°Y^Ln«¥Mnyni&sirirY° • ILflMR&IFrF ¦ 1912 "~ ,' ~'~ -— r-T—^^-—- — THE PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS UortUon: FETTER LANE, E.C. C. F. CLAY, Manager ffiOmiucBij : 100, PRINCES STREET JSttlfn: A. ASHER AND CO. ILeipjis: F. A. BROCKHAUS #tto gork: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS JSomimp. ano Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd. All rights reserved THE PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE BY CLAUDE DELAVAL COBHAM, C.M.G. WITH INTRODUCTIONS BY THE Rev. ADRIAN FORTESCUE, Ph.D., D.D. AND THE Rev. H. T. F. DUCKWORTH, M.A. PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, TRINITY COLLEGE, TORONTO CANADA Cambridge : at the University Press 191 1 Cambritijrr : PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. CONTENTS PAGE Prefatory Note 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 dates, etc. . ... -89 PREFATORY 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 Harptapxiicoi THvaices, 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.1 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 imprimatur oi the Imperial Ministry of Public Instruc tion 15 Rabi'al-awwal, 1304— Dec. 23, 1887. 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 {inter alia) that the candidate should first have the approval of the bishops of Heracleia, Cyzicos, Nicomedeia, Nicaia and Chalcedon. Prefatory Note g 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 ' ' Ap%iepev<; and hvo o-vWeirovpyoL, elsewhere in the rubric called oi rpeis dpxiepei?. 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 III. and Nicolaos II. M. Gedeon cannot say who ought to administer the affairs of the oecumenical 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 10 Prefatory Note judgment to a secular court. He may give the rights of o-Tavpotrriyia to churches not already consecrated, though they may be in another province. He only can receive clerics from another province without an dtroXv- rrjpiov (letters dimissory) from their own diocesan. Upon taking up his duties the new Patriarch sends a letter, called ivOpoviarifcr;, to his brother Patriarchs, to which they reply in letters called elp-qviicai. 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 Plutnrchos 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 oecumenical 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 1 1 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. Macedonios2 deposed, anathematised by second oecumenical 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 oecumenical 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 oecumenical 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. 2 — 2 12 Prefatory Note Macedonios II, deposed and banished. (50) Timotheos I, Kelon. loannes 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. Eutychios1. Fifth oecumenical council, of Constantinople, 553. Second consecration of S. Sophia. loannes IV, Nesteutes. A synod at Constantinople, 587, declared the patriarch ' oecumenical.' Cyriacos Thomas I Sergios, monotholete. Incursion of the Avars, 626. Pyrrhos1, monothelete, deposed. Pyrrhos2 Petros, monothelete. Thomas II loannes V Constantinos I Theodoros I x, deposed by Constantine Pogonatus. Gregorios I. Sixth oecumenical council, of Constantinople, 680, counted Pope Honorius among the monothelete heretics. Theodoros I2 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. loannes 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 oecumenical council, of Nicaia, 787. Prefatory Note 13 Nicephoros I, a layman, deposed and banished by Leo the Armenian. Theodotos, illiterate. eiKovopaxos. Antonios I, Kasymatas ; a tanner, then bishop of Sylaion. cIkovo- fid^os. loannes VII, Pancration. «Kovo/iaxos, deposed by Theodora. Methodios I, bishop of Cyzicos, promoted by Theodora. First mention of M. Athos. Ignatios1, son of the Emperor Michael Rhangabe and Procopia, eunuch ; deposed and banished by Baidas. Conversion of the Bulgarians. Photios1, a layman, deposed and banished by Basil the Macedonian. Conversion of the Russians. Ignatios2, canonised by Rome. Fourth council, of Constantinople, 869. Photios2, 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 I1, mysticos ; deposed by Leo the Wise. Euthymios I, deposed and banished by Alexander. Nicolaos I2, restored by Constantine Porphyrogennetos. Stephanos II, bishop of Amaseia; eunuch. TryphonTheophylactos, 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 II Sergios II. The Patriarch of Alexandria declared KpiTrjs tT/s olKovnevTjs. Eustathios(100) Alexios, appointed by Basil II. Michael I, Cerularios, appointed by Constantine IX, deposed and banished by Isaac Comnenos. Excommunicated by Papal legates (the see of Rome was vacant), July 16, 1054. Constantinos III, Leuchoudes : eunuch. 14 Prefatory Note loannes VIII, Xiphilinos Cosmas I, Hierosoly mites Eustratios, eunuch. Nicolaos III, Grammaticos loannes 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 LeontiosDositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem. (In 1192 five ex-Patriarchs were alive.) Georgios II, Xiphilinos loannes 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 Arsenios1Nicephoros II Arsenios2Germanos III, present (after his deposition) at the second council of Lyons, 1274. Ioseph I1 loannes XI, Beccos Prefatory Note 15 Joseph I2 Gregorios II, a Cypriot. Athanasios I1 loannes XII, Cosmas Athanasios I2 Nephon I loannes XIII, Glykys, a layman. Gerasimos I Hesaias loannes XIV, Calekas Isidoros Callistos I1 Philotheos1 Callistos I2 Philotheos2Macarios1 Neilos Antonius IV1, Macarios Macarios2 (150) Antonios IV2 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, '453- [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 loasaph 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. 1 6 Prefatory Note Marcos II, Xylocaraves. 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.] Symeon1 RaphaelMaximos III Symeon2 Nephon II1 Dionysios I2 Maximos IV, paid 2500 florins. Deposed and died at M. Athos. Nephon II2 Ioakeim I1 Nephon II3 Pachomios I1 Ioakeim I2 Pachomios 1 2, poisoned by a servant. Theoleptos I, bishop of Ioannina. Ieremias I1, bishop of Sophia: visited Cyprus, 1520. Ioannikios I Hieremias I2 Dionysios II1 Hieremias I3 Dionysios II2 loasaph II, metropolitan of Adrianople. Metrophanes III1, metropolitan of Caisareia. Hieremias II1, Tranos, metropolitan of Larissa. Metrophanes III2 Hieremias II2, banished to Rhodes. Pachomios II, Palestos : banished to Wallachia. Theoleptos II Hieremias II3 Prefatory Note 17 Matthaios II1 Gabriel I Theophanes I, Carykes, metropolitan of Athens. [Meletios Pegas, Patriarch of Alexandria, eirmjpifnis, April, 1597, to early in 1599.] Matthaios II2 Neophytos 1 1 \ metropolitan of Athens. Raphael II, moved in 1603 his residence from S. Demetrios to S. George (the Phanar). Neophytos II2, deposed and banished to Rhodes. Cyrillos I \ Lucaris, Patriarch of Alexandria. Timotheos II, poisoned. Cyrillos I2 Gregorios IV, metropolitan of Amaseia, deposed and banished to Rhodes. Anthimos II Cyrillos I3 Isaac Cyrillos I4 Cyrillos II1, metropolitan of Berrhoia. Athanasios III1, Pantellarios, metropolitan of Thessalonica. Cyrillos I5 Cyrillos II2, Contares Neophytos III Cyrillos I6 Cyrillos II3 Parthenios I, Geron: deposed and banished to Cyprus; died of poison at Chios. Parthenios II1, metropolitan of Adrianople, deposed and banished. Ioannikios II1, metropolitan of Heracleia, Lindios. Parthenios II2, Oxys: murdered at the instigation of the Princes of Wallachia and Moldavia. Ioannikios II2 Cyrillos III1, Spanos: metropolitan of Tornovo. Athanasios III3, fifteen days, resigned and died in Russia. Paisios 1 1 Ioannikios II3 Cyrillos III2, deposed and banished to Cyprus. 1 8 Prefatory Note Paisios I2 Ioannikios II4 Parthenios III (200) Gabriel II, twelve days. Theophanes II, three days. Parthenios IV1, Mogilalos Dionysios III, Bardalis Parthenios IV2 Genres, a few days, deposed and banished. Methodios III, Morones, resigned and died at Venice. Parthenios IV2, six months, deposed and banished to Cyprus. Dionysios IV1, Muselimes. Synod of Jerusalem, 1672. Gerasimos II Parthenios IV4 Dionysios IV2. First Orthodox church built in London, 1677. Athanasios IV, a week, deposed and banished. Iacobos1Dionysios IV3 Parthenios IV6, seven months. Iacobos2Dionysios IV4 Iacobos3, four months. Callinicos II1, Acarnan, nine months. Neophytos IV, five months. Callinicos II2 Dionysios IV6, seven months, deposed and died at Bucarest. Callinicos II3 Gabriel III Neophytos IV, election not confirmed by the Porte. Cyprianos1, deposed and banished to M. Athos. Athanasios V Cyrillos IV Cyprianos2, three months. Cosmas III Hieremias III1 Callinicos III, died of joy on hearing of his election, Nov. 19, 1726. Paisios II1, Kynmurji-oghlu, deposed and banished to Cyprus. Hieremias III2, six months. Prefatory Note 19 Serapheim I, a year, deposed and banished to Lemnos. Neophytos VI1 Paisios II2 Neophytos VI2, ten months, deposed and banished to Patmos. Paisios II3 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. Samuel1, 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. Samuel2, 13 months, deposed. Sophronios II, Patriarch of Jerusalem. Gabriel IV Procopios, deposed and banished to M. Athos. Neophytos VII1, deposed and banished to Rhodes. Gerasimos III, a Cypriot. Gregorios V1, deposed and banished to M. Athos. Neophytos VII2, deposed and banished to M. Athos. Callinicos V1 Gregorios V2, deposed and banished to M. Athos. Callinicos V2, eight months. Hieremias IV Cyrillos VI, Serbetoghlu Gregorios V3, 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 VI1, Khatti-Sherif of Gulkhane, Nov. 2, 1839. 20 Prefatory Note Anthimos IV1, Bambakes Anthimos V Germanos IV1 Meletios III, seven months. Anthimos VI1, Ioannides Anthimos IV2 Germanos IV2, nine months. (250) Anthimos VI2 Cyrillos VII, Khatti-Humayun, Feb. 1 8, 1856. Ioakeim II2, Kokkodes Sophronios III, deposed 1866, elected 1870 Patriarch of Alexandria. Gregorios VI2 Anthimos VI3 Ioakeim II2 Ioakeim III1, born 1834, metropolitan of Thessalonica ; resigned 1884. Neophytos VIII, deposed Oct. 1894. Anthimos VII, deposed Feb. 1897. (257) Constantinos V, deposed 1901. Ioakeim III2, re-elected June, 1901. ds noWa frr). C. D. C. INTRODUCTION I THE 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 I 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 1 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 — Rome, 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. III. 742, where Celidonius of Besancon is called 'the venerable patriarch'). But the thing itself was there, if not the special name. At the time of Nicaea 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 I 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. I. 18), and he constantly appeals to the sixth Canon of Nicaea against later innovations (Ep. 104, ad Marc). 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. (ro45 — 1054) writes to Peter III. of Antioch that 'Antioch must keep the third place' (Will, Acta el scripta de controversiis eccl.graecae et latinae, Leipzig, 1 86 1 , 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., 38 1 ) 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, Ckron. 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 Caesar. 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 Caesar 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 (to, trpea^ela rrj^ Tt/tt'r)?) 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- 3—2 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. vii. 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 Nicaea. The council sent an exceptionally respectful letter to Pope Leo I. (440 — 461) asking him to confirm their acts (Ep. Cone. 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 (Ep. 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 I 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 Caesar 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 — 1091) 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 (Nria-TevT-rjs, 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 — IOS8) 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 2,2 Introduction I Russia. In 1589 the czar, Feodor Ivanovich, made his Church into an autocephalous patriarchate (under Moscow), and in 172 1 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, 1 580 — 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 Tomos, allowing some measure of self-government. The Greek Church refused to take any notice of the Tomos, 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 Introduction 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 (f 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 I 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 43 1 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 7ravayid)TaT0<;, 6 deioraro';, 6 aocj)coraTO<; /cvpios, o Ap^ie7Ti(7KO'7ro<; K.(ovc7TavTivovTro\ea>/a?;s, did rb (3ao-iXetiet,v tt)v tt6Xlv iKeivqv, ol iraripes eUdrus dirobebibKaai rd irpeafieia, koI rtp avrip o~k6ttlp klvoO/jlevol ol iKarbv TrevT'iJKOvra deotyCXiffTaTQi iiriGKOiroL rd tffa Trpeo-fieia diriveLfxav rip tt)s N6xs 'V&pvrjs dytojrdrip Opovtp, evXSybjs Kplvavres rr\v (3ao"L\eia Kal o~vyK\r)T(p TifiydeTaav tt6Xlv Kal tQ>v tawv airoXaiiovaav TTpeo-fSeiojv r-fj irpes iKfivjjv ixeyaXtiveadaL irpdy/j-aaL, devripav fier' iKeivyv virdpxovffav. Kal wore TOl)S TTJS HoVTLKTJS Kal TTJS 'AfTlCU'TJS Kal TTjS Qpq.KLK7)$ Siot/ojo'ews fj.r)TpoTro\iras fxovovs, %tl bk Kal tovs iv tols fiapflaptKols cTTLffKOirovs tQv irpoeLptjaivcov diOLKriaecaV) x€LP0T0J/ei&&aL U7r& tov trpoeLprjixivov dyLOirdrou dpovov ttjs Kara Kwo'TavTivoijTroXiv dyiwTar'qs iKKXyo-las, drj\adi} ^Kaarov fj.r)Tpoiro\LTOv tQv irpo€Lp-qp.4vuiv diOLK-rjaetov, fxera tlov ttjs itrapxI-O-S ewLaKOTruv xeiP0T0V0^l>T0^ rods rijs iirapxlas iirLCKowovs, Ka$&s rots deloLS Kavoct dnjyopevTat.. XUP°~ Tov€L peya\6iro\Lv k Aiyvirrov TipoBiip tl} ' AXe^avSpelas irpoffevep-^dij. tlov Se Kara rijv 'AvaroK-qv iKKki)ffiSiv tt)v SiolK-qffiv tols avrijs (avrdls ?) iiriffKbirois ivirpe^jiav, Hekayltp re rip AaoSiKelas Kal Aioduipco rip Tapffov,-tpv\d^avTes rd rrpefffieia T-g ' AvTLoxitov iKKKrprla, airep Tore irapbvn MeXertLp fSoffav. 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 II The phraseology of the Canons of the first four CEcumenical 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 bishop 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 bishop of Constantinople should have the irpeaftela t?)? xt/if}? after the bishop of Rome. Similarly, the first four Councils in their Canons speak of the Antiochene prelate as 'bishop,' though the irpeff^ela, the nature of which may be inferred from the sixth of the Nicene Canons (supra, n. •/, p. 44). The old 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.' Introduction II 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 Ca^sarea. 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 c S 58 Introduction II precedence, but actual power of jurisdiction, over the Patriarchates1. 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 CEcumenical Patriarch ' (' 'Ap^ietrio-icoiro^ 'K.wvcTTavTLVovTroK.etos, Nea? 'Pw/ir/?, ical OlKOvp.evtic6<; UaTpidpxv^)- 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 oltcov/jbevq, 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, History of the Christian Church, 11. p. 306, note g. At the present day, the Pope numbers several patriarchs in the host of bishops subordinate to him. Introduction II 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 oiKovfieviKOs SiSdcncaXos. 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 oi/covpnivr), 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 olK.ovp.kvri 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 oiicovpkvr) in its political aspect — i.e. the Empire — devolved upon the monarch ; similarly, the defence of the olK.ovp.kvr] in its 5—2 60 Introduction II spiritual or religious aspect, the Church, might be re garded as part at least of the ' daily charge1 ' of the chief pastor in 'the house of the kingdom2.' 1 II. Cor. xi. 28, 17 iirLdiiffraffls poL r) Kad' ripipav, i) pipipva iraffwv tlov iKKk-OffLLOV. 2 In order to arrive at a proper estimate of the title oUovpeviKos irarpLapx-ns, 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 (fj olKovpiv-q) 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 Minoi. 'H okovpivrj 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. i, 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 Kpiri]s rijs olKovpiv-qs. 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 Nicaea 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 taker! by Justinian, who had a high-handed fashion of dealing with papal opposition. In edicts and 'novellae' Jus tinian gave a legal character to the title 'oecumenical 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 'oecumenical 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 at all that which you own me to be universally1.' setting up a literal claim to 'judge the world' by representing his see as the supreme court of Christendom. 1 Robertson, History of the Christian Church, II. 376 — 379. 62 Introduction II 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 ' oecumenical.' 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 Nicaea, 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 fortiori 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. Introduction II 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 oiKovfieviKoi; ; 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 cecumene is not only what the Latins call orbis, and from its comprehensiveness, orbis universalis, 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 otKovfieviKoi; 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 isecond sense that the patriarch of Constantinople is styled " oecumenical " 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 (hio'iKT]ai Siiffovv toC ffovKravov Kaviva SSpov • pbvov iyLvav, Kadbis Kal els rbv Kaipbv ¦rijs fiaffCKelas tlov 'Voipatiav, otov ix.dpi$ev b fiaffikebs tov Trarpidpxov Xaplffpara. Malaxos is one of the chief authorities for the history of the patriarchate in the period a.d 1450 — 1580. 6—2 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 protege 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 troubling1.' Thus an evil precedent was set, and henceforth every patriarch was expected to pay a fee for the imperial 1 Malaxos, p. 112. Kal ir^-n elp^vev 14 214 — 230 595— 606 1612 1621 — 1623 1623— 1630 1630 — 1634 1634, 35 1637, 38 1632 '635> 36 1638, 39 16521654 1711 — 1713 1748— 1 75 1 1752— 1757 1813— 1818 1855— 1860 705—711 309 deposed 371 deposed 253 blinded 607 deposed 609 deposed 611 627 648 deposed 679 deposed 681 426 deposed 429 456 97 369 687 deposed 592 deposed 248 262 blinded and behea 327 359 689 resigned 692 deposed 333 resigned 353 deposed 621 resigned 617 resigned 621 resigned 96 236 547 resigned 55o deposed 553 deposed 556 deposed 560 deposed 562 drowned 558 deposed 560 deposed 567 deposed 579 deposed 582 deposed 620 deposed 641 deposed 644 deposed 683 resigned and killed 699 deposed 254 deposed The Patriarchs of Constantinople 91 Demophilos 369—379 126 deposed Diogenes 114 — 129 9i Dionysios I 1467— 1472 482 deposed Dionysios 11 1537 504 deposed Dionysios II2 IS43—I555 507 Dionysios III 1662— 1665 588 deposed Dionysios IV 1671— 1673 595 deposed Dionysios IV2 1676— 1679 599 deposed Dionysios IV3 1683, 84 604 deposed Dionysios IV4 1686, 87 605 deposed Dionysios IV5 1693 610 deposed Dometios 272—303 98 Dositheos 1191, 92 375 deposed Eleutherios 129—136 9i Epiphanios 520—536 220 Esaias 1323— 1334 417 Euagrios 369, 70 127 deposed Eudoxios 360—369 122 Eugenios I 237—242 97 Eugenios II 1821, 22 686 Euphemios 490—496 206 deposed Eusebios 341, 342 114 Arian Eustathios 1019 — 1025 317 Eustratios 1081 — 1084 335 deposed Euthymios I 906—911 296 deposed Euthymios II 1410 — 1416 463 Eutychios 552—565 227 deposed Eutychios2 577—582 231 Euzoios 148-154 93 Felix 136— 141 91 Flavianos 447—449 185 killed Gabriel I 1596 537 Gabriel II 1657 586 deposed Gabriel III 1702 — 1707 614 Gabriel IV 1780 — 1785 666 Gennadios I 458—471 194 Gennadios II 1454— 1456 471 resigned Georgios I 678—683 250 deposed Georgios II 1 1 92 — 1 1 99 376 Gerasimos I 1320, 21 417 Gerasimos II 1673-1675 597 deposed Gerasimos III 1794— 1797 673 resigned Germanos I 715—730 255 resigned Germanos II 1222 — 1240 383 Germanos III 1267 393 deposed Germanos IV 1842 — 1845 695 deposed Germanos IV2 1852, 53 699 7—2 92 The Patriarchs of Constantinople Gregorios I (Theologos) 379—381 128 resigned Gregorios II (Cyprius) 1283 — 1289 398 resigned Gregorios III 1443— 1450 466 deposed Gregorios IV 1623 552 deposed Gregorios V 1797, 98 675 deposed Gregorios V2 1806— 1808 680 deposed Gregorios V3 1818— 1821 684 hanged Gregorios VI 1835— 1840 692 deposed Gregorios VI2 1867— 1871 703 resigned Hieremias I 1520 — 1522 500 deposed Hieremias I2 1523— 1527 502 deposed Hieremias I3 1537— 1545 505 Hieremias II 1572— 1579 518 deposed Hieremias II2 1580— 1584 524 deposed Hieremias II3 1586— 1595 53i Hieremias III 1716 — 1726 622 deposed Hieremias III2 1733 631 deposed Hieremias IV 1809— 1813 682 resigned Ignatios 846—857 278 deposed Ignatios2 867—878 287 Isaac 1630 555 deposed Isidoros I 1347— 1350 422 resigned Isidoros II 1456— 1463 479 Iacobos1 1679— 1683 603 deposed Iacobos2 1685, 86 605 deposed Iacobos3 1687, 88 606 resigned Ioakim I 1498 — 1502 493 deposed Ioakim I2 1504, 05 497 Ioakim II i860— 1863 701 resigned Ioakim II2 1873— 1878 706 Ioakim III 1878— 1884 706 resigned loannes I (Chrysostom) 398—404 141 deposed loannes II 518 — 520 219 loannes III 566—597 230 loannes IV 582-595 232 loannes V 668—674 247 loannes VI 711— 715 254 loannes VII 832—842 274 deposed loannes VIII 1064 — 1075 328 loannes IX mi— 1 134 348 loannes X 1 1 99 — 1206 377 resigned loannes XI 1275 — 1282 394 deposed loannes XII 1294— 1303 404 resigned loannes XIII 1315 4'5 resigned The Patriarchs of Constantinople 93 loannes XIV Ioannikios I Ioannikios II Ioannikios II2 Ioannikios II3 Ioannikios II4 Ioannikios III loasaph I loasaph II Ioseph I Ioseph II LaurentiosLeon LeontiosLucas MacariosMacarios2Macedonios I Macedonios I2 Macedonios II Manuel I Manuel II Marcos I Marcos II Malthaios I Malthaios II Malthaios II2 Maximianos Maximos I Maximos II Maximos III Maximos IV Meletios I Meletios II Meletios III MenasMethodios I Methodios II Methodios III Metrophanes I Metrophanes II Metrophanes III Metrophanes III2 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 1 134— 1 143 1 190, 91 1 1 56 — 1 169 •376—1379 1390, 91 342—348 350—360 496—511 1215 — 1222 1244— 1255 198 — 211 1466, 67 1397— 1410 '595 1599 — 1602 431—434 381 1215 1476 — 1482 1491— 1497 1597— 1599 1768, 69 1845 536—552 842—846 1240 1668— 1 67 1 315—325 r 440—1443 1565— 1572 1579, 80 IO43 — IO58 1 143— I 146 1 169 — 1 177 1206 — 1212 420 deposed 502 deposed 574 deposed 575 resigned 582 deposed 584 deposed 654 deposed 481 deposed 510 deposed 393 deposed 464 93 35o 374 deposed 360 439 deposed 448 deposed 118 121 209 deposed 383 388 95 481 deposed 457 536 resigned 54i resigned 179 '3i deposed 382 485 491 deposed 540 locum tenens 661 deposed 696 224 277 387 592 resigned 104 465 deposed 5i5 deposed 523 322 351 resigned 365 379 94 The Patriarchs of Constantinople Nectarios 381—397 133 Neilos 1380— 1388 440 Neophytos I H53 358 deposed Neophytos II 1602, 03 542 deposed Neophytos II1 1607 — 1612 545 deposed Neophytos III 1636, 37 56i resigned Neophytos IV 1688, 89 608 deposed Neophytos V 1707 617 deposed Neophytos VI 1734— 1740 634 deposed Neophytos VI2 1743, 44 638 deposed Neophytos VII 1789— 1794 671 deposed Neophytos VII2 1798— 1 80 1 677 deposed Nephon I 1311— 1314 411 resigned Nephon II i486 — 1489 488 deposed Nephon II2 1497, 98 492 deposed Nephon II3 1502 495 resigned Nestorios 428—431 174 deposed Nicephoros I 806—815 267 deposed Nicephoros II 1260, 61 39i Nicetas I 766—780 263 Nicetas II 1 187 — 1 190 373 deposed Nicolaos I 895—906 295 deposed Nicolaos I2 911—925 298 Nicolaos II 984—995 313 Nicolaos III 1084 — mi 338 Nicolaos IV 1 147— 1 15 1 354 resigned Olympianos 187—198 95 Onesimos 54-68 89 Pachomios I 1503, 04 496 deposed Pachomios I2 1505— 1 5 14 498 poisoned Pachomios II 1584, 85 526 Paisios I 1652, 53 581 resigned Paisios I2 1654, 55 583 resigned Paisios II 1726— 1733 628 deposed Paisios II2 1740— 1743 635 deposed Paisios II3 1744— 1748 639 resigned Paisios II4 i75i, 54 644 deposed Parthenios I 1639— 1644 569 Parthenios II 1644, 45 572 deposed Parthenios II2 1648 — 165 1 576 poisoned Parthenios III 1656, 57 585 Parthenios IV 1657— 1662 587 resigned Parthenios IV2 1665 — 1667 59' Parthenios IV3 167 1 594 deposed Parthenios IV4 1675, 76 598 deposed Parthenios IV6 1684, 85 604 deposed Paulos I 34o, 41 1 m deposed The Patriarchs of Constantinople 95 Paulos I2 342—344 117 deposed Paulos I3 348—350 119 strangled Paulos II 641—652 243 Paulos III 686—693 252 Paulos IV 780—784 265 resigned Pertinax 169—187 94 Petros 652 — 664 245 Philadelphos 21 1 — 214 96 Philotheos 1354, 55 428 resigned Philotheos2 1364— 1376 431 Photios 857-867 282 deposed Photios2 878—886 290 deposed Phravitas 489, 90 204 Plutarchos 89 — 105 9o Polycarpos I 71—89 9o Polycarpos II 141— 144 92 Polyeuctos 956—970 3o7 Probos 3°3—3i5 100 Proclos 434—447 181 Procopios 1785— 1789 669 deposed Pyrrhos 638—641 242 deposed Pyrrhos2 651, 52 245 Raphael I H75. 76 484 deposed Raphael II 1603 — 1607 543 deposed Ruphinos 283, 84 98 Samuel 1763— 1768 657 deposed Samuel2 1773. 74 663 deposed Sedekion 105 — 114 9i Seraphim I 1733, 34 632 deposed Seraphim II 1757— 1761 649 deposed Sergios I 610—638 238 Sergios II 999—1019 315 Sisinios I 425—427 172 Sisinios II 995—998 3i3 Sophronios I 1463, 64 480 deposed Sophronios II 1774— 1780 664 Sophronios III 1863— 1866 702 deposed Stachys 38-54 89 Rom. xvi. 9 Stephanos I 886—893 293 Stephanos II 925 — 928 300 Symeon 1472— 1475 483 resigned Symeon2 1482 — i486 487 deposed Tarasios 784—806 265 Theodoros I 676—678 249 deposed Theodoros I2 683—686 251 Theodoros II 1213 — 1215 381 Theodosios I 1178— 1183 369 deposed 96 The Patriarchs of Constantinople Theodosios II 1769— 1773 661 deposed Theodotos I 815—821 272 Theodotos II 1151— 1153 357 Theoleptos I 1514— 1520 499 Theoleptos II 1585, 86 528 deposed Theophanes I 1596, 97 538 Theophanes II 1657 587 deposed Theophylactos 933—956 303 Thomas I 607—610 237 Thomas II 665—668 246 Timotheos I 511—548 215 Timotheos II 1612 — 1621 549 poisoned Titos 242 — 272 97 Tryphon 928—931 300 deposed The Patriarchs who (in the Synaxaristes, G. Ch. Raphtane, Zante, 1868) are numbered with the Saints — ol ev rots 'Ayiois — are Alexander Anastasios Anatolios Antonios III ArsakiosAthanasiosAtticos Callinicos Callistos CastinosConstantinosCosmas CyriacosCyros EpiphaniosEutychios FlavianosGennadios I Georgios I Germanos I Gregorios I Ignatios loannes I loannes II loannes III loannes V August 30 February 10 July 3 February 12 October 1 1 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 LeonMacedonios II Maximianos Maximos I MenasMethodios I Metrophanes I NectariosNephon II Nicephoros I Nicolaos II Nicolaos III Paul I Paul II Photios Polyeuctos Proclos Sisinios I Stachys Stephanos I Stephanos II TarasiosTheodoros I Thomas I Tryphon October 30 November 12 April 25 April 24 November 17 August 25 June 14 June 4 October 1 1 August 11 June 2 December 16 May 16 November 6 August 30 February 6 February 5 November 20 October 1 1 October 31 May 18 July 18 February 25 December 27 March 21 April 19 The Patriarchs of Constantinople 97 'H trpLorr} i», UarpiapxiKol irivaxes, Klovltt. 1890.'' 'H Terap-rr) hrfkol ircbs edero reppa els tt)v iraTpiapx'iav rov. 'AyaddyyeXos 1826 — 1830 688 iravdels 'AxaKtos 471—489 198 'Adavdcrios I 1289 — 1293 402 irapairqdels 'Adavdcrios I2 1303— 1311 405 irapaiTt)de\s 'Adavdcrios 1 1 1450 467 irapairqdels 'Adavdcrios III (TJaiTeXXd/Dtof) 1634 559 iravdels 'Adavdcrios III2 1652 580 irapaiTrjdels 'Adavdcrios IV 1679 602 iravdels 'Adavdcrios V 1709 — 1 71 1 619 iravdels ' Adqvoftaipos 144 — 148 92 'AXegavdpos 325—340 108 'AXe£ios 1025—1043 317 'AXvirios 166 — 169 94 'Avacrrdcrios 730—754 259 'AvaroXios 449—458 188 'Av8peas, 'Air. Avdipos I 536 223 iravdels "Avdipos 1 1 1623 552 irapaiTrjdels "Avdipos III 1822 — 1824 686 iravdels "Avdipos IV (BapftaKrjs) 1840, 1 841 694 iravdels "Avdipos IV2 1848— 1852 698 iravdels "Avdipos V 1841, 1842 694 "Avdipos VI Cla>avvidr]s) 1845— 1848 697 iravdels "AvBipos VI2 1853- 1855 699 iravdels "Avdipos VI3 1871-1873 705 irapaLTrjdels 'Avtlovios I (Kao-u/xarar) 821—832 273 'Avraii'tos II (KavXias) 893-895 294 'Avrcovios III (2Tou5iVi;f) 974—980 310 irapaiTrjdels 'Avrtavios IV (Maxdpios) 1389, 1390 448 iravdels 'A.i>r&mo? IV2 1391— 1397 449 7—5 98 The Patriarchs of Constantinople ApcrdKios 'Apcrevios 'Apcrevios2 "Attikos BacriXeios I (2Kapav8pr)v6s) BacrlXeios 1 1 (KapaTTjpbs) Taf3pir)\ I TappirjX II TappifjX III TafipirjX IV TevvdSios I Tevvddios II Tepdcripos I rVpdo-tpoff 1 1 Tepdcripos III rfp/iai>6r I Teppiavbs II Teppavos III Teppiavos IV Teppavos IV2 Tfcop-yiof I (S^oXdpiof) rcoopytos II (StvptXlI/Oj) Tprjyopios I (GfoXoyos) rpj/ydpios II (KvTrptoff) Tprjyopios III (Md/ipas-) Tprjyopios IV (SrpafioapacreLas) Tprjyopios V rp^ydpior V2 Tprjyopios V3 Tprjyopios VI Tprjyopios VI2 ArjpocpiXos AioyivrjsAiovvcriosAiovvcrios 1 2 Aiovvcrios II AioyiVio? II2 Aiovvcrios III (BdpSaXtr) 404, 405 l6l 1255 — 1260 389 irapaiTrjdels 1 261 — 1267 392 iravdels 406 — 425 164 970—974 3°9 navdels 1183-1187 371 iravdels 1596 537 1657 586 iravdels 1702 — 1707 614 1780— 1785 666 458-471 194 1454— 1456 471 irapaiTrjdels 1320, 1 32 1 417 1673— 1675 597 iravdels 1794— 1797 673 715—730 255 irapaiTrjdels 1222 — 1240 383 I267 393 iravdels 1842 — 1845 695 navdels 1852, 1853 699 678—683 250 iravdels I 192 — I I99 376 379—381 128 irapaiTrjdels 1283 — I289 398 irapaLTTjdels 1443—1450 466 iravdels 1623 552 iravdels 1797, 1798 675 iravdels 1806— 1808 680 iravdels I8l8— 1821 684 airay^ovta-dels 1835—1840 692 iravdels 1867— 1871 703 irapaiTrjdels 369—379 126 iravdels 114 — I29 91 I467 — I472 482 iravdels I489 — I49I 490 iravdels 1537 504 iravdels 1543— 1555 507 1662 — I665 588 iravdels The Patriarchs of Constantinople 99 Aiovvcrios IV (MovcreXipris) Aiovvcrios IV2 Aiovvcrios IV3 Aiovvcrios IV4 Aiovvcrios IV5 AopenosAocrideos 'EXevdepios r.7riOS III Xicrdels (Aev^ov5?;s) 1059— 1063 327 Ka)vo-Tai/Tii/os IV (XXiaprjvos) 1154 — 1156 359 KoivcrravTios I 1830— 1834 689 irapaiTrjdels Kawardirios II 1834, 35 692 iravdels Aavpevrios 154 — 166 93 Aecov 1 '34— "43 35o Aeovrios 1 190, 91 374 iravdels Aovklis 1 1 56 — 1 169 360 MaKapios 1376— 1379 439 iravdels MaKapios2 1390, 91 448 iravdels MaKeftovtos I 342—348 118 iravdels MaxeSdvios I2 350—360 121 MaKc86vios 11 496—511 209 iravdels MavovrjX I (SapaVTijvbs) 1215 — 1222 383 MavovrjX II 1244— 1255 388 Map/cos I 198 — 211 95 MdpKos II (SvXo/capd^s) 1466, 67 481 iravdels Mardalos I 1397— Hio 457 Mardaios II 1595 536 irapaiTrjdels Mardalos II2 1599 — 1602 54i irapaiTrjdels Ma£ipiai>os 431—434 179 Md£ipos I 38i 131 iravdels Md^ipos II 1215 382 Md£ipos III 1476 — 1482 485 Md£ipos IV 1491— H97 491 iravdels MedoSios I 842—846 277 MetfdoW II 1240 387 Medodios III (Mopiovrjs) 1668— 1 67 1 592 irapaiTrjdels MeXenos I (II?7yas) 1597— 1599 540 ToirOTrjprjrrfS McXeVios II 1768, 69 661 iravdels MfXeVios III (IldyKaXos) 1845 696 Mrjvas 536—552 224 MrjTpoCpdvrjs I 315—325 104 Mrjrpocpdvijs 1 1 T 440—1443 465 iravdels The Patriarchs of Constantinople 103 Mrjrpocpdvrjs III MrjTpocpdvijs III2 MixaijX I MiyaijX II (KovpKov'as) MixafjX III (tov 'Ay^idXov) Mixar/X IV (AvTiopeiayos) NeKTapiosNeiXos ISeocpvTOS I N«SVTOS II2 Nedtpvros III Nevv I lSrppcov II N^fitos 1 2 Tla^aptos 1 1 (naTeoros) TlepTiva£Tlirpos U\ovTapy(os T1o\v€vktos TloXvKapTros I TloXvKapiros II npo/cXoy IIpOKOTTtOSTlvpposTlvppos2'Paos SajLtovijX12a/xou7yX 2 2epa(f)e).fji I ~2epaioff I SitriVios' II 1744— 1748 1751. 52 1639— 1644 1644, 45 1648 — 165 1 1656, 57 1657— 1662 1665— 1667 1671 1675, 76 1684, 85 340, 41 342—344348—350641 — 652 686—693 780—784 1503, 04 1505— 1514 1584, 85 169 — 187 652 — 664 89 — 105 956—970 71—89 141— 144 303—315 434—447 1785— 1789 638—641 651, 52 H75> 76 1603 — 1607 283, 84 1763— 1768 1773, 74 105— 114 1733, 34 1757— 1761 610—638999—1019 425—427995—998 639 644 569 572576 58558759i 594598 604 in117 119 243 252 265 496498 526 94 245 903°7 90 92 100 181 669 241 245 484 543 9865766391632 649 238 315 172 3U irapaiTrjdelsiravdels iravdelsbrjXrjTrjpiacrdels irapaiTrjdelsiravdelsiravdels iravdelsiravdels iravdels iravdels diroirviyels irapaiTrjdels SrjXrjTijpiacrdelsiravdels iravaeisiravdels iravdels iravdels iravdels iravdels iravdelsiravdels The Patriarchs of Constantinople 105 ^srdxys 38-54 89 'Pop. xvi. 9 ^Tecpavos I 886—893 293 Srecpavos II 925—928 3°o Ivpeav 1472— 1475 483 irapaiTrjdels Zvpeiov 2 1482— 1486 487 7rav#eis Scocppovios I (2vp07TOvXos) 1463, 64 480 7rav^tis ~2toipp6vios II 1774— 1780 664 Sojcppdi'ios III 1863— 1866 702 7rav^fls Tapdcrios 784—806 265 Tip-dfoos I 511—548 215 Tipddeos 1 1 1612 — 1621 549 drjXrjTTjpiacrdeis Titos 242 — 272 97 TpvcpGW 928—931 300 iravdels #qXi| 136— 141 9i ^iXdSeXvpos 211 — 214 96 $iX6deos 1354, 55 428 irapaiTrjdels QiXodeos2 1364— 1376 43i fyXafiiavos 447—449 185 cpovevdels $paviras 489, 90 204 $d>TlOS 857-867 282 iravdels $drriosa 878—886 290 iravdels Xapirav 1 177, 78 369 Xpvcravdos 1824— 1826 687 iravdels 106 The Patriarchs of Constantinople Oi ev tois 'Ayiois KaraXeyopevoi Tlarpiapxai (Svfafapio-Tijs, T. X. 'Pacpravrj, ZaKvvdos, 1 868) elcrlv ol aKoXovdoi. 'Adavdcrios'AXe£av8pos 'Avao-Tacrios 'AvotoXlos 'Avtosvlos T' ApoaKios 'AttlkosTevvdhios A' Tecopyios A' Teppavbs A' Tprjyopios A' 'Tjiricpdvios Evtv^iosQedSojpos A' Qcopas A' 'lyvdrios 'lcodvvrjs A 'lcodvvrjs B' 'lcodvvrjs T' 'lcodvvrjs E' 'llDCTTjCpKaXXiviKosKdXXioTOS KacrrivosKocrpds KvpiaKOS 'OKTcofiplov 28 Avyovo-Tov 3° 4>e/3povapi'ov IO 'lovXi'ov 3 /3piov 27 KvposKoji'crTai'Tii'os Ae'a)z>MaKeSdvios B' Ma£ipiavbsMd£ipos A' MedoSios A' Mrjvds MrjTpocpdvrjs A' ISeKrdpiosNrjCpcov B' NiKT/(pdpos A' NiKoXaos B' NixdXaos T' IlavXos A' IlavXos B' IIoXveVKTOS TlpoKXoslicrivios A' SrdxvsSrecpavos A' Sricpavos B' Tapdcrios Tpvtpcov QXajSiavos $<0T10S lavovapiov 8 'lovXi'ov 29 lSoepj3piov 1 2 'AirpiXiov 25 'AirpiXiov 4 Nofp/3piov 1 7 'iovviov 14 AvyovoTov 2 5 'iovvi'ov 4 'OKT(»/3piOV I I Avyovorov 1 1 lovviov 2 AeKepj3piov l6 Maibv 16 Noepfiplov 6 Avyovorov 30 *ej3povapiov 5 Noep/3piov 20 'OKTCo[3piov 1 1 'OKTcofipiov 31 Maidv 18 lovXi'ov 18 &e@povapiov 25 'An-piXiov 19 Qefipovapiov 1 6 $ej3povapiov 6 CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.