CONSTANTINOPLE.
I. The Ancient City and the Patriarchate. The City (§ 1). The Patriarchate (§ 2). II. Councils and Synods.
I. The Ancient City and the Patriarchate: The
city of Byzantium, situated at the union of the Thracian Bosphorus and the Propontis (Sea of Marmora) and founded, according to tradition, by Megarian colonists in 656 b.c, attained importance at an early date as a commercial and political center. After many vicissitudes under Persian, Macedonian, Gallic, and Athenian control, it was incorporated in the Roman Empire, and, despite its destruction by Alexander Severus (192), became the second capital of the empire in the fourth century. After Constantine the Great (q.v.) had either conquered or pacified his foreign enemies, he determined to build a city which should bear his name and be equal to Rome. He chose Byzantium in
326, and adorned it with churches and I. The City, palaces, as well as with works of art
from Italy and Greece, while he forced colonists to settle there and gave vast estates to families of prominence. The first church erected by him was a magnificent structure in honor of the Apostles, and he also founded the churches of St. Michael and of St. Sophia, although the latter was rebuilt by Justinian in 538. No pagan temples were permitted in the city except during the reign of Julian, and many conversions were made among Jews and heathen.
The early history of Constantinople is given by Chrysostom. The population in his time was about 100,000, and the prevailing culture was a mixture of Greek and Roman, Christian and Gentile elements, but the predominant character was Oriental. The chief studies were medicine and law, although rhetoric and oratory were regarded with favor. The logic of Aristotle and the philosophy of Plato enjoyed wide vogue, but mathematics easily degenerated into astrology. The Byzantine mind was lacking in creative vigor, but jiossessed a marvelous retentive power. The art, literature, morals, and diction of the period ha\c a close formal resem-
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Constantlne Constantinople
blance, and are distingiiished by a curious combination'of delicacy, bombast, and artificiality. The very catholicity of the Byzantines, moreover, led to such confusion that each power invaded the realm of its neighbor and sought to usurp alien functions, since the ecclesiastical and political world, sharply distinguished elsewhere, were here combined. Sometimes the monks and clergy became political despots, and again the emperors turned theologians. Yet it must not be forgotten that Constantinople protected Christian Europe against perils from the Orient, withstood papal supremacy and preserved a non-Roman Catholicism, and nurtured the Greek language and learning.
In his division of the empire Constantine laid a foundation for the simultaneous development of the metropolitanate (see Archbishop) and the union of the dioceses into great hierarchic corporations. The principle that ecclesiastical organization should follow close on political gave a sudden promotion to the bishop of Constantinople, who was originally subordinate to the metropolitan of Heraclea. In 381 the second ecu- 2. The Pa- menical council enacted that the bishop triarchate. of Constantinople, as New Rome, should have the highest rank next to the bishop of Rome, so that the title of patriarch afterward given the metropolitans of the first class (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome) was thus assured to him. The Council of Chalcedon (451) went still further and gave the patriarch of Constantinople the same rank as the pope, while his powers were extended to comprise the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, the right to ordain all metropohtans subordinate to himself, to convene provincial synods, and to be the court of last appeal for ecclesiastical affairs in the East. Despite these prerogatives, certain factors combined to keep the patriarchate within bounds. The Greek Church was not amenable to centralization, so that in the Monophysite controversy the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch were able to oppose the patriarch of ,Constantinople without imperiling their independence, while in the Middle Ages they were subordinate to him only in so far as relations with the pope and resistance to the Latin Church were chiefly decided at the capital. The oscillating relations with Rome were also detrimental to the independence of the patriarchs. Leo I. protested against the equality of both ecclesiastical capitals decreed by the Council of Chalcedon, and it was only after his own humiliation that Anatolius succeeded in conciliating the pope. In a Hke spirit Pelagius II. and Gregory I. refused to allow Johannes Jejunator (587) to assume the title of ecumenical patriarch. A misunderstanding concerning the meaning of this term seems to have prevailed between Rome and Constantinople. It is scarcely probable that the patriarch ever desired to be a universal bishop, but rather a bishop of the empire, of whom there might be several. But as Flavian of Constantinople sought the aid of Leo I., and Sergius I. of Constantinople invoked the assistance of Honorius in the Monothelite controversy, there were many acts of the patriarchs which might at least be construed as appeals to Rome. The result of this alternate
jealousy and recognition was a feehng of supremacy on the part of Rome which led, with such men as Photius and Cserularius (qq.v.), to a definite schism. In the following centuries the Greek Uniats showed themselves ready to admit Roman supremacy within certain limits, while the Orthodox maintained a sturdy resistance which they defended on scholarly grounds. The freedom of the patriarchs, moreover, was frequently restricted by the emperors. The patriarchs were the highest ecclesiastical vassals, but the fact that their election and deposition depended generally on the command of the emperor, that many were raised by imperial mandate almost immediately from laymen to the patriarchate, and that the emperors continually interfered in ecclesiastical and dogmatic affairs, deprived the office of much of the dignity and power which it would otherwise have possessed.
The succession of the patriarchs of Constantinople is known with tolerable certainty, though a very dubious tradition carries it through the first centuries, the ostensible founder being the Apostle Andrew. Except for the early centuries , four periods may be distinguished: (1) from Constantine to the Photian controversy (861) or to the entire break with the West under Caerularius (1054); (2) to the interregnum of the Latins, which forced the patriarchs and the emperor to take refuge in Nicsea, while a Latin patriarchate existed in Constantinople (1204-61); (3) to the capture of the city by the Turks (1453); and (4) to the present time. The extent of the patriarchate was greatest in the Middle Ages, but in 1589 it suffered its first serious loss when the Russian patriarchate was created, and in the nineteenth century the development of nationalism in the Balkan peninsula produced an unnecessary number of autonomous churches, which weakened the patriarchate of Constantinople and the entire Eastern Greek Church. The first of these schisms was made by Greece; Bulgaria has been more or less independent since 1872; and Servia and Rumania have had separate churches since 1885. All these bodies, however, are more or less closely related, and the patriarch of Constantinople still possesses a certain moral authority.
The fall of Constantinople in 1453 brought an increase in power to the patriarch, who now exercised much control over the destinies of the conquered. On the other hand, he was subject, in great measure, to the caprice of the sultan and his viziers. Unfortunately, the official venality of Turkey extended even to the patriarchal throne, and no patriarch could gain the position without simony. The present legal status of the patriarchate is defined by a rescript of Feb. 18, 1856, by which the patriarch is aided, or rather restricted, by several bodies coordinated with him, of which the most important is the synod, an institution of ancient date which became obsolete, but was revived in 1593. (Philipp Meyer.)
II. Councils and Synods: The second, fifth, sixth, and eighth, of the general or ecumenical councils met in Constantinople as follows: (1) The P'irst Council of Constantinople was called by Theodosius I. in 381 to confirm the Nicene faith and deal with other matters of the Arian con-
Con Stan tin ople Constantinopolitan Creed