gtp logo

Location information

Listed 100 (total found 120) sub titles with search on: Religious figures biography  for wider area of: "ISTANBUL Town TURKEY" .

Religious figures biography (120)


Mammas (Gregorius)

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

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




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

Other persons

Josephus Hymnographus

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


St. Metrophanes (Bishop, 306-314)

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

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

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

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

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

Eudoxius of Antioch (Bishop 360-370)

All articles are available at the ancient city of Antiocheia

Demophilus (Bishop, 370-379)

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

Maximus, (Bishop, 380)

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

St. Gregorius I. Nazianzenus (379-381)

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

St. Nectarius (381-397)

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

St. John Chrysostomus (398-404)

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

Arsacius of Tarsus (404-405)

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

St. Atticus (406-425)

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

St. Flavianus (Patriarch 446-449)

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

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

St. Anatolius (449- 458)

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

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

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

St. Gennadius I (458-471)

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

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

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

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

Acacius (471-488)

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

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

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

Cornelius Cliford, ed.

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

Phrabitas or Fravitas or Flavitas(488-489)

Euphemius (489-495)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epiphanius (520-535)

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

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

Anthimus (535-536)

Anthimus (Anthimos), bishop of Trapezus in Pontus, was made patriarch of Constantinople. . .

Joannes IV., the Nesteutes (582-595), St. 2 Sep

Georgius of Cyprus (678-683) 683

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 (715-730)

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

St. Nicephorus I (Patriarch 806-815)

Leo (Leon) of Thessalonica (832-842 AD)

Photius the Great (857-867 & 871-886)

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.

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).

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.

Nicholas II Chrysoberges (984-996)

Alexius I., Studites (1025-1043)

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 III., Lichudes (1058-1066)

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.

Leo (Leon) Stypiota or Styppa (1134-1143 AD)

Michael III., Anchialus (1167-1185)

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.)

Joannes X., Camaterus (1198-1204)

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 (1215-1222 AD)

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 ΙΙ., the Younger (1222-1240)

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 (1241- 1255 AD)

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 Autorianus (1255-1264?)

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

St. Nephon (Patriarch 1310-1314)

Ioannis ΧΙΙΙ., Glycis (1316-1320)

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

Joannes XIV., Calecas (1333-1347)

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.

St. Callistus I., (1350-1363)

Patriarch of Constantinople

Macarius of Constantinople (1376-1379 AD)

Matthaeus Patriarcha (1395-1408 AD)

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.)

Joseph (Josephus) of Constantinople (1416-1439 AD)


Sts Abrahamites

d.c. 835, Feastday: July 8 (Catholic).

St. Alexander of Constantinople

d. 340, feastday: August 28

St. Anne

d. 820, feastday: October 29

St. Anne, the hermitess

d.c. 918, feastday: July 23

St. Arsenius

d. 959, feastday: January 19

St. Basil the Younger

d. 952, feastday: March 26

St. Callistratus

d.c. 300, feastday: September 26

St. Constantine the Great

d. 337, feastday: May 21

St. Dalmatius

d.c. 440, feastday: August 3

St. Marcian (Oikonomos)

d.c. 471, feastday: January 10

St. Maura, the martyr

d. unknown, feastday: November 30 (Catholic). A virgin martyr who suffered in Constantinople in some unknown year. An island was named in her honor in the Ionian Sea.

St. Evagrius

d.c. 380, feastday: March 6 (Catholic).

Ignatius of Constantinople

St. Epicharis

d.c. 300, feastday: September 27

St. Tarasios, Archbishop of Constantinople

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

GTP Headlines

Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.

Subscribe now!
Greek Travel Pages: A bible for Tourism professionals. Buy online

Ferry Departures