Listed 100 (total found 205) sub titles with search on: Religious figures biography for wider area of: "MARMARA Region TURKEY" .
VYZANTION (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
NIKOMIDIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
ADRIANOUPOLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY
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) 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
CHALKIDON (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
NIKOMIDIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
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.)
VYZANTION (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
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
VYZANTION (Ancient city) TURKEY
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.)
NIKEA (Ancient city) TURKEY
,
, 1200 - 1273
The Catholic Encyclopedia
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Thessalonica
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
All articles are available at the ancient city of Antiocheia
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Thessalonica
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Alexandria
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Nazianzus
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Tarsus
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Antiocheia
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Tarsus
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Sebasteia
Nestorius and Nestorianism
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
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.
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, 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.
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.
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
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
Anthimus (Anthimos), bishop of Trapezus
in Pontus, was made patriarch of Constantinople. . .
Georgius, of Cyprus, the elder, patriarch of Constantinople from A. D. 678 to
683. He held for a time the sentiments of the Monothelites, but afterwards, at
the council of Constantinople (A. D. 680), renounced them. He was anathematized
after his death at the iconoclastic council of Constantinople under Constantine
Copronymus, A. D. 753 or 754. (Theophan. Chronog. vol. i., ed. Bonn; Allatius,
Ibid. p. 14; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. p. 151.)
Germanus, of Constantinople, was the son of the patrician Justinian, who was put
to death by the emperor Constantine IV. Pogonatus, by whom Germanus himself was
castrated, apparently on account of his murmurs at his father's death. Germanus
was translated A. D. 715 from the archbishoprick of Cyzicus, which he had previously
held, to the patriarchal see of Constantinople. About two years afterwards he
negotiated the abdication of Theodosius III. in favour of Leo III. the Isaurian,
with whom he was subsequently involved in a contest on the subject of the use
of images in worship. It is probable that some difference between them had commenced
before Germanus was called upon to baptize Constantine, the infant son of Leo,
afterwards the emperor Constantine V. Copronymus. The infant polluted the baptismal
font (whence his surname), and the angry patriarch declared prophetically that
"much evil would come to the church and to religion through him." Germanus
vehemently opposed the iconoclastic measures of Leo; and his pertinacious resistance
occasioned his deposition, A. D. 730. He was succeeded by Anastasius, an opponent
of images, and the party of the Iconoclasts obtained a temporary triumph. Germanus
died A. D. 740. He was anathematised at a council of the Iconoclasts held at Constantinople
A. D. 754, in the reign of Constantine Copronymus; but after the overthrow of
that party he was regarded with reverence, and is reckoned both by the Latin and
Greek churches as a confessor.
Several works of Germanus are extant. 1. Peri ton hagion oikoumenikon
sunodon: posai eisi, kai pote kai sia ti sunethroisthesan: Of the General Councils;
how many they are, and uhen, and on what account they were assembled. This work,
in an imperfect form, and without the author's name, was, with the Nomocanon of
Pllotius, published by Christopher Justellus, 4to. Paris, 1615 : it is also contained
in the Bibliotheca Canonica of Henry Justellus; but was first given in a complete
form, and with the author's name, in the Varia Sacra of Le Moyne. 2. Epistolae.
Three letters addressed to different bishops, are in the Acta of the Second Nicene,
or Seventh General Council, held A. D. 787. 3. Homiliae, included in the Collection
of Pantinus (8vo. Antwerp, 1601); the Auctarium of Ducaeus, tom. ii.; and the
Novum Auctarium, and the Originum rerumque Constantinopolitanarum Manipulus of
Combefis. Latin versions of them are in the various editions of the Bibliotheca
Patrum. 4. A work mentioned by Photius, but now lost, against those who disparaged
or corrupted the writings of Gregory Nyssen. 5. Commentaries on the writings of
the pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. (Theophan. Chronog. vol. i.; Phot. Bibl. cod.
233; Zonaras, xiv. 20; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii., vol. viii., vol. xi.; Cave,
Hist. Litt. vol. i., ed. Oxford, 1740-43.)
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
Photius, (Photios). A Greek scholar of the Byzantine Period,
Patriarch of Constantinople A.D. 857-867 and 871-886. He died 891. Besides playing
a prominent part in the ecclesiastical controversies of his time, he was conspicuous
for his wide reading of ancient literature. Apart from theological writings, he
left two works which are of great service to the student of antiquity. The one,
the Bibliotheca (Murobiblion or Bibliotheke), is an account of 280 works, some
of which are now lost, some only imperfectly preserved, which he read on his embassy
to Assyria, with short notices and criticisms of matter and style, and in some
cases more or less complete abstracts; the other, a Lexicon (Lexeon Sunagoge),
or alphabetical glossary, of special value in connection with the Greek orators
and historians.
Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West,
was b. at Constantinople c. 815 (Hergenrother says "not much earlier than 827",
"Photius", I, 316; others, about 810); d. probably 6 Feb., 897. His father was
a spatharios (lifeguard) named Sergius. Symeon Magister ("De Mich. et Theod.",
Bonn ed., 1838, xxix, 668) says that his mother was an escaped nun and that he
was illegitimate. He further relates that a holy bishop, Michael of Synnada, before
his birth foretold that he would become patriarch, but would work so much evil
that it would be better that he should not be born. His father then wanted to
kill him and his mother, but the bishop said: "You cannot hinder what God has
ordained. Take care for yourself." His mother also dreamed that she would give
birth to a demon. When he was born the abbot of the Maximine monastery baptized
him and gave him the name Photius (Enlightened), saying: "Perhaps the anger of
God will be turned from him" (Symeon Magister, ibid., cf. Hergenrother, "Photius",
I, 318-19). These stories need not be taken seriously. It is certain that the
future patriarch belonged to one of the great families of Constantinople; the
Patriarch Tarasius (784-806), in whose time the seventh general council (Second
of Nic?a, 787) was held, was either elder brother or uncle of his father (Photius:
Ep. ii, P. G., CII, 609). The family was conspicuously orthodox and had suffered
some persecution in Iconoclast times (under Leo V, 813-20). Photius says that
in his youth he had had a passing inclination for the monastic life ("Ep. ad Orient.
et Oecon.", P. G., CII, 1020), but the prospect of a career in the world soon
eclipsed it.
He early laid the foundations of that erudition which eventually made
him one of the most famous scholars of all the Middle Ages. His natural aptitude
must have been extraordinary; his industry was colossal. Photius does not appear
to have had any teachers worthy of being remembered; at any rate he never alludes
to his masters. Hergenrother, however, notes that there were many good scholars
at Constantinople while Photius was a child and young man, and argues from his
exact and systematic knowledge of all branches of learning that he could not have
been entirely self-taught (op. cit., I, 322). His enemies appreciated his learning.
Nicetas, the friend and biographer of his rival Ignatius, praises Photius's skill
in grammar, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, medicine, law, "and all science" ("Vita
S. Ignatii" in Mansi, XVI, 229). Pope Nicholas I, in the heat of the quarrel writes
to the Emperor Michael III: "Consider very carefully how Photius can stand, in
spite of his great virtues and universal knowledge" (Ep. xcviii "Ad Mich.", P.
G., CXIX, 1030). It is curious that so learned a man never knew Latin. While he
was still a young man he made the first draft of his encyclop?dic "Myrobiblion".
At an early age, also, he began to teach grammar, philosophy, and theology in
his own house to a steadily increasing number of students.
His public career was to be that of a statesman, coupled with a military
command. His brother Sergius married Irene, the emperor's aunt. This connexion
and his undoubted merit procured Photius speedy advancement. He became chief secretary
of State (protosekretis) and captain of the Life Guard (protospatharios). He was
unmarried. Probably about 838 he was sent on an embassy "to the Assyrians" ("Myrobiblion",
preface), i. e., apparently, to the Khalifa at Bagdad. In the year 857, then,
when the crisis came in his life, Photius was already one of the most prominent
members of the Court of Constantinople. That crisis is the story of the Great
Schism (see GREEK CHURCH).
The emperor was Michael III (842-67), son of the Theodora who had finally restored
the holy images. When he succeeded his father Theophilus (829-842) he was only
three years old; he grew to be the wretched boy known in Byzantine history as
Michael the Drunkard (ho methystes). Theodora, at first regent, retired in 856,
and her brother Bardas succeeded, with the title of Ceasar. Bardas lived in incest
with his daughter-in-law Eudocia, wherefore the Patriarch Ignatius (846-57) refused
him Holy Communion on the Epiphany of 857. Ignatius was deposed and banished (Nov.
23, 857), and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place. He was hurried
through Holy Orders in six days; on Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse,
himself excommunicate for insubordination by Ignatius, ordained Photius patriarch.
By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained
bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and
to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person
made him too excommunicate ipso facto.
After vain attempts to make Ignatius resign his see, the emperor tried
to obtain from Pope Nicholas I (858-67) recognition of Photius by a letter grossly
misrepresenting the facts and asking for legates to come and decide the question
in a synod. Photius also wrote, very respectfully, to the same purpose (Hergenrother,
"Photius", I, 407-11). The pope sent two legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary
of Anagni, with cautious letters. The legates were to hear both sides and report
to him. A synod was held in St. Sophia's (May, 861). The legates took heavy bribes
and agreed to Ignatius's deposition and Photius's succession. They returned to
Rome with further letters, and the emperor sent his Secretary of State, Leo, after
them with more explanations (Hergenrother, op. cit., I, 439-460). In all these
letters both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledge the Roman primacy
and categorically invoke the pope's jurisdiction to confirm what has happened.
Meanwhile Ignatius, in exile at the island Terebinth, sent his friend the Archimandrite
Theognostus to Rome with an urgent letter setting forth his case (Hergenrother,
I, 460-461). Theognostus did not arrive till 862. Nicholas, then, having heard
both sides, decided for Ignatius, and answered the letters of Michael and Photius
by insisting that Ignatius must be restored, that the usurpation of his see must
cease (ibid, I, 511-16, 516-19). He also wrote in the same sense to the other
Eastern patriarchs (510-11). From that attitude Rome never wavered: it was the
immediate cause of the schism. In 863 the pope held a synod at the Lateran in
which the two legates were tried, degraded, and excommunicated. The synod repeats
Nicholas's decision, that Ignatius is lawful Patriarch of Constantinople; Photius
is to be excommunicate unless he retires at once from his usurped place.
But Photius had the emperor and the Court on his side. Instead of
obeying the pope, to whom he had appealed, he resolved to deny his authority altogether.
Ignatius was kept chained in prison, the pope's letters were not allowed to be
published. The emperor sent an answer dictated by Photius saying that nothing
Nicholas could do would help Ignatius, that all the Eastern Patriarchs were on
Photius's side, that the excommunication of the legates must be explained and
that unless the pope altered his decision, Michael would come to Rome with an
army to punish him. Photius then kept his place undisturbed for four years. In
867 he carried the war into the enemy's camp by excommunicating the pope and his
Latins. The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs,
are: that Latins
1. fast on Saturday
2. do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in
the East)
3. do not allow priests to be married
4. do not allow priests to administer confirmation
5. have added the filioque to the creed.
Because of these errors the pope and all Latins are: "forerunners of apostasy,
servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against
God" (Hergenrother, I, 642-46). It is not easy to say what the Melchite patriarchs
thought of the quarrel at this juncture. Afterwards, at the Eighth General Council,
their legates declared that they had pronounced no sentence against Photius because
that of the pope was obviously sufficient.
Then, suddenly, in the same year (Sept. 867), Photius fell. Michael
III was murdered and Basil I (the Macedonian, 867-86) seized his place as emperor.
Photius shared the fate of all Michael's friends. He was ejected from the patriarch's
palace, and Ignatius restored. Nicholas I died (Nov. 13, 867). Adrian II (867-72),
his successor, answered Ignatius's appeal for legates to attend a synod that should
examine the whole matter by sending Donatus, Bishop of Ostia, Stephen, Bishop
of Nepi, and a deacon, Marinus. They arrived at Constantinople in Sept., 869,
and in October the synod was opened which Catholics recognize as the Eighth General
Council (Fourth of Constantinople). This synod tried Photius, confirmed his deposition,
and, as he refused to renounce his claim, excommunicated him. The bishops of his
party received light penances (Mansi, XVI, 308-409). Photius was banished to a
monastery at Stenos on the Bosphorus. Here he spent seven years, writing letters
to his friends, organizing his party, and waiting for another chance. Meanwhile
Ignatius reigned as patriarch. Photius, as part of his policy, professed great
admiration for the emperor and sent him a fictitious pedigree showing his descent
form St. Gregory the Illuminator and a forged prophecy foretelling his greatness
(Mansi, XVI, 284). Basil was so pleased with this that he recalled him in 876
and appointed him tutor to his son Constantine. Photius ingratiated himself with
everyone and feigned reconciliation with Ignatius. It is doubtful how far Ignatius
believed in him, but Photius at this time never tires of expatiating on his close
friendship with the patriarch. He became so popular that when Ignatius died (23
Oct, 877) a strong party demanded that Photius should succeed him; the emperor
was now on their side, and an embassy went to Rome to explain that everyone at
Constantinople wanted Photius to be patriarch. The pope (John VIII, 872-82) agreed,
absolved him from all censure, and acknowledged him as patriarch.
This concession has been much discussed. It has been represented,
truly enough, that Photius had shown himself unfit for such a post; John VIII's
acknowledgment of him has been described as showing deplorable weakness. On the
other hand, by Ignatius's death the See of Constantinople was now really vacant;
the clergy had an undoubted right to elect their own patriarch; to refuse to acknowledge
Photius would have provoked a fresh breach with the East, would not have prevented
his occupation of the see, and would have given his party (including the emperor)
just reason for a quarrel. The event proved that almost anything would have been
better than to allow his succession, if it could be prevented. But the pope could
not foresee that , and no doubt hoped that Photius, having reached the height
of his ambition, would drop the quarrel.
In 878, then, Photius at last obtained lawfully the place he had formerly
usurped. Rome acknowledged him and restored him to her communion. There was no
possible reason now for a fresh quarrel. But he had identified himself so completely
with that strong anti-Roman party in the East which he mainly had formed, and,
doubtless, he had formed so great a hatred of Rome, that now he carried on the
old quarrel with as much bitterness as ever and more influence. Nevertheless he
applied to Rome for legates to come to another synod. There was no reason for
the synod, but he persuaded John VIII that it would clear up the last remains
of the schism and rivet more firmly the union between East and West. His real
motive was, no doubt, to undo the effect of the synod that had deposed him. The
pope sent three legates, Cardinal Peter of St. Chrysogonus, Paul, Bishop of Ancona,
and Eugene, Bishop of Ostia. The synod was opened in St. Sophia's in November,
879. This is the "Psuedosynodus Photiana" which the Orthodox count as the Eighth
General Council. Photius had it all his own way throughout. He revoked the acts
of the former synod (869), repeated all his accusations against the Latins, dwelling
especially on the filioque grievance, anathematized all who added anything to
the Creed, and declared that Bulgaria should belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate.
The fact that there was a great majority for all these measures shows how strong
Photius's party had become in the East. The legates, like their predecessors in
861, agreed to everything the majority desired (Mansi, XVII, 374 sq.). As soon
as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation.
Instead John, naturally, again excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again.
This time it lasted seven years, till Basil I's death in 886.
Basil was succeeded by his son Leo VI (886-912), who strongly disliked
Photius. One of his first acts was to accuse him of treason, depose, and banish
him (886). The story of this second deposition and banishment is obscure. The
charge was that Photius had conspired to depose the emperor and put one of his
own relations on the throne---an accusation which probably meant that the emperor
wanted to get rid of him. As Stephen, Leo's younger brother, was made patriarch
(886-93) the real explanation may be merely that Leo disliked Photius and wanted
a place for his brother. Stephen's intrusion was as glaring an offence against
canon law as had been that of Photius in 857; so Rome refused to recognize him.
It was only under his successor Antony II (893-95) that a synod was held which
restored reunion for a century and a half, till the time of Michael C?rularius
(1043-58). But Photius had left a powerful anti-Roman party, eager to repudiate
the pope's primacy and ready for another schism. It was this party, to which C?rularius
belonged, that triumphed at Constantinople under him, so that Photius is rightly
considered the author of the schism which still lasts. After this second deposition
Photius suddenly disappears from history. It is not even known in what monastery
he spent his last years. Among his many letters there is none that can be dated
certainly as belonging to this second exile. The date of his death, not quite
certain, is generally given as 6 February, 897.
That Photius was one of the greatest men of the Middle Ages, one of
the most remarkable characters in all church history, will not be disputed. His
fatal quarrel with Rome, though the most famous, was only one result of his many-sided
activity. During the stormy years he spent on the patriarch's throne, while he
was warring against the Latins, he was negotiating with the Moslem Khalifa for
the protection of the Christians under Moslem rule and the care of the Holy Places,
and carrying on controversies against various Eastern heretics, Armenians, Paulicians
etc. His interest in letters never abated. Amid all his cares he found time to
write works on dogma, Biblical criticism, canon law, homilies, an encyclop?dia
of all kinds of learning, and letters on all questions of the day. Had it not
been for his disastrous schism, he might be counted the last, and one of the greatest,
of the Greek Fathers. There is no shadow of suspicion against his private life.
He bore his exiles and other troubles manfully and well. He never despaired of
his cause and spent the years of adversity in building up his party, writing letters
to encourage his old friends and make new ones.
And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable
ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to
the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful
patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any
one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government.
And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the
very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the
emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented
the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived
at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience
to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his
war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have
known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance,
as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact
that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII's successor, was translated from another
see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an
atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons
of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in
his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion
of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this
championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast,
their office overflows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of
the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker
for God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns of Roman
pride" ("Menologion" for 6 Feb., ed. Maltzew, I, 916 sq.). The Catholic remembers
this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities
and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God.
One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot
on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so
covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final
judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause
of the greatest calamity that ever befell her.
WORKS
Of Photius's prolific literary production part has been lost. A great merit of what remains is that he has preserved at least fragments of earlier Greek works of which otherwise we should know nothing. This applies especially to his "Myriobiblion".
1. The "Myriobiblion" or "Bibliotheca" is a collection of descriptions of books
he had read, with notes and sometimes copious extracts. It contains 280 such notices
of books (or rather 279; no. 89 is lost) on every possible subject -theology,
philosophy, rhetoric, grammar, physics, medicine. He quotes pagans and Christians,
Acts of Councils, Acts of Martyrs, and so on, in no sort of order. For the works
thus partially saved (otherwise unknown) see Krumbacher, "Byz. Litter.", 518-19.
2. The "Lexicon" (Lexeon synagoge) was compiled, probably, to a great extent by
his students under his direction (Krumbacher, ibid., 521), from older Greek dictionaries
(Pausanias, Harpokration, Diogenianos, Aelius Dionysius). It was intended as a
practical help to readers of the Greek classics, the Septuagint, and the New testament.
Only one MS. of it exists, the defective "Codex Galeanus" (formerly in the possession
of Thomas Gale, now at Cambridge), written about 1200.
3. The "Amphilochia", dedicated to one of his favourite disciples, Amphilochius
of Cyzicus, are answers to questions of Biblical, philosophical, and theological
difficulties, written during his first exile (867-77). There are 324 subjects
discussed, each in a regular form -question, answer, difficulties, solutions-
but arranged again in no order. Photius gives mostly the views of famous Greek
Fathers, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, especially Theodoret.
4. Biblical works. Only fragments of these are extant, chiefly in Catenas. The
longest are from Commentaries on St. Matthew and Romans.
5. Canon Law. The classical "Nomocanon" (q. v.), the official code of the Orthodox
Church, is attributed to Photius. It is, however, older than his time (see JOHN
SCHOLASTICUS). It was revised and received additions (from the synods of 861
and 879) in Photius's time, probably by his orders. The "Collections and Accurate
Expositions" (Eunagolai kai apodeixeis akribeis) (Hergenrother, op. cit., III,
165-70) are a series of questions and answers on points of canon law, really an
indirect vindication of his own claims and position. A number of his letters bear
on canonical questions.
6. Homilies. Hergenrother mentions twenty-two sermons of Photius (III, 232). Of
these two were printed when Hergenrother wrote (in P. G., CII, 548, sq.), one
on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and one at the dedication of a new church
during his second patriarchate. Later, S. Aristarches published eighty-three homilies
of different kinds (Constantinople, 1900).
7. Dogmatic and polemical works. Many of these bear on his accusations against
the Latins and so form the beginning of the long series of anti-Catholic controversy
produced by Orthodox theologians. The most important is "Concerning the Theology
about the Holy Ghost" (Peri tes tou hagiou pneumatos mystagonias, P. G., CII,
264-541), a defence of the Procession from God the Father alone, based chiefly
on John, xv, 26. An epitome of the same work, made by a later author and contained
in Euthymius Zigabenus's "Panoplia", XIII, became the favourite weapon of Orthodox
controversialists for many centuries. The treatise "Against Those who say that
Rome is the First See", also a very popular Orthodox weapon, is only the last
part or supplement of the "Collections", often written out separately. The "Dissertation
Concerning the Reappearance of the Manich?ans" (Diegesis peri tes manichaion anablasteseos,
P. G., CII, 9-264), in four books, is a history and refutation of the Paulicians.
Much of the "Amphilochia" belongs to this heading. The little work "Against the
Franks and other Latins" (Hergenrother, "Monumenta", 62-71), attributed to Photius,
is not authentic. It was written after C?rularius (Hergenrother, "Photius", III,
172-224).
8. Letters. Migne, P. G., CII, publishes 193 letters arranged in three books;
Balettas (London, 1864) has edited a more complete collection in five parts. They
cover all the chief periods of Photius's life, and are the most important source
for his history.
A. Ehrhard (in Krumbacher, "Byzantinische Litteratur", 74-77) judges Photius as
a distinguished preacher, but not as a theologian of the first importance. His
theological work is chiefly the collection of excerpts from Greek Fathers and
other sources. His erudition is vast, and probably unequalled in the Middle Ages,
but he has little originality, even in his controversy against the Latins. Here,
too, he only needed to collect angry things said by Byzantine theologians before
his time. But his discovery of the filioque grievance seems to be original. Its
success as a weapon is considerably greater than its real value deserves (Fortescue,
"Orthodox Eastern Church", 372-84).
Editions.
The works of Photius known at the time were collected by Migne, P. G., CI-CV.
J. Balettas, Photiou epistolai (London, 1864), contains other letters (altogether
260) not in Migne. A. Papadopulos-Kerameus, "S. Patris Photii Epistol? XLV" (St.
Petersburg, 1896) gives forty-five more, of which, however, only the first twenty-one
are authentic. S. Aristaches, Photiou logoi kai homiliai 83 (Constantinople, 1900,
2 vols.), gives other homilies not in Migne. Oikonomos has edited the "Amphilochia"
(Athens, 1858) in a more complete text. J. Hergenrother, "Monumenta graeca ad
Photium eiusque historiam pertinentia" (Ratisbon, 1869), and Papadopulos-Kerameus,
"Monumenta graeca et latina ad historiam Photii patriarch? pertinentia" (St. Petersburg,
2 parts, 1899 and 1901), add further documents.
Adrian Fortescue, ed.
Transcribed by: Thomas J. Bress
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Alexius (Alexios), Patriarch of Constantinople, a member of the monastery of Studius
(founded A. D. 460), succeeded Eustathius as Patriarch A. D. 1025. In A. D. 1034
he crowned Michael IV. the favourite of Zoe, who, to make way for him, procured
the death of her husband, the Emperor Romanus. He thwarted the attempts of John
(the emperor's brother) to gain the patriarchal see (A. D. 1036), and died A.
D. 1043.
Constantinus Lichudes, or Licudex, protovestiarius, became patriarch of Constantinople about A. D. 1058, and died in 1066. We have two Decreta Synodalia of him, on "Criminal Slaves", and on "Priests being arrested for Murder", which are contained with a Latin translation in Leunclavius, Jus Graeco-Romanum.
Anchialus, Michael (Anchialos), patriarch of Constantinople from 1167 to 1185 A. D., was a warm opponent of the union of the Greek and Roman churches, and an eminent Aristotelian [p. 168] philosopher. His extant works are, 1. Five synodal decrees, published in Greek and Latin in the Jus Gr. Rom. (iii. p. 227), and 2. A dialogue with the emperor Manuel Comnenus concerning the claims of the Roman pontiff. Of the latter work only some extracts have been published, by Leo Allatius. (De Eccles. Occident. atque Oricnt. perpet. Consens.)
Camaterus, Joannes (Ioannes Kamateros), patriarch of Constantinople front A. D. 1198 to 1204. We have four iambic lines in praise of him, which were written by Ephraemus, and are printed in Leo Allatius, De Consensu, &c. (i.). Nicolaus Comnenus (Pracnot. Mystag.) mentions an oration of his on homicide, and another, on the marriage of Consobrini, is printed in Freher's Jus Graecum (iv.). An epistle of J. Camaterus addressed to Innocent III. is printed in a Latin translation among the letters of Innocent, with the reply of the latter. In this letter Camaterus expresses his wonder at the Roman church assuming the title of the universal church. Among the other works of his which are still extant in MS. there is an iambic poem inscribed to the emperor Manuel Comnenus, and entitled peri zodiakou kuklou kai ton allon hapanton ton en ourano.
Manuel Charitopulus (ho Charitopoulos), or Sarantenus (ho Sarantenos), or the Philosopher, a Greek ecclesiastic of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, acquired a high reputation by his philosophical attainments. He was appointed patriarch of Constantinople on the death of Maximus II., which occurred in A. D. 1215, and held the patri archate for five years and seven months, dying about the middle of A. D. 1221. Three synodal decrees of a Manuel, patriarch of Constantinople, are given in the Jus Graeco-Romanum of Leunclavius (lib. iii. p. 238, &c.), who assigns them to Charitopulus, and is followed by Cave and Oudin, who have confounded Charitopulus with another Manuel. Le Quien objects to this judgment of Leunclavius, as not founded on evidence; and with better reason adjudges them to Manuel II. Ephraem of Constantinople celebrates Charitopulus as Phulax akribes kai nomon kai kanonon, "an exact observer of the laws and canons." (Georg. Acropolit. Annal. c. 19, p. 17, ed. Paris, p. 35, ed. Bonn; Ephraem. de Patriarchis CP. vs. 10251, ed. Bonn; Anonymus (supposed by some to be Niceph. Callist.), de Patriarchis CPolitanis Carmen Iambicum, and Patriarchae CPoleos, apud Labbe, de Histor. Byzant. Scriptorib. Protreptikon ; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. i. col. 278; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 1240, vol. ii. p. 297, ed. Oxford, 1740-42; Oudin, Comment. de Scriptorib. et Scriptis Eccles. vol. iii. col. 177.)
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
Germanus, of Constantinople, the younger, was born at Anaplus on the Propontis, and before his elevation to the patriarchate (A. D. 1222) was a monk of piety and learning. Though counted in the succession of the Greek patriarchs of Constantinople, he discharged the functions of his office at Nice, in Bithynia, Constantinople itself being then in the hands of the Latins. He was anxious for the union of the Greek and Latin churches, and wrote to the pope Gregory IX. a letter, of which a Latin version is included among the letters of that pope, and is given, with the version of a letter of Germanus to the cardinals, and the pope's answer, by Matthew Paris. (Historia Major, ed. Wats, fol. Lond. 1640.) The letters are assigned by Matthew Paris to the year 1237, instead of 1232, which is their proper date. The emperor Joannes Ducas Vataces was also favourable to the union, and a conference was held in his presence by Germanus and some ecclesiastics sent by the pope. A council on the subject was afterwards held (A. D. 1233) at Nymphaea, in Bithynia, but it came to nothing. Oudin affirms that after the failure of this negotiation, Germanus became as hostile to the Romish church as he had before been friendly. According to Cave and Oudin, Germanus was deposed A. D. 1240, restored in 1254, and died shortly after; and their statement is confirmed by Nicephorus Gregoras (Hist. Byzant. iii. 1, ed. Bonn), who says that he died a little before the election of Theodore Lascaris II., in A. D. 1254 or 1255. According to other statements, founded on a passage in George Acropolita, c. 43, Germanus died A. D. 1239 or 1240. The writings of Germanus are very numerous, and comprehend, 1. Epistolae. Beside those published in the Historia Major of Matthew Paris, there are two, Ad Cyprios, in the Monumenta Eccles. Graec. of Cotelerius, vol. i. 2. Orationes, and Homiliae. These are published, some in the Homiliae Sacrae of David Hoeschelius; others in the Auctarium of Ducaeus, vol. ii., in the Auctarium of Combefis, vol. i., in the collection of Gretser De Cruce, vol. ii., and in the Originum Rerumque CPolitanarum Manipulus of Combefis, and in some editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum. 3. Decreta. Three of these are published in the Jus Graeco-Romanum of Leunclavius, lib. iii., and in the Jus Orientale of Bonefidius. 4. Idiomelum in Festum Annunciationis, in the Auctarium of Combefis. 5. Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Theoria, or Expositio in Liturgiam, given in Greek and Latin in the Auctarium of Ducaeus and the Graec. Eccles. Monum. of Cotelerius. There is some difficulty in distinguishing his writings from those of the elder Germanus of Constantinople. Many of his works are unpublished. Fabricius gives an enumeration of them. (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi.; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. ; Oudin. De Script. Ecc. vol. iii. col. 52, &c.)
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
Manuel of Constantinople. There were two Manuels patriarchs of Constantinople, Manuel I. Charitopulus and Manuel II., the subject of the present article. Cave, Oudin, and others, seem to have confounded the two, for they state that Manuel Charitopulus succeeded Germanus II. in A. D. 1240. Charitopulus was the predecessor of Germanus, not his successor; Manuel II. was his successor, though not immediately, for the brief patriarchate of Methodius II. and a vacancy in the see, of considerable but uncertain length, intervened. Manuel's death is distinctly fixed as having occurred two months before that of the emperor Joannes Ducas Vatatzes, which occurred 30th Oct. A. D. 1255. The duration of his patriarchate is fixed by Nicephorus Callisti, according to Le Quien, at eleven years, but the table in the Protrepticon of Labbe assigns to him fourteen years; so that A. D. 1241 or 1244 will be assumed as the year of his accession, according as one or the other of these authorities is preferred. Manuel held, before his patriarchate, a high place among the ecclesiastics of the Byzantine court then fixed at Nice, and was reputed a man of piety and holiness " though married," and of mild and gentle disposition, but by no means learned. The three Sentenliae Synodales of the patriarch Manuel, given in the Jus Gracco-Romanum, undoubtedly belong to this patriarch, not to Charitopulus, for the second of them, De Translatione Episcoporum, is expressly dated July, Indict. 8, A. M. 6758, era of Constant. = A. D. 1250. Some works in MS., especially a letter to pope Innocent, by " Manuel Patriarcha CPol.," probably belong to the subject of this article. (Georg. Acropolit. Annual. c. 42, 51, 52, 53, pp. 39, 54, 56, 57, ed. Paris, pp. 77, 107, 110, 112, ed. Bonn; Ephraem. de Joan. Duca. Vatatze, vs. 8860; De Theod. Duca. Lascare, vs. 8922; De Patriarch. CP. vs. 10.267, &c.; Le Quien, Oriens Christ. vol. i. col. 279; Cave and Oudin, as in No. 4; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 668.)
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
Arsenius (Arsenios) of Constantinople, surnamed Autorianus, lived about the middle of the thirteenth century. He was educated in some monastery in Nicaea, of which he afterwards became the head. After he had held this office for some time, he led a private and ascetic life; and he appears to have passed some time also in one of the monasteries on mount Athos. At length, about A. D. 1255, the emperor Theodorus Lascaris the Younger raised him to the dignity of patriarch. In A. D. 1259, when the emperor died, he appointed Arsenius and Georgius Muzalo guardians to his son Joannes; but when Muzalo began to harbour treacherous designs against the young prince, Arsenius, indignant at such faithless intrigues, resigned the office of patriarch, and withdrew to a monastery. In A. D. 1260, when the Greeks had recovered possession of Constantinople under Michael Palaeologus, Arsenius was invited to the imperial city, and requested to resume the dignity of patriarch. In the year following, the emperor Michael Palaeologus ordered prince Joannes, the son of Theodorus Lascaris, to be blinded; and Arsenius not only censured this act of the emperor publicly, but punished him for it with excommunication. Michael in vain implored forgiveness, till at length, enraged at such presumption, he assembled a council of bishops, brought several fictitious accusations against his patriarch, and caused him to be deposed and exiled to Proconnesus. Here Arsenius survived his honourable disgrace for several years; but the time of his death is unknown. Fabricius places it in A. D. 1264. He was a man of great virtue and piety, but totally unfit for practical life. At the time when he was yet a monk, he wrote a synopsis of divine laws (Synopsis Canonum), collected from the writings of the fathers and the decrees of councils. The Greek original, accompanied by a Latin translation, was published by H. Justellus in the Biblioth. Jur. Canon.
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
Glycis, Ioannis, (Ioannes ho Glukis), or perhaps also Glycas (Glukas), patriarch
of Constantinople from 1316 to 1320, was a scholar of great learning, and renowned
for his oratorical attainments. He was the teacher of Nicephorus Gregoras, the
historian, who speaks of him with great praise in several passages of his History.
Glycis resigned his office, worn out by age, sickness, and labour, and retired
to the convent of Cynotissa, living there upon a small sum of money, which was
all that he had reserved for himself out of his extensive property.
Glycis wrote in a superior style, and endeavoured to purify the Greek
language from those barbarisms with which it was then crowded. He was not only
distinguished as a scholar and divine, but also as a statesman. The emperor sent
him as ambassador to Rome, and Glycis wrote an account of his journey thither,
of which Nicephorus Gregoras speaks with great praise, but which is unfortunately
lost. His other works are, a Greek grammar, extant in MS. in various libraries,
entitled Peri Orthotetos Suntaxeos. He has also left some minor productions; such
as He paraitesis tou Patriarcheiou, in which he explains the motives that induced
him to resign the patriarchate, and Hupomnestikon eis ton basilea ton hagion,
an admonition to the holy emperor, viz. Michael Palaeologus, extant in MSS. in
the Royal Library in Paris. (Wharton's Appendix to Cave's Hist. Lit., ad an. 1316;
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi.; Jahn, Anecd. Graeca, Praef.)
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
Calecas Joannes (Ioannes Kalekas), was patriarch of Constantinople from A. D. 1333 to 1347. (Cantacuz, Hist. Byz. iii. 21.) He was a native of the town of Apri or Aprus in Thrace, and before he was made patriarch he held a high ecclesiastical office at the court of the emperor Andronicus. He delivered a great number of homilies at Constantinople, which created great sensation in their time, and sixty of which are said to be still extant in MS. But only two of them have been published by Grester (De Cruce, ii., and the latter under the erroneous name of Philotheus.
Patriarch of Constantinople
Matthaeus Patriarcha, was removed from the episcopal see of Cyzicus to the patriarchate of Constantinople ; abdicated in 1395, and died in 1408. He wrote several treatises on religious subjects, of which are extant in MS.: "Testamentum, sive Ultima Voluntas ;" "Hypotyposis sive Informatio ad seipsum et ad Episcopos sibi subjectos." If he wrote this in 1398, as is presumed, he seems to have abdicated after that year, and not as early as 1395. (Cave, Hist. Liter. Append. p. 54, ed. Geneva; Oudin, Comment. de SS. Eccles. vol. iii. p. 2209, &c., ad an. 1400.)
CHALKIDON (Ancient city) TURKEY
,
, 451
The Catholic Encyclopedia
d. unknown, feastday: April 28
d. 394, feastday: September 24
DARDANELLES (Sea strait) CANAKKALE
d.c. 81, feastday: September 6
DREPANON (Ancient city) VITHYNIA
,
, 250 - 330
The mother of Constantine the Great, born about the middle of the third century, possibly in Drepanum (later known as Helenopolis)
Helena, Flavia Julia. The mother of Constantine the Great, was unquestionably of low origin, perhaps the daughter of an innkeeper, but the report chronicled by Zosimus, and not rejected by Orosius, that she was not joined in lawful wedlock to Chlorus seems to be no less destitute of foundation than the monkish legend which represents her father as a British or Caledonian king. When her husband was elevated to the dignity of Caesar by Diocletian, in A. D. 292, he was compelled to repudiate his wife, to make way for Theodora, the step-child of Maximianus Herculius : but the necessity of such a divorce is in itself a sufficient proof that the existing marriage was regarded as regular and legal. Subsequently, when her son succeeded to the purple, Helena was in some degree compensated for her suffering, for she was treated during the remainder of her career with the most marked distinction, received the title of Augusta, and after her death, at an advanced age, about A. D. 328, her memoory was kept alive by the names of Helenopolis and Helenopontus, bestowed respectively upon a city of Syria, a city of Bithynia, and a district bordering on the Euxine. The virtues of this holy lady, her attachment to the Christian faith, which she appears to have embraced at the instance of Constantine, her pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where she was believed to have discovered the sepulchre of our Lord, together with the wood of the true cross, and her zealous patronage of the faithful, have afforded a copious theme to Eusebius, Sozomenus, Theodoretus, and ecclesiastical historians, and, at a later period, procured for her the glory of canonisation. (Gruter, C.I. cclxxxiv. 1; Eutrop. x. 2; Aurel. Vict. Epit. 39, 40; Zosim. ii. 8; Oros. vii. 25 ; Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 46, 47; Sozomen. ii. 1 ; Theodoret. i. 18. On the legitimacy of St. Helena's marriage, see Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. iv., Notes sur l'Empereur Constantin, not. i., and on the period of her death, not. lvii.)
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
ENOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
d.c. 343, feastday: June 12 (Catholic). Bishop of Enos, in Rumelia, he was a dedicated foe of the heresy of Arianism and endured persecution, including removal from his see, by the Arian Emperor Constantius II. Olympius also defended another opponent of Arianism, St. Athanasius.
d. 340, feastday: August 28
d.c. 918, feastday: July 23
d. 8th century, feastday: April 12
d. 952, feastday: March 26
d.c. 300, feastday: September 26
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
