see—St John Chrysostom (398—404) and Photios (857—-867, 878—886). Nestorios (428—431), the Monotheletes Sergios I. (610—638), Pyrrhos I. (638—641) and Paul II. (641—652), and especially poor Cyril Lukaris (1621 at six intervals to 1638), made a certain name for themselves, but their succes- sors would hardly glory in their memory. On the other hand, in a long list that tells of little but time-serving, grovelling subjection to the Turk and ludicrous intrigue, there are some names that stand out as those of men who stood boldly for the cause of Christ against the unbaptized tyrant to whom they owed their place; and there are even martyrs who have left to this see a more real glory than that of the mythical apostle-patriarch, St Andrew. Isidore II. (1456—1463) was murdered for refusing to allow a Christian woman to become the second wife of a Mohammedan, Maximos III. (1476— 1482) was mutilated for the same cause and Gregory V. (1797 at three intervals to 1822) was barbarously hanged on Easter-day 1821 asa revenge because his countrymen were defeating his master.
And lastly, of the reigning patriarch, Joakim III, there is nothing to say but what is very good. He began his second reign by sending an Encyclical to the other Orthodox Churches in which he proposed certain very excellent reforms (for instance that of their Calen- dar), wished to arrange a better understanding between the sixteen independent bodies that make up their com- munion and expressed his pious hope for the re-union of Christendom. Pity that their never-ending jealousies made those of these Churches that answered at all do so in the most unfriendly way. But of Joakim himself
40 Introduction I
one hears everything that is edifying. He is evidently really concerned about the scandals that disgrace the Orthodox name—the affairs of Bulgaria, Antioch, Cyprus and so on—and he has shown himself in every way a wise, temperate and godly bishop. So one may end this note by expressing a very sincere hope that he may be allowed to go on ruling the Great Church of Christ for many years still before the inevitable deposition comes.
And for the sake of removing the crying scandal of these constant changes in the patriarchate, as well as for the sympathy we all feel for his character, the Western outsider will join very heartily in the greeting with which he was received at his enthronement : "Iwaxeip &&vos—eis TOAAG ET.
ADRIAN FORTESCUE.
iGo MIE
INTRODUCTION II
The population of the Roman Empire was divided into groups by the system of provinces, and to this grouping the Churches of Christendom seem to have accommodated themselves almost, if not quite, from the very beginning. Thus, for instance, the Churches of Syria, from very early days indeed, formed one group, the head of which was the Church of Antioch, the chief city of the province. The Church of Antioch was indeed the ‘metropolis, of which the other Syrian churches, for the most part at any rate, were ‘colonies’; but Antioch had been selected as the missionary centre, we may be sure, on account of its being the provincial capital. Again, the Churches of Asia formed a group, in which the lead belonged to the Church of Ephesus, the Churches of Macedonia (Eastern Illyricum) another group, in which the chief place was taken by the Church of Thessalonica, and yet another group was that of the Achaian Churches, centreing about the Church of Corinth. Other examples of Churches whose grouping corresponded with provincial divisions of the Empire were those of Cyprus, Egypt, and Africa.
This correspondence of grouping between the Church and the Empire is more easily exemplified from the
C. 4
42 Introduction Lf
regions to the east of the Adriatic than from those to the west of it. One reason, no doubt, is the fact that, even down to Bishop Jewel’s famous limit of ‘Catholic Antiquity, viz. the end of the sixth century, the history of Christendom is the history of the Eastern, much more than of the Western, Churches. Still, the correspondence does not cease when we pass from Greece and the East to Italy and the West. Carthage and Africa have been already mentioned, and in connection with that region of the Roman Empire it should be noticed that just as Carthage and the African provinces were, if anything, more Latin than Rome and Latium itself, in the earliest period of Christian history, so it was in Carthage and Africa, not in Rome, that the forefathers of Latin Christianity arose—Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine’. Again, in the Eastern half of the Empire, great and famous cities were numerous—Alexandria, Antioch, Tarsus, the Cappadocian Cesarea, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth—and so were notable Christian bishoprics. In the Western half, Rome, Milan and Carthage for a con- siderable time threw all the rest very much into the shade. Lyon, of course, was a considerable city—and we find one of the most ancient Churches of the West founded there, and undergoing persecution in the year 177. But Lyon was a new creation. The Roman Empire had called it into being, whereas the great cities of the East had a history reaching back to times long before the Roman Empire had begun to be. Very naturally, then, in the grouping of Christendom, the
1 The ‘Old Latin’ version of the New Testament was produced in the province of Africa, in the second century. See Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, 1. iii. 3.
Introduction IT 43
whole West, speaking generally, was regarded as one group, with Rome as its head and centre. Even those who made a separate group or province of the African Churches would hardly assign anything less extensive than Italy and the Italian islands, Spain and Gaul, and Britain, as the province of the Roman See. The care of all the churches in those countries would be regarded by all as properly coming upon and assumed by the bishop of Rome.
Among the cities of the East, two stood far out and above the rest, for size, and wealth, and all that goes to make urban greatness— Alexandria, to wit, and Antioch. Speaking generally with regard to the first 300 years of the Christian era, one would say that next in the scale of greatness and importance came the following three— Czsarea in Cappadocia, Ephesus and Thessalonica ; three most important points, one may observe, on the chief line of communication between Rome and the Euphrates frontier of the Empire. In the West, Rome shone with absolutely unique glory. Lyon, Milan, Ravenna, even Carthage itself, which after all had been resuscitated by the grace of her quondam rival—these were nothing accounted of in comparison with Rome.
The Emperor Diocletian (a.D. 284—305) made con- siderable modifications in the provincial system of the Roman Empire, distributing all the provinces into 12 ‘dioceses’ or groups of provinces. During the fourth century other changes were made, and in A.D. 400 the number of dioceses had been increased from 12 to 1 ae A profoundly important change in the structure of the
1 See Professor Bury’s edition of Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. u. p- 541 f.
4—2
44 Introduction If
Empire was effected by the foundation of a new im- perial capital, Constantinople, the ‘Encznia’ of which were celebrated on the 11th of May, A.D. 330°.
At the time of the great Council of Nicaea, the building of ‘the city of Constantine, New Rome,’ had only just been begun. The greatest cities of Christen- dom, in A.D. 325, are also the greatest cities of the Empire—Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. The Nicene Council, representative of all Christendom, ordered in the sixth of the twenty canons which it passed, that the ancient customs should prevail, whereby the bishop of Alexandria exercised authority over the churches in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis (‘the parts of Libya about Cyrene’), and similar authority over a wide area was exercised, in the West by the bishop of Rome, in the East by the bishop of Antioch’, The limits of authority and jurisdiction are not specified in the case either of Rome or of Antioch, so that the canon, taken by itself, ‘5 evidence for no more than the fact that the bishop, in each of these cities, had a ‘province’ in which he was the chief pastor. Other churches, besides those of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, had prerogatives and privileges—mpeoBeta—which were to be maintained. The Canon goes on to speak of the necessity incumbent
1 Gibbon, Decline and Fall, i. p. 1§7, note 65 (Bury’s edition). ‘Npoddyrov 7d Méya, p. 310, where the 11th of May is called 7a -yevéO\ca Frou Ta eykalyia THs Kworayrwourbdews. The Orthodox Church placed the city under the especial favour and protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
2 Concil. Niceen. Can. VI. 7a dpxata 2 xparelrw, Ta év Alyirrp kal AcBin wal Tevramdde., Gate Tov ev ’Adegavdpela éxloxowov mdvTwv ToUTwY éxew Thy égovolay, ered) kal TQ év ‘Pwun émioxdrp Trovro atvnbés éoTw. duolws 5¢ kal kara Thy ’Avribxerav, Kal év Tats d\daus érapxlas, Ta mpecBeta odfecOa Tats éxxAnolas.
Introduction IT AS
on every bishop of obtaining his metropolitan’s consent to his election and consecration. ‘If any be made a bishop, without consent of his metropolitan, this great Synod has determined that such person ought not to be bishop’’ This ruling finds illustration in the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, according to which ‘the bishop presiding in the metropolis ought to know the bishops of his province, and undertake the care of the whole province, because all, who have any business, congregate in the metropolis?’ Without the metropolitan’s cognizance, the bishops of a province ought not to take any action. This, it is asserted, was ‘the rule of our fathers, established of old.’ Each bishop had his distinct rights and duties, within the limits of his wapocxia, or district ; beyond those limits he could only act in concert with his metropolitan, and the metropolitan, in turn, must not act without the co- operation of his comprovincials.
The words ‘metropolis’ and ‘province’ were taken over by the Church from the official vocabulary of the Empire. ‘Metropolis’ in the sense of a ‘capital’ city or
1 [bid., xa0bdov 5é mpdbdnrdov éxeivo, dre el Tis Xwpls yvauns Too unrpo- monirov yévoiro ériaxoros, Tov To.odrov 7 meyddn abvodos wpioe wh Setv elvac émicxomov. av wevTo TH Kowy TdvTw Widy, evAbyy oton, Kat kara Kavbva
éxxnovacrixdy, Sto } Tpels dv olxelav pidoveckiay dvTiéywor, Kparelrw h TOV TrELdvev Wipos.
? Concil. Antioch. Can. 1x. rods xaé? éxdorny émioxdmous eldévac xp} Tov é&v rH mnrporéve mpocoTdta éricxorov kal Thy dpovriba dvadéxec Oat wdons Tis érapxias, dia 7d €v unrpowbdrec mavraxdbev cwrpéxew mavras Tovs mpayuara éxovras, b0ev Ed0ze Kal TH TMD mponyetoOa abrdv, kara Tov apxatov kparjoavra Tay warépwv hudv Kavéva, i) radra pbva, doa TH éexdorou émiBadree mapoikia kal tais bm’ airyv xwpais. exacrov yap érloxorov étovolay exew THs €avrod mapoiklas, dioKkeiv Te Kara Thy éxdorw émiBdddoveay eddAdBecav, Kal mpdvoiay roetoOan maons Ths xwpas THs bard Thy éavrod wéduw, ws Kal Xetporovely mpeaBurépous kal Siaxdvous, kal wera Kploews Exacra SiatayBdavew,
46 Introduction IT
town is met with as far back as the days of Xenophon’. In the Roman epoch it was a title of honour much sought after, and disputed over, by the cities of the province of Asia. The proper metropolis of Asia was Pergamus, the seat and centre of the government and of the xo.vov or confederation of the provincial cities, but the title was claimed by, and allowed to, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, and others besides? As it happened, Ephesus was, in ecclesiastical relations, a true metropolis, the Churches of Asia being subordinate to it. There St Paul and St John had dwelt and laboured, and thence had the sound of the Gospel gone forth into all the province’.
mepaitépw dé undév mparrew émixerpeiv, Slya Tod THs untpoorews Emioxdrov, unde abrov dvev Tis TOv Nowray ywduns. Compare the thirty-fourth of the so-called Canons of the Holy A postles—robds émisxémous éxdorou &Ovous eldévae xpn Tov év av’tois mp&rov, kal tyeicOar adrov ws Kepadyy, kal undév Te mpartew mepitrov dvev THs éxelvov yvwuns, mova dé mpdrrew exacrov, doa TH avtod mapoxia émiBddreL, Kal rats bm’ abrnv xwpars, add unde Exeivos dvev Ths wavTwy yvwouns moelrw Tt. obrw yap dudvora ~orat, Kal dotacOhcerar 6 Geds, dua Kuplov, év ‘Ayiw IIveduati, 6 Tlarnp cal 6 Tlos xal 7d “Aycov IIveGua. Also Concil. Nicen. Can. 1v. émrlicxomov mpooyjke: uddioTa pev ird mavtwv Tav év TH émapxia Kablicracba, el 5é Svoxepes ely TO ToLOdTOV... éfdmavros Tpets €ml Td adTd cuvaryouévous, cumwygny yevouevwv kal Tov dmévTwv, kal cuvTibepévwn dia ypaupdrwv, tore Thy xetpororiay moeicOat. TO dé Kipos Tov ywoudvuw Sldocba Kal’ éxdorny érapxlav TQ untporodlry.— Eévos in the Apostolic Canon= provincia. See Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, p- 229.
1 Xenophon, Anadbasis V. ii. 3, iv. 15.
2 Mommsen, 7he Provinces of the Roman Empire, vol. 1. pp. 329—330 (Eng. Transl.), Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, pp. 227 —230,289—290.
3 Acts xix., Rev. i. g—11, Eusebius, Hist. Accel, Ul. i. 23 (with citations from Irenzeus and Clement) and v. 24 (letter of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, bishop of Rome). In the last-mentioned passage Eusebius speaks of Polycrates as follows—rév 6€ émi rijs ’Aolas émurxérwyv... iyyetro Tlodvxparns. )
Introduction II 47
The bishops of Christendom, then, were grouped round metropolitans. In their turn, the metropolitans were subordinate to the bishops of the first-rate cities of the Empire. Thus the metropolitans in Spain, Gaul and Britain, and Italy, were subordinate to the bishop of Rome, who also claimed primacy over the bishops of Africa—a claim injurious to the prerogative of Carthage’. In Egypt, and the adjoining Libya and Pentapolis, the bishop of Alexandria was, at the time of the Nicene and Antiochene Councils, probably the only metropolitan. In Syria, the metropolitan of Casarea (Palestina) was among the bishops subordinate to the see of Antioch. When we come to Asia Minor and the region known nowadays as the Balkan Peninsula we find three great dioceses, of which express mention is made in the second canon of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381). This word ‘diocese,’ like ‘province’ and ‘metropolis, came into the vocabulary of the Church from that of the Empire. The three dioceses mentioned in the Con- stantinopolitan Canon just referred to are (1) Asiana, (2) Pontica, (3) Thracia%» In the Asian diocese, the
1 The pretensions of the bishop of Rome, however, encountered sturdy resistance in Africa. See Salmon, /#fallibility of the Church, pp. 407, 414, 415, Robertson, History of the Christian Church, i. pp. 149—151, 236, 237.
2 Concil. Const. Can. 11. rods brép diolknow émioxdrous Tats brepoplos éxxAnolas wh émidvar unde cvyxéew ras éxxAnoias, a\AaG KaTa Tos Kavdvas tov péev ’Ade~avdpelas ériocxorov ra év Alyirrw udbvov olkovoyety, Tovs dé Tis ’Avatonrys émioxdmrous Thy ’Avarodukny pdvnv Stoxetv, PuvAaTTOUevwn Tov év Tots Kavdot Tots kata Nixatay mpecBelwv ry ’Avrioxéwy éxkdnolg, Kal Tovs Ths ’*Aciavfjs Sioxjoews émicxdmous Ta KaTa Thy ’Ac.iavhy wdvov dioKelv, Kal Tovs ths Ilovrixis Ta THs Lovrixijs udva, kal rods THs Opaxixs Ta THs Opaxiijs povov duorxeiv...... Ta Kad’ éxdorny érapxlayv 7 Tis érapxlas civodos Siorkjoe, kata Ta é€v Nixalg wpicuéva. In the fifth Canon of Niczea, another phrase
48 Introduction IT
leading see was that of Ephesus, though at the time of the Canon Iconium also, and the Pisidian Antioch, were prominent and important. In the Pontic diocese, the lead was taken by the Cappadocian Czsarea, and in the Thracian the metropolis was Heracleia. Before the foundation of Constantinople, Thessalonica was the most important city in all the countries between the Danube and Cape Malea, and the Church of Thessa- lonica, founded by St Paul, and connected with a city of such pre-eminence, was naturally the ‘metropolitan’ Church of Thrace, Macedonia and Illyricum. But Thessalonica appears already to have been reckoned, along with sees subordinate to it in Macedonia and Illyricum, as belonging to the jurisdiction of Rome— and the same is to be said of Corinth with Achza (or Greece) and even Crete. These regions remained
of secular origin should be noticed—rd xowov Tav émioxérwy, meaning the episcopate of the province (€wapxia). Compare the phrase Kowvoy Kurplwv on coins of Cyprus belonging to the first three centuries of the Christian era, and the use of 7d xowdv in Thucyd. Iv. 78; also ‘commune Siciliz’ in Cicero, Verr. Act. 11. Lib. ii. 114 and 145. For the xowdv of Asia, the xowov of Bithynia, etc., see Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, t. PP- 344-350. —‘ Dicecesis’ occurs in Cicero, aad Fam. il. viii. 4, XIII. Ixvii., in the sense of a district within a province. Three ‘dioceses’ of Asia, he Says, were attached to his Cilician province. See Lightfoot, Colossians, pp- 7—8 for further illustrations. In C.2.G. 4693 Egypt is called a diolxnots. The use of the word to denote a group of provinces appears to have come in with the reorganization of the Empire by Diocletian. The ecclesiastical ‘dioceses’ mentioned in Conc. Const. Can. 11. appear to have generally coincided in extent with the civil dioceses, Aegyptus, Oriens, Pontica, Asiana, Thracia. For provinces included in these dioceses, see Bury’s Gibbon, 11. 550—552.
1 In the civil divisions of the Empire, Crete was included in the diocese of Macedonia, after the breaking-up of the diocese of the Meesias into the two dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia. The Macedonian diocese included Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Achaia (i.e. Greece), and Crete. Jurisdiction
Introduction IT 49
within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome down to the age of the Iconoclast controversy (A.D. 733). The predominant position of Constantinople led to the ex- tension of the bishop’s authority over the Asian and- Pontic dioceses or ‘exarchates,’ as we learn from the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. The Constan- tinopolitan’ Council (Canon 3) had decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should ‘have the prerogative of honour next after the Bishop of Rome’ on the express ground of reason that ‘Constantinople is New Rome?®.’ At Chalcedon the assembled Fathers re-enacted the ruling of their predecessors, and on the same ground. ‘For the Fathers reasonably allowed primacy to the throne of the elder Rome, because it was the imperial city, and for the same reason the 150 most godly bishops,’ i.e. the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, ‘assigned equal honours to the most holy throne of the New Rome, judging soundly that the city honoured with the presence of the Imperial Majesty and the Senate should enjoy the same honours and prerogatives as the elder imperial city of Rome, and be made pre-
over ‘eastern Illyricum,’ i.e. Macedonia, Thessaly, Greece, Epirus, was assumed by Innocent I. in pursuance of a policy initiated by Siricius, at the beginning of the fifth century. The pope constituted the bishop of Thessalonica his vicar for the administration of these regions. In 421, Theodosius II. ordered that Macedonia, etc. should form part of the Constantinopolitan ‘diocese,’ so that the bishops in those provinces should recognize the prelate of the eastern capital as their chief, but within a year or two, at the request of Honorius, he allowed the Roman jurisdiction to be restored. |
1 Paparregopoulos, ‘Ioropia rod ‘EAAnvixod "EOvous, 111. 396, 411.
2 Concil. Const. Can, mI. rév pwévtoe Kwvoravtrwovmbdews érloxorov éxew Ta mpecBeta ris Tyuhs mera Tov THs‘ Pauns érloxorov, dia 7d elvac adriv Néay ‘Pawn. -
50 Introduction IT
eminent in the same manner, in ecclesiastical relations, taking the next place’ The Chalcedonian Council further ordained that the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian and Thracian dioceses or exarchates’, dut these
1 Concil. Chal. Can. Xxvill. mavraxod rots rév aylwy mrarépwr Spas émduevot, Kal Tov dprlws dvayvwobévTa Kavova tev éxardv TevThKovTa Beogpireotdtww émicxbruv t&v ouvvaxbévrwy él Tod Ths edoeBods uy huns Meyddou Oeodogiou Tot yevouévou Baciréws év TH Bacidlde Kwvoravtivov moder Nég ‘Pay, yrwplfovres Ta ada Kal iets dplfouev xal Wyditdueba wepl rav mpecBeluwv THs aywwrdarns éxkXnolas THs av’ris Kwvorayrivov mbr\ews Néas ‘Pans. Kal yap Te Opdvw rhs mpeoBurépas ‘Pwuns, dia 7d Baoiievew Thy mwodkw éxelvnv, ol marépes eikédtws dmodedwWxact Ta mpecBeia, Kal TH adT~ oxémm Kiwovpevor. ol éxardv mevrnkovTa Oeopiréorara émicxoma Ta loa mpecBeta dmrévemmav Tw THS Néas ‘Pawuns aywrTdtw Opdvy, evroyws Kpivavres Thy Baotdela Kal ouvyKd\jTw TiunOetoay modw Kal Tdv towv drodavovcay mpecBelwv tH mpecBurépa Baoidldc ‘Pauyn, Kal év rots éxxXnovacTiKols ws éxelynv peyatverOar mpdypuact, Sevrépay wer’ éxelyny Urdpxovoay. Kal Wore rovs THs Ilovrixfs Kal rhs ’Aotavas Kal THs Opaxckfjs Srorxjoews untpotoAlras Hovous, €7t 6€ kal rods év Tots BapBapikois érioxdrous TOv mpoepnuevwy diorkjoewr, xELpoTovetaOar vd Tod mpoeipnucvov aywrdrov Opovov Tis Kara Kwvotavtwovrodkw aywrdrns éxxAnolas, Sndkady éExdorov pynrpotoNlrov Tay mpoeipnudvwy Soxhjoewy, wera TOv THs éwapxlas émickdmuv yeEtporovodvTos Tous Ths émapxlas émicxorous, Kabws Tots Oelos Kavdor SinyopevTa. ELpO- rovetsbar 5é, Kabws elpnrat, Tovs unrporoNlras Tov mpoeipnuevwn diorxhoewv mapa Tod Kwvoravrwoumdd\ews dpxiemiokomou, WnpieuaTwv cuupavwv Kara TO €00s ywwouévwv Kal ém’ a’rov avagepopévwvr.
2 *Eéapxos Trav lepéwy (pontifex maximus) is found in Plutarch, Vuma to, On the 34th ‘Apostolic’ Canon (see above, p. 45, n. 2) the Pedalion has a note, pointing out that the first bishop of a ‘nation’ (&vos) or province is called, in the sixth Canon of the Council of Sardica, ‘bishop of the metropolis’ and ‘exarch of the province’—émlcxoros rijs unr potodews, téapxos ris érapxlas. The same note also refers to the Greek version of the records of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 418), in which the chief bishop of a province is called 6 mpwretwy or 6 émloxomos Tis mpwrns Kabedpas (episcopus primze cathedre). ‘But in the general usage of the majority of canons he is called the metropolitan (uy7poroXirns).’ The ninth and seventeenth Canons of the Council of Chalcedon ruled that any bishop or cleric who had a cause to plead against the metropolitan of his province should go to ‘the exarch of the diocese’ or ‘the throne of the imperial City
Introductzon LI et
only, together with bishops in barbarian lands on the frontier of those dioceses, should receive consecration from the see of Constantinople.
Thus four great groups of ecclesiastical provinces were formed, each presided over and directed by a bishop residing in one of the four greatest cities of the Empire. These four patriarchates, as they came to be called, corresponded in number only to the four great prefectures of the Empire—in boundaries they were
of Constantine.’—In a long note upon the former of these two Canons the Pedalion points out that the Patriarchs of Constantinople never claimed universal jurisdiction on the strength of the ruling thus worded, from which it is to be inferred that the fathers assembled at Chalcedon never intended to confer such authority upon the see of New Rome. By the ‘exarch of the diocese’ is meant, not the metropolitan of the province, for the diocese is a group of provinces, but the metropolitan of the diocese, i.e. the metropolitan who is first among the metropolitans associated in one diocesan group. At the present day, proceeds the author of the note in the Pedalion (p. 193), though some metropolitans are called ‘exarchs’ they have no effective superiority over other metropolitans. The ‘ exarchs of dioceses’ at the time of the Council of Chalcedon, then, occupied a position superior to that of other metropolitans, without being equal to that of patriarchs. According to Zonaras, the metropolitan bishops of Ceesarea (in Cappadocia), Ephesus, Thessalonica, and Corinth were ‘exarchs,’ distinguished by wearing woAvoravpia (a sort of chasuble embroidered with crosses) when they officiated in church. The exarchate, however, appears to have ceased to exist, save as a title of honour, soon after the Council of Chalcedon. So far as the evidence of conciliar canons goes, the only exarchs then existing were those of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, which were all included in the patriarchate of Constantinople.
The ninth Canon of Chalcedon, therefore, really gave the archbishop of the New Rome appellate jurisdiction over the dioceses just named, the practical consequence being that the exarchic jurisdiction came to an end.
No mention, apparently, of exarchs is made in the laws of Justinian relating to clerical litigation. Again, the Council of Chalcedon, in its ninth and seventeenth Canons, had in view only the patriarch of Constantinople and the metropolitans recognized as subject to his primacy.
52 L[ntroduction IT
quite different from them, Rome, for instance, being the headquarters of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction extending over regions included in no less than three out of the four prefectures, while the bishop of Antioch, if not the bishop of Alexandria also, exercised spiritual authority in lands outside the boundaries of the Roman Emperor’s dominions’. The language of the 20th Canon of Chal- cedon, however, proves that the Fathers of Christendom had, as a rule, tended to adapt the territorial organization of the Church to that of the civil state. This appears again in the history of the see of Jerusalem or Elia Capitolina. Jerusalem was, and is, the mother-city of the Christian religion. The city was destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70, but a town of some sort formed itself after a time on the ruins of the city. It was not in Jerusalem, however, but in Casarea, the provincial capital, that Palestinian Christianity had the head- quarters of its government, even after the foundation of “lia Capitolina as a Roman colony. The Christian community in Jerusalem naturally cherished a desire to take precedence of Czsarea, but this ambition was not satisfied till the fifth century, when Jerusalem was con- stituted a ‘patriarchal’ see, the bishop of Jerusalem thenceforth having metropolitans under him, and recog- nizing only a ‘precedence of honour’ in his brethren of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, the sphere of the new patriarchal jurisdiction consisting of territories hitherto included in that of Antioch, viz. the three regions into which Palestine was then divided. This settlement was arrived at in the Council of Chal- cedon, A.D. 451. It was a compromise, for Juvenal, the
1 The jurisdiction of Alexandria extended into Abyssinia.
She
L[nutroduction LL 53
bishop of Jerusalem, who had been scheming for twenty years past to free himself from subordination to the Antiochene prelate, had claimed the region of Arabia, and part at least of Phoenicia, as his diocese’.
The title ‘patriarch’ is not found in the Canons of the first four GEcumenical Synods, but it appears, from the quotations given by M. Gedeon in the preface to his ‘Tlatpsapxexol mivaxes, to have been in use before the date of the Council of Constantinople. According to
_M. Gedeon, it was taken over by the Church from the
Old Testament (i.e. the Greek version), II. Chron. XXVi. 12, Tas 0 aplOucs TOV TaTpLapyo@V Tov SuvaTav eis TroAewov Sioxtdvoe EEaxoovo.—‘ the whole number of the chief of the fathers of the mighty men of valour was two thousand and six hundred.’ M. Gedeon might have added Acts ii, 29, ‘the patriarch David, and vii. 8, ‘Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs’; and Hebrews vii. 4, where Abraham is called ‘the patriarch. But the ecclesiastical use of the title resembles not so much the Scriptural as the use established for nearly three centuries in Jewry after the suppression of Bar-Khokba’s insurrection and the foundation of A¢lia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem. The Jews dispersed throughout the Roman Empire found a new bond of union in com-
-mon acknowledgment of the authority of a ‘patriarch’
who resided in Tiberias. This patriarch appointed subordinate ministers, among them being his envoys to the children of Israel scattered abroad in the lands of the heathen ; these envoys were called ‘apostles.’ ‘It is a singular spectacle, wrote Dean Milman, ‘to behold a nation dispersed in every region of the world, without
1 Robertson, History of the Christian Church, 11. pp. 227—229.
54 L[utroduction IT
murmur or repugnance, submitting to the regulations, and taxing themselves to support the greatness, of a supremacy which rested solely on public opinion, and had no temporal power whatever to enforce its decrees.’ The Jewish Patriarchate of Tiberias is curiously like the medizval Papacy, and the resemblance is heightened by the fact that the Jews inhabiting the lands to the east of the Roman Empire observed allegiance to a spiritual sovereign, the ‘Prince of the Captivity,’ resident in Babylon, who stood over against the Western prelate very much as the Patriarch of Constantinople over against the Popet.
The Patriarchate of Tiberias was abolished by an edict of the younger Theodosius, about A.D. 420%. By that time the title patriarch had come into accepted use among Christians, though that use was as yet not quite fixed. In the passages quoted or referred to by M. Gedeon, we find it applied by Gregory Nazianzene to his father, the bishop of Nazianzus, by Gregory Nyssene to the bishops assembled at Constantinople in the Second CEcumenical Council, by Theodosius II. to John Chrysostom and Leo of Rome. Leo is also designated ‘patriarch’ in the ‘Acta’ of the Council of Chalcedon. A passage of considerable importance in the history of the title is given at length by M. Gedeon, from the eighth chapter of the fifth book of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History. The passage runs as follows: ‘They, ie. the Council of Constantinople, ‘established
1 Milman, History of the Jews, ch. xix. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, II. 73, 74 (Bury’s ed.).
? Bingham, Antiquities, bk 11. ch. xvii. § 4 (vol. 1. p. 197. Oxford edition of 1855). Bingham seems to think that the Jewish patriarchate dated from the first century, C.E.
Po. fee
Introduction LI aS
patriarchs, among whom they distributed the provinces, so that diocesan bishops should not interfere with churches outside the limits of their jurisdiction—a matter in which irregularity had set in by reason of the persecutions. Nectarius obtained the capital (Constan- tinople) and Thrace as his portion. The patriarchate (watptapxeia) of the Pontic diocese fell to Helladius, successor of Basil in the bishopric of Czesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil’s brother, and Otreius, bishop of Melitene in Armenia. The Asian diocese was assigned to Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of the Pisidian Antioch, while the affairs of Egypt became the charge of Timothy, bishop of Alex- andria. The diocese of the East was given to the same bishops as before—Pelagius of Laodicea and Diodorus of Tarsus—under reservation of the privileges of the Church of Antioch. These were given to Meletius, who was then present?’
1 Socrates H. #. v. 8. The 150 bishops assembled at Constantinople in 381 marpidpxas karéorynoay Siavermduevor Tas érapxias, wore Tovs brép Stolknow émicxdmovs tats vmepoplos éxxAnolas wh émiBalvew, TodTo yap mporepov dia Tovs Siwyuovs éyivero ddiaddpws. Kal kAynpodrac Nexrdpios ev Tiy peyandrodu Kai Thy Opdknv > THs 5é Ilovrixijs Seouxjoews ENAdOtos 6 mera Bacikecov Kacapelas ris Kammadoxav énicxoros, I'pnydpios 6 Nvoons 6 Baothelou addedpds (Kammadoxlas dé cal nde modus), Kal ’Orphios 6 ris év ’Apuevia Medirnvijs rhy warpiapxlav éxrAnpwoaro. Thy Acravny dé \ayxavovew *Augirdxeos 6 “Ikoviov kai “Omrimos 6 ’Avrioxelas THs IIioidias. 7d dé Kara tiv Alyurrov Timodém rp ’Are~avdpelas mpoceveujOn. tav 5é Kara Thy ’Avarodny ExxAnordv Thy diolkynow Tots abrijs (adrots?) émicxdmas éwérpewar, Tledayly re T@ Aaodixeias kai Arcodwpw Te Tapood, pudrdéavres Ta mpecBeia Ty Avrioxéwy éxxAnoig, dep Tore mapbvTe MeXderly é50cav. According to this arrangement, the exarchic powers were given to commissions, of three metropolitans in the Pontic diocese, and two each in the Asian and Oriental. In the Oriental diocese, however, the bishop (patriarch) of Antioch had
56 Introduction LI
The phraseology of the Canons of the first four (Ecumenical Councils shows that, even as late as the middle of the fifth century, the usage of ecclesiastical titles was still somewhat fluctuating. Of this we have manifest proofs in the 30th Canon of the Chalcedonian Council. In this document we find it recorded that the bishops of Egypt deprecated signing ‘the letter of the most pious archbishop Leo,’ it being the custom ‘in the Egyptian diocese’ not to take such a step without the cognizance and authorization of ‘the archbishop’ (sc. of Alexandria). They therefore requested dispen- sation from subscription ‘until the consecration of him who should be dzshop of the great city of Alexandria. It seemed good to the Council that they should be allowed to wait until the “archbishop of the great city of Alexandria” should have been ordained.’ In the third Canon, again, of the Council of Constantinople, it is decreed that the dzshop of Constantinople should have the mpeoBeta tis tins after the dzshop of Rome. Similarly, the first four Councils in their Canons speak of the Antiochene prelate as ‘bishop, though the
mpeoBeta, the nature of which may be inferred from the sixth of the Nicene Canons (supra, n.2, p.44)- Theold Roman province of Syria included Cilicia, which again was subsequently included, along with Syria, in the civil diocese ‘Oriens.’ In Cilicia the chief city was Tarsus, which nevertheless, just as much as Laodicea, yielded precedence to Antioch. Here we note a close correspondence between the civil and the ecclesiastical arrangements, which John of Antioch, half a century later, would have been glad to see rounded off by the subordination of Cyprus to his see. Cyprus, however, though a province of the diocese ‘Oriens,’ remained independent in matters ecclesiastical. See Hackett, Church of Cyprus, pp. 13—21. It is curious that the bishop of Ephesus was not made one of the exarchs of the diocese Asiana.’
LIutroductzon IT 57
patriarchal title must have already been applied to him as well as to his brethren of Rome and Alexandria. In the Quinisext or Trullan Council, Theophilus of Antioch was saluted as ‘ patriarch, while in the second Canon of that Council Dionysius, Peter, Athanasius, Cyril and other prelates of Alexandria are entitled ‘archbishop,’ an honour bestowed in the same document upon Cyprian of Carthage and Basil of Caesarea. The only ‘patriarch’ mentioned in the Canon by that title is Gennadius of Constantinople.
The distribution of the Churches of Christendom into five main groups, having their respective headquarters in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jeru- salem, was an established and recognized fact from the time of the Fourth General Council (Chalcedon) onwards. It also came to be felt that the patriarchal title ought to be reserved for the bishops of the five cities just named. But while the occupants of the four Eastern centres of primacy were thenceforth constantly spoken of as patriarchs, till this became their regular designation, the bishops of Rome seem not to have greatly cared to avail themselves of their privilege in this respect. One reason, if not the reason, of this was probably the conception they held of their lawful precedence among all the chief pastors of Christendom—a conception which included much more than the Eastern prelates were willing to allow. Thus the title ‘Patriarch of Rome’ was never established in permanent use, like the titles ‘ Patriarch of Constantinople,’ ‘ Patriarch of Alexandria,’ etc., and it is quite in agreement with this fact that we find the Popes,
in later ages, claiming not merely titular or honorary
¢. 5
58 Introduction II
precedence, but actual power of jurisdiction, over the Patriarchates’.
With regard to the title ‘ Patriarch of Constantinople’ it is important to note that it is an abbreviation. The full form is ‘ Archbishop of the City of Constantine, New Rome, and QCécumenical Patriarch’ (Apyterioxotros KevotavtivouTérews, Néas ‘Popuns, cal Oirovperixos Ilatpedpyns). The first part of the title must obviously be traced back to the very earliest period in the history of ‘New Rome,’ to a time when the name ‘patriarch’ had hardly obtained a place in the official and legal vocabulary of the Church. The second part sounds as though it were an assumption of world-wide jurisdiction, and a counterblast to the Papal claim of sovereignty over the Church Catholic. Its actual origin, however, is probably to be found in the estimate not unnaturally formed, by Christians in the eastern regions of the Roman Empire, of the importance and authority of the ‘Great Church of Constantinople ’—-especially after the Empire in the West had crumbled into ruins, and Constantinople was indisputably the head of the oixoupévn, the ‘orbis terrarum’ of the Roman Empire.
1 The title of patriarch was assumed in the West by the metropolitans of Aquileia, in the latter part of the sixth century, but by no means with the consent of the Pope, or on any authority except their own. Their assumption of the title, in fact, emphasized their renunciation of the papal primacy as nullified by acceptance of the ‘ Three Capitula’ propounded by Justinian to the Council convened at Constantinople in A.D. 553. The schism between Rome and Aquileia was not finally healed till the end of the seventh century. Another western patriarchate, that of Grado (Venice), was subsequently created by the Papacy. Robertson, Héstory of the
Christian Church, U1. p. 306, note g. At the present day, the Pope numbers several patriarchs in the host of bishops subordinate to him.
Introduction IT 59
Such an estimate the ‘Great Church’ of Constantinople would hardly be disposed to call in question.
M. Gedeon observes that Theodosius II., in A.D. 438, spoke of St John Chrysostom as oixoupevixds duddoKanos. The imperial compliment, however, in all probability had reference, not to the extent of St John Chrysostom’s episcopal jurisdiction, but to the character of his doctrine, and the general esteem in which it was held. At the time of the Council of Chalcedon, certain opponents of Dioscorus referred to Pope Leo as ‘the most holy and blessed cecumenical archbishop and patriarch. This could only have meant that it was the duty and the right of the bishops of Rome to render assistance to any Christian Church ‘by heresies distressed. The same persuasion will best account for the salutation of John the Cappadocian, archbishop of the New Rome, in 518, in the letters received from certain clergy and monks of Syria, denouncing the wickedness of Severus, who then occupied the See of Antioch, but was a fautor of the Monophysite heresy. At the beginning of the sixth century, Constantinople was indubitably the head and metropolis of the o/coupévn, i.e. the dominions of the Roman Emperor, the ‘circle of lands’ Roman, Christian civilized—in those days the epithets were interchange- able—and by that time the oicoupévn was identified to a far greater extent with Eastern or Greek than with Western, Latin, Christendom. Nothing could have been more natural than the appeal for aid from the vexed orthodox clergy and monks of Syria to the archbishop of the imperial city. The defence of the oixovyévn in its political aspect—i.e. the Empire—devolved upon the monarch; similarly, the defence of the ofcouvyévy in its
5—2
60 Introduction II
spiritual or religious aspect, the Church, might be re- garded as part at least of the ‘daily charge’ of the chief pastor in ‘the house of the kingdom’*.’
1 117. Cor. xi. 28, ) émiotoracls mor 7) Kad? Huépay, ) mépiuva nacav TOV éxkAnor.
2 In order to arrive at a proper estimate of the title olkoumercxds matpudpxns, one has to ascertain as nearly as possible what meaning it was likely to convey at the time when it first came into use. It must be remembered that its local origin was the Hellenic East, and that those by whom and among whom it originated had a very different conception of ‘the world’ from ours. The imperial system occupied their mental outlook to an extent which is difficult for us to appreciate. Some light is thrown on the subject by the language of Polybius, who may be taken as a repre- sentative of Hellenism in other ages besides his own. In Polybius’ view, the Romans were already masters of the world (7 olkovuévn) when they had annihilated the power of Macedon and established their hegemony over the Hellenic commonwealths and the Hellenized kingdoms occupying the western part of Asia Minor.
‘H olkouuévy is a phrase that needs to be interpreted in accordance with its context. There are passages in which it is intended to mean the whole world, the whole earth—e.g. Ps. xviii. (xix.) 4, S. Matth. xxiv. 14, Rev. iii. 10, xii. 9, xvi. 14, S. Luke iv. 5. In other passages it has to be understood with limitations—e.g. Demosthenes, De Corona, 242, Polybius, iii. 1, vi. 1 and 50, viii. 4, Acts xi. 28, xvii. 6, xix. 27, S. Luke ii. 1.
The patriarchs of Constantinople could hardly have intended to claim an exclusive right to the use of the title ‘cecumenical.’ It was a title that any or all of the four other patriarchs could have assumed. The patriarch of Alexandria, in fact, was distinguished by the title xpirhs ris olkoupévys. According to one account, the origin of this title was the assumption by Cyril of Alexandria, at the request of Celestine, of the function of papal delegate or deputy at the Council of Ephesus in 431. This explanation, however, can hardly be reconciled with the fact that Celestine sent three representatives to that Council. Another account connects the title with the duty assigned by the Council of Nicza to the bishop of Alexandria with reference to the observation of Easter. The bishop’ of Alexandria was to notify to the bishop of Rome, year by year, the day, as ascertained by astronomical investigation, on which the next Easter festival was to be held, and the bishop of Rome was to communicate this information to the world at large. However that may be, we find no patriarch of Alexandria
Introduction II 61
Nothing, probably, was heard in Rome in 518 of the high-sounding title bestowed upon John the Cappadocian in the letter from the Syrian clergy and monastics. At any rate, no objections appear to have been made by Pope Hormisdas. Even if any had been made, very little account of them would have been taken by Justinian, who had a high-handed fashion of dealing with papal opposition. In edicts and ‘novelle’ Jus- tinian gave a legal character to the title ‘cecumenical bishop, which he bestowed upon John the Cappadocian’s successors, Epiphanius, Anthimus, Theunas and Euty- chius. It was no innovation, therefore, when the patriarch John the Faster, in A.D. 587, assumed the title, but his action provoked the severe displeasure of his contemporaries in the Roman See, Pelagius II. and Gregory the Great, who declared that such pride and self-exaltation marked a man out as a forerunner of the Antichrist. Jealousy of the pre-eminence of Constan- tinople can hardly be left out of the account in explaining the attitude taken up by Pelagius and Gregory. But in fairness to Gregory, if not to his predecessor also, it must be pointed out that he understood the title ‘cecumenical bishop’ to mean ‘sole bishop,’ implying a claim to be the fountain of episcopal authority for the whole Church, and when Eulogius of Alexandria ad- dressed him in a letter as ‘universal Pope,’ Gregory: refused the title, as enriching him unlawfully at his brother’s expense. ‘If, he said, ‘you style me universal Pope, you deny that you are a¢ a// that which you own me to ne universally?’ : | setting up a literal claim to ‘judge the world’ by 2 scape his see as the
supreme court of Christendom. . * Robertson, History of | the hry istian Church, II. Sloe:
62 Introduction If
In defence of the Constantinopolitan prelates it is urged that they never thought of claiming to be ‘cecumenical’ in the sense ascribed to the word by Pope Gregory. The claim involved in its assumption, how- ever, cannot have been less than a claim to primacy in the Roman Empire, within the pale of which, they might argue, the old imperial metropolis was no longer in- cluded, or, if it was included, its rank was that of a provincial town, of less consequence than Ravenna, where the imperial Exarch resided. One cannot help suspecting a covert design to reverse the relations of Rome and Constantinople on the strength of the political situation, and so effecting a development of the principle underlying the third Canon of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth of Chalcedon, in resisting which the Popes had a good deal of right and reason on their side. Gregory’s remonstrances and censures, however, were of no avail to the end for which they were uttered, the
persuasion of the archbishop of the New Rome to”
discard the title ‘cecumenical.’ The persistency of their eastern brethren in this matter may have been an in- ducement to Leo II. to acquiesce in the ascription of the much-disputed title of honour to him by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus in A.D. 682, and the compliment was returned a little over a century later, when the papal legate addressed Tarasius as ‘cecu- menical patriarch’ in the Second Council of Nicza, A.D. 7871. This concession, however, on the part of the Pope can hardly have been made without some counter- balancing reservation, possibly an a@ fortiort argument based on the second Canon of the Council of Constan- tinople in A.D. 381, which would have run as follows— 1 Pedalion, p. 209 n.
» <a ea
ee oe eee ee 1 i. ‘ s
Introduction LI 63
the See of Constantinople is recognized by the Canon as being next in honour and exaltation to the See of Rome; the Patriarch of Constantinople claims the title of oixovpevixds ; much more, then, may the Pope claim that title.
The explanation given by the Greeks at the present day, as set forth in the Pedalion, is the same as the explanation elicited by the criticisms of Anastasius, the Librarian of the Papal See, in the ninth century. ‘While I was residing at Constantinople, says Anastasius, ‘I often used to take the Greeks to task over this title, censuring it as a sign of contempt or arrogance. Their reply was that they called the patriarch “cecumenical” (which many render by “ universal”) not in the sense of his being invested with authority over the whole world, but in virtue of his presiding over a certain region thereof, which is inhabited by Christians. What the Greeks call wcumene is not only what the Latins call ordzs, and from its comprehensiveness, orbis wzzversalzs, but also answers to “habitatio” or “locus habitabilis.’”’ In like manner the author of the long note on the 28th Canon of Chalcedon in the Pedalion, pp. 207—209. ‘The word oixovpevixos means either of two things. First, it may be understood comprehensively in relation to the whole Church, in the sense that the cecumenical bishop is one who possesses peculiar and monarchical authority over the whole Church. Or, secondly, it means a large part of the inhabited earth. Many kings, though not lords over the whole earth, are thus entitled “masters of the world” (so, for instance, Evagrius speaks of Zeno) in so far as they have dominion over a large part of it. In
the first significance of the title, the patriarch of Con-
64 Introduction II
stantinople is never styled: “cecumenical,” nor is the patriarch of Rome, nor anyone else, save Christ alone, the true Patriarch of all the world, to whom hath been given all power in heaven and upon earth. It is in the second sense that the patriarch of Constantinople is styled “cecumenical” as having subject to his authority a great part of the world, and furthermore as being a zealous defender of the faith and the traditions of the Councils and the Fathers, not only in his own province (Svotxnors), but in the others as well.’
The meaning thus attached to the title is not very closely defined, but this lack of definiteness leaves room for considerable latitude in practical application. It enables a patriarch of Constantinople to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs outside the limits of his ordinary jurisdiction just so far as the occasion allows him to do so safely, without exposing himself to the charge either of stretching himself beyond his measure or of failing to come up to it.
In the course of more than fifteen centuries since the foundation of Constantinople, the territorial limits of the patriarch’s jurisdiction have frequently been changed. They were enlarged by Leo the Iconoclast, who with- drew Crete, Greece and Macedonia from the Roman ‘diocese’ and assigned them to that of Constantinople. From 923 to 972 Bulgaria was a separate patriarchate, in virtue of the treaty made between Romanus I. and Simeon, the king of Bulgaria. The conquest of Bul- garia by John Zimiskes in 972 deprived the Bulgarian primate of his patriarchal dignity and title, but left him ‘autocephalous,’ i.e. independent of any patriarch. About ten years later the headquarters of the Bulgarian kingdom
Introductzon II 65
were transferred to Achrida in Illyria,and with them the primatial see, the occupant of which bore the title of Archbishop of Prima Justiniana, Achrida and All Bul- garia. The measure of independence claimed for the See of Achrida was no small one, as the coronation of Theodore Angelos showed, this ceremony being per- formed by the Bulgarian primate at Thessalonica (A.D. 1222). From the early part of the thirteenth century to the time of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks there were two other independent archbishoprics in the Balkan Peninsula, viz. Pekion in Servia and Tirnova in Bulgaria. These independent jurisdictions were recog- nized by the cecumenical patriarchate as useful checks and restraints upon the archbishopric of Achrida, the attitude of which was generally one of hostility to the East-Roman Empire. They were both reincorporated in the patriarchate after the fall of Constantinople, though Pekion regained its independence for a time towards the close of the seventeenth century, only to surrender it again in 1766. In the following year the archbishop of Achrida surrendered his autonomy, and together with the bishops subordinate to him took his place under the jurisdiction of Constantinople’.
At one time the patriarch of Constantinople claimed authority over the Church of Russia, which was first founded by Greek missionaries in the tenth century.
1 Hackett, Church of Cyprus, pp. 250—283. Finlay, History of Greece, 11. 311. ‘The Arch-Bishop of Epikion in Servia, who hath 16 Bishops under him, and of Ocrida which hath 18, are not subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople’—Paul Ricaut, Zhe present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, Anno Christi 1678. Smith, Greek Church (London,
1680), pp- 73> 74.
66 Introduction II
Towards the close of the sixteenth century, when the Principality of Muscovy had become a large and power- ful empire, a new patriarchate was created, having its local habitation in Moscow. The new line of patriarchs, however, did not continue for more than I11 years, the place of the patriarch, as the chief ecclesiastical authority, being taken in the eighteenth century, in the last years of Peter the Great, by the ‘Spiritual College,’ or, as it was subsequently named, the ‘Most Holy Governing Synod,’ consisting at first of ten, subsequently of eight members}. .
1 The Russian patriarchate was first established by the patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias II., on his own initiative, in January, A.D. 1589. Jeremias was then making a tour in Muscovy, collecting the alms of the orthodox faithful for the support of the cecumenical patriarchate. A curious account of the event, written in decapentesyllabic metre, was drawn up by Arsenios, Metropolitan of Elassona, who accompanied Jeremias II. on his tour. See K. N. Satha’s biography of Jeremias II. (Athens, 1870). The last patriarch of Moscow, Adrian, died A.D. 1700. In A.D. 1721 the ‘Spiritual College’ or ‘Most Holy Governing Synod’ was instituted. The metropolitans of Kiev, Moscow, and S. Petersburg, and the ‘Exarch’ of Georgia, are ex-officio members. See Zhe Russian Church and Russian Dissent, by A. F. Heard (New York, 1887), pp. 118, 124—5, 156—7.
The Princes of Moscow assumed the title of Tsar in A.D. 1547. Their dominions at that time covered an area of about 500,000 square miles. This had been increased to 14 million square miles in 1584 (the last year of Ivan the Terrible) by conquests to the east and north, reaching beyond the Urals. In 1584, then, Moscow had become the capital of a very considerable realm, and this appears to have suggested the creation of a patriarchate for the befitting exaltation of the Church in the new Christian empire. At any rate, it was avowedly on the principle expressed in the twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon, and the third of Constantinople (A.D. 381), that the synod assembled in Constantinople in A.D. 1593 decreed that ‘the throne of the most pious and orthodox city of Moscow should be, and be called, a patriarchate (warpiapxeiov).’ See K. N. Satha, of. cit., pp. 86 and 88. This synod, however, would not allow the new patriarchate to rank third, as had been originally proposed, but appointed it to the fifth place, in order
ee a Se
Introduction If 67
‘At the beginning of the nineteenth century the jurisdiction of the cecumenical patriarch extended over the greater part of the Balkan Peninsula, and on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus and Hellespont as far as the Taurus range in the one direction and the country round Trebizond in the other. Since that time the boundaries of the patriarch’s jurisdiction have been greatly contracted by reason of the political changes which have taken place in South-eastern Europe. In Greece, Roumania, Servia and Bulgaria new states have come into existence, and so many provinces have been withdrawn from the cecumenical patriarchate. On the other hand, the Asiatic provinces remain unchanged. Crete also is still included in the patriarchate’.
not to innovate upon the ruling of the Quinisext Council in its thirty-sixth Canon. ‘The Muscovites and Russians,’ wrote Ricaut in 1678, ‘have their own Patriarch of late years, yet they acknowledge a particular respect and reverence unto the See of Constantinople, to which they have recourse for counsel and direction in all difficult points controverted in Religion.’ Ricaut, of. cit., p. 83.
1 Not only in the extent and boundaries of the patriarchal jurisdiction, but also in the number and location of metropolitan and episcopal sees included within it, have there been changes. The“Exdeovs véa ’ Avdpovixou Baotdéws, drawn up by or by order of the Emperor Andronicus I., about A.D. 1320, contains the names of 109 metropolitan sees subordinate to the throne of Constantinople. Of the see-cities mentioned in this catalogue, some have ceased to exist, and had even ceased to exist at the time when the catalogue was drawn up. The rest, for the most part, are places of no great importance. Many of the sees, again, are no longer in existence, and no less than twelve are in the kingdom of Greece and therefore no longer subject to the cecumenical throne. It should be remembered that in A.D. 1320 the boundaries of the Eastern Empire, both in Asia and in Europe, had undergone a great deal of shrinking. A catalogue of metro- politan sees existing in the patriarchate about A.D. 1640, drawn up by Philippus Cyprius, would indicate about 40 as the number of such sees at that date. The catalogue, however, is defective. It appears to have
68 Introduction IIT
In the East-Roman or ‘Byzantine’ Empire the patriarch of Constantinople was the ‘first subject of the realm.’ The exalted nature of his position was shown by the privileges which the court-etiquette conceded to him. He was the only person in the Empire to greet whom the sovereign rose from his seat. At the aroxorty, the table set apart for the Emperor in a State banquet, the patriarch was the guest most honoured and distin- guished. The two most important constituents of the State, according to the theory of the mediaeval Empire, were the Emperor and the Patriarch (ts mrodutelas Ta peyiota Kal dvayxavotata pépn Bacireds €ote Kal matptapyns)'. But just because the patriarchate was so exalted an office in the Church, and consequently in the State, the personality of its occupant could not be a matter of indifference to the temporal sovereign. To make use of the hierarchy as agents of the imperial power was one of the principles of government in the Roman Empire after it became Christian. Both the vicinity of the patriarchal residence and the imperial palace in Constantinople, and the loss of Egypt, Syria,
been originally drawn up ages before the time of Philippus Cyprius, by whom certain notes were added here and there. In it Calabria and Sicily appear as regions subject to the jurisdiction of Constantinople—a state of affairs past and over long before the seventeenth century. Thomas Smith, in his Account of the Greek Church (A.D. 1680), gives a list of 79 sees, metropolitan and diocesan taken together. There are now 74 metropolitan and 20 diocesan sees in the patriarchate. The following bishoprics, after the liberation of Greece, and in consequence of that event, were withdrawn from the patriarchal jurisdiction—viz. 1 Athens, 2 Thebes, 3 Naupactus, 4 Corfu, 5 Patras, 6 Lacedemon, 7 Argos (Nauplia), 8 Paros and Naxos, g Andros, 10 Chalcis (Eubcea), 11 Pharsala, 12 Larissa, 13 Monemvasia. These are all found in the Catalogues given by Philippus Cyprius.
1 Paparregopoulos, ‘Ieropla rod ‘EAAnvixod “EAvous, IV. pp. g—I2.
Introduction IT 69
and the West in consequence of Saracen, Lombard and Frankish aggressions, stimulated the tendency of the supreme temporal authority to influence and determine elections to the throne of St John Chrysostom. Hence the history of the relations of the two powers, the im- perial and the patriarchal, is a record, not perhaps of incessant conflict, but certainly of frequent collisions. The Emperors made no objection to having the forms of election to the patriarchal see by bishops, clergy, and people (the last being represented by the senators) observed with all due dignity, so long as the person of him who obtained election was acceptable to them. Often enough, the election was a mere formality, in which the bishops, clergy and people did not so much ratify, as testify their grateful acceptance of, an imperial nomination. But when the election escaped imperial control, great troubles were certain to arise, and while the Emperor could forcibly depose and imprison a patriarch whom he disliked, the patriarch, or on his behalf the monks, who swarmed in Constantinople, and on whose allegiance the patriarchal power was chiefly based, might by appealing to the people at large call forth turbulent demonstrations of a sort which even a strong ruler would not regard with complete indifference.
The determination of the succession by imperial influence may be said to have been the rule during the millennial existence of the East Roman Empire. After the Turkish Conquest, the patriarch became the chief of the Sultan’s Christian subjects, and his position was rather improved than otherwise, for the sovereign, though reserving power: to ratify and confirm elections, was disposed to leave those elections in other respects free.
70 Introduction IL
Formal confirmation of election had been exercised by the Christian Emperors, from whose hands the patriarchs received the Sexavixvov, or jewelled crozier symbolic of governing authority. M. Gedeon refers to Codinus and Phranza for descriptions of the ceremonies of confirma- tion and investiture’. Phranza’s account is especially interesting, as it is a record in detail of the manner in which the tradition of the Christian Emperors was perpetuated by the Mohammedan Sultans.
‘On the third day after the storming of the city, the Emir held high festival of rejoicing over his victory, and made proclamation that all, both small and great, who had concealed themselves anywhere in the city should come forth, and live in freedom and quietness, also that such as had fled from the city in fear of the siege should return, every man to his own house, and abide, every man in his occupation and religion, even as it had been aforetime. Moreover, he commanded that they should make them a patriarch in accordance with established customs, for the patriarchate was vacant. Then the bishops who chanced to be in the city, and a very few clergy of other orders, and laymen, elected to be patriarch the most learned Georgios Scholarios, who was as yet a layman, and gave him the new name of Gennadios. It was an ancient established custom of the Christian Emperors to present the newly-elected patriarch with a Sexavixtov (crozier) made of gold and adorned with precious stones and pearls, and a horse selected from the imperial stables, gorgeously harnessed with a saddle and saddle-cloth of royal splendour, white silk and gold being the material of the trappings. The patriarch
1 Gedeon, Iarpiapxexol Iivaxes, p. 27 f.
~s Oe a ae, id a
weer rr
Introduction LI 71
returned to his residence accompanied by the senate, and hailed with applauding shouts. Then he received consecration from the bishops in accordance with standing law and custom. Now the patriarch-designate used to receive the dexavixiov from the hands of the Emperor
_after the following manner. The Emperor sat on his
throne, and the whole senate was present, standing with heads uncovered. The great prototype of the palace pronounced a blessing and then recited a short series of petitions (wixpav éxtevnv), after which the grand domestic sang the canticle “Where the presence of the king is, etc. etc.” Then, from the opposite side of the choir, the lampadarios recited the “ Gloria” and “ King of heaven, etc.” The canticle being ended, the Emperor rose to his feet, holding in his right hand the dexavixvov, while the patriarch-designate, coming forward with the metro- politan of Czsarea on one side of him andthe metropolitan of Heraclea on the other, bowed thrice to the assembly, and then, approaching the sovereign, did obeisance in the manner due to the imperial majesty. Then the Emperor, raising the dexavixcor a little, said, “The Holy Trinity, which hath bestowed upon me the Empire, promoteth thee to be patriarch of New Rome.” Thus the patriarch was invested with authority by the hands of the Emperor, to whom he returned the assurance of his gratitude. Then the choirs sang “Master, long be thy days” thrice, and after that came the dismissal. The patriarch, coming down, with lights fixed in the imperial candelabra preceding him, found his horse standing ready, and mounted.
‘The infidel, therefore, being desirous to maintain, as sovereign lord of the city, the tradition of the Christian
72 Introduction II
princes, summoned the patriarch to sit at meat and confer with him. When the:patriarch arrived, the tyrant received him with great honour. There was a long conference, in the course of which the Emir made no end of his promises to the patriarch. The hour for the patriarch’s departure having come, the Emir, on giving him leave to retire, presented him with the costly dexavixvov, and prayed him to accept it. He escorted the patriarch down to the courtyard, despite his remonstrances, assisted him to mount a horse which he had caused to be made ready, and gave orders that all the grandees of the palace should go forth with the patriarch. Thus they accompanied him to the venerable Church of the Apostles, some going before and some following him. The Emir, you must know, had assigned the precincts of the Church of the Apostles for a residence?’
Phranza says that the honours, privileges, and ex- emptions conferred by Mohammed II. upon Gennadios were intended merely to serve as inducements to the Christians to settle in Constantinople, which had become a desolation. The history of the patriarchs, however, during the reign of Mohammed II.,so far as it is known, shows that if the patriarchate fell into an evil plight, this was due not so much to Turkish bad faith as to the prevalence of ‘emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, envy- ings’ among the clergy and people. ‘ Fortunati nimium, sua si bona nossent’ is the conclusion one comes to after considering, on the one hand, the ample privileges bestowed upon the patriarchate by the Turkish con-
1 Georgii Phranza Historza, 111. xi. Phranza, it should be noticed, calls Mohammed II. ‘Emir,’ not ‘Sultan.’ The title of ‘Sultan’ appears not to have been assumed by the Ottoman sovereigns till the sixteenth century.
LI[ntroduction IT 73
queror, and on the other, the restless, unsettled state of the Church of Constantinople both under him and under his successors, down to the present day, a clear token whereof is the great number of patriarchal abdications, very few of which have been purely voluntary.
The depositions were not always effected by arbitrary intervention on the part of the secular power. More than once a patriarch was deposed by a synod of metro- politans, which also passed sentence of exile upon him. The execution of the sentence would, of course, be left to the secular authorities.
No doubt much of the disquiet and disorder in the Church of Constantinople during the seventeenth century was due to Jesuit intrigues. But the efforts of the Jesuits would have been comparatively harmless had they not been assisted by the factious spirit rampant among the Greeks. The worst enemies of the Church’s peace were to be found among those who were of her own household. With regard to the Turkish Government, we may be permitted to doubt whether it stood in need of any encouragement to perpetrate acts of oppressive inter- vention, but one cannot be surprised that Sultans and Vizirs, finding themselves appealed to first by one and then by another Christian faction, should have laid hold of the opportunities gratuitously supplied them. If the - Christians showed themselves ready to buy the support of the secular power, it was not incumbent upon the secular power, alien in race and religion, to refuse to do business},
1 <The oppression which the Greeks lie under from the Turks, though very bad and dismal in itself, becomes more uneasy and troublesome by their own horrid Quarrels and Differences about the choice of a Patriarch:
c, . 6
74 Introduction II
Phranza speaks of the bestowal of the patriarchal crozier (ro Sexavixuov or Sixavixvov) as performed by Mohammed II. in imitation of his Christian predecessors. The ceremony of confirmation or investiture, as described by Phranza, appears not to have been retained in practice for very long. The escort of honour from the Porte to the patriarchal residence may have been continued, but the ceremony of the crozier appears in a document of the sixteenth century as an ecclesiastical and no longer a political one’. Moreover, it very soon became customary for the patriarchs to take presents to the Porte, instead of receiving them there. The first four patriarchs, says
- there being often times several Pretenders among the Metropolitans and Bishops, and they too making an interest, by large summs of mony, in the Vizir, or the other Bassa’s, to attain their ends. He who by his mony and his friends has prevailed...will endeavour to reimburse himself and lay the burden and debt, which he has contracted, upon the Church, which must pay for all: while the rest, who envy his preferment...unite their interest and strength to get him displaced, by remonstrating against his injustice and ill management of affairs, and put up fresh petitions to the Turks, and bribe lustily to be heard. The Turks, glad of such an opportunity of gain, readily enough admit their Complaint, and put out and put in, as they see occasion....... When I reflect upon these Revolutions and Changes, I am filled at the same time with amazement and pity, and cannot but put up this hearty prayer to Almighty God...that He would be pleased to inspire the Grecian Bishops with sober and peaceable counsels.’ Smith, Az Account of the Greek Church, pp. 80—83. Thomas Smith, B.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, was chaplain to the English Embassy at Constantinople in the reign of Charles II. From the chapter in his book, out of which the above-quoted passages are taken, it appears that he left Constantinople to return to England in 1671 or 1672. He mentions the protection given by the Embassy to the deposed patriarch Methodius IIT. in 1671.
1 Manuel Malaxos, Historia Patriarchica, p. 192 (Niebuhr. Bonn, 1839).
Introduction II 75
Manuel Malaxos!, were elected without making any present to the Sultan, but after the appointment of Mark Xylocaravis, a junta of immigrants from Trebizond -offered the Sultan a thousand florins to obtain his support of their opposition to the patriarch, whom they purposed to remove in favour of a fellow-countryman of theirs, one Symeon, a monk. According to Malaxos, ‘the Sultan laughed, and then pondered a long while, con- sidering the enviousness and stupidity of the Romans, and their ungodly ways.’ Then he confirmed an asser- tion made by them to the effect that Mark had promised a thousand florins for the confirmation of his election, though the patriarch had neither promised nor given a ‘copper. The Sultan, however, saw an opening to the establishment of such payments as a regular custom. He took the money offered by Mark’s enemies and bade them go and elect as patriarch whomsoever they would. A charge of simony was then brought against Mark, who was put on his trial before a synod, condemned, deposed and anathematized. Symeon was then elected and consecrated, but before very long was deposed by order of the Sultan. Once again money had been talking. The Sultan’s stepmother, who appears to have been a_ Christian, was desirous to promote a friend of hers, the metropolitan of Philippopolis, to honour, and at the same time put an end to the scandalous agitations of the Church caused by the strife between the factions of
x Malaxos, of. cit., p. 102. Tovra of dvwiev réooapor marpidpxat, 6 Zxordptos, 6 *Ioldwpos, 6 "Iwdcad, kai 6 RuvdroKapdBys, éywav xwpls va Sécouv Tod couvATdvou Kavéva Sdpov* pwovov eywav, KaOws Kal els Tov Katpov Ths Bacielas Trav “Pwyalwy, drod éxdpifev 6 Bacireds Tod mwarpidpxov xapicuara, Malaxos is one of the chief authorities for the history of the patriarchate in the period A.D 1450—1580.
6—z2
76 Introduction II
Symeon and Mark. She therefore brought the Sultan two thousand florins in a silver dish and told him that there was a monk who was her friend, and that she wanted to have him made patriarch. The result of the proposal was an imperial order for the deposition of Symeon, who retired to a monastery. Mark was voted by the synod assembled in the capital, to which he had appealed for revision of his sentence, to the archbishopric of Achrida. Dionysius, the protégé of the Sultan’s stepmother, occupied the throne for eight years, and then, in disgust at a false charge of apostasy, though he clearly refuted it, abdicated and retired to a monastery near Cavalla in Macedonia. The synod, in whose presence he had refuted the charge of apostasy, recalled Symeon. It was necessary, however, to make sure of the Sultan’s approval, and to this end a deputation presented itself at the Sublime Porte, bringing a thousand florins, and so carrying out in act the charge laid in word against Mark Xylocaravis. But the Defterdar rejected their petition and the proffered douceur. There was an entry in the imperial accounts, he said, showing that the proper amount of the fee was two thousand florins. This, of course, referred to the transaction between the Sultan and his stepmother. Of this matter the members of the synod possibly had no knowledge at the time, but whether they had or not made no difference. There was nothing for it but to sponge up another thousand florins, ‘which being done, says Malaxos, ‘the Defterdar ceased from troubling?’ Thus an evil precedent was set, and henceforth every patriarch was expected to pay a fee for the imperial
1 Malaxos, p. 112. Kal &r{n elpivevoev 6 revreprépns.
—_ ar . '
Lntroduction IT 77
confirmation of his election. To this burden another was added by the reckless ambition of a Servian monk, Raphael by name, who procured the final dethronement of Symeon by the conversion of the investiture fee of 2000 florins into an annual ‘ kharaj’ or tribute, the amount of the investiture-fee being now fixed at 500 florins’. It was not to be expected, however, that these amounts should never be exceeded. By the time of Jeremias IT.’s first election to the patriarchate, viz. A.D. 1572, the investiture fee (7ecxéovov as Malaxos calls it) was 2000 florins, while the annual ‘kharaj’ had risen to 4100. In A.D. 1672, as we learn from Paul Ricaut, the English Consul at Smyrna, the debts of the patriarchate amounted
_ to 350,000 piastres, equal to more than £40,000 at the
present day; ‘the interest of which increasing daily, and rigorously extorted by the Power of the most covetous and considerable Turkish officers, who lend or supply the Money, is the reason and occasion that the Patriarch so often summons all his Archbishops and Bishops to appear at Constantinople, that so they may
1 Malaxos, l. c. “Exawe 5¢ 6 abros marpidpxns [dnr. 6 Lupedv] els Tov Opdvov xpdvous Tpeis, kal érépva elpnuikds...auh POovicas TovTo 6 Tv cxavddduwr apxnyos kal éxOpos judy Trav Xproriavev, 6 didBoros, xal epavy eis THv wéow vas iepoudvaxos, dvduare ‘Pagar, Tod drolov Arov 7 twatplda Tov ard THv ZepBlay, kai elxe weyddnv pirlay kal rappyolay eis Thv répra Tod covdTdvov, Esovtas omwod dydmow avrov oi maciddes. xal...bmiye Kal émpooxivnow avrovs, Kal...€cuuduvyce kal €oreptev Gre va Sider Tov Kabev xpbvov els Thy mwopra Tov govATdvov xapdrfiov prwpia xiuddas dvo. Kal 7d mweoKéo.ov Exauav va didera dwdray ylvera véos warpidpyns. dkovcavres 5é ro0ro oi maciddes €d€xOncav tov ‘Papahd Tov Pirov adrav domraclws, Kal avagpopay. iyyouv apr én wept robrov T@ covATavw éxapav. Kal dxovcas TooTo éxdpn tro\Na, kal év T@ Gua €dwkev dpioudv, kal etyaday rov adbrov kipw Cvuecw awd Too matpiapxixod @pdvov. See also the Historia Patriarchia, pp. 156, 157, 170, 176, 177, and 193; Historia Politica, p. 43, in the same volume of the Corpus Scriptorum Historie Byzantine, Bonn,.1849.
78 Introduction [1
consult and agree on an expedient to ease in some measure the present Burden and Pressure of their Debts ; the payment of which is often’the occasion of new Demands: For the Turks, finding this Fountain the fresher, and more plentifully flowing for being drained, continually suck from this Stream, which is to them more sweet, for being the Blood of the Poor, and the life of Christians!’ It was, after all, not so much on the dignitaries and authorities of the Orthodox Church, as upon the parish priests and the poor among the people generally, that the fiscal burdens pressed most heavily. The most helpless had to suffer most. What help, indeed, could they expect when their chief shepherds became robbers?
With ironical respect the Orthodox laity, under the Turkish régime, spoke of their bishops as ‘ dea7oTades’’— despots. The powers enjoyed by the episcopal order, whose members were made use of by the temporal power as agents of police, were so considerable as to make even an ordinary bishopric an appointment to be coveted—still more a metropolitan see, and most of all the patriarchate’, Even apart from the financial oppor- tunities, in the use of which a patriarch or metropolitan could rely on secular assistance, the dignity and honour of ‘chief seats in the synagogue’ must always have had
1 Ricaut, of. czt. 97—99.
2 ‘The patriarch and the bishops purchased their dignities, and repaid themselves by selling ecclesiastical rank and privileges; the priests purchased holy orders, and sold licenses to marry. The laity paid for marriages, divorces, baptisms, pardons, and dispensations of many kinds to their bishops. The extent to which patriarchs and bishops interfered in family disputes and questions of property is proved by contemporary documents.’ — Finlay, History of Greece, V. p. 156, cf. p. 150.
I[nutroduction II 79
considerable attraction for the Greeks, who, even after the Turkish Conquest, esteemed themselves the first of nations. Add to these conditions and circumstances the spirit of jealousy which has been, and still is, the bane of the race—the spirit which gives a Greek army so many generals and so few soldiers*—and it is not hard to understand why changes in the occupancy of the patriarchate of Constantinople have been so numer- ous and frequent®.
Finlay compares the part played by the Sultans in patriarchal elections with that of the sovereigns of England in appointments to the archbishopric of Canterbury. This comparison, however, is not quite accurate. As a rule, the Sultans have not nominated the successive occupants of the patriarchal throne. Under the Ottoman sovereigns, elections have, if anything, been more free than under their Christian predecessors. But the Padishah must have a list of ‘papabili’ sent to him, whenever a vacancy occurs in the patriarchate, and he influences the election by noti- fying to the synod of the ‘Great Church’ the names of those whom he does zo¢ wish to see elected. In any case, it is in his power to nullify an election by refusing the necessary ‘berat’ to the patriarch-designate. The delivery of this document is the formality by which the Sultan confirms the election, invests the person elected with the temporalities of the patriarchal see, and licenses
1 Finlay, op. czt., V. p. 122.
2 ’AueiBero T'édwv rotcde: ‘Reive ’AOnvaie, bucts olkare Tovs wev dpxovras éxew, rovs d€ dptoudvous otk efew.’ Hdt. vil. 162. The Athenians, however, showed a better spirit at Platezea—see Hdt. 1x. 27 ad fin.
3 Finlay finds that ‘mutual distrust was a feature in the character of the higher clergy at Constantinople,’ of. cit. v. 149.
80 I[utroduction IT
him to exercise his spiritual authority. Above and beyond all this, the autocratic nature of the Sultan’s sovereignty enables him to force a resignation or synodical dethronement whenever he thinks fit. Under an absolute despotism like the Sultanate, the ultimate ground of the patriarch’s tenure of office must necessarily be the sovereign’s pleasure.
The principle was clearly laid down by the Council of Antioch in the fourth century that in every province the metropolitan and his comprovincials must work in concert and by mutual counsel. In the same way, it is a recognized principle of Church government in Or- thodoxy that the patriarch should work in concert with his metropolitans. The records of the patriarchate contain evidence enough and to spare that this principle has been, under the Turkish végzme at any rate, con- stantly observed. In the latter part of the nineteenth 3 century its observation was brought under the rule that there should always be twelve metropolitans present in the capital to form the ‘perpetual’ or ‘standing ad- ministrative council!’ These twelve metropolitans are
1 A similar arrangement appears to have been in existence in the seventeenth century. ‘The patriarch, in the determination of causes brought before him, has the assistance of twelve of the chief Officers belonging to the Patriarchal Church and dignity. These also assist the Archbishop of Heraclea in vesting and crowning him at his Inauguration, and still retain the same high titles as they did before the Turks came among them. These are as it were his standing Council, to whom he refers the great affairs and concerns of religion.” Thomas Smith, Greek Church, p. 78. The officials of the patriarchate, however, would be priests, not bishops. A long list of them is given in the ‘Euchologion,’ pp. 686 f. (Venice, 1891), together with a description of their several functions. More than one of these titles, by its very form, shows that the patriarchate must have paid the imperial court the sincere compliment
‘
——_
Introduction IIT 81
not always the same, for six retire every year, having held office as members of the synod or council for two years, and their places are taken by six others. Each of the metropolitans subordinate to the cecumenical throne takes his place on the synod in his turn, according to seniority. It is not, therefore, the patriarch alone, but rather the patriarch in synod, by whom the chief authority in matters ecclesiastical is exercised in the provinces of the Constantinopolitan Church.
This perpetual administrative synod of the patriarch- ate must be distinguished from the synod which elects the patriarch. The latter consists of lay representatives
of imitation. There can be no doubt as to the origin of such titles as
-Wpwrovordpios, KaoTphvovos, pepevddpios, Noyobérys, Souéotixos, SewouTaros,
KkouBovKAns.
1 M. Gedeon, in the preface to his Ilarpuapxixol Illvaxes, gives an outline of the history of procedure in elections to the patriarchal throne. Nestorius I., successor of Gregory Nazianzen (A.D. 381), and Proclus (A.D. 434), were examples in an early period of succession by virtue of the Emperor’s nomination. Chrysostom’s election is described by Socrates, H. E. Vi. 2. Yndlopari xow@ 6uod mdvrwv, Krjpov te Pnul kal daod, 6 Bactreds abrov ’Apkddios weraméumerar. dia d€ 7d détdmiorov THs xeLporovias Taphoay €x Baoiikod mpootdyuaros modXol Te Kal dANow érloKorot, Kal 57 kai 0 ris “Ade~avdpelas Oedpiros, Saris crovdyv érlBero Siac’par mev Thy *Iwdvvov dbgav, "Ioldwpov dé bm’ adte mpecBiTepov mpds tiv émioxowny tpoxetploagba...oi pévrot Kara Ta Baclirtera Tov "Iwdvynvy mpoéxpwar. Ered) 5é Karnyoplas Kara Oeodpidov moddol dvexivovy...6 mpoecrws Tod Bacthixod KoirGvos Evrpémios \aBav ras éyypdgous xarnyoplas éméderte TH Geogiry, eimav émioynv exew A xetporovety "Iwdvynvy 4 tras Kar’ avbroo Karnyoplas eis EXeyxov dyecOar. Tatra poBndels 6 Oeddiros Tov "Iwdvyny éxetporévnoe. Chrysostom was accordingly consecrated on the 23rd of February, A.D. 398. Germanus was translated from Cyzicus in A.D. 715 Yidw Kal Soxiwacig trav OeoceBecrdrwy mpecBurépwr Kal diaxdvwv Kai mayvTos TOU evaryols KAnpov Kal THs lepas ovyKArrov (Gedeon, p. 16, referring to Scarlati Vizandio, Comstantinopfolis). Leo the Iconoclast seems to have accepted this election without any difficulty, though he found a
82 Introduction LI
as well as of clergy, thus maintaining the old tradition of election by the clergy and people of Constantinople— a tradition which has probably been better observed since the Turkish Conquest than it was previously. In theory, the designation of the patriarch by the votes of
vigorous opponent in Germanus, who, however, resigned in A.D. 730. Anastasius (730—754), Constantine II. (754--766) and Nicetas (766—780), all of them elxovoudyor, were court-nominees. Nicephorus I. (A.D. 806— 815), according to Theophanes was elected Wip~y mavros Tov Naod Kal r&v lepéwv, mpos dé xal Baoiiéwy. The imperial will determined the alternations in Photius’ patriarchal career (857—867 and 878—886). M. Gedeon says that xara PeBpovapioy rod 1059 6 avbroxparwp "Iodaxtos 6 Kouvnvds, yoy Tav apxvepéwy kal Tod aod, dvdderéev olkoumercxdy marpiapxnv Tov ebvodxXor kal povaxdv Kwvoravrivov Aevxovdnv, dddoTe mpwroBecridprov Kal mpbedpov ris avyk\jrov. In November, 1058, Isaac Comnenus had deposed the famous Michael Cerularius. John VIII. (Xiphilinos) was ‘called by the Emperor Constantine Ducas to succeed Constantine III.’ in 1064, kat mavres érevphioav els Thy Whpov. Germanus II. (1222—1240) is described as mpoBdnOels marpiapxns vrd Tod abroxparopos "Iwavvov Aovka Tod Bararsn. On the death of Callistus II. in 1397, Matthew I. Wigdyw ris cuvddou kal mpoBrjce. TOO abroxpdropos éxhéyerar duddoxos. See Gedeon, Ilarp. Ilw., pp- 14-16, 255, 259, 262, 263, 268, 282, 290, 322, 327, 328—9, 384, 458. In the Astoria Patriarchica, pp. 104—107, and the Historia Politica, pp. 39—41, we have instances of the Turkish sovereign putting down one and setting up another patriarch, using the bishops and clergy as his instruments. Theoleptos, about A.D. 1514, got himself forced upon the patriarchate by an imperial berat. In 1741, Sultan Mahmud I. issued a firman regulating procedure in patriarchal elections. One requirement was, that testimony to the character of the person elected should be given by the metropolitans of Heraclea, Cyzicus, Nicomedia, Nicza, and Chalcedon (the ‘yépovres’ as they came to be commonly called), otherwise the election would be treated as invalid. M. Gedeon refers in this connection to Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. 111. 3, where it is recorded that the Arians objected to the appointment of Paul the Confessor (circ. A.D. 340) on the ground that it had taken place rapa yvwunv EvoeBlov rod Nixoundelas émioxdmov kal Qcodwpou Tod Tis év Opaxy ‘Hpaxneias, ols ws yelroow H xetporovia duépepe. —Another imperial firman, issued by Mustapha II. in 1759, required the . announcement of elections by means of a sealed report from the electors.— This method of announcing elections is still followed. The firman also
a
Introduction IT 83
an assembly representing the whole Christian population of Constantinople, Roumelia and Asia Minor is admir- able’. In practice, it has been execrable, simply because of the unlimited licence given to ambition and covetous- ness. Yet even without the disturbing influence of Mohammedan sovereignty these corrupt passions make themselves felt with destructive effect, as witness the events of the last few years in Cyprus, where party strife has kept the archiepiscopal throne vacant from the summer of 1900 to I9g09.
Monastics alone are eligible to the episcopate in the Orthodox Church, and the patriarchal residence in Constantinople may be regarded as a monastery, of which the patriarch is the abbot. Since the beginning of the seventeenth century the Church of St George, in the Fanar quarter on the Golden Horn, has been the patriarch’s cathedral. This Church occupies the site of the monastery known as the Petrion or Paulopetrion, which was in existence in the reign of Irene in the
required that every patriarch should pay the expenses of his election, which in the eighteenth century were known to run up on occasion to as much as 50,000 piastres (£6,000). Until 1860 ex-metropolitans and ex-bishops, as well as metropolitans and bishops év évepyelg, used to take part in elections, but since that date the representatives of the episcopal order are all metropolitans. There are now four stages in the process of election;
(i) voting by a ‘convention’ of the metropolitans residing in the capital for
the time being, of lay representatives, and plenipotentiaries representing twenty-six of the metropolitical sees; (2) submission of the list of ‘ papabili’ to the Porte; (3) election of ¢hree from the list as emended by the secular authorities; (4) election of the successor from these three, by the metro- politans present.
1 The lay electors especially represent Constantinople. The metro- politans who take part, either on the spot, or by sending sealed votes, represent the provinces. M. Gedeon observes that the electors must be native subjects of the Sultan.
84 Introduction If
eighth century, and was for many years the retreat of the Empress Theodora in the eleventh. It is not a large building, and externally has no beauty to recommend it. Within, the chief and almost the only adornments of any merit are the iconostasion and the pulpit, works of art which Mr Hutton, one of the most recent historians of Constantinople, assigns to the seventeenth century’. Most of the buildings of the ‘patriarcheion’ stand to the west of the church, on ground which rises somewhat steeply—a circumstance which enables the group to make somewhat more of a display than might otherwise have been the case. There is no magnificence, however, about the residence of the most notable ecclesiastic in all Orthodox Chris- tendom—nothing to parallel St Peter’s and the Vatican. The difference between the housing of the chief pastors of the Old and the New Rome, the ‘servus servorum Dei’ and the ‘ occoupevexos tratptapyns, is fairly measured by the apparent difference in character between their titles.
Originally, the patriarchal residence was in the neighbourhood of Santa Sophia. After the conquest of the city, Mohammed II. assigned the Church of the Holy Apostles, the burial place of Theodora the wife of Justinian, to Gennadios, but the patriarch, finding the neighbourhood but scantily inhabited by Christians, obtained leave to move his residence to the Church of the Pammakaristos (a special title of the Virgin Mary), which was the cathedral church of the patriarchate for 130 years, viz. A.D. 1456—1586. The Church of the
1 Constantinople in the series of ‘Medieval Towns’ (London: J. M. Dent); by the Rev. W. H. Hutton, B.D.
Introduction II — 85
Apostles was demolished to make room for the mosque which by its name preserves the memory of Mohammed the Conqueror of Constantinople. In 1586 the Sultan took possession of the Pammakaristos Church and turned it into a mosque. The patriarchal cathedra was then placed for a short time in the church of the ‘Panagia of Consolation’ or ‘Healing’ (Ilavayia ris Ilapapv0ias or @eparreias), after which it was removed to the Church of St Demetrius in Xyloporta, and thence, in 1601, to its present place’. A few icons, books and relics were brought away from the Pammakaristos, and finally deposited in the Church of St George. ‘That which they most esteem, wrote Thomas Smith, chaplain to the Embassy, about 1670, ‘is a piece of black Marble; as they pretend, part of that Pillar which formerly stood in the Pretorium or Hall of Pontius Pilate, to which our Blessed Saviour was tied, when he was whipped; about two foot long, and three or four inches over,... inclosed in brass lattice Grates, that it may not receive prejudice either from devout or sacrilegious persons. For they have a strong imagination, that the dust raised from it, and put into wine, or any way conveyed into the stomach, cures Agues and Fevers almost infallibly. In a brass plate under it I found these six Verses engraven, alluding to the tradition I just now men- tioned, which they believe as undoubtedly as if it were Gospell.
Norov dédaxas eis pdorvyas, Iavrapya,
Kai mpdowmroy eis paricpdrov vBpiv.
2Hv paotiywow mporpépw cor, oiktippor,
1 Hutton, Costantinople, p. 155. K.N. Satha, Zyedlacua mept "lepeutov Tod B’, cen. 00’—7’.
86 Introduction II
"Iv thes poe ein AaTpevovTi cot, ‘ , U > > ~ > , Kai paorvyds oov €€ €uov amootyons.
Tlavayiotns Nixdovos evxerar.—!’
In this Church of St George the patriarchs of Con- stantinople have been formally enthroned for the last three centuries. As the patriarchs are now, and have been for a long time past, taken from the metropolitan episcopate, there is no need of yesporovia or consecration properly so called. In case of one not already conse- crated to the episcopate being elected patriarch, the chief consecrator would be the metropolitan of Heraclea (Erekli on the Sea of Marmora), the origin of whose prerogative lies in the fact that Byzantium, at the time when selected by Constantine to be made the new imperial capital, was included in the district of which Heraclea was the chief town®. Even when there is no need of yewporovia, it is the peculiar function of the metropolitan of Heraclea to place in the hands of the patriarch-designate the dexavixiov, dixavixiov or mate- pitoa, as the patriarchal crozier, a staff terminating in two serpents’ heads, is variously termed. This symbol of archipcemenical authority is not indeed the peculiar badge of the patriarch’s dignity. Serpent-headed croziers
1 Thomas Smith, Greek Church, pp. 60—61.
2 Gedeon, p. 49. On p. 282, however, in a note, M. Gedeon points out that there have been occasions when the consecration has been per- formed by another prelate. Photius, for instance, had Gregory of Syracuse for his chief consecrator. Photius was a layman at the time of his election, as were also Nectarius (A.D. 381), Paul ILI. (A.D. 686), Tarasius (A.D. 784), Nicephorus I. (A.D. 806), Sisinnius IT. (A.D. 995) and perhaps John XIII. (A.D. 1315). It was not until after the death of Mohammed II. in 1481 that the practice of translation from a metropolitan see became regularly established. In the course of eleven centuries, under the Christian Emperors, there were not'so many as twenty instances of translation.
Introduction IT 87
are carried by the Orthodox episcopate generally, with one notable exception, viz. the Archbishop of Cyprus, whose pastoral staff terminates in a globe. The serpents’ heads on the pateritsa remind one of the caduceus of Mercury, and the possibility of a connection between the pateritsa and the caduceus is strongly suggested by the fable preserved in the Astronomia of Hyginus. According to this story, Mercury once found two snakes fighting, and separated them with his wand. Thence- forth his wand or staff, encircled or twined about by two snakes, became an emblem of peace’. This fable is no doubt only a piece of ‘ztiology’ designed to account for the fact that the snake-entwined staff was a peaceful emblem. Christian bishops, claiming to stand in the apostolical succession, would have the right to style - themselves ambassadors of Christ and messengers of peace’, and their custom of carrying a serpent-headed staff may have originated from some pictorial repre- sentation of Christ, or the Apostles, carrying the caduceus as the emblem of reconciliation between God and mankind.
Hy TE DUEK WOR EH:
1 Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities (Smith’s, second edition), art. Caduceus. 241. Cor. v. 20. vmép Xpitrod ofv mpecBevouer, ws rod Ocod mapa- Kadobvros dv hudv: deducda brép Xpicrod, kataddaynte TH Oew.
on
THE PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE
In the first column is given the name of the Patriarch: in the second the date of his Patriarchate: the third shows the page on which his life is narrated in M. I. Gedeon’s Harpiapxexoi Iivakes, royal 8vo, Constantinople, 1890, and the fourth how his official life
closed.
oC;
Acacios 471—489 198
Agathangelos 1826—1830 688 | deposed
Alexandros 325—340 108
Alexios 1025—1043 S17
Alypios 166—-169 94
Anastasios 730—754 259
Anatolios 449—4538 188
Andreas, ap. 82
Anthimos I 536 223 | deposed
Anthimos II 1623 552 | resigned _ Anthimos III 1822—1824 686 | deposed
Anthimos IV 1840, 4I 694 | deposed
Anthimos IV? 1848— 1852 698 | deposed
Anthimos V 1841, 42 694
Anthimos VI 1845—1848 697 | deposed
Anthimos VI? 1853—1855 699
Anthimos VI 1871—1873 705 | resigned
Antonios I 821---832 273
Antonios II 893—895 294
Antonios III 974— 980 310 | resigned
Antonios IV 1389, 90 448 | deposed
Antonios IV? 139I—-1397 449
Arsacios 404, O05 161
Arsenios 1255—1260 389 | resigned
Arsenios? 1261—1267 392 | deposed
Athanasios I 1289— 1293 402 | resigned
Athanasios I? 1303—I3I1I 405 | resigned
Athanasios II 1450 467 | resigned
Athanasios III 1634 559 | deposed
Athanasios III? 1652 580 | resigned
Athanasios IV 1679 602 | deposed
Athanasios V 1709—1711 619 | deposed
Athenodoros 144—148 92
Atticos 406— 425 164
go The Patriarchs of C onstantinople
Basileios I 970—974 309 | deposed Basileios II 1183—1187 371 | deposed Callinicos I 693—-705 253 | blinded Callinicos II 1688 607 | deposed Callinicos II? 1689— 1693 609 | deposed Callinicos II 1694—-1702 611
Callinicos III 1726 627
Callinicos IV 1757 648 | deposed Callinicos V 1801—1806 679 | deposed Callinicos V? 1808, 09 681
Callistos I 1350—1354 426 | deposed Callistos I* 1355—1363 429
Callistos II 1397 456
Castinos 230—237 97
Chariton ¥177,;-76 369 Chrysanthos 1824—1826 687 | deposed ; Clemes 1667 592 | deposed
Constantinos I
Constantinos II Constantinos III Constantinos IV
674—676 248 754—766 262 1059—1063 327 1154—1156 | 359
blinded and beheaded
Constantios I 1830—1834 689 | resigned Constantios II 1834, 35 692 | deposed Cosmas I 1075—1081 333 | resigned Cosmas II 1146, 47 353 | deposed Cosmas III 1714—1716 621 | resigned Cyprianos I 1708, 09g 617 | resigned Cyprianos I? 1713; 14 621 | resigned Cyriacos I 214-—230 96
Cyriacos II 595— 606 236
Cyrillos I 1612 547 | resigned Cyrillos I? 1621—1623 550 | deposed Cyrillos I 1623— 1630 553 | deposed Cyrillos I* 1630—1634 556 | deposed Cyrillos 15 1634, 35 560 | deposed Cyrillos I® 1637, 38 562 | drowned Cyrillos II 1632 558 | deposed Cyrillos II? 1635, 36 560 | deposed Cyrillos II* 1638, 39 567 | deposed Cyrillos III 1652 579 | deposed Cyrillos III? 1654 582 | deposed Cyrillos IV 1711I—1713 620 | deposed Cyrillos V 1748—1751 641 | deposed Cyrillos V? 1752—1757 644 | deposed Cyrillos V1 1813—1818 683 | resigned and killed Cyrillos VII 1855—1860 699 | deposed Cyros 705—7II 254 | deposed
The Patriarchs of Constantinople
Demophilos Diogenes Dionysios I Dionysios II Dionysios II? Dionysios III Dionysios IV Dionysios 1V? Dionysios IV? Dionysios IV4 Dionysios IV Dometios Dositheos Eleutherios Epiphanios Esaias Euagrios Eudoxios Eugenios | Eugenios II
' Euphemios
Eusebios Eustathios Eustratios Euthymios I Euthymios II Eutychios Eutychios? Euzoios
Felix _Flavianos Gabriel I Gabriel II Gabriel III Gabriel 1V Gennadios I Gennadios II Georgios I Georgios II Gerasimos I Gerasimos II Gerasimos III Germanos I Germanos I] Germanos III Germanos IV Germanos IV?
369—379 I114—129 1467—1472 1537 1543—1555 1662— 1665 1671—1673 1676—1679 1683, 84 1686, 87 1693 272— 303 LIL, 92 129—136 520—5 36 1323—1334 369, 70 360—369 237—242 1S21,)-22 490—496 341, 342 1OIQ—1025 1081— 1084 g06—9gII I410—I1416 552-565 577—582 148 —154 136—I41 447—449 1596 1657 1702—1707 1780—1785 458—47I 1454—1456 678-—683 1192—I1199 1320, 21 1673—1675 1794— 1797 715—730 1222—1240 1267 1842—1845 1852, 53
126
deposed
deposed deposed deposed deposed deposed deposed deposed deposed
deposed
deposed
deposed Arian
deposed deposed
deposed
killed
deposed
resigned deposed
deposed resigned resigned
deposed deposed
QI
92 The Patriarchs of Constantinoble
Gregorios I (Theologos) Gregorios I] (Cyprius) Gregorios III Gregorios IV Gregorios V Gregorios V? Gregorios V3 Gregorios VI Gregorios VI? Hieremias I Hieremias I? Hieremias I® Hieremias II Hieremias II? Hieremias II? Hieremias III Hieremias III? Hieremias IV Ignatios Ignatios? Isaac Isidoros I Isidoros II Iacobos! Iacobos? Iacobos? Ioakim I Ioakim I? Ioakim II Ioakim II? loakim III Ioannes I (Chrysostom) Ioannes II Ioannes III Ioannes IV Ioannes V Ioannes VI Ioannes VII loannes VIII Ioannes IX Ioannes X Ioannes XI Ioannes XII Ioannes XIII
379—381 1283—1289 1443—1450
1623 1797, 98 1806—1808 1818—1821 1835—-1840 1867— 1871 1520—1522 1523—1527 1537—1545 1572—1579 1580—1584 1586—1595 1716—1726 1733 1809—1813 846—857 867—878 1630 1347—1350 1456—1463 1679— 1683
1685, 86
1687, 88 1498—1502
1504, O5 1860--1863 1873—1878 1878— 1884
398—404
518—520
566—597
582—595
668—674
711I—715
832—842 1064—1075 IITI—1134 1199—1206 1275—1282 1294—1303
1315
128
resigned
resigned deposed deposed deposed deposed hanged
deposed resigned deposed deposed
deposed deposed
deposed deposed resigned deposed
deposed resigned
deposed deposed resigned deposed resigned resigned
deposed
deposed
resigned deposed resigned resigned
ia. Te
The Patriarchs of Constantinople
Ioannes XIV Ioannikios I Ioannikios II Ioannikios II? Ioannikios II% Ioannikios II? Ioannikios III Ioasaph I Ioasaph II Ioseph I Ioseph II Laurentios Leon
Leontios Lucas Macarios Macarios? Macedonios I Macedonios I? Macedonios II Manuel I Manuel II Marcos I Marcos II Malthaios I Malthaios II Malthaios II? Maximianos Maximos I Maximos II Maximos III Maximos IV Meletios I Meletios II Meletios III Menas Methodios I Methodios II Methodios III Metrophanes I Metrophanes II Metrophanes III Metrophanes III? Michael I Michael II Michael III Michael IV
1334—1347 1522, 23 1646—1648 1651, 52 1653, 54 1655, 56 1761—1763 1464—1466 1555—1565 1268—1275 1416—1439 154—166 1134—I143 1190, 91 1156—1169 1376—1379 1399, 91 342—348 350—360 496—5II I1215—1222 1244—1255 198—2I1I 1466, 67 1397—I410 1595 1599—1602 431—434 381 1255 1476—1482 149I1—1497 $597-.1599 1768, 69 1845 536—552 842—846 1240 1668—1671 ot 5-325 1440—1443 1565—1572 1579, 80 1043—1058 1143—1146 1169—1177 1206—1I212
420 502 574
deposed deposed deposed resigned deposed deposed deposed deposed deposed
deposed
deposed deposed deposed
deposed
deposed
resigned resigned
deposed deposed
locum tenens deposed
resigned
deposed deposed
resigned
93
94 The Patriarchs of Constantinople
Nectarios Neilos Neophytos I Neophytos II Neophytos II? Neophytos III Neophytos IV Neophytos V Neophytos VI Neophytos VI? Neophytos VII Neophytos VII? Nephon I Nephon II Nephon II? Nephon II? Nestorios Nicephoros I Nicephoros II Nicetas I Nicetas II Nicolaos I Nicolaos I? Nicolaos II Nicolaos III Nicolaos IV Olympianos Onesimos Pachomios I Pachomios I? Pachomios II Paisios I Paisios I? Paisios II Paisios II? Paisios II® Paisios II* Parthenios I Parthenios II Parthenios II? Parthenios III Parthenios IV Parthenios IV? Parthenios IV% Parthenios I V4 Parthenios IV® Paulos I
381—397 1380—1 388 1153 1602, 03 1607— 1612 1636, 37 1688, 89 1707 1734—1740 1743, 44 1789—1794 1798— 1801 I131I—1314 1486—1489 1497, 98 1502 428—431 806—815 1260, 61 766—780 1187—1190 895—906 QII—925 984—995 1084—I111 1147—I151 187—198 54—68 1503, 04 1505—1514 1584, 85 1652, 53 1654, 55 1726—1733 1740—1743 1744—1748 1751, 54 1639—1644 1644, 45 1648-1651 1656, 57 1657—1662 1665—1667 1671 1675, 76 1684, 85 349, 41
133 440 358 542 545 561
deposed deposed deposed resigned deposed deposed deposed deposed deposed deposed resigned deposed deposed resigned deposed deposed
deposed deposed
resigned
deposed poisoned
resigned resigned deposed deposed resigned deposed
deposed poisoned
resigned
deposed deposed deposed deposed
The Patriarchs of Constantinople
Paulos I? Paulos I Paulos II Paulos III Paulos IV Pertinax Petros Philadelphos Philotheos Philotheos? Photios Photios? Phravitas Plutarchos Polycarpos I Polycarpos II Polyeuctos Probos Proclos Procopios Pyrrhos Pyrrhos? Raphael I Raphael II Ruphinos Samuel Samuel? Sedekion Seraphim I Seraphim II Sergios I Sergios II Sisinios I Sisinios II Sophronios I Sophronios II Sophronios III Stachys Stephanos I Stephanos II Symeon Symeon? Tarasios Theodoros I Theodoros I? Theodoros II Theodosios I
342—344 348—350 641 —652 686—693 780—784 169—187 652—664 211—214 1354, 55 1364—1376 857867 878—886 489, 90 89—105 71—89 I14I—144 956—970 303—315 434—447 1785---1789 638—641 651, 52 1475, 76 1603—1607 283, 84 1763—1768 1773, 74 105—-114 1733, 34 1757—1761 610—638 999—I019 425—427 995—998 1463, 64 1774—1780 1863—-1866 38—54 886—893 925—928 1472—1475 1482—1486 784—806 676—678 683—686 1213—I215 1178—1183
117 11g 243
deposed strangled
resigned
resigned
deposed deposed
deposed deposed
deposed deposed
deposed deposed
deposed deposed
deposed deposed Rom. xvi. 9 resigned
deposed deposed
deposed
95
96 The
Theodosios II Theodotos I Theodotos II Theoleptos I Theoleptos II Theophanes I Theophanes II Theophylactos Thomas I Thomas II Timotheos I Timotheos II Titos Tryphon
The Patriarchs who (in the Synaxaristes, G. Ch. Raphtane,
Patriarchs of Constantinople
1769—1773 815—821 II51—-1153 1514—1520 1585, 86 1596, 97 1657 933—956 607—610 665—668 511—548 1612—1621 242—272 g28—931
661 272 357 499 528 538 587 393 237 246 215 549
97 300
deposed
deposed deposed
poisoned
deposed
Zante, 1868) are numbered with the Saints—oi év rois ‘Ayiou—are
Alexander Anastasios Anatolios Antonios III Arsakios Athanasios Atticos Callinicos Callistos Castinos Constantinos Cosmas Cyriacos Cyros Epiphanios Eutychios Flavianos Gennadios I Georgios I Germanos I Gregorios I Ignatios Ioannes I Ioannes II Ioannes III Ioannes V
August 30 February 10 July 3 February 12 October 11 October 28 January 8 August 23 June 20 January 25 July 29 January 2 October 27 January 8 August 25 April 6 February 16 November 17 August 18 May 12 January 30 October 23 November 13 August 25 & 30 February 21 August 18
Ioseph I Leon Macedonios II Maximianos Maximos I Menas Methodios I Metrophanes I Nectarios Nephon II Nicephoros I Nicolaos II Nicolaos III Paul I
Paul II Photios Polyeuctos Proclos Sisinios I Stachys Stephanos I Stephanos I] Tarasios Theodoros I Thomas I Tryphon
October 30 November 12 April 25 April 24 November 17 August 25 June 14 June 4 October 11 August II June 2 December 16 May 16 November 6 August 30 February 6 February 5 November 20 October 11 October 31 May 18
July 18 February 25 December 27 March 21 April 19
The Patriarchs of Constantinople 97
‘H mporn orndn onpeiot 7d dvopa Tov Iarpiapxov: 7 devrépa, To eros p. X.° ) Tpirn TH aedrida ev TH exddoe: “M. I. Tedemy, Marpiapyexoi mivaxes, Kovor. 1890.” ‘H reraptn dndot was eOero répua eis Thy
TaTpiapxiav Tov.
"Ayabayyedos 1826—1830 688 | mavdeis Akdk.os 471—489 198 ’"AOavdows I 1289—1293 402 | maparndeis *"AOavacws I? 1303—131I 405 maparnOeis >AOavaowos II 1450 467 | maparneis ’"AGavaows III (IlavrehAdpvos) 1634 559 | mavdeis
*"AGavaows III? 1652 580 | maparndeis *AOavacws IV 1679 602 | maveis *Adavdows V 1709—I71I 619 | mavéeis ’AOnvddwpos 144—148 2 *AdeEavdpos 325—340 108 "ANEELos 1025—1043 S17 AUT Los 166—169 94 ’Avaordacwos 730—754 259 *Avaroduos 449—458 188 ’"Avdpéas, Ar. “AvOipos I 536 223 | maveis "AvOmos II 1623 552 | maparndeis “AvOiyos III 1822—1824 686 | mavdels "AvOiyos IV
(BapBakns) 1840, 1841 694 | mavdeis "AvOiuos IV? 1848-—1852 698 | mavdeis “AvOiyuos V 1841, 1842 694 "AvOiuos VI
CIe@avvidns) 1845—1848 697 | maveis “AvO.uos VI? 1853— 1855 699 | mavdeis “AvOiuos VI8 1871—1873 705 | mapairndeis ’"Avrovios |
(Kaovparas) 821—832 273 "Avrovus II
(KavA/as) 893—895 294 ’Avroves III
(Srovdirns) 974—980 310 | maparndeis *Avtravios 1V
(Makdpuos) 1389, 1390 448 | raves ’Avrovios 1V2 139I—1397 449
98 The Patriarchs of Constantinople
’Apoakios "Apoévios ZApoévios® “ATTLKOS Bagitesos | ic gnmebinese) Bagidews II (Kaparnpos) VaBpunr I YaSpind II raBpinr III TaBpinr 1V Tevvadios I Tevvadios II Tepaoipos | Tepaomos II Tepaomos III Teppavos | Teppavos I] Teppavos II] Teppavos 1V Teppavos IV? Tewpytos I (SxoAdpuos) Teapywos I] (ZuiAivos) Tpnyopuos | (Geodrcyos) Tpnyopeos II (Kvmpuos) Tpnyopuos II] (Mdppas) Tpnyopios 1V (2rpaBoapaceias) T'pnyoptos Vv Tpnyoptos ye T'pnyoptos A Tprydpros VI Tpnyopus VI? Anpodtdros Avoyévns Avovvatos Awovicws 1? Avoviows II Avoviaows I1? Avwviews III (Bapdarts)
404, 405 1255—1260 1261—1267 406—425 979—974 1183—1187 1596 1657 1702— 1707 1780—1785 458—471 1454—1456 1420, 1321 1673—1675 1794—1797 745—73° 1222—1240 1267 1842—1845 1852, 1853 678—683 1192—1199 379—381 1283—1289 1443—1450 1623 1797, 1798 1806— 1808 1818—1821 1835—1840 1867—1871 369—379 114—129 1467—1472 1489—149I 1537 1543—1555 1662—1665
161 389 392 164
a9
371 537 586 614 666 194 471 417
maparnoeis ©
mavbeis
mavbeis mavGeis
mavbeis
‘\ maparnoeis mavoeis
‘ maparnoeis mavGeis
mavGeis
mavbeis
\ maparnbeis
‘ mapatnbeis mavleis mavleis
mavbeis mavleis
> ‘ amayxovia Geis
mavbeis mapaitnOeis mavbeis
mavleis
mavbeis mavbeis
mavbeis
The Patriarchs of Constantinople
Atovvcios IV
(Movo'edipns)
Avovicvos IV? Avwovicws 1V3 Avovicws V4 Avoviows V4 Aopeértios Aoaibeos °"Edevdépios "Emidvios Evdyptos Evdo&cos Evyévuos I Evyévios II Ev¢auos Evdvpuos I Evovpuos I] EvoéBuos Evora.os Evorpatios Evrvxcos Evrvxos? Evgnpuos ‘Hoaias Gcddapos I Gcddwpos I? Gcddwpos II (Kwas) Geodcoros | Gcoddcvs II (Mapiddkns)
— Geddoros I
Gcddoros II GedAnrros | GedAnnros IL Ccoparns | (Kapvxns) Ccoparvns II OcopiAakTos Capas | Sopas II "laxwBos! *ldxwSos? *TaxwBos? "Tyvatios "Tyvarws?
‘Tepepias |
1671—1673 1676—1679 1683, 84 1686, 87 1693 272— 303 IIQI, 92 129—136 520—536 369, 70 360—369 237—242 1521; 22 148—154 go6—9II I410—I416 341, 42 IOIQ—1025 1081—1084 552—565 577—582 490—496 1323—1334 676—678 683—686 1213—I215 1178—1183 1769—1773 815—821 II5I—I153 1514—1520 1585, 86 1596, 97 1657 933—956 607—610 665—668 1679— 1683 1685, 86 1687, 88 846—857 867—-878 1520—I522
mavGeis mavGeis mavbeis mavbeis mavbeis
mavGeis
mavbeis
mavbeis
mavGeis mavbeis
mav6eis
mavbeis
mavGeis
mavbeis
mavOeis
mavOets
mavGeis mavbeis mapaitnOeis mavGeis
mavbeis
99
100
Tepepias I? lepeuias [3 lepepias II (Tpavos) lepeuias II? lepeuias 113 "lepeuias III] lepepias III? lepeuias 1V "Ioaak Ioidwpos I "Ioidwpos II loakein | Ioakeip I? Ioaxeiw II "Iwaxelu I? ‘Iwaxeilw III] "Iwavyns I (Xpvodoropos) Iwavyns II _ (Karadoxns) ‘Iwavyns III *Ioavyns IV (Nnorevris) ‘Ioavyns V Iwavyns VI Iwavyns VII (Ilayx pariov) ‘loavyns VIII (ZudsAivos) ‘Ioavyns IX (Ayamnros) *Iwavyns (Kaparnpos) Iwavyns XI (Béxxos) "Iwavyns XII (Koopas) ‘Jwavyns XIII (TAvkds) Ioavyns XIV (Kakéxas) "Iwavvixios | "Iwavvixus II (Aivdcos) "Iwavvixios II? "Iwavvixws 11%
1523—1527 1537—1545 1572—1579 1580—1584 1586—1595 1716—1726 1733 1809—1813 1630 © 1347—1350 1456—1463 1498— 1502 1504, 1505 1860— 1863 1873—1878 1878—1884 398—404 518—520 566—577 582—595 668 —674 Pils -[ 43 832—842 1064—-1075 IIL I—1134 1199—1206 1275—1282 1294— 1303 1315 1334—1347 1522, 23 1646—1648 1651, 52
1653, 54
502 505
The Patriarchs of Constantznople
maveis mavGeis mavbeis mavGeis A mavbeis mapatnbeis mavGeis maparnOeis mavbeis tmraparnbeis
mapatnbeis
mavGeis
mavbeis
maparnbeis mavéeis
‘ maparnbeis
maparnbeis
_mavbeis
mavéeis
mavbeis mapatneis mavbeis
—
The Patriarchs of Constantinople
*Iwavvixcos II*4
Toavvixios III (Kapar¢as)
"Iadoad I (Kéxxas)
‘Teacad II
Ioond I
KadXivixos | KadXivikos II (Axapvar) KaAXivixos II? KadXivixos IL KadAinkos III KadXivixos IV KadXivixos V KadAivixos V? Kadduortos | Kadduoros 1? KaAdtoros II (Rav O0rovdos) Kaorivos KAqpns Koopas I (‘Iepooodvpirns) Koopas II Koopas III Kumpiavos | Kumpiavos I? Kuptakos I Kuptaxos II Kuprdos I (Aovxcapis) Kupiddos I? Kvpirdos 1% Kupiddos I4 Kupidrdos 1 Kupurros 1° Kvpuados II (Kovrapis) Kvpirdos II? Kvprros IL? Kvpidrros III (Savos) Kvpurrdros IV Kvpirros V (Kapdxados)
>
1655, 56
1761—1763 1464—1466 1555—1565 1268—1275 1283 1416—1439 693—705
1688 1689—1693 1694—1702
1726
1757 1801— 1806 1808—1809 1350—1354 1355—1363
1397 230—237 1667
1075—1081 1146, 47 1714—1716 1708, 09 1713, 14 214—230 595—606
1612 1621—1623 1623—1630 1630—1634
1634, 35 1637, 38
1632 1635, 36 1638, 39
1652
I71I—1713
1748—1751
584
mavbeis
mavGeis mavbeis mavbeis mavGeis
Tuprobeis
mavbeis mavbeis
mavGeis mavbeis
mavbeis
mavbeis
mapaitnOeis mavleis
mapairnOeis maparnoeis mapaitnbeis
mapatnOeis mavlels mavbeis mavleis mavbeis Tveyels mavleis mavGeis
mavbeis
mavbeis mavbeis
mavleis
IOl
102 The Patriarchs of Constantinople
Kupardros V2 Kvpados VI (SeppreradyAovs) Kvpudos VII Kupos Kevorarrivos | Kwvorartivos II Kevoravrivos III (Aevxovdns) Kewvotavtivos 1V (XAcapnvos) Ka@voravris I Kewvortavtus I] Aavupevtwos A€a@v Aeovttos Aovuxas Maxapuos Mak apuos” Maxedomos | Makeddvios |? Makedoveos I] MavounAr I (Sapavtnvos) Mavound II Mapxos I Mapxos II (ZvAoKapaBns) Maré@aios | Mar@aios II Mar@aios II? Maguutavos Maéipos I Maéipos II Madéiuos III Maéipos 1V MeOoddwos I MeOodu0s II Me@odu0s III (Moporns) MeAéruos I (IInyas) Merérwos II MeAeérios III (Ildyxados) Mnvas Myrpoparns | Myrpopdyns 11
1752—1757 1813-—1818 1855—1860 795—711 674—676 754—766 1059—1063 I154—1156 1830— 1834 1834, 35 154—166 1134—1143 1190, QI 1156—1169 1376—1379 1390, 9! 342—348 350—360 496-—511 1215—1222 1244—1255 198—2I11 1466, 67 1397—1410 1595 1599— 1602 431—434 381 1215 1476—1482 1491—1497 842—846 1240 1668—1671 1597—1599 1768, 69 1845 536-—552 315—325 .1440—1443
644
mavbeis ovevbeis mavbeis
ravGeis
tuprwoeis kai aroxepa- ioGeis
maparneis mavGeis mavbeis mavbeis maveis
mavbeis
mavbeis
maveis
maparnOeis maparnbeis
mravbeis
mavbeis
maparnbeis TOMOTNPNTNS mavleis
mavbeis
ye os SC Ue
The Patriarchs of Constantinople
Mnrpoparns III Mnrpopavns II1? Mixandr I - Mixanr II (Koupxovas) Mexa7d III (rov "Ayxedrov) . Miyand IV (A’rwpeavos) Nexrdpuos NeiAos Nedgutos I Nedguros II Nedguros II? Nedguros III Nevguros IV Nedguros V Nedguros VI Nedgutos VI? Nedguros VII Neoguros VII? Neordptos Nndeov I Nndeov II Nnpev II? Nygpev I1* Nekyras I Nexnras II (Mouvravns) Nexngopos | Nexnopos II NixoAaos I (MvoriKos) Nexodaos 1? | Nixodaos II (XpvaoBépyios) NixoAaos III (T'papparikos) NixoAaos 1V (Mov(drorv) *OAvpmeavos "Ovnoipos Ilaiows I Tlaicvos 1? Iaiows II (Ktopoupr(dyAovs) Tlaiows I]?
1565-1572 1579, 80 1043— 1058 1143—1146 1169—1177 1206—1212 381—397 1 380—1 388 1153 1602, 03 1607—1612 1636, 37 1688, 89 1707 1734—1740 1743, 44 1789—94 1798— 1801 428—431 I311—-1314 1486—1489 1497, 98 1502 766—780 1187—I1190 806—815 1260, 61 895—906 gII—925 984—995 1084—IIII 1147—I1151 187—198 54—68 1652, 53 1654, 55 1726—1733 1740—1743
515 523 322
mavbeis
mavbeis mavbeis mavbeis mapatnOeis mavleis maveis mavGeis mavOeis mavbeis mavbeis mavGeis mapaitnbeis mavGeis mavleis maparndeis
mavbeis mavbeis
mavbeis
maparneis mapatnbeis maparnbeis
mavbeis
‘\
103
104 The Patriarchs of Constantenople
Taiows I1* Tlaivwos 114 Ilap@évios | (Tépav) Tiap@évios 11 Cogvs) IlapOévios II? IlapOévios II] Tlap@évios 1V (MoytAdXos) IlapOévios IV? Ilap@évios 1V 2 IlapOénos 1V4 Ilap@évios IV ® IlavAos | IlavAos I? IlavAos I% IlavAos I] IlavAos III IlavAos 1V Tlaxopios | Ilayopios 1? Tlayapios II (Ilaréoros) Ileprivag Ilérpos TIAovtrapxos TloAveuxros TloAvcaprros I IloAvcapros II IIpoBos IIpoxXos Ilpoxomtos Ilvppos Ilvppos? ‘PadanA | (2épBos) “PadanAd II “Povdivos Sapounr! Lapoundr” Sedexiov Sepaheip | Lepagheiw II Lépywos | Lépywos II Sioivuos I Sicivus II
1744—1748 1751, 52
1639—1644:
1644, 45 1648—1651
1656, 57
1657— 1662 1665 —1667
14I1—144 303—315 434—447 1785—1789 638—641 651, 52 1475, 76 1603—1607 283, 84 1763—1768 1773, 74 105—I14 1733, 34 1757—-1761 610—638 999—I019 425—427 995—998
maparneis mavGeis
mavbeis
dnAnrnprac eis
A
maparnbeis
A mavbeis
‘ mavbeis
‘ mavGeis
A mavbeis
A mavbeis
. mavOeis
, 4
amomveyels
mapatnbeis
dnAntnpiad Geis
mavbeis
mavGeis mavbeis
mavbeis mavbeis
mavGeis mavbeis
mavbeis mavbeis
:
The Patriarchs of Constantinople 105
Zrdaxus Zrépavos | Zrépavos I] Supewv Lupeor? Sadpodvios | (Supdmrovios) Lagpodvios II Sodpovios III Tapactos Tipdbeos I Tiobeos II Tiros Tpvdev @nru& bidder pos BidGeos @iAdG cos” @\aBiavos paviras Patios batios? Xapirov XpvcavOos
38—54 886—893 925—928
1472—1475 1482— 1486
1463, 64 1774—1780 1863—1866
784—806
511—548 1612—1621
242—272 928—931
136—14I
211--214
1354, 55 1364—1376
447—449
489, 90
857—867
878—886
1177, 78 1824— 1826
‘Pop. XV1. 9 mapaitnOeis mavGeis mavbeis
mavbeis
dnAntnprac Geis
mavbeis
maparnOeis povevbeis
mavGeis mavbeis
mavGeis
106
The Patriarchs of Constantinople
Oi €&v trois ‘Ayios Karadeydpevor Tlarpidpya (Svvatapiorns, T. X. ‘Pahravn, ZaxuvOos, 1868) eiaiv of axdAovOor.
*AOavacvs ’Oxr@Bpiov 28 Kupos "Iavovapiou 8 *"Ad€eEavSpos Avyovarov 30 Kevotavtivos ‘IovAiov 29 "Avaotag.os @eBpovapiov 10 A€éwv NoeuSpiov 12 *AvaroXwos *IovAlov 3 Makeddvios B’ *Ampidiov 25 "Avravios TY eBpovapiov 12 Ma€ijuavos "Ampiriou 4 "Apadkuos ’Oxr@Bpiov 11 MadEpos A’ NoepBpiov 17 "ArriKkos lavovapiov 8 MeO0du0s A’ "Iovviov 14 Tevvadwos A’ NoepSpiov 17 Mnvas Avyovarou 25 Tewpytos A’ Avyovorou 18 Mnrpodavns A’ “Iouviov 4 Teppavos A’ Maiov 12 Nexrdpwos "OxrwBpiov 11 T'pnydpios A’ = "Iavovapiov 30 Nndev B’ Avyovorou II *Emupavwos Avyovatou 25 Nixndopos A’ “Touviou 2 Evrvyxtos *"Ampiriouv 6 NixoAaos B’ AexepBpiov 16 Gcecdwpos A’ = AexeBpiov 27 NexodAaos I” Maiov 16 Swpas A’ Maprtiov 21 IlavAos A’ NoepBpiov 6 "Lyvarwos "Oxt@Bpiov 23 IlavAos B’ A’yovorouv 30 *Iwavyns A’ NoepBpiov 13 TloAvevktos PeBpovapiov 5 "Iwavyns B’ Avyovatou 25 k.30 | TpoxAos NoepBpiov 20 *Iwavyns I’ @eBpovapiov 21 Sucivios A’ ’OxrwBpiov 11 "Iwavyns E’ Avyovorou 18 Sraxus "OxrwSpiov 31 loonp "OxtwSpiov 30 Srédavos A’ Maiov 18 KaAXivikos Avyovotou 23 Srépavos B’ —"IovAlov 18 KaAXtoros *Iovviov 20 Tapdovos PeBpovapiov 25 Kaorivos "Tavovapiov 25 Tpideav *Amptriou 19 Koopas "Iavovapiov 2 @daBiavos PeBpovapiov 16 Kuptakos ’OxrwBpiov 27 Parvos PeBpovapiov 6 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Hetcst ae
Wry Bihs
Ry, i)
Leis
en
at eee ip iy 3 vu
mi i ; as re
Tan (
eS a
oR
o
° ’
ve. ert
vi
ha
ie Lhe say
ye 4] reine
iN
ba
Re a) ey ‘ 4
ae
Mer v
ry 4
Win Stee +08 8 oan +
geet Ia hen apie |
i i, 4 ” ei ee “* Pee AM Lore Be ane ag tet, Ske ees ¥ erie ‘ shan
Tee 2
renee
aes
eS
5