Tuesday, February 10, 2015

The Patriarchs of Constantinople

The below is taken from an Introduction by Adrian Fortescue to the book The Patriarchs of Constantinople written by Claude Delaval Gobham in 1911. It seems like an interesting read, and a very plausible theory as to the real motives behind the sudden birth and development of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (which is now merely a shadow of what it used to be).
The text is below the jpeg files, but the Greek characters did not come out well.


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 centuries, 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 Orthodox 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 œcumenical 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 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 œcumenical 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 outline 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.
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 Constantinople 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 that it is at any rate an imperial one. So the first historical predecessor of the œcumenical patriarch was Metrophanes I. And he was by no means an œcumenical 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 Herakleia. 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.
Constantinople 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 older theory; she did not formally recognize Constantinople 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. (1045—1054) writes to Peter III. of Antioch that 'Antioch must keep the third place' (Will, Acta et scripta de controversiis 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 insignificant 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' (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 metropolitan? And always the emperors favoured the ambition 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. 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 independent 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 consistently 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  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 politically 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 correctors 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 Constantinople 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 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 venerable 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 (Lucentius, 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. 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 (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 continued 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, Calabria, 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 ( 582—595), assumes the vaguely splendid title of Œcumenical Patriarch.' The new kingdom of the Bulgars forms a source of angry dispute between Rome and Constantinople, till just after the great schism the œcumenical patriarch wins them all to his side, little thinking how much trouble the children of these same Bulgars will someday 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 was already the greatest of the Eastern patriarchates.
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 oecumenical 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 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 imitated 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 œcumenical 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 government 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 Church is entirely orthodox, that it accepts all canons, decrees and declarations of the Seven Holy Synods, that it remains in communion with the œcumenical throne and with all other Orthodox Churches of Christ; but that it is an entirely autocephalous Church, acknowledging 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 vehemently denounced by the patriarch. The inevitable moment in which the Phanar will have to give way 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 establishment of independent Churches at Carlovitz in 1765, at Hermannstadt (Nagy-Szeben) in 1864, at Czernovitz in 1873 and of a practically independent one in Hercegovina and Bosnia since 1880. The diminishing power of the oecumenical 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 (fFeb. 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 scandalizes 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 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 œcumenical throne now covers Turkey in Europe (that is, Thrace, Macedonia and part of Epirus) and Asia Minor only. And in Macedonia its rights are denied by the Bulgars; and both Serbs and Vlachs are on the point of setting up independent Churches here too. The patriarch however takes precedence of all other orthodox bishops. His title is 'Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Œcumenical Patriarch'. He is addressed as 'Your most divine All-Holiness'. To assist him in his rule he has two tribunals, a synod for purely ecclesiastical affairs and a 'mixed national council for affairs that are partly ecclesiastical and partly secular. Since i860 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 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 patriarchelect at last receives a berat, that is a form of appointment by the Sultan, in which his civil and ecclesiastical rights are exactly denned, is solemnly invested by the Great Wazlr 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 œcumenical 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 patriarchs 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 patriarch 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 œcumenical 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 reappointment; so unless one has just seen the current number of the  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 Constantine 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, Neophytos VIII., Anthimos VII. and Constantine V. Anthimos VII. has made himself specially conspicuous as a critic of his successor's actions. He constantly 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 III. 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 incomparably more honourable memories. At Constantinople only two really great patriarchs have brought honour 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 successors 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 as a 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 Calendar), wished to arrange a better understanding between the sixteen independent bodies that make up their communion 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 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: