The Patriarchs of Constantinople

+
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 Aێwv 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