Greek Travel Pages

Location information

Listed 100 (total found 549) sub titles with search on: Religious figures biography for wider area of: "TURKEY Country EUROPE" .

Religious figures biography (549)



St. Apollinaris Claudius

A Christian apologist, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia in the second century. He became famous for his polemical treatises against the heretics of his day, whose errors he showed to be entirely borrowed from the pagans. He wrote two books against the Jews, five against the pagans, and two on "Truth." In 177 he published an eloquent "Apologia" for the Christians, addressed to Marcus Aurelius, and appealing to the Emperor's own experience with the "Thundering Legion", whose prayers won him the victory over the Quadi. The exact date of his death is not known, but it was probably while Marcus Aurelius was still Emperor. None of his writings is extant. His feast is kept 8 January.

T.J. Campbell, ed.
Transcribed by: WGKofron
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.

Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (A. D. 170 and onwards), wrote an " Apology for the Christian faith" (logoi huper tes pisteos apologias) to the emperor M. Antoninus. He also wrote against the Jews and the Gentiles, and against the heresies of the Montanists and the Eneratites, and some other works, all of which are lost. (Euseb. H. E. iv. 27, v. 19; Hieron. de Vir. Illust. 26, Epist. 84; Nicephorus, iv. 11; Photius, Cod. 14; Theodoret. de Haeret. Fab. iii. 2; Chronicon Paschale)


Mammas (Gregorius)

Mammas (Gregorius) or MELISSENUS (GREGORIUS), a monk of the latest Byzantine period. We first read of him as negotiator in reconciling the brothers of the emperor Joannes II. Palaeologus. IIe was one of the Greek ecclesiastics, who accompanied the emperor, A. D. 1433, to the synod of Ferrara, and then held the office of Pneumatikos, "Pneumaticus", "Pater Spiritualis", or Confessor to the Emperor. He appears to have gone unwillingly; and Sguropulus (not, however, a very trustworthy witness) has recorded a saying of his to one of his confidential friends, "If I go there, I will work all manner of evil." At first, after his arrival in Italy, he was most vehement in his declarations of hostility to the Latin church; but he was led, apparently by a quarrel with Marcus Eugenicus, archbishop of Ephesus, and the great champion of the Greek church, and by a present or a pension from the pope (Sgurop. viii. 6) to pass over to the opposite side, and become a warm advocate of the union of the churches. Just before the removal of the synod from Ferrara to Florence, the emperor conferred on him the post of protosyncellus; and in A. D. 1446 he was appointed patriarch of Constantinople; but this was against His will; and after holding that dignity for about five years, he escaped from Constantinople, where his Latinizing opinions and his support of the union made him odious, and the fall of which he foresaw must soon take place, and fled into Italy. He died at Rome A. D. 1459, and was buried there. His memory is held in great reverence by the Roman Catholics; and it has even been asserted that miracles were wrought at his tomb. Sguropulus generally calls Gregorius by his name and title of office, without his surname. Phranza calls him Gregorius Melissenus (ho Melissenos), but states that others called him Strategopulus (Strategopoulos), a name which, as Phranza elsewhere (ii. 2) states, many members of the illustrious family of the Melisseni had derived from Alexius Strategopulus, who had recovered Constantinople out of the hands of the Latins. The name Mammas (ho Mamme) is given him by the author of the Historia Politica in the Turco-Graecia of Crusius. (Sguropulus, Hist. Concil. Florent. iii. 20, v. 15, vi. 23, 24, vii. 14, viii. 6, &c.; Phranza, Annales, ii. 12, 15, 19, iii. 1; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. i. col. 309.)
  The works of Gregorius are as follows: 1. Apologia Gregoriou hieromonachou tou megalou protosunkellou, tou pneumatikou, tou husteron chremathisantos patriarchou, kai en Hpome taphentos kai Thaumatourgountos, eis ten tou Ephesou epistolen ek diaphoron hagion, Gregorii Hieromonachi, Magni Protosyncelli et a Confessionibus, qui postmodum creatus est Patriarcha, et Romae sepultus coruscavit Miraculis, Responsio ex variis Sanctorum Sententiis ad Epistolam Marci Ephesii. This answer was translated into Latin by Joannes Matthaeus Caryophilus, and subjoined by him to the second volume of the Acta Concilii Florentini: it is reprinted in some editions of the Concilia, e. g. in the last vol. of that of Binius, in vol. xiii. of that of Labbe, and in that of Hardouin, vol. ix. col. 601-670. This work is twice mentioned by Fabricius; first as Antirrheticus adversus Marci Ephesii Epistolam, and then as Apologia s. Responsio ad Epistolam Ephesii, as if he was speaking of two distinct works. 2. Gregoriou protosunkellou patriarchou Konstantinoupoleos pros ton Basilea Trapezountos, Gregorii Protosyncelli, Patriarchae Constantinopolitani, ad Imperatorem Trapezuntis. This is given in the Graecia Orthodoxa of Allatius, vol. i. p. 419, 4to. Rome, 1652, with a Latin version by the editor. These are the only works of Gregory which have been published; but there are extant in MS.: 3. Apologia eis ten tou Ephesou homologian, Apologia in Confessionem Marci Ephesii. This is in the libraries of Florence and Munich. 4. Pragmateia, Tractatus, sc. de Synodo Florentino, mentioned by Gregory himself in his Apologia (Concil. vol. ix. col. 658, c. ed. Hardouin), and described by Fabricius as Apologia pro quinque Capitibus Florentini Coneilii. Many Epistolae of Gregory are, or were, extant in the Vatican library. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 393; Cave, Hist. Litt. (Appendix) ad ann. 1440, vol. ii. Appendix, p. 152, ed. Oxford, 1740-42; Bandini, Catalog. Codd. MSS. Biblioth. Medic. Laur. vol. i. pp. 483, 484; Aretin s. Hard, Catalog. Codd. M Storum Biblioth. Reg. Bavar. vol. i. pp. 146, 147.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks




, , 1876 - 1942

Greek orthodox Archbishop of Norht and South America

EFESSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

M. Eugenicus, a brother of Joannes Eugenicus, who was a celebrated ecclesiastical writer, none of whose works, however, has yet appeared in print. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi.) M. Eugenicus was by birth a Greek, and in early life he was engaged as a schoolmaster and teacher of rhetoric. But his great learning and his eloquence raised him to the highest dignities in the church, and about A. D. 1436 he succeeded Josephus as archbishop of Ephesus. Two years later, he accompanied the emperor Joannes Palaeologus to the council of Florence, in which he took a very prominent part; for he represented not only his own diocese, but acted as proxy for the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem. He opposed the Latin church with as much bitterness as He defended the rights of the Greek church with zeal. In the beginning of the discussions at the council, this disposition drew upon him the displeasure of the emperor, who was anxious to reunite the two churches, and also of the pope Eugenius. This gave rise to most vehement disputes, in which the Greeks chose Eugenicuis as their spokesman and champion. As he was little acquainted with the dialectic subtleties and the scholastic philosophy, in which the prelates of the West far surpassed him, he was at first defeated by the cardinal Julian; but afterwards, when Bessarion became his ally, the eloquence of Eugenicus threw all the council into amazement. The vehemence and bitterness of his invectives against the Latins, however, was so great, that a report was soon spread and believed, that he was out of his mind; and even Bessarion called him an evil spirit (cacodaemon). At the close of the council, when the other bishops were ready to acknowledge the claims of the pope, and were ordered by the emperor to sign the decrees of the council, Eugenicus alone steadfastly refused to yield, and neither threats nor promises could induce him to alter his determination. The union of the two churches, however, was decreed. On his return to Constantinople, he was received by the people with the greatest enthusiasm, and the most extravagant veneration was paid him. During the remainder of his life he continued to oppose tile Latin church wherever he could; and it was mainly owing to his influence that, after his death, the union was broken off. For, on his death-bed in 1447, he solemnly requested Georgius Scholarius, to continue the struggle against the Latins, which he himself had carried on, and Georgius promised, and faithfully kept his word. The funeral oration on Eugenicus was delivered by the same friend, Georgius.
  M. Eugenicus was the author of many works, most of which were directed against the Latin church, whence they were attacked by those Greeks who were in favour of that church, such as Joseph of Methone, Bessarion, and others. The following are printed either entire or in part. 1. A Letter to the emperor Palaeologus. in which lie cautions the Greeks against the council of Florence, and exposes the intrigues of the Latins. It is printed, with a Latin version and an answer by Joseph of Methone, in Labbeus, Concil. vol. xiii. 2. A Circular, addressed to all Christendom, on the same subject, is printed in Labbeus, l. c, with an answer by Gregorius Protosyneellus. 3. A Treatise on Liturgical Subjects, in which he maintains the spiritual power of the priesthood. It, is printed in the Liturgiae, ed. Paris, 1560. 4. A Profession of Faith, of which a fragment, with a Latin translation, is printed in Allatins, de Consensu iii. 3.4. 5. A Letter to the emperor Palaeologus, of which a fragment is given in Allatius, de Synolo Octaxa, 14. His other works are still extant in MS., but have never been published. A list of them is given by Fabricius. (Bibl. Graec. vol. xi.; comp. Cave, Hist Lit. vol. i. Appendix)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

KESSARIA (Ancient city) TURKEY


Arethas, archbishop of Caesareia in Cappadocia at an uncertain time (A. D. 540, according to Coccius and Cave), appears to have succeeded Andreas. He wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse (sulloge exegeseon ek diaphoron hagion andron eis ten Ioannou tou agapemenou kai euangelistou Apokalupsin), which, as its title implies, was compiled from many preprevious works, and especially from that of Andreas. It is usually printed with the works of Oecumenius.



Georgius, of Nicomedeia. He held the office of chartophylax (record-keeper) in the Great Church at Constantinople, whence he is sometimes called Georgius Chartophylax (but he must not be confounded with Georgius Chartophylax Callipolitanus, and was afterwards archbishop of Nicomedeia. He lived in the latter part of the ninth century, and was the friend of Photius, many of whose letters are addressed to him. Combefis has confounded him with Georgius Pisida, and has placed him in the reign of Heraclius, two centuries before his proper period. Several of his Homiliae are ptliished in the Novum Auctarium, of Combefis, vol. i. Three Idiomela (hymns or pieces set to music peculiar to them), written by him, are contained in the same collection, and a Latin translation of several of his Homiliae, and of two of his Idiomela, one of them in praise of St. John Chrysostom, the other in praise of the Nicene Fathers, are contained in the Bibliotheca Patrum (vol. xii., ed. Lyon., 1677). Beside the homilies in Combefis, ascribed to George of Niconmedeia, another in the same collection On the Natirity of the Virgin, aseribed there to Andreas of Crete, is supposed to be by him. Among his many unpublished works a Chronicon is enumerated; but there is difficulty in distinguishing between the Chronica of the various Georges. A homily or tract by Athanasius On the Presentation of Christ in the Temple is in some MSS. ascribed to George of Nicomedeia. (Allatius, Ibid.; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. viii., vol. x.; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Bessarion Joannes, archibishop of Nicaea



Germanus, bishop of Adrianople A. D. 1267

Germanus, of Constantinople, was bishop of Adrianople, and a friend of the emperor Michael Palaeologus, at whose solicitation he was elected patriarch of Constantinople by a synod held A. D. 1267. He unwillingly accepted the office; and resigned it within a few months, and retired to a monastery, in consequence of the opposition made to his appointment, either on the ground of some irregularity in his translation, or more probably of his holding the patriarchate, while his deposed predecessor, Arsenius, was living. He was a learned man, of mild disposition, polished manners, and irreproachable morals. He was afterwards one of the ambassadors of the emperor to the fourteenth General Council, that of Lyon (A. D. 1277), and there supported the union of the Greek and Latin churches. He does not appear to have left any writings, but the Decreta of Germanus II. of Constantinople, contained in the Jus Graeco-Romanum of Leunclavius, have been sometimes improperly ascribed to him. (Niceph. Gregor. Hist. Byzant. iv. 5, 8; Georg. Phranza, Chronicon, i. 3; Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi., &c., L'Art de Verifier les Dates.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Lucius (Loukios) bishop of Adrianople

Lucius (Loukios) of Adrianople or Hadrianople, was bishop of that city in the fourth century, succeeding, though Tillemont doubts if immediately, St. Eutropius. He was expelled from his see by the Arian party, then predominant in the East, under the emperor Constantius II., the son of Constantine the Great; and went to Rome to lay his cause before the pope, Julius I., apparently in the year 340 or 341. Several other bishops were at Rome on a similar errand, about the same time; and the pope, having satisfied himself or their innocence and of their orthodoxy, sent them back to their respective churches, with letters requiring their restoration, and other letters rebuking their persecutors. The Oriental bishops appear to have rejected the pope's authority, and sent him back a remonstrance against his rebukes. Lucius, however, recovered his see by the authority of the emperor Constantius, who was constrained to restore him by the threats of his brother Constans, then emperor of the West. This restoration is placed Tillemont before the council of Sardica, A. D. 347. When the death of Constans (A. D. 350) was known in the East, the Arian party, whom Lucius had provoked by the boldness and severity of his attacks, deposed him, bound him neck and hands with irons (as they had done at least once before), and in that condition banished him. He died in exile. The Romish church commemorates him as a martyr on the eleventh of February. (Athanas. Apolog. de Fuga sua, c. 3, and Hist. Arianor. ad Monach. c. 19; Socrat. H. E. ii. 15, 23, 26; Sozomen. H. E. iii. 8, 24, iv. 2; Theodoret, H. E. ii. 15; Tillemont, Memoires, vols. vi. and vii.; Bolland, Acta Sanctorum Februarii, vol. ii. p. 519, Epistolae Julii Papae et Orient. Episc. apud Concilia, vol. ii. col. 475, &c. ed. Labbe.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

AMASSIA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Basil, Bishop of Amasea in Pontus

AMIDA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Acacius, bishop of Amida

   A bishop of Amida, distinguished for piety and charity in having sold church-plate, etc., to redeem 7000 Persian prisoners on the Tigris, in Mesopotamia. His death is commemorated in the Latin Church on April 9th.

ANGYRA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Basilius, bishop of Ancyra

Basilius, (Basileios and Basilios), commonly called Basil. Bishop of Ancyra (A. D. 336-360), originally a physician, was one of the chief leaders of the Semi-Arian party, and the founder of a sect of Arians which was named after him. He was held in high esteem by the emperor Constantius, and is praised for his piety and learning by Socrates and Sozomen. He was engaged in perpetual controversies both with the orthodox and with the ultra Arians. His chief opponent was Acacius, through whose influence Basil was deposed by the synod of Constantinople (A. D. 360), and banished to Illyricum. He wrote against his predecessor Marcellus, and a work on Virginity. His works are lost. (Hieron. de Vir. Illust. 89 ; Epiphan. Haeres. lxxiii. 1; Socrates, H. E. ii. 30, 42; Sozomen, H. E. ii. 43.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Acacius, Bishop of Berrhoea

Acacius, a Syrian by birth, lived in a monastery near Antioch, and, for his active defence of the Church against Arianism, was made Bishop of Berrhoea, A. D. 378, by St. Eusebius of Samosata. While a priest, he (with Paul, another priest) wrote to St. Epiphanius a letter, in consequence of which the latter composed his Panarium. (A. D. 374-6). This letter is prefixed to the work. In A. D. 377-8, he was sent to Rome to confute Apollinaris before Pope St. Damasus. He was present at the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople A. D. 381, and on the death of St. Meletius took part in Flavian's ordination to the See of Antioch, by whom he was afterwards sent to the Pope in order to heal the schism between the churches of the West and Antioch. Afterwards, he took part in the persecution against St. Chrysostom (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. vi. 18), and again compromised himself by ordaining as successor to Flavian, Porphyrius, a man unworthy of the episcopate. He defended the heretic Nestorius against St. Cyril, though not himself present at the Council of Ephesus. At a great age, he laboured to reconcile St. Cyril and the Eastern Bishops at a Synod held at Berrhoea, A. D. 432. He died A. D. 437, at the age of 116 years. Three of his letters remain in the original Greek, one to St. Cyril, (extant in the Collection of Councils by Mansi, vol. iv. p. 1056,) and two to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Evagrius, of Antioch, was a native of Antioch, the son of a citizen of that place, named Pompeianus, and a presbyter apparently of the church of Antioch. lie travelled into the west of Europe, and was acquainted with Jerome, who describes him as a man "acris ac ferventis ingenii." During the schism in the patriarchate of Antioch, he was chosen by one of the parties (A. D. 388 or 389) successor to their deceased patriarch Paulinus, in opposition to Flavianus, the patriarch of the other party. According to Theodoret, the manner of his election and ordination was altogether contrary to ecclesiastical rule. The historians Socrates and Sozomen state that Evagrius survived his elevation only a short time; but this expression must not be too strictly interpreted, as it appears from Jerome that he was living in A. D. 392. He was perhaps the Evagrius who instructed Chrysostom in monastic discipline, though it is to be observed that Chrysostom was ordained a presbyter by Flavianus, the rival of Evagrius in the see of Antioch. Evagrius had no successor in his see, and ultimately Flavianus succeeded in healing the division.
  Evagrius wrote treatises on various subjects (diversarum hypotheseon traclatus). Jerome says the author had read them to him, but had not yet published them. They are not extant. Evagrius also translated the life of St. Anthony by Athanasius from Greek into Latin. The very free version printed in the Benedictine edition of Athanasius (vol. i. pars ii.) and in the Acta Sanctorum (Januar. vol. ii.), professes to be that of Evagrius, and is addressed to his son Innocentius, who is perhaps the Innocentius whose death, A. D. 369 or 370, is mentioned by Jerome. (Epist. 41 ad Rufinum.) Tillemont receives it, and Bollandus (Acta Sanct. l c.) and the Benedictine editors of Athanasius (l. c.) vindicate its genuineness; but Cave affirms that "there is more than one reason for doubting its genuineness ;" and Oudin decidedly denies the genuineness both of the Greek text and the version. In the library of Worcester Cathedral is a MS. described as containing the life of St. Antony, written by Evagrius and translated by Jerome: there is probably an error, either in the MS. itself, or in the description of it. (Catal. MSS. Angliae et Hib. vol. ii.)
  Tillemont has collected various particulars of the life of Evagrius of Antioch. Trithemius confounds him with Evagrius of Pontus. (Socrates, Hist. Eccles. v. 15; Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. vii. 15 ; Theodoretus, Hist. Eccles. v. 23; Hieronymus (Jerome) de Viris Illust. 25; Tillemont, Memoires, vol. xii.; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i., ed. Ox. 1740-43; Oudin, de Scriptor. et Scriptis Eccles. vol. i. col. 882; Trithemius, de Scriptor. Eccles. c. 85; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii., vol. x.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Flavianus, of Antioch. According to Evagrius he was originally a monk of Tilmognon, in Coele-Syria ; and, as appears from Theophanes, afterwards became a presbyter and apocrisiarius of the church at Antioch. He was promoted to the see of Antioch by the emperor Anastasius I. on the death of Palladius, in the year 496, or 497, or 498, according to calculations or statements of Baronius, Victor Tununensis, and Pagi respectively : the last date, which is also given by Tillemont, is probably correct. The church throughout the whole Byzantine empire was divided by the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies and the dispute as to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon : and the impression that Flavian rejected the authority of that council may perhaps have conduced to his elevation, as the emperor countenanced the Eutychian party in rejecting it. But if Flavian was ever opposed to the council, he gave up his former views after his elevation to the bishopric.
  His period of office was a scene of trouble, through the dissensions of the church, aggravated by the personal enmity of Xenaias or Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, in Syria, who raised the cry against him of favouring Nestorianism. Flavian endeavoured to refute this charge by anathematizing Nestorius and his doctrine; but Xenaias, not satisfied, required him to anathematize a number of persons now dead (including Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and others), who were suspected, justly or not, of Nestorianism, declaring that if he refused to anathematize them, he must remain subject to the imputation of being a Nestorian himself. Flavian refused for a time to comply; but pressed by the enmity of Xenaias and his supporters, and anxious to satisfy the emperor, who supported his opponents. he subscribed the Henoticon or Edict of Union of the late emperor Zeno; and having assembled the bishops of his province, he drew up a synodal letter, and sent it to the emperor, owning the authority of the three councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and silently passing over that of Chalcedon, and pronouncing the required anathema against the prelates enumerated by Xenaias. He also sent to the emperor a private assurance of his readiness to comply with his wishes. (A. D. 508 or 509.) Victor Tununensis states that Flavian and Xenaias presided over a council at Constantinopie A. D. 499, when the obnoxious prelates and the Council of Chalcedon itself were anathematized : but his account seenis hardly trustworthy.
  The ememies of Flavian were not, however, satisfied. They required him distinctly to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, and all who held the doctrine of the two natures. This he refused to do, and in a confession of faith which he drew up, supported the authority of the council in the repudiation both of Nestorius and Eutyches, but not in its definition of the true faith. The cry of Nestorianism was again raised against him; and new disturbances were excited; and the Isaurian, and apparently some other Asiatic churches, broke off from communiion with Flavian. A synod was held A. D. 510 at Sidon, to condemn the Council of Chalcedon and depose its leading supporters; but Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem managed to prevent its effecting anything. Flavian still hoped to appease his opponents, and wrote to the emperor, expressing his readiness to acknowledge the first three councils, and pass over that of Chalcedon in silence; but his efforts were in vain; a tumultuous body of monks of the province of Syria Prima assembled at Antioch, and frightened Flavian into pronouncing an open anathema against the Council of Chalcedon, and against Theodore of Mopsuestia and the other bishops whom Xenaias had already obliged him to condemn. The citizens were not equally compliant; they rose against the monks, and killed many of them : and the confusion was renewed by the monks of Coele-Syria, who embraced the side of Flavian, and hasted to Antioch to defend him. These disturbances, or some transactions connected with the Council of Sidon, gave the emperor a ground or pretext for deposing Flavian (A. D. 511) and putting Severus in his place. Victor Tununensis places the deposition of Flavian as early as the consulship of Cethegus, A. D. 504. Flavian was banished to Petra in Arabia, where he died. His death is assigned by Tillemoint, on the authority of Joannes Moschus, to A. D. 518. In Vitalian's rebellion (A. D. 513 or 514) his restoration to his see was one of the demands of that rebel. Flavian is (at least was) honoured in the Greek Church as a confessor, and was recognised as such by the Romish Church, after long opposition. (Evagr. Hist. Ecc. iii. 23, 30, 31, 32; Theophan. Chronog., ed. Bonn; Marcellin, Chron. (Paul. et Musc. Cass.); Vict. Tun. Chiron. (ab Anast. Aug. Cos. ad Cet/heg. Cos.); Baron. Annal. Eccles. ad Ann. 496 et 512; Pagi, Critice in Baron. ; Tillemont, Mem. vol. xvi.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Gregorius, of Antioch, was originally a monk in one of the convents of Constantinople, or in a convent called the convent of the Byzantines, which Valesius supposes to have been somewhere in Syria. Here he became eminent as an ascetic at an early age, and was chosen abbot of the convent. From Constantinople, he was removed by the emperor Justin II. to the abbacy of the convent of Mount Sinai. Here he was endangered by the Scenite (or Bedouin) Arabs, who besieged the monastery; but he succeeded in bringing them into peaceable relations to its inmates. On the deposition of Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, about A. D. 570 or 571 (Baronius erroneously places it in 573), he was appointed his successor; and in that see, according to Evagrius, he acquired, by his charity to the poor and his fearlessness of the secular power, the respect both of the Byzantine emperor and the Persian king. When Chosroes I., or Khosru, invaded the Roman empire (A. D. 572), he sent the intelligence of his inroad to the emperor.
  Anatolius, an intimate friend of Gregory, having been detected in the practice of magic, in sacrificing to heathen deities, and in other crimes, the populace of Antioch regarded the patriarch as the sharer of his guilt, and violently assailed him. The attention of the emperor Tiberius II. was drawn to the matter, and he ordered Anatolius to be sent to Constantinople, where he was put to the torture: but the culprit did not accuse Gregory of any participation in his crimes, and was,after being tortured, put to death, being thrown to the wild beasts of the amphitheatre, and his body impaled or crucified.
  Though delivered from this danger, Gregory soon incurred another. He quarrelled with Asterius, count of the East; and the nobles and populace of Antioch took part against him, every one declaring that he had suffered some injury from him. He was insulted by the mob; and though Asterius was removed, his successor, Joannes or John, was scarcely less hostile. Being ordered to inquire into the disputes which had taken place, he invited any who had any charge against the bishop to prefer it; and Gregory was in consequence accused of incest with his own sister, a married woman, and with being the author of the disturbances in the city of Antioch. To the latter charge he expressed his willingness to plead before the tribunal of count John, but with respect to the charge of incest, he appealed to the judgment of the emperor, and of an ecclesiastical council. In pursuance of this appeal he went to Constantinople, taking Evagrius, the ecclesiastical historian, with him as his advocate. This was about A. D. 589. A council of the leading prelates was convened; and Gregory, after a severe struggle with those opposed to him, obtained an acquittal, and returned to Antioch, the same year. When the mutinous soldiers of the army on the Persian frontier had driven away their general Priscus, and refused to receive and acknowledge Philippicus, whom the emperor Maurice had sent to succeed him, Gregory was sent, on account of his popularity with the troops, to bring them back to their duty: his address, which is preserved by Evagrius, was effectual, and the mutineers agreed to receive Philippicus, who was sent to them. When Chosroes II. of Persia was compelled to seek refuge in the Byzantine empire (A. D. 590 or 591), Gregory was sent by the emperor to meet him. Gregory died of gout A. D. 593 or 594, having, there is reason to believe, previously resigned his see into the hands of the deposed patriarch Anastasius. He was an opponent of the Acephali, or disciples of Severus of Antioch, who were becoming numerous in the Syrian desert, and whom he either expelled or obliged to renounce their opinions. The extant works of Gregory are, 1. Demogoria pros ton Straton, Oratio ad Exercitum, preserved, as noticed above, by Evagrius, and given in substance by Nicephorus Callisti. 2. Logos eis tas Murophorous Oratio in Mulieres Unguentiferas, preserved in the Greek Menaeu, and given in the Novum Auctarium of Combefis, Paris, 1648, vol. i. Both these pieces are in the twelfth vol. of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Gallandius. Various memorials, drawn up by Evagrius in the name of Gregory, were contained in the lost volume of documents collected by Evagrius. (Evagr. H. E. v. 6, 9, 18, vi. 4-7, 11-13, 18, 24; Niceph. Callist. H. E. xvii. 36, xviii. 4, 12-16, 23, 26; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i., &c.; Galland. Bibl. Patr. vol. xii. Proleg. cxiii.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks



Heraclianus, (Erakleianos), bishop of Chalcedon, an ecclesiastical writer of uncertain date. He wrote a work against the Manichaeans, in twenty books, Kara Manichaion en biblioir k. Photius, from whom alone we learn any thing of the work and its author, describes it as written in a concise and elevated, yet perspicuous, style. It was addressed to one Achillius (Achillior), at whose request it was written; and was designed to refute the so-called Gospel (enangelion) of the Manichaeans, and the Giganteior Biblur, and the Thesauroi, works of note among the members of that sect. (Phot. Bibl. Codd. 85, 231; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i., ed. Oxon. 1740-43; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. x.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

DORYLEON (Ancient city) TURKEY

Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum

Eusebius of Dorylaeum, born at the end of the fifth century, began his public life as a layman, and held an office about the imperial court of Constantinople, which gave him the title of Agens in Rebus. One day, as Nestorius, then bishop of Constantinople, was preaching against the propriety of applying the term Theotokos to the Virgin Mary, and waits maintaining at once the eternal generation of the divine Logos, and the human birth of the Man Jesus, a voice cried out, "No, the Eternal Word Himself submitted to the second birth." scene of great confusion followed, and an active opposition to the Nestorian doctrine began. There is little doubt that the voice proceeded from Eusebius. On another occasion, he produced in church an act of accusation against Nestorius, whom he denounced as reviving the heresies of Paul of Samosata. (Leontius, contra, Nestorian. et Eutych. iii.) The interest which he took in this controversy probably induced him to alter his profession, and to enter into holy orders. He afterwards became bishop of Dorylaeum, a town in Phrygia on the river Thymbrins (a feeder of the Sangarius), not far from the Bithynian frontier. In this office he was among the first to defend against Eutyches the doctrine of Christ's twofold nature, as he had already maintained against Nestorius the unity of His person. He first privately admonished Eutyches of his error; but, as he failed in convincing him, lie first denounced him at a synod summoned by Flavius, bishop of Constantinople, and then proceeded to the council which Theodosius had summoned to meet at Ephesus, to declare the Catholic belief on the point mooted by Eutyches. The assembly met A. D. 449 under the presidency of Dioscurus, bishop of Alexandria, a partizan of Eutyches. It was disgraced by scenes of the greatest violence, which gained for it the title of sunodos leistrike, and besides sanctioning the monophysite doctrine, it decreed the deposition of Eusebius. But Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, interfered and prevailed upon Marcian, the successor of Theodosius, to convene another general council to revise the decrees of this disorderly assembly. It met at Chalcedon, A. D. 451, and Eusebius presented a petition at it addressed to Marcian and his colleague Valentinian. He was restored to his see, and the doctrine of Eutyches finally condemned. A Contesltaio adverusus Nestorium by Eusebius is extant in a Latin translation amongst the works of Marius Mercator, part ii. There are also a Libellsus adversns Eutycheten Synodo Contantinopolitano oblatus (Concil. vol. iv.), Libellus adversus Dioscurum Synodo Chalcedonensi oblatus, and Epistola ad Marcianum Imperatorem (ib. p. 95), (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 4; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i.; Neander, l. c. and vol. ii.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

EFESSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Bassianus, Bishop of Ephesus (444-448).

Bishop of Ephesus (444-448). As a priest of Ephesus the charities of Bassianus so won the affection of the people that his bishop, Mennon, aroused to jealousy, sought his removal by promoting him to the Bishopric of Evaza. Bassianus repudiated the consecration to which he was violently forced to submit, an attitude approved by Mennon's successor, Basil. On the latter's death (444) Bassianus succeeded him and though popular enthusiasm disregarded canonical procedure his election was confirmed by Theodosius II and reluctantly by Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople. Bassianus reigned undisturbed for four years. At the Easter celebration in 448 he was seized by a mob and imprisoned. The emperor was importuned to remove him, and the case was referred to Pope Leo I and the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, who declared the election invalid. Stephen, whom Bassianus called the ringleader of his opponents, was elected in his stead. The Council of Chalcedon on 29 October, 451, considered the plea of Bassianus for reinstatement and was disposed to favour him, but owing to the complex irregularities of the case it was deemed advisable to declare the see vacant. Bassianus and Stephen were retired on a pension with episcopal dignity. During the process Stephen cited Pope Leo's letter deposing Bassianus, a document unfortunately lost.

John B. Peterson, ed.
Transcribed by: Susan Birkenseer
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.


Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, flourished A. D. 253. He was the author of a book entitled, On the new things introduced by Christ into the world ti kainon eisenenke Christos eis ton kosmon. keph. th; not extant. (Suid.)

Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, AD 431

Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, A. D. 431. He was sent by John, bishop of Antioch, to advocate the cause of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus. His hostility to St. Cyril was such, that he openly charged him with Apollinaranism, and rejected the communion of John, Theodoret, and the other Eastern bishops, on their reconciliation with him. He appealed to the pope, but was rejected, and was at last banished by the emperor to Famothis in Egypt. Twenty-three letters of his are extant in Latin in the S/ynodicon adversus Tragoediam Irenaci ap. Novam Collectionem Conciliorum a Baluzio, Paris, 1683.


Basilius, bishop of Irenopolis

Basilius, (Basileios and Basilios), commonly called Basil. Of Cilicia (ho Kilix), was the author of a history of the Church, of which Photius gives a short account (Cod. 42), a work against John of Scythopolis (Phot. Cod. 107), and one against Archelaus, bishop of Colonia in Armenia. (Suidas, s. v.) He lived under the emperor Anastasius, was presbyter at Antioch about 497 A. D., and afterwards bishop of Irenopolis in Cilicia.

KESSARIA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Andreas, bishop of Caesarea

Bishop of that see in Cappadocia, assigned by Krumbacher to the first half of the sixth century, though he is yet variously placed by others from the fifth to the ninth century.
  His principal work is a commentary on the Apocalypse, important as the first commentary on the book that has come down to us, also as the source from which most of its later commentators have drawn. The writer differs from most of the Byzantine commentators by reason of his extensive acquaintance with early patristic literature.

A.T. Maas, ed.
Transcribed by: John Orr
This text is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.

Andreas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, probably about 500 A. D., wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which is printed in the principal editions of Chrysostom's works. He also wrote a work entitled " Therapeutica Spiritualis," fragments of which are extant in the " Eclogae Asceticae" of John, patriarch of Antioch. (Nessel, Cat. Vindob. Pt.i., cod. 276, No. 1.)

Acacius the Monophthalmos (One-eyed)

Acacius The One-eyed (ho Monophthalmos), the pupil and successor in the See of Caesarea of Eusebius A. D. 340, whose life he wrote. (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. ii. 4.) He was able, learned, and unscrupulous. At first a Semi-Arian like his master, he founded afterwards the Homoean party and was condemned by the Semi-Arians at Seleucia, A. D. 359. (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. ii. 39. 40 ; Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. iv. 22. 23.) He subsequently became the associate of Aetius [AETIUS], the author of the Anomoeon, then deserted him at the command of Constantius, and, under the Catholic Jovian, subscribed the Homoousion or Creed of Nicaea. He died A. D. 366. He wrote seventeen Books on Ecclesiastes and six of Miscellanies. (St. Jerome, Vir. Ill. 98.) St. Epiphanius has preserved a fragment of his work against Marcellus (c. Haer. 72), and nothing else of his is extant, though Sozomen speaks of many valuable works written by him.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Archelaus, bishop of Caesareia in Capadocia, wrote a work against the heresy of the Messalians, which is referred to by Photius (Cod. 52). Cave places him at 440 A. D. Hist. Lit. sub. ann.)


Helladius. Bishop of Caesareia, in Cappadocia, succeeded his master, Basil the Great, in that see. A. D. 378, and was present at the two councils of Constantinople in A. D. 381 and 394. His life of St. Basil is quoted by Damascenus (Orat. de Imag. i. ), but the genuineness of the work is doubtful. (Sozom. H. E. viii. 6; Tillemont, Mem. Eccles. vol. ix.; Cave, Hist. Lit. s. a. 378; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix.)

KYMI (Ancient city) TURKEY

Alexander, Carbonarius

Alexander, Carbonarius (Alexandros ho Anthrakeus), flourished in the third century. To avoid the dangers of a handsome person, he disguised himself and lived as a coal-heaver at Cumae, in Asia Minor. The see of this city being vacant, the people asked St. Gregory Thaumaturgus to come and ordain them a bishop. He rejected many who were offered for consecration, and when he bade the people prefer virtue to rank, one in mockery cried out, " Well, then ! make Alexander, the coal-heaver, bishop!" St. Gregory had him summoned, discovered his disguise, and having arrayed him in sacerdotal vestments, presented him to the people, who, with surprise and joy, accepted the appointment. He addressed their in homely but dignified phrase, and ruled the church till the Decian persecution, when he was burnt, A. D. 251 (S. Greg. Nyssen. Vit . S. Greg. Thaumaturg. 19, 20).

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

MYLASSA (Ancient city) TURKEY


Ephraem. Ephrem, bishop of Mylasa in Caria. The time when he lived is uncertain ; but religious honours were paid to his memory in the fifth century at Leuce (near Mylasa), where his body was buried. (Acta Sanctorum, S. Eusebae Vita, cap. 3, Januar. vol. ii.)



Eusebius, of Nicomedeia, the friend and protector of Arius, was maternally connected, though distantly, with the emperor Julian, and born about A. D. 324. He was first bishop of Berytus (Beyrout) in Syria, and then of Nicomedeia, which Diocletian had made his residence, so that it was in fact the capital of the Eastern empire till Constantine fixed his court at Byzantium. He first comes under the notice of history by taking the part of Arius after his excommunication by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. He wrote a defence of the heretic to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, and the letter is preserved in Theodoret (i. 6). Eusebius states in it his belief that there is one Being Unbegotten and one Begotten by Him, but not from his substance, having no share in the nature or essence of the Unbegotten, but yet pros teleian homoioteta diatheseos te kai dunameos tou Pepoiekotos genomenon.
  So warmly did Eusebius take part with Arius, that the Arians were sometimes called Eusebians; and at the Nicene council he exerted himself vigorously against the application of the term homoousios to the Son. But his opposition was unsuccessful, the Homoousians triumphed, and Eusebius joined his namesake of Caesareia in affixing his signature to the Creed, though he took the word in a sense which reduces it merely to homoios kat ousian.
  He declined, however, to sign the anathema which the council issued against Arius, though not, as he says in the petition which he afterwards presented to the bishops, "because he differed from the doctrine as settled at Nicaea, but because he doubted whether Arius really held what the anathema imputed to him." (Soezom. ii. 15.) But very soon after the council had broken up, Eusebius shewed a desire to revive the controversy, for which he was deprived of his see and banished into Gaul. On this occasion Constantine addressed a letter to the people of Nicomedeia, censuring their exiled bishop in the strongest manner, as disaffected to his government, as the principal supporter of heresy, and a man wholly regardless of truth. (Theodor. Hist. Eccl. i. 20.) But he did not long remain under the imperial displeasure. Constantia, the emperor's sister, was under the influence of an Arian presbyter, and was thereby induced to plead in favour of that party with her brother, and one result of her interference was the restoration of Eusebius to his see; and he soon so completely regained Constantine's favour, as to be selected to administer baptism to him in his last illness. His Arian feelings however broke out again. He procured the deprivation ot Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and, if we may believe Theodoret (i. 21), by suborning a woman to bring against him a false accusation of the most infamous kind He was an active opponent of Athanasius, and exerted himself to procure the restoration of Arius to the full privileges of churchmanship, menacing Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, with deposition unless he at once admitted him to the holy communion, in which he would have succeeded but for the sudden death of Arius. Soon after this Alexander died, and Eusebius managed to procure his own election to the vacant see, in defiance of a canon against translations agreed to at Nicaca. IIe died about A. D. 342.
  Though Eusebius lies under the disadvantage of having his character handed down to posterity almost entirely by the description of theological enemies, yet it is difficult to imagine that lie was in any way deserving of esteem. His signature to the Nicene creed was a gross evasion, nor can he be considered to have signed it merely as an article of peace, since he was ever afterwards a zealous oppotent of its principles. It can scarcely be doubted that he was worldly and ambitious, and if Theodoret's story above referred to be true, it would be horrible to think that a Christian bishop should have been guilty of such gross wickedness. At the same time, considering the entire absence of the critical element in the historians of that age, the violent bitterness of their feelings on subjects of theological controversy, and the fact that Theodoret wrote many years after Eusebius's death, we shall be slow to believe in such an accusation, which rests only on the authority of the most vehement of the church historians of the time, while Socrates, the most moderate and least Orednlous, merely says (i. 18), that Eustathius was deposed nominally for Sabellianism, " though some assign other causes;" and Sozomen (ii. 18) tells us, that some accused Eustathius of leading an irregular life, but does not hint that this charge rested on a wicked contrivance of Eusebius. Athanasius himself gives another cause for the deposition of Eustathius--that Eusebius had accused him of slandering Helena, the mother of Constantine. (Athan. Hst. Ari. § 5.) We regret in this instance, as in others, that we have not the complete work of Philostorgius, the Arian historian, who, however, in one of his remaining fragments, does not hesitate to attribute miracles to Eusebius. (Waddington, Church Hist. ch. vii.) Athanasius (Orat. ii.) considers him as the teacher rather than the disciple of Arius; and afterwards, when the Arians were divided among themselves into parties, those who maintained the perfect likeness which the substance of the Son bore to that of the Father (Homoiousians) against the Consubstantialists, on the one hand, and the pure Arians, or Anomoians, on the other, pleaded the authority of this Eusebius. The tenets of this party were sanctioned by the Council of Seleuceia, A. D. 359. (Theodor. l. c. ; Sozom. l. c.; Socrates, ii. 5; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i.; Neander, Kirchengeschichte, vol. ii.; Tillemont, sur les Ariens, art. 66; see also an encyclical letter from the synod of Egyptian bishops to be found in Athan. Apol. c. Ar. § 10.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Gerontius, bishop of Nicomedeia. He was ordained or acted as deacon at Milan under Ambrose, but having asserted that he had in the night seen the she-daemon Onoscelis (i. e. " the ass-legs," so called from her form), had seized her, shaved her head, and set her to grind in the mill, Ambrosius, deeming the relator of such tales unfit for the deaconship, ordered him to remain at home for some time, and purify himself by penitence or penance. Gerontius, instead of obeying, went to Constantinople, and being a man of winning address, made friends at the court there, and obtained by their means the bishoprick of Nicomedeia, to which he was ordained by Helladius, bishop of Caesareia in Cappadocia, for whose son he had, by his interest, procured a high military appointment at court. Ambrose, hearing of his appointment, wrote to Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople (who held that see front A. D. 381 to 397) to depose Gerontius, and so prevent the continuance of so glaring a violation of all ecclesiastical order. Nectarius, however, could effect nothing; but when Chrysostom, two years after his accession to the patriarchate, visited the Asiatic part of his province (A. D. 399), Gerontius was deposed. The people of Nicomedeia, to whom his kindness and attention, shown alike to rich and poor, and the benefits of his medical skill, for which he was eminent, had endeared him, refused to acknowledge his successor, Pansophius, and went about the streets of Nicomedeia and of Constantinople, singing hymns and praying for the restoration of Gerontius. They served to swell the number of the enemies of Chrysostom; and in the synod of the Oak (A. D. 403), Gerontius appeared as one of his accusers. (Sozom. H. E. viii. 8; Phot. Bibl. cod. 59.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Himerius. Bishop of Nicomedeia, where he succeeded Nestorius, but was deposed by Maximian, in A. D. 432. (Murat. in the Anecdot. Graec. ad Ep. Firmi.)

SAMOSATA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Andreas, bishop of Samosata

Andreas, bishop of Samosata, about 430 A. D., took part in the Nestorian controversy against Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, in answer to whose anathemas he wrote two books, of the first of which a large part is quoted by Cyril, in his Apol. adv. Orientales, and of the second some fragments are contained in the Hodeyus of Anastasius Sinaita. Though prevented by illness from being present at the council of Ephesus (A. D. 431), he joined Theodoret in his opposition to the agreement between Cyril and John, and, like Theodoret, he changed his course through fear, but at a much earlier period. About 436 he yielded to the persuasions of John, and joined in the condemnation of Nestorius. Eight letters by him are extant in Latin in the " Epistolae Ephesinae" of Lupus.

SELEFKIA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Basilius, bishop of Seleuceia

Basilius, (Basileios and Basilios), commonly called Basil. Bishop of Seleuceia in Isauria from 448 till after 458, distinguished himself by taking alternately both sides in the Eutychian controversy. His works are published with those of Gregory Thaumaturgus, in the Paris edition of 1622. He must not be confounded with Basil, the friend of Chrysostom, as is done by Photius. (Cod. 168, ed. Bekker.)


SEVASTIA (Ancient city) TURKEY


Eustathius. Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, who, together with Basilius of Ancyra, was the author of the sect of the Macedonians. (Suid. s. v. Eustathios.) He was originally a monk, and is said to have been the first who made the Armenians acquainted with an ascetic life. For this reason some persons ascribed to him the work on Ascetics, which is usually regarded as the production of St. Basilius. He must have been a contemporary of Constantine the Great, for Nicephorous states, that although he had signed the decrees of the council of Nicaea, he yet openly sided with the Arians. (Epiphan. lxxv. 1, &c.; Sozomen. iii. 13; Nicephor. ix. 16.)

SIDI (Ancient port) TURKEY

Amphilochius, bishop of Side

Amphilochius, bishop of Side in Pamphylia, who was present at the council of Ephesus, in which Nestorius was condemned, A. D. 421, and who was probably the author of some homilies that go under the name of Amphilochius of Iconium. (Phot. Cod. 52, Cod. 230; Labbeus, de Script Eccl. vol. i.)

SMYRNI (Ancient city) TURKEY

Cyrus, bishop of Smyrna

Cyrus, an Egyptian, belonging to the fifth century, afterwards bishop of Smyrna, according to the testimony of Theophanes. His poetical talents procured him the favour of the empress Eudocia. Under Theodosius the Younger he filled the office of governor of the praetorium, and exarch of the city of Constantinople. When Eudocia withdrew to Jerusalem, A. D. 44.5, he fell under the emperor's displeasure. This led to his retirement from civil offices and his joining the clerical order. It is the express testimony of Theophanes that, by order of Theodosius, he was made bishop of Smyrna. After he was elevated to the episcopal dignity, he is said to have delivered a discourse to the people on Christmas day, in which he betrayed gross ignorance of divine things. He lived till the time of the emperor Leo. Suidas says, that on his retirement from civil authority he became episkopos ton hieron en Koruaeioi tes Psrugias; but whether this means bishop of Cotyaeia in Phrygia is uncertain. It is not known whether he wrote anything. (Cave, Histor. Literar. vol. i.; Suidas, s. v.)

TARSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY


Helladius. Bishop of Tarsus, originally a monk, flourished about A. D. 431, and was remarkable for his attach ment to Nestorius, through which he lost his bishopric. He was afterwards reconciled to the church, but he was compelled to join in the anathema upon Nestorius. Six letters of his are extant. (Cave, Hist. Lit. s. a. 431.)

TRALLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY


Asclepiades, a bishop of Tralles, who lived about A. D. 484. A letter of his and ten anathematismi against Fullo are printed with a Latin translation in Labbeus, Concil. iv. Another letter of his is still extant in the Vienna and Vatican libraries in MS. This Asclepiades must be distinguished from an earlier Christian writer of the same name, who is mentioned by Lactantius. (vii. 4)


SINOPI (Ancient city) TURKEY


Marcion (Markion,) one of the most celebrated of the so-called heretics of the second century. He was a native of Pontus. The account, prevalent in the days of Epiphanius, of which there is no reason to doubt the correctness, made him a native of Sinope in Hellenopontus. Tertullian repeatedly calls him a ship-master, nauclerus (Adv. Marc. i. 18, iii. 6, iv. 9, &c.), and, according to one MS. and the version of Rufinus, Rhodon, a writer of the latter part of the second century (apud Euseb. H. E. v. 13), calls him the seaman Marcion. Some moderns have doubted whether so learned a man could have been in such an occupation, but we see no reason to question the statement, nor does his learning appear to have been great. His father was bishop of a Christian church (probably at Sinope), but there is reason to think that Marcion had grown up before his father's conversion, for Tertullian intimates (De Praescrip. Hereticor. c. 30) that he had been a stoic, and speaks of his " finding out God" (Adv. Marcion, i. l), expressions which indicate that he had not been brought up as a Christian, but had become a convert in an adult age, after inquiry, and on his own conviction. Be this as it may, he appears to have been a sincere and earnest believer, characterised by the severity of his ascetic practices; nor does he at first seem to have entertained, at least he did not avow, any opinions at variance with the usual belief of the church with which he was in full communion.
  The course of his life was, however, altogether altered by his excommunication. The occasion of this is, in the spurious addition to one of the works of Tertullian (De Praescrip. Haeret. c. 51 ), and by Epiphanius, stated to have been his seduction of a girl; but the silence of Tertullian in his genuine works, and of the other early opponents of Marcion, ready as they would have been to lay hold on anything unfavourable to him, throws,as Beausobre and Lardner have shown, considerable doubt on the accusation. Beausobre and Neander suppose that he was cut off from the church on account of his having already begun to propagate his obnoxious sentiments as to the Mosaic dispensation and the Old Testament generally. Even if the charge brought against him by Epiphanius be credited, there is no reason to regard his delinquency as an evidence of habitual licentiousness: it stands in marked contrast with the rigour of his system and with the ordinary tenor of his life, and at a later period he himself excommunicated Apelles, one of his disciples, for a similar, perhaps even a less heinous, offence. (Tertull. ibid. c. 30.) Epipbanius further adds, that his first desire after his fall was to be restored to the communion of the church, and that, in order to this, he professed penitence; but that his father, by whom he ad been excommunicated, refused to restore him, being angry at the shame which had fallen upon himself by his son's fall; or possibly (if there be any truth in the story at all), from an apprehension that his near connection with the offender might incline hinm, or make him suspected of inclining, to undue lenity. Failing to obtain his readmission, and unable to bear the opprobrium which his conduct had incurred, Marcion went to Rome. Epiphanius says that he arrived there after the decease of Pope Hyginus, a statement which is subject to considerable doubt, and of which, in any case, the uncertainty of the early Papal chronology prevents our fixing the date. Tillemont places the pope's death and Marcion's arrival in A. D. 142; but if Justin Martyr wrote his First Apology in which Marcion's residence at Rome, and his teaching his heretical views are mentioned (Justin. Apol. Prima, c26), in A. D. 139. Marcion must have settled at Rome some years earlier.
  According to Epiphanius, Marcion's first care, on his arrival at Rome, was to apply to be admitted into communion with the church, but he was refused. Epiphanius adds, that he had aspired to succeed to the vacant bishopric,--a statement too absurd to merit refutation, especially taken in conneetion with the story of his previous incontinence ; and that disappointed ambition stimulated him to unite himself with the Syrian Gnostic Cerdon, then at Rome, to adopt and propagate his opinions, and to carry out the threat with which he parted from the elders of the Roman church on their refusal to receive him, that "he would cause a perpetual schism among them." Imputation of motives is so easy and so common, that it has little weight, especially when the writer is so credulous and uncharitable as Epiphanius; nor is his statement of facts in accordance with Tertullian, who tells us (De Praescrip. Haeret. c. 30) that Marcion was in communion with the Roman church, and professed to hold the general belief; under tile episcopate of Eleutherius, but that on account of the ever-restless curiosity with which lie pursued his inquiries, he was repeatedly (semel atque iterum) excommunicated, the last time finally (in perpetuum discidium relegatus). It is possible that lie may, on his final ejection, have uttered some such threat as that attributed to him by Epiphanius, yet in that case Tertullian would have hardly forborne to mention it; and it may be observed that Marcion's repeated reconciliation with the church, and retractation or concealment of his opinions, indicate a greater pliancy of temper and a more anxious desire to avoid a schism than it has been usual to impute to him. Tertullian is, indeed, by some critics, yet we think on insufficient ground, supposed to have confounded Marcion with Cerdon, of whom Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. iii. 4) gives a somewhat similar account.
  We have seen that Marcion was at Rome, and engaged in the propagation of his views which implies his separation from the church, in A. D. 139, when Justin wrote his First Apology. Whether he travelled intodistant provinces to diffuse his opinions is very doubtful. Most modern critics, including Tillemont, Beausobre, and Lardner, think that he did; but the passages cited from the ancients in support of the supposition are quite insufficient. That views similar to his were widely diffused in various parts, especially of the East, is indisputable, but that the diffusion was owing to his personal exertions and influence is by no means clear; and we do not know of any distinct evidence that he ever left Rome after his first arrival there. The passages from Tertullian and Ephrem Syrus are mere declamatory expressions, and the passage usually cited from Jerome (Epist. cxxxiii. ad Ctesiphont. c. 4, Opera, vol. i. col. 1025, ed. Vallarsii), if it has any foundation in truth, is most naturally referred to Marcion's first journey from Sinope to Rome; and it was probably on that same journey that he became acquainted with the venerable Polycarp, whom he afterwards met, apparently at Rome, and who, when Marcion asked if he knew him, replied, "I know thee as the first-born of Satan." (Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. iii. 3.) This anecdote of Marcion's anxiety to claim acquaintance with that venerable man is in accordance with his desire to be reconciled to the Catholic Church, a desire which continued to the close of his life, for after all his misbelief, the ministers, apparently of the Roman church, agreed to restore him on condition of his bringing back with hin those whim he had led into error. This colldition seems to show that his own immediate disciples were not numerous, and that the widely diffused body that held similar views, and was called by his name, had rather followed an independent course of thougllt than been influenced by him. His compliance with the condition of his restoration was prevented by his death, the time of which is quite unknown. (Tertullian, de I'raescript. Haeret. c. 30.)
  The doctrinal system of Marcion was of remarkable character. Its great feature was the irreconcileable opposition which it supposed to exist between the Creator and the Christian God, and between the religious systems, the Law and the Gospel, which it was believed they had respectively founded. Whether he held two or three original principles is not clear. Rhodon (apud Euseb. H. E. v. 13) and Augusitin (de Haeres. c. 22) say he held two, Epiphanius charges him with holding three, --one, nameless and invisible, the Supreme, whom Marcion termed "the Good"; another "the visible God, the Creator"; the third, "the Devil," or perhaps matter, the source of evil. Theodoret says he held four "unbegotten existences", --the good God. the Creator, matter, and the evil ruler of matter, meaning, apparently, the Devil. That he held matter to be eternal is admitted; the doubtful point is whether he really held the Creator to have been a principle, or to have been in some way derived from the good God. That he regarded them as independent first principles is tile most natural inference from the strong opposition which he conceived to exist between them, and which formed the prominent feature in his doctrinal system. He was probably led to the belief of this opposition by the difficulty he found in reconciling the existence of evil, so prevalent in the world, with the attribute of goodness in the Deity, which was so distinctly manifested in the gospel. This is Tertullian's account of the origin of his heresy (Adr. Marcion. i. 2), and it is apparently tile true one; nor will it materially differ from the account of Neander, that Marcion could not perceive in nature or in the Old Testament the same love which was manifested in the Gospel of Christ. He accordingly made the Creator, the God of the Old Testament, the author of evils, "malorum factored," according to the statement of Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. i. 29), by which he meant that he was the author, not of moral evil, but of suffering. The old dispensation was, according to him, given by the Creator, who chose out the Jews as his own people, and promised to them a Messiah. Jesus was not this Messiah, but the son of the " unseen and unnamed" God, and had appeared on earth in the outward form of man, possibly a mere phantasm, to deliver souls, and to upset the dominion of the Creator; and Marcion further supposed that, when he descended into Hades, he had delivered, not those who in the Old Testament were regarded as saints, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, &c., who were apprehensive of some delusion and would not believe, but rather those who had rejected or disobeyed the Creator, such as Cain, Esau, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
  The other doctrines of Marcion were such as naturally flowed from this prominent feature of his system. He condemned marriage, and admitted  none who were living in the married state to baptism; for he did not think it right to enlarge, by propagation, a race born in subjection to the harsh rule of the Creator. (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 3.) His followers did not hesitate to brave martyrdom, and boasted of the number of their martyrs. He denied the resurrection of the body; and, according to the very questionable authority of Epiphanius, believed in transmigration. He admitted persons to baptism, Epiphanius says, three times, apparently requiring a repetition of it after any great sin; but as Tertullian does not notice this threefold baptism, it was probably introduced after Marcion's time. His followers permitted women to baptize probably those of their own sex, and allowed catechumens to be present at the celebration of the mysteries. According to Chrysostom, when a catechumen died they baptized another person for him; but even Tillemont supposes that this was not their original practice. They fasted on the Sabbath, out of opposition to the Creator, who had rested on that day.
  It was a necessary consequence of these views that Marcion should reject a considerable part of the New Testament. The Old Testament he regarded as a communication from the Creator to his people the Jews, not only separate from Christianity, but opposed to it. He acknowledged but one Gospel, formed by the mutilation of the Gospel of St. Luke. which, it may be reasonably supposed, he believed he was restoring, by such mutilation, to its original purity. He rejected the greater part of the four first chapters, commencing his gospel with the words, "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar God came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and he taught on the Sabbath", &c. (as in Luke, iv. 31, &c.). He omitted all those passages in our Lord's discourses in which he recognised the Creator as his father. He received the following Epistles of Paul:--to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon, and acknowledged certain portions of a supposed Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans; but the Epistles which he received were, according to Epiphanius, whose testimony in this respect there is no reason to doubt, mutilated and corrupted. Marcion, besides his edition, if we may so term it, of the New Testament, compiled a work entitled Antithesis, consisting of passages from the Old and from the New Testament which he judged to be mutually contradictory. This work was examined and answered by Tertullian, in his fourth book against Marcion. Tertullian also cites (De Carne Christi, c. 2) an epistle of Marcion, but without further describing it. (Justin Martyr and Irenaeus,ll. cc.; Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. Libri V. de Praescripf. Haeret. passim; Epiphan. Panarium. Haeres. xlii; the numerous other passages in ancient writers have been collected by Ittigius, de Haeresiarchis, sect. ii. c. 7; Tillemont, Memoires, vol. ii. p. 266, &c.; Beausobre, Hist. de Manicheisme, liv. iv. ch. v.--viii.; and Lardner, Hist. of Heretics, b. ii. ch. x. See also Neander, Church History (by Rose), vol. ii. p. 119, &c.; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 128, vol. i. p. 54, ed. Oxford, 1740-42.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks



Eutyches, a presbyter and abbot at Constantinople, in the 5th century, who headed the party opposed to the Nestorian doctrines [NESTORIUS]. Nestorius having maintained that there are in Christ two persons or substances (npsosta seis), one divine (the Logos), and one human (Jesus), but with only one aspect, and united not by nature, but by will and affection; -Eutyches carried his opposition to this system so far as to assert that in Christ here is but one nature, that of the Incarnate Word. The declaration "the word was made flesh" implies, according to Eutyches, that He so took human nature upon Him, that His own nature was not changed. From this it follows that His body is not a mere human body, but a body of God. There can be no doubt that this doctrine, if pushed to its logical consequences, would he highly dangerous, since it would destroy all the practical benefits of our belief in in the Incarnation, as it involves the denial that we have a High Priest who can be touched with a feeling of our infirmities. If this is borne in mind, the horror which it excited can be accounted for; and although we do not know that Eutyches, any more than many other teachers of error, did carry out his principles to their practical conclusions, still the means which were adopted to support his cause were such as to prevent our feeling any sympathy with it. His opinions became popular in the Alexandrian Church, where the doctrines of Nestorius had been most loudly coindemned, and where the patriarch Dioscurus was eminently violent and unscrupulous. Eutycilea was first warned of his error privately by Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, and was then denounced by him as a heretic, before a synod which assembled at Constantinople, under the presidency of Flavian, patriarch of that city. He was condemned, in spite of the extent of his influence at court, where Chrysaphius, eunuch and chief chamberlain to Theodosius II., was a close friend of Dioscurus, and godson to Eutyches. Besides this, Chrysaphis had a strong desire to crush the partisans of Pulcheria. the emperor's sister, who was warmly attached to Flavian. By his influence Theodosius was persuaded to declare himself dissatisfied with the decision of Flavian's synod, and to refer the matter to a general council, to meet at Ephesus, A. D. 449. under the presidency of Dioscurus. This is the celebrated leistrike sunodos, an appellation which it most richly deserved. It was composed almost entirely of partisans of Eutyches. Flavian, and those who had judged him on the former occasion,though allowed to be present, were not to be suffered to vote. Theodoret, the historian, who had been a friend of Nestorius, was not to vote without the permission of Dioscurus; and a number of frantic Egyptian monks accompanied their abbot, Barsumas, to whom, as a vigorous opponent of Nestorius, a seat and vote in the council were assigned. For the emperor had avowed, in his letters of convocation, that his great object was pasan diaboliken ekkopsai pizan, meaning by this phrase the Nestorian doctrines. When the council met, all opponents of Eutyches were silenced by the outcries of the monks, the threats of the soldiers who were admitted to hear the deliberations, and the overhearing violence of the president. Flavian, Eusebius, and Theodoret were deposed, and the doctrines of Eutyches formally sanctioned; and this was regarded as a victory gained over the Eastern church by its Alexandrian rival, which two bodies often came into conflict from the different dogmatical tendencies prevalent in each. The deposed prelates, however, applied for aid to Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, who had been himself summoned to the council, but, instead of appearing there, had sent Julius, bishop of Puteoli, and three other legates, from whom therefore he obtained a correct account of the scenes which had disgraced it. He was ready to interfere, both on general grounds, and from the notion, which had already begun to take root, that to him, as the successor of St. Peter, belonged a sort of oversight over the whole church. Things were changed too at Constantinople: Chrysaphius was disgraced and banished, and Pulcheria restored to her brother's favour. In the year 450, Theodosius II. died; Pulcheria married Marcian, and procured for him the succession to the throne. A new general council was summoned at Nicaea, and afterwards adjourned to Chalcedon, A. D. 451, which 630 bishops attended. The proceedings were not altogether worthy of a body met to decide on such subjects; yet, on the whole, something like decorum was observed. The result was that Dioscurus and Eutyches were condemned, and the doctrine of Christ in one person and two natures finally declared to be the faith of the church. We know nothing of the subsequent fate of Eutyches, except that Leo wrote to beg Marcian and Pulcheria to send him into banishment, with what success does not appear. There are extant a confession of faith presented by Eutyches to the council of Ephesus (the boule leistrike), and two petitions to the emperor Theodosius (Concil. vol. iv.); but no works of his are in existence. This schism was continued among the monks by Eudocia, widow of Theodosius, and to such an extent, that Marcian was obliged to send an armed force to put it down. The followers of Eutyches, however, under the name of Monophysites, continued to propagate their opinions, though with little success, till the 6th century, when a great revival of those doctrines took place under the auspices of Jacob Baradaeus, who died bishop of Edessa, A. D. 588. From him they were called Jacobites, and under this title still constitute a very numerous church, to which the Armenians and Copts belong.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


TARSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Diodorus of Tarsus


KYZIKOS (Ancient city) TURKEY


Amphilochius (Amphilochios), metropolitan of Cyzicus in the middle of the ninth century, to whom Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople, wrote several letters, and whose answers are still extant in manuscript. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. viii.)

NIKEA (Ancient city) TURKEY


Alexius (Alexios), Metropolitan of NICAEA, composed a Canon or Hymn on St. Demetrius the Martyr. It is uncertain when he lived. The canon is in manuscript.


Eustratius, (Eustratios), one of the latest commentators on Aristotle, lived about the beginning of the twelfth century after Christ, under the emperor Alexius Comnenus, as metropolitan of Nicaea. According to a hint in the Commentary to the tenth book of the Ethica Nicotmachea (if this part of the Commentary is composed by him), he appears to have also lived at Constantinople, and to have written his commentary in this place. (Comp. ad Arist. Eth. Nic. x. 9.13, ed. Zell.) Of his life we know nothing else. Of his writings only two are extant, and these in a very fragmentary state: viz. 1. A Commentary to the second hook of the Aualytica, published by Aldus Manutius, Venice, 1534:, and translated into Latin by A. Gratarolus. (Venice. 1542, 1568, fol.) 2. A Commentary to Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea, published in the Greek language with some other commentators on the same work, Venice, 1536, fol., and in the Latin language by J. Bernardus Felicianus, Ven. 1541, 1589, fol, Paris. 1543, Helmst. 1662, 4to. But, according to the latest researches, this commentary consists of very different materials, and great parts of it are the work of other interpreters, as Aspasius and Michael Ephesius. This has been proved chiefly by the researches of Schleiermacher, in his writings on the Greek Scholia to the Ethics of Aristotle (printed in the Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie der Wissensch. of the year 1816-1817). Schleiermacher has shewn that the author of the commentary to the first book of the Ethics cannot possibly be the same person as the author of the comnmentary to the sixth book, because very different interpretations of the Hechoterikoi Aogoi of Aristotle are given in the two passages cited. (See Stahr, Aristotelia, ii.; Schleiermacher) Probably Eustratius is only the author of the commentary to the sixth book, which is much better than the rest, and from which the commentaries to the second, third, and fourth book greatly differ. But perhaps the commentary to the first is also to be ascribed to Eustratius, and the difference on the signification of the Hechoterikoi Aogoi may have been occasioned by Eustratius himself borrowing one opinion or the other from more ancient interpreters. The commentaries of Eustratius greatly differ from similar works of elder commentators by their not being uninterrupted treatises on philosophical subjects, but commentaries in the proper sense of the word, explaining single words and things. It is this which renders them of great importance. In the middle ages Robert of Lincoln translated this commentary into Latin, and Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas made considerable use of it in their interpretation of Aristotle. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii.; Buhle's Aristotle, vol. i.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Monks & ascetics


Macedonius Critophagus, or Crithophagus

Macedonius Critophagus, or Crithophagus. (ho Krithophagos.) Macedonius was a celebrated ascetic, contemporary with the earlier years of Theodoret, who was intimately acquainted with him, and has left an ample record of him in his Philotheus or Historia Religiosa (c. 13). He led an ascetic life in the mountains, apparently in the neighbourhood of Antioch; and dwelt forty-five years in a deep pit (for he would not use either tent or hut). When he was growing old, he yielded to the intreaties of his friends, and built himself a hut; and was afterwards further prevailed upon to occupy a small house. lie lived twenty-five years after quitting his cave, so that his ascetic life extended to seventy years; but his age at his death is not known. His habitual diet was barley, bruised and moistened with water, from which he acquired his name of Crithophagus, " the barley-eater." He was also called, from his dwelling-place, Gouba, or Guba, a Syriac word denoting a "pit" or " well." He was ordained priest by Flavian of Antioch, who was obliged to use artifice to induce him to leave his mountain abode; and ordained him, without his being aware of it, during the celebration of the eucharist. When informed of what had occurred, Macedonius, imagining that his ordination would oblige him to give up his solitude and his barley diet, flew into a passion ill becoming his sanctity; and after pouring out the bitterest reproaches against the patriarch and the priests, he took his walking staff, for he was now an old man, and drove them away. He was one of the monks who resorted to Antioch, to intercede with the emperor's officers for the citizens of Antioch after the great insurrection (A. D. 387), in which they had overthrown the statues of the emperor. His admirable plea is given by Theodoret. (H. E. v. 19.) Chrysostom notices one part of the plea of Macedonius, but does not mention his name. (Ad Popul. Antiochen. de Statuis. Homil. xvii. 1.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Other persons



Charisius, a presbyter of the church of the Philadelphians in the fifth century. Shortly be fore the general council held at Ephesus, A. D. 431, Antonius and James, presbyters of Constantinople, and attached to the Nestorian party, came to Philadelphia with commendatory letters from Anastasius and Photius, and cunningly prevailed upon several of the clergy and laity who had just renounced the errors of the Quartodecimani (Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. 2,), to subscribe a prolix confession of faith tinctured with the Nestorian errors. But Charisius boldly withstood them, and therefore they proscribed him as a heretic from the communion of the pious. When the council assembled at Ephesus, Charisius accused before the fathers that composed it Anastasius, Photius, and James, exhibiting against them a book of indictment, and the confession which they had imposed upon the deluded Philadelphians. He also presented a brief confession of his own faith, harmonizing with the Nicene creed, in order that he might clear himself from the suspicion of heresy. The time of his birth and death is unknown. He appears only in connexion with the Ephesian council, A. D. 431.
The indictment which he presented to the synod, his confession of faith, a copy of the exposition of the creed as corrupted by Anastasius and Photius, the subscribings of those who were misled, and the decree of the council after hearing the case, are given in Greek and Latin in the Sacrosancta Concilia, edited by Labbe and Cossart, vol. iii. p. 673, &c., Paris, 1671.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Josephus Hymnographus

Josephus Hymnographus, a Greek ecclesiastic, sceuophylax, or keeper of the sacred vessels under Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, wrote Mariale, apparently a hymn or service in honour of the Virgin, of which a Latin version, with notes, was published by Ippolito Maracci, Rome, 8vo. 1662. (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. v.p.60.)


AMASSIA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople

Eutychius Eutuchios), was originally a nonk of the town of Amaseia, whence he was sent by his fellow-citizens to Constantinople, as proxy for their bishop. The great talent he displayed in some theological controversy gained him general admiration, and the emperor in A. D. 553 raised him to the highest dignity in the church at Constantinople. In the same year he accordingly presided at an ecumenical synod, which was held in that city. In A. D. 564, he incurred the anger of the emperor Justinian, by refusing to give his assent to a decree respecting the incorruptibility of the body of Christ previous to his resurrection, and was expelled from his see in consequence. He was at first confined in a monastery, then transported to an island, Princepo, and at last to his original convent at Amaseia. In 578, the emperor Tiberius restored him to his see, which he henceforth retained until his death in 585, at the age of 73. There is extant by him a letter addressed to pope Vigilius, on the occasion of his elevation in A. D. 553. It is printed in Greek and Latin among the Acta Synodi quintae, Concil. vol. v. p. 425, &c. He also wrote some other treatises, which, however, are lost. (Evagr. iv. 38; Gregor. Moral. xiv. 29)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Eudoxius (Bishop of Antioch 324-331)

Anastatius I., Sinaites (559-561 & 593-599 AD)

Anastatius I., made patriarch of Antioch A. D. 559 or 561, took a prominent part in the controversy with the Aphthartodocetae, who thought that the body of Christ before the resurrection was incorruptible. He opposed the edict which Justinian issued in favour of this opinion, and was afterwards banished by the younger Justin. (570.) In 593 he was restored to his bishopric at Antioch, and died in 599.

Anastatius II., Sinaites (599-609 AD)

Anastatius II., succeeded Anastasius I. in the bishopric of Antioch, A. D. 599. He translated into Greek the work of Gregory the Great, "de Cura Pastorali," and was killed by the Jews in a tumult, 609 A. D.

Macedonius of Antioch (639-655 AD)

Macedonius of Antioch, a Monothelite, was patriarch of Antioch from A. D. 639 or 640, till 655 or later. He was appointed to the patriarchate by the influence, if not by the nomination, of Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, by whom also he was consecrated. The year of his death is not certain. Macarius, who was his successor (though perhaps not immediately), stated in his Expositio Fidei, read at the sixth general council, A. D. 681, that Macedonius was present at a synod held while Peter was patriarch of Constantinople, i e. some time from A. D. 655 to 666, which shows he could not have died before 655. Macedonius appears to have spent the whole of his patriarchate at Constantinople, Antioch being in the power of the Saracens. (Le Quien, Oriens Christian. vol. ii. col. 740, 741; Bolland. Acta Sanctor. Julii, vol. iv. Tractat. Praelim. p. 109.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Macarius of Antioch (7th ce.)

Macarius of Antioch. Macarius was patriarch of Antioch in the seventh century. He held the doctrine of the Monothelites; and having attended the sixth general or third Constantinopolitan council (A. D. 680, 681), and there boldly avowed his heresy, affirming that Christ's will was " that of a God-man" (Deandriken,); and having further boldly declared that he would rather be torn limb from limb than renounce his opinions, his was deposed [p. 876] and banished. His Ekthesis etoi homologia pisteos, Expositio sive Confessio Fidei; and some passages from his Prosphonetikos pros basilea logs, Hortatorius ad Imperatorem Sermo; his Logos apostaleis Loukai presbuteroi kai monachoi toi en Aphrikei, Liber ad Lucam Presbyterumn et Monachum in Africa missus; and from one or two other of his pieces, are given in the Concilia, vol. vi. col. 743, 902, &c., ed. Labbe; vol. iii. col. 1168, 1300, &c., ed. Hardouin; vol. xi. col. 349, 512, &c., ed. Mansi. (Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 680; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. 368.) This heretical Macarius of Antioch is not to be confounded with a saint of later date, but of the same name, " archbishop of Antioch in Armenia," who died an exile at Ghent in Flanders, in the early part of the eleventh century, and of whom an account is given by the Bollandists in the Acta Sanctorum, a. d. 10 Aprilis. Of what Antioch this later Macarius was archbishop is not determined. There is no episcopal city of Antioch in Armenia properly so called.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Meletius II, 18th century

Archbishop of Constantinople (1768-1769)

NIKEA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Arsenius Autorianos

, , 1200 - 1273

The Catholic Encyclopedia

TARSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

St.Nectarius (Patriarch of Constantinople 381-397)

Arsacius (Patriarch of Constantinople 404-405)


Anthimus, patriarch of Constantinople

Anthimus (Anthimos), bishop of Trapezus in Pontus, was made patriarch of Constantinople by the influence of the empress Theodora (A. D. 535), and about the same time was drawn over to the Eutychian heresy by Severus. Soon after his election to the patriarchate, Agapetus, the bishop of Rome, came to Constantinople, and obtained from the emperor Justinian a sentence of deposition against Anthimus, which was confirmed by a synod held at Constantinople under Mennas, the successor of Anthimus (A. D. 536; Novell. 42; Mansi, Nova Collect. Concil. viii.; Labbe, v). Some fragments of the debate between Anthimus and Agapetus in the presence of Justinian are preserved in the Acts of the Councils.


St. Metrophanes (Bishop, 306-314)

Paul I. (Bishop, 337-339 & 341-342)

All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Thessalonica

Macedonius I (Bishop, 342-346 & 351-360)

Macedonius of Constantinople. On the death of Eusebius, patriarch of Constantinople, better known as Eusebius of Nicomedeia, A. D. 341 or 342, the orthodox, which appears to have been the popular party, restored the patriarch Paul, who had been deposed shortly after his election (A. D. 339) to make room for Eusebius; while the leaders of the Arian party elected Macedonius, who had been deacon, and perhaps priest, of the church of Constantinople, and was already advanced in years. Jerome, in his additions to the Chronicon of Eusebius, says that Macedonius had been an embroiderer, "artis plumariae," an art which Tillemont supposes he might have carried on while in his office of deacon or priest, but which Scaliger supposed to be attributed to him, by Jerome's mistaking the meaning of the term poikilotechnos, which perhaps some Greek writer had applied to Macedonius. According to the account of the orthodox party, Alexander the patriarch had described Macedonius as a man having the exterior of piety, and possessing much address in secular affairs; but, according to the Arians, Alexander had commended his piety. He had been one of the adversaries of Paul during the first patriarchate of that prelate.
  Upon the election of Macedonius great tumults, accompanied by bloodshed, were excited either by his partisans or those of Paul; and the attempt to put these down by Hermogenes, magister equitum, who had been ordered by the emperor Constantius II. to expel Paul, led to still further seditions, and to the murder of Hermogenes. These events compelled Constantius, then at Antioch, to return to Constantinople, and an end was put to the disturbances by the banishment of Paul. Constantius was, however, much displeased at the unauthorized election of Macedonius, and delayed to recognize him as patriarch, but he was allowed to officiate in the church in which he had been ordained. These events occurred in A. D. 342. On the departure of Constantius Paul returned, but was soon again banished, and Macedonius and his partisans were then by the imperial officers put in possession of the churches, though not without the loss of several hundred lives, through the resistance of the multitude.
  Macedonius retained possession of the patriarchate and the churches till A. D. 348, when the interposition and threats of Constans obliged Constantius to restore Paul, whose title had been confirmed by the council of Sardica (A. D. 347), and Macedonius was only allowed to officiate in one church, which appears to have been his own private property; but in A. D. 350, after the death of Constans, he regained possession of his see, and commenced a vigorous persecution of his opponents, chased them from the churches in his patriarchate, and banished or tortured them, in some instances to death. On the re-establishment of orthodoxy these unhappy persons were reverenced as martyrs, and their memory is still celebrated by the Greek and Latin churches on the 30th March and the 25th Oct. respectively. By these cruelties Macedonius became hateful even to his own party, and an unexpected event increased the odium in which he was held. He removed the body of the emperor Constantine the Great from the Church of the Apostles, in which it had been buried, and which (though built only twenty years before) was in a very dilapidated state. The removal was made in order to prevent the corpse being injured by the apprehended fall of the church; but it led to a tumult, in which the people appear to have been influenced by hatred of Macedonius, and many persons were killed in the church to which the body had been removed. Constantius was very angry with Macedonius, both for his removing the body without orders and for the serious consequences to which his act had led ; and the emperor's displeasure prepared the way for his downfal. At the council of Seleuceia (A. D. 359), where the Acacian or pure Arian party and the semi-Arians were openly divided and seceded from each other, some charges against him, apparently of cruelty, are said to have been contemplated. He did not appear at the first sitting of the council, alleging sickness, but he was present afterwards; and if any hostile proceedings were contemplated, no steps appear to have been openly taken against him. In A. D. 3G0, however, in a council held at Constantinople, he was deposed by the Acacians, who were favoured by Constantius, on tile plea that he had been the occasion of many murders, and because he had admitted to communion a deacon convicted of adultery; but in reality to gratify Constantius, who was irritated against him, and perhaps also because he would not adopt their views. Though expelled from Constantinople [p. 881] he was not disposed to remain quiet, but sought to unite himself more closely with the semi-Arians, in opposition to the Acacians. He appears to have resided in the neighbourhood of Constantinople till his death, of the date of which there is no account. Facundus asserts that he was summoned in A. D. 381 before the second oecumenical, or first council of Constantinople, at which his obnoxious tenets respecting the Holy Spirit were condemned; but this is probably a mistake, and it appears likely that he did not long survive his deposition.
  Macedonius is known chiefly as the leader of a sect which took its name front him. The term "Macedonians " (hoi Makedonianoi) is applied somewhat indeterminately in the ancient ecclesiastical writers. Its first application was to the less heterodox division of the Arian party, commonly called the semi-Arians (Hemiareianoi), who admitted and contended that the Son was homoiousios, "homoiousios," of like substance with the Father, in opposition to those who affirmed that he was anomoios, "anomoios," of unlike substance. The latter party were known as Acacians, from their leader Acacius of Caesareia, while the former were designated from Macedonius, who was the most eminent among them in dignity, though he does not appear to have fully identified himself with them until after his deposition; and if Photius (Bibl. Cod. 257) is correct, was at his election an Anomoian or Acacian. The two sections came into open collision at the council of Seleuceia (A. D. 359); and the Acacians, though outnumbered in that council, succeeded, through the favour of Constantius, in deposing several of their opponents, and secured an ascendancy which, though interrupted in the reigns of Julian and Jovian, was fully restored under the reign of Valens, from whose time they were known simply as Arians, that designation being thenceforward given to them alone. Many of the semi-Arian party, or, as they were termed, Macedonians, being persecuted by the now triumphant Acacians, were led to approximate more and more to the standard of the Nicene confession with respect to the nature and dignity of the Son; and at last several of their bishops transmitted to pope Liberius (A. D. 367) a confession, in which they admitted that the Son was " homoousios," homoousios," or" of the same substance" as the Father, and were addressed by the pope in reply as orthodox in that respect. Their growing orthodoxy on this point rendered their heterodoxy with respect to the Holy Spirit, whose deity they denied, and whom they affirmed to be a creature, more prominent. This dogma is said to have been broached by Macedonius after his deposition, and was held both by those who remained semi-Arians and by those who had embraced orthodox views on the person and dignity of the Son; their only common feature being their denial of the deity of the Holy Spirit, on account of which they were by the Greeks generally termed Pneumatomachoi, "Pneumatomachi," "Impugners of the Spirit." The second general or first Constantinopolitan council (A. D. 381) anathematised the heresy of the semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi (Hemiareianon egoun Pneumatomakon), thus identifying the two names as belonging to one great party; from which it appears not unlikely that the same fear of persecution which led the Macedonians, during the Arian ascendency under Valens, to court the orthodox, by approximating towards orthodoxy, led them, now that orthodoxy was in the ascendant under Theodosius, to draw nearer to the Arians, in order to secure their alliance and support. The Macedonians were also sometimes called Marathonians, Marathonianoi, from Marathonius, one of their leaders. (Socrates, H. E. ii. 6, 12, 13, 16, 22, 27, 38, 39, 40, 45, iv. 12, v. 4, 8; Sozom. H. E. iii. 3, 7, 9, iv. 2, 3, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, v. 14, vi. 10, 11, 12, 22, vii. 7, 9; Theodoret. H. E. ii. 6, v. 11; Philostorg. H. E. v. 1, viii. 17 ; Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xxxi. xli.; Athanas. Historia Arianor. ad Monach. c. 7; Pseud. Athanas. Dialog. de Trinit. iii., and Contra Macedonianos Dialog. i. ii.; Epiphan. Panarium. Huacres. 74 (s. ut alii, 54); Augustin. de Haeresibus, c. 52; Leontius Byzant. de Seclis. Act. iv.; Phot. Bibl. l. c.; Theophanes, Chronograph, pp. 35-38, ed. Paris, pp. 64-70, ed. Bonn; Tillemont, MΓ©moires, vol. vi.; Ceillier, Auteurs SacrΓ©s, vol. v. p. 594, &c.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. p. 247, Concilia, vol. i. col. 809, 810, 817, 818, 819, ed. Hardouin.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Eudoxius of Antioch (Bishop 360-370)

All articles are available at the ancient city of Antiocheia

Demophilus (Bishop, 370-379)

All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Thessalonica

Maximus, (Bishop, 380)

All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Alexandria

St. Gregorius I. Nazianzenus (379-381)

All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Nazianzus

St. Nectarius (381-397)

All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Tarsus

St. John Chrysostomus (398-404)

All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Antiocheia

Arsacius of Tarsus (404-405)

All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Tarsus

St. Atticus (406-425)

All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Sebasteia

St. Flavianus (Patriarch 446-449)

Flavianus, of Constantinople. He was chosen successor to Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, who died anno 439 Alex. era, or 446 A. D. At the time of his election he was a presbyter and keeper of the sacred vessels in the great church at Constantinople. Chrysaphius, the eunuch, a friend and supporter of the monk Eutyches, was at this time an influential person at court ; and he having a dislike to Flavian, managed to set the emperor Theodosius II. against him, from the very commencement of his episcopate. Dioscorus, who had just ascended the episcopal chair of Alexandria, and was persecuting the kinsmen of his predecessor, Cyril, was also irritated against Flavian, who had befriended the persecuted parties. Flavian was indeed befriended by Pulcheria, the emperor's sister; but her aid was more than counterbalanced by the enmity of the empress Eudocia, who was influenced by Chrysaphitus, and was, moreover, irritated by Flavian's defeating a plan to remove Pulcheria altogether from the state and the court by having her ordained a deaconess. Flavian was not, however, daunted. He assembled a synod of forty bishops, and deposed Eutyches from his office of archimandrite or abbot, and excommunicated him, on the ground of his heretical opinions. This bold step irritated the opponents of Flavian, and they prevailed on the emperor to summon a synod at Constantinople to try Flavian on a charge of falsifying the acts of the synod at which Eutyches was condemned. Flavian was acquitted, but his enemies persuaded Theodosius to summon a general council at Ephesus. At this council, over which Dioscorus presided, and which is known in history as the Council of Robbers (he leistrike)), Flavian and the other members of the synod which had condemned Eutyches were present, but were not allowed to vote, since their conduct was called in question. Their friends were overborne in an irregular manner, Eutyches was restored, and Flavian not only deposed and sentenced to banishment, but so roughly beaten and kicked by the Egyptian and other attendants of Dioscorus, that he died three days afterwards (A. D. 449). This violence probably tended to the reaction which took place in the mind of the emperor. Pulcheria regained her ascendancy; the body of Flavian was, by her order, honourably conveyed to Constantinople, and buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Pope Leo the Great honoured him as a confessor, and the Council of Chalcedon as a martyr; and since the time of Baronius he has been commemorated in the Martyrology of the Romish Church. A letter of Flavian to Pope Leo was published by Cotelerus (Monum. Eccles. Graec. vol. i.); and a confession of his faith presented to the emperor Theodosius, and some other pieces, are given with the acts of the Council of Chalcedon in the Concilia of Labbe and Harduin; and are also inserted in the Concilia of Mansi, vol. viii. (Evagr. Hist. Ecc. i. 8, 9, 10; Theophanes, Chronog., ed Bonn; Marcellin, Chron. (Protog. et Astur. Coss.); Vict. Tun. Chron. (Callip. ct Ardab. Coss. Post. et Zen. Coss.); Synod. Vetus, aptid Fabric. ; Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vol. ix., and vol. xii.; Tillemont, Mem. vol. xv.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

St. Anatolius (449- 458)

Anatolius (Anatolios), Patriarch of Constanrinople (A. D. 449), presided at a synod at Constantinople (A. D. 450) which condemned Eutyches and his followers, and was present at the general council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), out of the twenty-eighth decree of which a contest sprung up between Anatolius and Leo, bishop of Rome, respecting the relative rank of their two sees. A letter from Anatolius to Leo, written upon this subject in A. D. 457, is still extant. (Cave, Hist. Lit. A. D. 449.)

St. Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of Theodosius the Younger. The heretic Dioscurus had favoured his appointment as patriarch, hoping for his support, but he found in Anatolius a determined enemy, who in the Council of Chalcedon condemned him and his followers.
  How he died is disputed, but it would appear that the heretics put him to death. Baronius says this occurred in 458 after eight years in the patriarchate. The great annalist condemns him in a somewhat violent manner, for conniving with Dioscurus for his appointment, to the see; for demanding in contravention of the statutes of Nicaea, the supremacy of Constantinople over Antioch and Alexandria; for insincerity in opposing a new formula of doctrine; for declaring that Dioscurus was not condemned at Ephesus, on account of the faith; for removing the meritorious Aetius from time archidiaconate, and naming the unworthy Andrew; for weakness, if not connivance in dealing with the heretics.
  All of these serious accusations are discussed by the Bollandists, who give a verdict in favour of Anatolius. He is held by them to be a true Catholic, a saint, and a prophet. The Pope blamed him, not for error but because he permitted himself to be consecrated by a schismatic. One enthusiastic biographer narrates that his miracles amid his combats equal in number the sands of the sea. He was born at Alexandria, and before becoming patriarch distinguished himself at Ephesus against Nestorius, and at Constantinople against Eutyches, though the profession of faith which he drew up was rejected by time papal legates.
  When he was in danger of death he was restored to health by St. Daniel the Stylite, who came to Constantinople to see him. His feast is kept 3 July.

T.J. Campbell, ed.
Transcribed by: W.S. French, Jr.
This text is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.

St. Gennadius I (458-471)

Gennadius. The earlier of the two was a presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, and became bishop of that see, A. D. 459, on the decease of Anatolius. He was one of those who pressed the emperor Leo I., the Thracian, to punish Timothy Aelurus (or the Cat), who had occupied the see of Alexandria on the murder of Proterius, and his intervention was so far successful that Timothy was banished, A. D. 460. He also opposed Peter'Gnapheus (or the Fuller) who, under the patronage of Zeno, son-in-law of the emperor, and general of the Eastern provinces, had expelled Martyrius from the see of Antioch, and occupied his place. Gennadius honourably received Martyrius, who went to Constantinople. and succeeded in procuring the banishment of Peter, A. D. 464. Gennadius died. A. D. 471, and was succeeded by Acacius. Theodore Anagnostes (or the Reader) has preserved some curious particulars of Gennadias, whose death he seems to ascribe to the effect of a vision which he had while praying by night at the altar of his church. He saw the Evil one, who declared to him that, though things would remain quiet in his lifetime, his death would be followed by the devastation of the Church, or, as Theophanes has it, by the predominance of the Devil in the Church. (Evagr. H. E. ii. 11; Theod. Lect. H. E. excerpta apud Niceph. Callist. i. 13-26; Theophan. Chronog. vol. i., ed. Bonn.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

St. Gennadius I, Patriarch of Constantinople (458-471), has left scarcely any writings. Facundus (Defensio, II, iv) states that he wrote against St. Cyril of Alexandria, probably in 431-2, and quotes a passage to show that his work was more violent even than the letter of Ibas. If St. Cyril's letter of 434 (Ep. lvi) is to the same Gennadius, they were friends in that year. Gennadius succeeded Anatolius as Bishop of Constantinople in 458. On 17 June, 460, St. Leo wrote to him (Ep. clxx) warning him against Timothy Aelurus, the Monophysite who had made himself Patriarch of Alexandria. Not later, it seems, than 459 St. Gennadius celebrated a great council of eighty-one bishops, many of whom were from the East and even from Egypt, including those who had been dispossessed of their sees by Aelurus. The letter of this council against simony is still preserved (Mansi, VII, 912). About the same time St. Daniel the Stylite began to live on a column near Constantinople, apparently without the Patriarch's leave, and certainly without the permisslon of Gelasius, the owner of the property where the pillar stood, who strongly objected to this strange invasion of his land. The Emperor Leo protected the ascetic, and some time later sent St. Gennadius to ordain him priest, which he is said to have done standing at the foot of the column, since St. Daniel objected to being ordained, and refused to let the bishop mount the ladder. At the end of the rite, however, the patriarch ascended to give Holy Communion to the stylite and to receive it from him. Whether he then imposed his hands on him is not said. Possibly he considered it sufficient to extend them from below towards the saint. According to Theodorus Lector, Gennadius would allow no one to become a cleric unless he had learned the Psalter by heart. He made St. Marcian oeconomus of the Church of Constantinople.
  St. Gennadius is said by Joannes Moschus to have been very mild and of great purity. We are told by Gennadius of Marseilles that he was lingua nitidus et ingenio acer, and so rich in knowledge of the ancients that he composed a commentary on the whole Book of Daniel. The continuation of St. Jerome's Chronicle by Marcellinus Comes tells us (according to some manuscripts) that Gennadius commented on all St. Paul's Epistles. Some fragments are collected in Migne, P.G., LXXXV, chiefly from the two catenae of Cramer on Romans; a few passages are found in the catena of Aecumenius, and a few in the Vienna MS. gr. 166 (46). Some fragments in the catenae of Niceohorus show that Gennadius also commented on Genesis. He is seen to have been a learned writer, who followed the Antiochene school of literal exegesis. He is celebrated in the Greek Menaea on 25 Aug. and 17 Nov., and on the former day in the Roman-Martyrology.

Joah Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: Joseph P. Thomas
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.

Acacius (471-488)

Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, succeeded Gennadius A. D. 471, after being at the head of the Orphan Asylum of that city. He distinguished himself by defending the Council of Chalcedon against the emperor Basiliscus, who favoured the Monophysite heresy. Through his exertions Zeno, from whom Basiliscus had usurped the empire, was restored (A. D. 477), but the Monophysites meanwhile had gained so much strength that it was deemed advisable to issue a formula, conciliatory from its indefiniteness, called the Henoticon, A. D. 482. Acacius was led into other concessions, which drew upon him, on the accusation of John Talaia, against whom he supported the claims of Peter Mongus to the See of Alexandria, the anathema of Pope Felix II. A. D. 484. Peter Mongus had gained Acacius's support by professing assent to the canons of Chalcedon, though at heart a Monophysite. Acacius refused to give up Peter Mongus, but retained his see till his death, A. D. 488. There remain two letters of his, one to Pope Simplicius, in Latin, the other to Peter Fullo, Archbishop of Antioch, in the original Greek.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople; Schismatic; d. 489. When Acacius first appears in authentic history it is as the orphanotrophos, or dignitary entrusted with the care of the orphans, in the Church of Constantinople. He thus filled an ecclesiastical post that conferred upon its possessor high rank as well as curial influence; and, if we may borrow a hint as to his real character from the phrases in which Suidas has attempted to describe his undoubtedly striking personality, he early made the most of his opportunities. He seems to have affected an engaging magnificence of manner; was openhanded; suave, yet noble, in demeanour; courtly in speech, and fond of a certain ecclesiastical display. On the death of the Patriarch Gennadius, in 471, he was chosen to succeed him, and for the first five or six years of his episcopate his life was uneventful enough. But there came a change when the usurping Emperor Basiliscus allowed himself to be won over to Eutychian teaching by Timotheus ?lurus, the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, who chanced at that time to be a guest in the imperial capital. Timotheus, who had been recalled from exile only a short time previously, was bent on creating an effective opposition to the decrees of Chalcedon; and he succeeded so well at court that Basiliscus was induced to put forth an encyclical or imperial proclamation (egkyklios) in which the teaching of the Council was rejected. Acacius himself seems to have hesitated at first about adding his name to the list of the Asiatic bishops who had already signed the encyclical; but, warned by a letter from Pope Simplicius, who had learned of his questionable attitude from the ever-vigilant monastic party, he reconsidered his position and threw himself violently into the debate. This sudden change of front redeemed him in popular estimation, and he won the regard of the orthodox, particularly among the various monastic communities throughout the East, by his now ostentatious concern for sound doctrine. The fame of his awakened zeal even travelled to the West, and Pope Simplicius wrote him a letter of commendation. The chief circumstance to which he owed this sudden wave of popularity was the adroitness with which he succeeded in putting himself at the head of the particular movement of which Daniel the Stylite was both the coryphaeus and the true inspirer. The agitation was, of course, a spontaneous one on the part of its monastic promoters and of the populace at large, who sincerely detested Eutychian theories of the Incarnation; but it may be doubted whether Acacius, either in orthodox opposition now, or in unorthodox efforts at compromise later on, was anything profounder than a politician seeking to compass his own personal ends. Of theological principles he seems never to have had a consistent grasp. He had the soul of a gamester, and he played only for influence. Basiliscus was beaten.
  He withdrew his offensive encyclical by a counter-proclamation, but his surrender did not save him. His rival Zeno, who had been a fugitive up to the time of the Acacian opposition, drew near the capital. Basiliscus, deserted on all sides, sought sanctuary in the cathedral church and was given up to his enemies, tradition says, by the time-serving Patriarch. For a brief space there was complete accord between Acacius, the Roman Pontiff, and the dominant party of Zeno, on the necessity for taking stringent methods to enforce the authority of the Fathers of Chalcedon; but trouble broke out once more when the Monophysite party of Alexandria attempted to force the notorious Peter Mongus into that see against the more orthodox claims of John Talaia in the year 482. This time events took on a more critical aspect, for they gave Acacius the opportunity he seems to have been waiting for all along of exalting the authority of his see and claiming for it a primacy of honour and jurisdiction over the entire East, which would emancipate the bishops of the capital not only from all responsibility to the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but to the Roman Pontiff as well. Acacius, who had now fully ingratiated himself with Zeno, induced that emperor to take sides with Mongus. Pope Simplicius made a vehement but ineffectual protest, and Acacius replied by coming forward as the apostle of reunion for all the East. It was a specious and far-reaching scheme, but it laid bare eventually the ambitions of the Patriarch of Constantinople and revealed him, to use Cardinal Hergenrother's illuminating phrase, as "the forerunner of Photius".
  The first effective measure which Acacius adopted in his new role was to draw up a document, or series of articles, which constituted at once both a creed and an instrument of reunion. This creed, known to students of theological history as the Henoticon, was originally directed to the irreconcilable factions in Egypt. It was a plea for reunion on a basis of reticence and compromise. And under this aspect it suggests a significant comparison with another and better known set of "articles" composed nearly eleven centuries later, when the leaders of the Anglican schism were thridding a careful way between the extremes of Roman teaching on the one side and of Lutheran and Calvinistic negations on the other. The Henoticon affirmed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (i.e. the Creed of Nicaea completed at Constantinople) as affording a common symbol or expression of faith in which all parties could unite. All other symbola or mathemata were excluded; Eutyches and Nestorius were unmistakably condemned, while the anathemas of Cyril were accepted. The teaching of Chalcedon was not so much repudiated as passed over in silence; Jesus Christ was described as the "only-begotten Son of God . . . one and not two" (homologoumen ton monogene tou theou ena tygchanein kai ou duo . . . k.t.l.) and there was no explicit reference to the two Natures. Mongus naturally accepted this accomodatingly vague teaching. Talaia refused to subscribe to it and set out for Rome, where his cause was taken up with great vigour by Pope Simplicius. The controversy dragged on under Felix II (or III) who sent two legatine bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, to Constantinople, to summon Acacius before the Roman See for trial. Never was the masterfulness of Acacius so strikingly illustrated as in the ascendancy he acquired over this luckless pair of bishops. He induced them to communicate publicly with him and sent them back stultified to Rome, where they were promptly condemned by an indignant synod which reviewed their conduct. Acacius was branded by Pope Felix as one who had sinned against the Holy Ghost and apostolic authority (Habe ergo cum his . . . portionem S. Spiritus judicio et apostolica auctoritate damnatus); and he was declared to be perpetually excommunicate -nunquamque anathematis vinculis exuendus. Another envoy, inappropriately named Tutus, was sent to carry the decree of this double excommunication to Acacius in person: and he, too, like his hapless predecessors, fell under the strange charm of the courtly prelate, who enticed him from his allegiance. Acacius refused to accept the documents brought by Tutus and showed his sense of the authority of the Roman See, and of the synod which had condemned him, by erasing the name of Pope Felix from the diptychs. Talaia equivalently gave up the fight by consenting to become Bishop of Nola, and Acacius began by a brutal policy of violence and persecution, directed chiefly against his old opponents the monks, to work with Zeno for the general adoption of the Henoticon throughout the East. He thus managed to secure a political semblance of the prize for which he had worked from the beginning. He was practically the first prelate throughout Eastern Christendom until his death in 489. His schism outlived him some thirty years, and was ended only by the return of the Emperor Justin to unity, under Pope Hormisdas in 519.

Cornelius Cliford, ed.

This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.

Phrabitas or Fravitas or Flavitas(488-489)

Euphemius (489-495)

Euphemius of Constantinople (490-496) succeeded as patriarch Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489-490), who succeeded Acacius (471-489). The great Acacian schism (484-519), therefore, lasted during his reign. The Emperor Zeno (474-491) had published a decree called the "Henotikon" (482) that forbade in the current theological discussions any other criterion but that of Nicaea-Constantinople (ignoring the decrees of Chalcedon), carefully avoided speaking of Christ's two natures, and used ambiguous formulae that were meant to conciliate the Monophysites. The "Henotikon" really satisfied no one. Consistent Monophysites disliked it as much as Catholics. But Acacius at the capital, Peter Mongus of Alexandria, and Peter Fullo (Gnapheus) of Antioch, signed it. Pope Felix III (or II, 483-492) in a Roman synod of sixty-seven bishops (484) condemned the emperor's decree, deposed and excommunicated Acacius, Peter Mongus, and Peter Fullo. Acacius retorted by striking the pope's name from his diptychs and persecuted Catholics at Constantinople. When he died, Flavitas, his successor, applied for recognition at Rome, but in vain, since he would not give up communion with Peter Mongus. Euphemius recognized the Council of Chalcedon, restored the pope's name to his diptychs, and broke with Peter Mongus, who died in the year of Euphemius's accession (490). He was therefore a well-meaning person who wanted to restore the union with the Holy See. Unfortunately he still refused to erase the names of his two predecessors (Acacius and Flavitas) from the diptychs, where they occurred among the faithful departed. The pope insisted that heretics and favourers of heresy should not be prayed for publicly in the Liturgy; so during the reign of Euphemius the union he desired was not brought about. But Euphemius was always a Catholic at heart. Before the accession of the Emperor Anastasius I (491-518) he had made him sign a Catholic profession of faith (Evagrius, H.E., III, xxxii). After the death of Pope Felix, Euphemius wrote to his successor, Gelasius I (492-496), again asking for intercommunion on any terms but the condemnation of Acacius. This time, too, the pope refused to modify his condition (Gelasii Epist. et Decret.; P.L., LIX, 13). The patriarch had already summoned a synod at Constantinople in which he confirmed the decrees of Chalcedon (Mansi, VII, 1180). Eventually he fell foul of the emperor. A war against the Bulgars and Slavs was then going on, and Euphemius was accused of treason by revealing the emperor's plans to his enemies. A soldier tried, unsuccessfully, to murder the patriarch, apparently by order of Anastasius. The emperor further wanted to have back his written profession of faith, which Euphemius refused to give up. so he was deposed (496) in spite of the resistance of the people, and Macedonius II (496-511) was appointed successor. Macedonius seems to have been unwilling to take his place and refused to wear patriarchal vestments in his presence. Euphemius was exiled to Asia Minor and died in 515 at Ancyra. He was recognized to the end as lawful patriarch by Catholics in the East (Elias of Jerusalem, Flavian of Antioch, etc.).

Adrian Fortescue, ed.
Transcribed by: Gerald M. Knight
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.

St. Macedonius II., of Constantinople (495-511 AD)

Macedonius of Constantinople. Macedonius, the second patriarch of Constantinople of the name, was nephew of Gennadius I., who was patriarch from A. D. 459 to 471, and by whom he was brought up. He held the office of Sceuophylax, or keeper of the sacred vessels, in the great church at Constantinople, and, on the deposition of the patriarch Euphemius or Euthymius, was nominated patriarch by the emperor Anastasius I., who probably appreciated the mildness and moderation of his temper. His appointment is placed by Theophanes in A. M. 488, Alex. era, 496 A. D. Though he himself probably recognised the council of Chalcedon, he was persuaded by the emperor to subscribe the Henoticon of Zeno, in which that council was silently passed over, and endeavoured to reconcile to the church the monks of the monasteries of Constantinople, who had broken off from the communion of the patriarch from hatred to the Henoticon; but he met with no success, although, in order to gain them over, he persuaded the emperor to summon a council of the bishops who were then at Constantinople, and to confirm, by a writing or edict, several of the things which had been sanctioned by the council of Chalcedon, without, as it appears, directly recognizing the authority of the council. Macedonius, thus baffled in his designs, still treated the monks with mildness, abstaining from any harsh measures against them. Macedonius distinguished himself by his generosity and forbearance towards his predecessor Euphemius, and towards a man who had attempted to assassinate him. But the same praise of moderation cannot be given to all his acts, if, as stated by Victor of Tunes, he held a council in which the supporters of the council of Chalcedon were condemned. He occupied the patriarchate for sixteen years, and was deposed by the emperor, A. D. 511 or 512. According to Theophanes, the cause of his deposition was his maintenance of the authority of the council of Chalcedon, and his refusal to surrender the authentic record of the acts of that council. Anastasius urgently pressed him to disavow its authority, and when lie could not prevail on him, suborned witnesses to charge him with unnatural lusts (which, from self-mutilation, he could not indulge), and with heresy. He was prevented by the fear of popular indignation from instituting an inquiry into the truth of these charges, and therefore banished him without trial, first to Chalcedon, and then to Euchaeta; and appointed Timotheus bishop or patriarch in his room; and, having thus exiled him without any previous sentence of condemnation or deposition, he endeavoured to amend the irregularity of the proceeding by appointing a day for his trial, when he had him condemned in his absence, and by judges who were themselves accusers and witnesses. Many ecclesiastics, however, throughout the empire, refused to admit the validity of his deposition ; and his restoration to his see was one of the objects of the rebellion of Vitalian the Goth (A. D. 514), but it was not effected, and Macedonius died in exile, A. D. 516. Evagrius assigns a different cause for the emperor's hostility to him, namely, his refusal to surrender a written engagement not to alter the established creed of the church, which Anastasius had given to the patriarch Euphemius, and which had been committed to the care of Macedonius, then only Sceuophylax, and which he persisted in retaining when the emperor wished to recover it. He is honoured as a saint by the Greek and Latin churches. (Evagrius, H. E. iii. 30, 31, 32; Theodor. Lector. H. E. ii. 12-36; Theophan. Chronog. pp. 120-138, ed. Paris, pp. 96-110, ed. Venice, pp. 216-249, ed. Bonn; Marcellin. Chronicon; Victor Tunet. Chronicon; Liberatus, Breviarium, c. 19; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. i. col. 220; Tillemont, Memoires, vol. xvi. p. 663, &c.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Joannes II. the Cappadocian (518-520), St. 25 Aug

Epiphanius (520-535)

Epiphanius, of Constantinople. On the death of Joannes or John II., the Cappadocian, patriarch of Constantinople, Epiphanius, then a preshyter, was chosen to succeed him : he had been the "syncellus" or personal attendant (the functions of the syncellus are not determined) of his predecessor. The election of Epiphanius is stated by Theophanes to have taken place in Feb. A. D. 512 of the Alexandrian computation, equivalent to A. D. 519 or probably 520 of the common era; the account, transmitted only four days after his ordination, to pope Hormisdas, by the deacon Dioscurus, then at Constantinople, as one of the legates of the Roman see, given by Labbe (Concilia, vol. iv.), was received at Rome on the 7th of April, A. D. 520, which must therefore have been the year of his election. He occupied the see from A. D. 520 till his death in A. D. 535. Theophanes places his death in June, A. D. 529, Alex. comput. = A. D. 536 of the common era, after a patriarchate of sixteen years and three months; but Pagi shortens this calculation by a year. Epiphanius was one of the saints of the Greek calendar, and is mentioned in the Menologium translated by Sirletus, but not in that of the emperor Basil. He was succeeded by Anthimus, bishop of Trapezus.
  Some Letters of Epiphanius to pope Hormisdas, and of the pope to him, are extant in Labbe's Concilia; and in the Concilia of Binius (edit. 1606); in the latter they are given only in Latin. A decree of Epiphanius, and of a council in which he presided (apparently the council of Constantinople in A. D. 520, during the continuance of which he was elected tothe patriarchate), condemning and anathematizing for heresy Severus, patriarch of Antioch, Petrus or Peter, bishop of Apamea, and Zoaras, was read at a subsequent council of Constantinople, A. D. 536, under Menas or Mennas, successor of Anthimius, and appears in Labbe's Concilia. Some laws and constitutions of Justinian are addressed to Epiphanius. (Justin. Cod. 1. tit. 3. s. 42; de Episcopis et Cleris; Novellae, 3, 5).
  In the library of the king of Bavaria at Munich is a Greek MS. described (Hardt. Catalogus MSS. Graec. &c. Cod. cclvi.) as containing, among other things, a treatise by Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople, on the separation of the Latin and Greek churches; and a MS. in the Bodleian Library, Barocc. cxiv. (Catal. MStorum. Angliae et Hiberniae, Oxon. 1697) contains, with other things, a work by Epiphanius the patriarch On the excommunication of the, Latins by the Greeks on account of the Controversy concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit. Allatius also (adv. Creyghtonum) cites Epiphanius Patriarcha, de Origine dissidii inter Graecos et Latinos, probably the same work as that in the Bavarian MS. But the subjects of these treatises shew they were of later date than our patriarch, nor have we the means of determining their authorship. An Arabic MS. in the King's Library at Paris (Catal. MStorum. Bibl. Regiae, vol. i., Codex cxviii.) contains what is described as Canonum Epitome nec accurate nec antiqua, ascribed to Epiphanius.
  The account of Epiphanius by Evagrius contains two errors. He makes him the successor of Anthimius instead of the predecessor; and to have been succeeded by Menas or Mennas, who was the successor, not of Epiphanius, but of Anthimius. (Labbe and Binius, l. c.; Theophanes, Chronographia, ad annos citat.; Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 36; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii., xii.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

You are able to search for more information in greater and/or surrounding areas by choosing one of the titles below and clicking on "more".

Ferry Departures

Copyright 1999-2019 International Publications Ltd.