Dvornik Byz Apostolicity PDF

DUMBARTON OAKS STUDIES

THE IDEA OF
APOSTOLICITY
IN BYZANTIUM

AND THE LEGEND OF THE

APOSTLE ANDREW
THE IDEA OF
APOSTOLICITY
IN BYZANTIUM
AND THE LEGEND OF THE

APOSTLE ANDREW
by
FRANCIS DVORNIK
Professor of Byzantine History, Dumbarton Oaks,

and Member of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences,
Harvard University
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, Massachusetts
1958
/
All Rights reserved by the

Trustees for Harvard University
The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection
Washington, D.C.
'
1
Printed in Germany at J.J. Auoostin, Gluckstadt

1
in
Foreword J
The tradition concerning the missionary activity of the Apostle

Andrew in Achaea and his death at Patras is regarded as legendary
by the majority of modem scholars. The account of the Apostle's
residence at Byzantium, where he is said to have ordained his
disciple Stachys as the first bishop of that city, has likewise been
shown to have little foundation in fact. But even if they are
fictitious, these traditions played an important role in the religious
history of the Middle Ages. The purpose of this study is not,
therefore, to re-examine the apocryphal literature in which these
traditions are contained with a view to ascertaining the true facts
about the Apostle Andrew (which, in all probability, will never be
fully known), but to determine when these traditions arose, what
use was made of them, and what prompted the Byzantines to
regard the Apostle Andrew as the founder of their Church.
These problems are intimately connected with a larger issue,
namely, the importance attached, both in the West and in the East,
to the apostolic origin of a bishopric. Thus we are led to examine
the role which the idea of apostolicity played in the relations
between Rome and Byzantium, and more specifically the use made
in Greek polemical literature of the supposed apostolic origin of the
bishopric of Constantinople.
These questions, in turn cannot be answered without reference
,
to the over-all development of Church organization in the Later

Roman Empire. It is now generally admitted that accommodation
to the administrative division of the Empire was a guiding principle
in the structure of the Early Church. Yet it remains to be determined
to what extent this principle continued to dominate the outlook of the
Eastern Church and how it clashed with the idea of apostolicity which
,
was adopted by Western Christianity at a relatively early period.

Such are the main topics presented in this Study, and it is
hoped that their discussion may contribute to a better understanding
of Byzantine history and of Eastern Christianity.
v
FOREWORD
I should like to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues at

Dumbarton Oaks with whom I have had frequent occasion to
discuss the problems raised by this study and who have given me
their help in my research. I should also like to thank members of
the staff of Dumbarton Oaks for their assistance in preparing my
manuscript for the press, and for reading the proof.
It is a matter of great regret to me that Professor A. M. Friend,
Jr. did not live to see this work completed. As Director of Studies at
Dumbarton Oaks he first invited me to investigate the transfer of
the relics of the Apostle Andrew to the church of the Holy Apostles
at Constantinople, and encouraged me to extend my research to the
various problems connected with the legendary tradition of Andrew.
It is on his initative that this work was undertaken, and I wish to
offer it in reverent respect of his memory.
Dumbarton Oaks
Washington, D. C. Francis Dvornik
June, 1958
vi
CONTENTS
Foreword v
I The Guiding Principle in the Evolution of 3

Church Organization
The practice of the Apostles - The Council of Nicaea
sanctions the adaptation of the ecclesiastical organization
to the administrative division of the Empire - The bishop
of Alexandria as supra-metropolitan? - Position of
Antioch - The rights of the bishops of Antioch compared
with those of Rome and Alexandria - Ephesus, Caesarea,
Heraclea as supra-metropolitan cities? - The canons of
the Council of Constantinople (381) compared with the
Nicene decrees - The see of Jerusalem - Jerome's
testimony - Adaptation to the divisions of the Empire in
the West: Rome, Italy, Illyricum - Africa and Spain -
Gaul and Aries.
II The Idea of Apostolicity in the West and in

the East before the Council of Ghalcedon 39
Rome the only apostolic see in the West - Apostolic sees
in the East - Canon three of the Council of Constantinople
{381) viewed in a new light - Reaction in the West -
The views of the Council of 382 on apostolicity - S . Basil
and the idea of apostolicity - John Chrysostom -
Struggle between Alexandria and Constantinople - The
principle of apostolicity at the Council of Ephesus -
St. Cyril, Dioscorus of Alexandria, and Domnus of
Antioch - Leo I's success in stressing the apostolicity of
his see in the East - The idea of apostolicity at Chalcedon
- Leo I and the so-called twenty-eighth canon -
Attitude of the legates - Omission of apostolicity in the
' '
canon - Reasons for Leo s negative attitude - Leo s

apparent success a disguised compromise.
vii
CONTENTS
III Growth of the Idea of Apostolicity during the

Acacian Schism 106
Acacius and Pope Sintplicius - Gelasius' claims derived
from Pelrine tradition - Eastern and western reaction to
Gelasius' claims - Increasing concern with apostolicity in
the East - Libellus Hormisdae - Apostolic character of
the Roman see in imperial and patriarchal letters -
Currency of the idea of apostolicity in the East and its
possible consequences for Constantinople.
IV The Birth of the Andrew Tradition Concerning

Byzantium 138
The transfer of Andrew's relics and its meaning - No
trace of the Andrew tradition in Chrysostom's writings -
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret
and Basil of Seleucia on Andrew - Western writers on
Andrew - The Andrew Legend unknown in the sixth
" "
century - The see of Constantinople called apostolic

from the seventh century onward - This usage not
originated by Andrew Legend - The defenders of image-
worship promote the idea of apostolicity in Constantinople
- The Narratio key to the dating of writings containing
the Andrew and Stachys Legend? - First codification of
the Andrew Legend in Pseudo-Epiphanius' List of
Disciples - Origin of List of Apostles and Disciples;
dating of Pseudo-Epiphanius' List - Pseudo-Dorotheus'
List later than Pseudo-Epiphanius' List and the Narratio.
V The Legendary Elements in the Andrew Tra-

dition 181
The lost apocryphal Acts of Andrew as the ultintate source
of the Constantinopolitan tradition - Gregory of Tours on
Andrew's stay in Byzantium - The apocryphal Acts of
Andrew known in the East and West from the fifth to the
viii
CONTENTS
ninth centuries - Date of the composition of the apocryphal

Acts of Andrew - Scythia, not Achaea, as Andrew's
missionary field - Did Andrew preach in Asia Minor? -
The legend of the maneaters as a reflection of the old
tradition of Andrew's preaching in Scythia - Later tra-
dition identifying the city of the maneaters with Sinope -
The "Scythian tradition" reflected in the original Acts and
in the Legends of Andrew's preaching in Colchis and in
Georgia - Legendary traits in the "Achaean tradition" -
Oldest traditions quote Luke as missionary of Achaea -
Spread of the new "Achaean tradition" - Legendary
accounts of Argyropolis and Zeuxippus - Probable origin
"
of the Achaean tradition" - Conclusion.
VI The Growth of the Andrew Legend 223

Ninth-century writings propagating the Andrew and
Stachys Legend - The Laudatio, the Passio Artemii, and
their connection with the Andrew Legend - 77 Laudatio
echoes some ideas of the Patriarch Photius - Nicetas the
Paphlagonian and Ignatius the Deacon on Andrew and
Stachys - Theophanes' critical attitude toward the Andrew
Legend - Another source of Byzantium's apostolic
character: Constantinople heir of Ephesus and of the
Apostle John. Ignatius' and Photius' testimony - John's
connection with Constantinople in Armenian and Nestorian
tradition - The Patriarch Photius and the Andrew
Legend - The Andrew tradition, one of the principal
arguments in the opuscule against Roman primacy, falsely
attributed to Photius - The ninth-century Typicon of
Constantinople on Andrew, Stachys, and Metrophanes
- Spread of the Andrew and Stachys Legend in the tenth
century - Its acceptance by the Syrians and Georgians -
The Andrew story in the Russian Primary Chronicle -
Pseudo-Symeon's and Cedrenus' catalogue of Byzantine
bishops.
ix
CONTENTS
VII The Idea of Apostolicity and the Andrew

Legend in the Controversies between Con-
stantinople and Rome 265
The idea of apostolicity as the basis of the pentarchic
order - The pentarchic idea at the Ignatian Council of
86g-870 - The definition of the duties of emperors and
patriarchs in the Epanagoge reflects a new spirit created by
the growth of apostolicity-Possibilities of a rapprochement
on this new basis - The argument of apostolicity in the
controversies of the tenth and eleventh centuries - The
position of the see of Constantinople in Church organization
and the Western canonists of the eleventh century -
Eastern writers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries - The
Andrew Legend and the controversies during the thirteenth
century - How the character of universal teachers attributed
to the apostles by Greek polemists diminished the value of
the Andrew tradition for the Greeks - The Andrew Legend
in the fourteenth century in Byzantium - The Councils
of Lyons and Florence on the see of Constantinople -
Acceptance of the Andrew Legend by the Latin West.
List of Abbreviations 300
List of Manuscripts Quoted 301

Bibliography: 303
Primary Sources 303
Secondary Authorities 313
Index 329
X
THE IDEA OF APOSTOLICITY IN BYZANTIUM
AND THE LEGEND OF THE APOSTLE ANDREW

CHAPTER ONE
The Guiding Principle in the Evolution

of Church Organization
The practice of the Apostles - The Council of Nicaea sanctions the

adaptation of the ecclesiastical organization to the administrative
division of the Empire - The bishop of Alexandria as supra-metro-
politan ? - Position of Antioch - The rights of the bishops of Antioch
compared with those of Rome and Alexandria - Ephesus. Caesarea,
Heraclea as supra-metropolitan cities ? - The canons of the Council of
Constantinople (381) compared with the Nicene decrees - The see of
Jerusalem - Jerome's testimony - Adaptation to the divisions of the
Empire in the West: Rome, Italy, Illyricum - Africa and Spain -
Gaul and Aries.
The claims of the Roman bishops to primacy in the Church were

based on the fact that they were successors of St. Peter, to whom
Christ had entrusted the care of his Church. It is widely believed
that, to counter these claims, the Byzantines invented a tradition
of the apostolic foundation of the see of Byzantium by St. Andrew,
the brother of St. Peter. Because Andrew was the first apostle to
whom the Lord had addressed his invitation to become his disciple
(John 1:37-42), and because Andrew had introduced his brother
to Christ, the Byzantines are said to have believed themselves
entitled to regard their episcopal see as equal, if not superior, to
that of Rome. The fact that St. Andrew's relics had found their
last resting place in the church of the Holy Apostles in Byzantium
served to strengthen this belief, which is claimed to have become
irmly embedded in the minds of the Byzantines and to have been
,
f
regarded by them for centuries as a truth inferior only to a dog-

matic definition. This conviction is thought to have greatly in-
fluenced the religious evolution of Byzantium and to have sharply
,
accentuated the antagonism between Old and New Rome.

i» 3
APOSTOLICITY IN BYZANTIUM
In spite of its importance for the history of the relations between

the Eastern and Western Churches, the question of the apostolic foun-
dation of Byzantium has not yet been examined in all its com-
plexities. It can be adequately treated only when studied in a
broader context, and when the place of the general idea of apostoli-
city in Byzantium at different periods of its history has been deter-
mined.
First, in undertaking this study, the predominant position of
the emperor in early Christian political philosophy must be borne
in mind. The cardinal principle that the emperor was the re-
presentative of God on earth was rooted in Hellenistic political
philosophy, and was accepted and adapted by Christian thinkers
after the conversion of Constantine the Great. It was natural,
especially in the East where Hellenism was very strong, that this
principle should, for a long time, render the idea of apostolicity in
Church organization relatively quiescent.
Second, the basis of the original organization of the Church
before and after the Christianization of the Roman Empire must
be considered. Here it must be stressed that the early Church
found a model for its organization in the political organization of
the Roman Empire rather than in the apostolic tradition.
There is no anomaly, no misconception or disparagement of the
principle of apostolic tradition in this statement. On the contrary,
this form of Church organization was initiated by the apostles
themselves, who, for practical reasons, had to respect and to use
the organization they found in the world in which they lived.
They started their preaching in capitals or major cities of Roman
provinces because there they found important Jewish communities,
and from these centers Christianity spread through the provinces.
The apostles foreshadowed the intimate connection between
the future organization of the Church and the administrative
division of the Empire when they addressed their letters to the
Christian communities of Roman provinces.1 Peter wrote to the
1 For details see K Liibeck, Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchic des
.
Orients bis zum Ausgange des vierten Jahrhunderts, Kirchengeschichtliche

Studien, published by Knopfler, Schrors, Sdralek, 5, Heft 4 (Miinster i. W.,
1901), pp. 7-17. Cf. also F. B. C, Maassen, Der Primal des Bischojs von Rom
(Bonn, 1853), pp. 1-7.
4
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
communities of Galatia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

and Paul to that of Galatia and to the communities of the capitals
of political provinces: Rome (Italy) Ephesus (Asia), Corinth
,
(Achaea), Thessalonica (Macedonia). As a passage in the second

Epistle to the Corinthians (II Cor: 1 1) indicates, these letters
,
were meant to be sent by the bishop of each capital to other cities

of the province. The letter communicating the decision of the
apostles with regard to the observation of Mosaic precepts was
sent (Acts 15: 22,23) to the brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
Antioch was the capital of Syria, and Cilicia formed, at that time,
a single administrative unit. It should be noted that St. Ignatius,
Bishop of Antioch, was well aware of this because in one of his
letters (to the Romans, 2:2) he calls himself. Bishop of Syria. This,
of course, does not mean that the bishops of these cities received
from the apostles a superior rank in the original Christian hier-
archy. But the nature of Roman political and economic organi-
zation was such that all political and social life in the provinces
centered in their capitals, and it was to the advantage of the first
missionaries to use these centers for the dissemination of Christi-
anity. So it happened that from the outset the Church was obliged,
for reasons of practical expediency deriving from the political and
economic conditions of the Roman Empire, to adapt its ecclesi-
astical organization, especially in the East, to the political division
of the Empire.
The same factor influenced the further evolution of Church
organization. The consideration of important problems arising
from the spread of Christianity through the different provinces,
and the development of doctrine forced the bishops, from the latter
part of the second century onward, to call special councils.2 The
choice of meeting places again was dictated by administrative
expediency rather than by the consideration that the see of any
particular city had been founded by an apostle. It was more con-
venient to hold such gatherings in the pohtical centers of the pro-
vinces where the imperial cult was focused and the provincial
*
See for details K. Liibeck, op. cit., pp. 32 seq., with numerous quotations
from the sources. Cf. also C. J. Hefele, H. Leclercq, Histoire des Connies, 1,
pt. 1 (Paris, 1907), pp. 125 seq., and R. Sohm, Kirchenrecht (Munich, Leipzig,
zj), pp. 281-296.
5
assemblies held, and to leave to the local bishop the initiative of

convoking the council and the privilege of presiding over its
debates. This gave to the bishop of a provincial capital a kind of
superiority over other bishops of the province. In only a few
instances were such provincial centers at the same time apostolic
foundations; for example Ephesus, capital of the province of
Asia, Corinth, capital of Achaea, and Thessalonica, capital of
Macedonia. Such was the origin of the metropolitan bishops, and
of their rights in the election and supervision of the bishops in
their provinces.
This administrative framework was formally sanctioned by the

Council of Nicaea {325) whose fourth canon3 decreed: "A new
bishop shall be installed by all bishops of the province [hrotpxloc].
Should this, however, be difficult, either because of pressing
necessity or because of great distances, at least three of them shall
come together, and, with the written agreement of the others,
shall perform the consecration [xetpoTovioc]. The confirmation of
what has been done shall be given by the metropolitan of each
"
province.
There is no doubt about the meaning of the words iirapxla and
" "
metropolitan. The administrative unit was becoming also an

ecclesiastical unit governed by the bishop of the metropolis or
capital of the administrative unit. The signatures of the bishops
present at the Council of Nicaea in 325 throw light on ecclesiastical
organization in the eastern part of the Empire. A comparison with
the political division of the eastern provinces4 shows clearly that
at the beginning of the fourth century the Church officially adopted
the administrative division of the Empire as the basis for its own
organization.
By approving their canon the Fathers condemned the actions
of Meletius, Bishop of Lykopolis in the Thebaid who contrary to ,
3 Mansi 2, col. 669: 'EttIctkottow Trpo KEi udXiorot u w 0tt6 ttAvtcov tcov iv
,
Tfj hTapxl<? K0(6laTaaftei. Ei bk 6uax£P S T toioOto, i\ 61A KorrrrrdyouCTCtv dvd-

yKT v, i\ 6ii utiKos 65ou, i% dnravTos Tpeis i-rrl t6 otOri auvayouivous, aupyfj cov
yivon vcow Kai twv ArrdiTcov, Kod ovvrifteufvcov Sidx ypanjiArcov, t6t6 Tf)w X£1P0"
'
Tovlav TrouTaOai. T6 bi KOpo? tcov yEvopivwv 5i56a6a> xad kActtiiv hrapxiav tu>
HTITpOTTOMTT).
4 For details see K Liibeck op. cit., pp. 73-<)8.
.
,
6
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
the custom of that time, had ordained bishops in parts of the coun-
try which were under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of
Alexandria, and had, thereby, caused a local schism in Egypt.8 To
prevent such incidents, the Fathers, in canon four, sternly reminded
all concerned that the established practice was in the future to be
strictly observed: every administrative province was to form an
ecclesiastical unit under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the me-
tropolis, and the ordination of new bishops was to concern the
bishops of the entire province acting in mutual agreement, subject
to the approval of the metropolitan.
That such was the intention of the Nicene Fathers was con-
firmed in 341 by the provincial synod of Antioch which decreed by
"
canon nine:6 The bishops of every province shall know that the
bishop who is at the head of the metropolis has the whole province
under his care and supervision, for those who have business to
conduct must converge from all directions on the metropolis.
Hence it is decreed that he shall also be granted precedence in
matters of rank, and that the other bishops shall undertake nothing
of importance without consulting him, in accordance with the
canon of our Fathers prevaihng from old, except insofar as it
concerned the parotfUa [bishopric] of each one, and the lands which
belonged to it." Then follows the definition of bishops' rights and
duties in their bishoprics. The text illustrates also why the metro-
pohtan bishops of the provinces gained such precedence over their
colleagues: because all political and economic life in the provinces
"
was concentrated in the capitals, and, therefore, allwho have business
to conduct must converge from all directions on the metropolis."
The principles laid down by the Nicene Fathers were further
stressed by Pope Boniface (418-422),7 who declared that in every
s See B . J. Kidd, A History of the Church to A.D. 461, 2 (Oxford, 1922),
pp. 41 seq. Cf. also H. Linck, Zur Obersetzung und Erlduterung der Kanones
IV, VI, und VII des Konzils von Nicaea (Giessen, 1908), pp. 18-37, on the
importance of the Meletius affair for the wording of the canons of Nicaea and
of the synodal letter to the Church of Alexandria.
. Mansi 2, col. 1312. Cf. also canons thirteen, fifteen, nineteen, twenty,
,
cols. 1313, 1316.

7 Mansi 4, col. 396, PL, 20, Episl. 12, col. 773: Nulli etenim videtur
,
incognita synodi constitutio Nicaenae, quae ita praecipil, ut eadetn proprie

verba ponamus. Per unamquamque provinciam jus metrololitanos singulos habere
debere, nec cuiquam duas esse subjectas.
7
province there should be only one metropolitan, and that no metro-

politan should rule over two provinces. These principles were
defended by Pope Innocent I (402-417)8 and the Council of Chal-
cedon9 against violations by either bishops or emperors.
The Nicene Fathers went even further, and provided, con-

sciously or unconsciously, a basis for the formation of a supra-
metropolitan body in the Church. This was again in conformity
with the existing political division of the eastern parts of the
Empire. In canon six they declared:10 "The old order shall con-
tinue to prevail in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; namely that
the Bishop of Alexandria shall exercise supreme power over all
these places, as is also the case with the Bishop of Rome who has
the same powers. In a similar way shall their rights be preserved
with regard to the Church of Antioch and to the Churches in other
"
eparchies.
The text of the canon again indicates that the Fathers intended
to confirm something which had developed in earlier Church
organization. With regard to Alexandria, the development is clear.
As the political center of Ptolemaic Egypt, it became the city in
which all the social and economic life of the Ptolemaic Empire was
concentrated, and it retained this importance under Roman rule,
for Octavian, after assuming the direct administration of Egypt
in 27 B.C. did not incorporate it into other imperial provinces,11
but reserved it for himself as an imperial "Hausgut" or patrimony,
permitting the country its own organization, and retaining Alexan-
dria as its capital. Not only was the imperial cult concentrated
in this great city,12 but the numerous Jewish settlements in the
. PL 20, Epist. 24, chap. 2, col. 548. Cf. K. Liibeck, op. cit., pp. 65 seq.
,
for the explanation of this letter. Cf. infra p. 13.

. Mansi 7, col. 364, canon twelve.
,
10 Mansi, 2, cols. 669 seq.: Ti dpxorta H(ti KporelTW, t4 iv Alytornp Kcd

AipOi] Kod TTEVTonrdXEi, (Sore t6v 'AXt avSpelaj hrlaicoTTov ttAvtcov toOtcov 8xe,v
'
Tf)v 4£ou<T{av, hraSf) xal Tab iv Pobpnj tmcncdtTcp touto avviivfiii ioriv 6ijo(co$ Zk
'
Kal Komit Tf|v Avti6x£iocv, iced iw Torts dAXai; Jircepxiais, Td TTptapEla a&LEaOai Tort?
kkAtictIois. Cf. F. B. C. Maassen, op. cit., pp. 12-39.
11 Cf Th. E. Mommsen, Rdmische Geschichte, 5 (Berlin, 1894), pp. 554
.
seq. A. Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter

romischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart, 1915), pp. 35 seq., 79 seq.
18 A Stein, ibid., pp. 31-33.
.
8
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
Egyptian provinces were also governed from this center by the

chief of the Alexandrian Jews.13 Christianity spread, of course,
from Alexandria into the rest of the country, and its diffusion was
directed by the bishop of the capital. All of this made it natural
for Egyptian Christians to regard the bishops of Alexandria as
their supreme pastors, and it was, therefore, easy for the latter
to maintain their authority in all Egyptian provinces.
The authority of the Alexandrian bishops over the Egyptian
provinces was so firmly established by the end of the third century
that there the Nicene Fathers had to make an exception and to
ignore the new division of the Empire decreed by Diocletian in
297.14 This deprived Egypt of the special political status con-
ferred by Augustus, and brought about its incorporation into the
diocese15 of the Orient, with its capital at Antioch, The rivalry
between the Syrians and the Egyptians which so often in the past
had flared into sharp political and national conflicts may have
helped the Fathers to overlook this new situation. It could hardly
be expected that the Egyptian Church would ever have submitted
to that of Syria, but it must be borne in mind that in this case
failure to adapt ecclesiastical organization to political changes
was dictated by the previous political development of Egypt, and
by the role that the city of Alexandria had played for centuries in
the political, social, and economic life of that country.
Apparently, in the case of Alexandria, the Fathers had to make
another exception to the general rule that was being adopted
everywhere else in the Church, for the supreme authority of the
Alexandrian bishops in Egypt was indicated by limiting to them-
selves the privilege of consecrating all bishops, even though the
latter might have been elected by the communities and recom-
mended to the bishop of Alexandria for approval and consecration.
The question of whether there were any metropolitan bishops
13 K J. Marquardt, L'administration romaine, pt, 2. L'organisation de
,
'
Iempire romain, 2 (French transl, Paris, 1892), p. 423.
,
14 See E Komemann, "Dioecesis

.
,
"
in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenzyclop&die,
5 (Stuttgart, 1905), cols. 727-734. On Diocletian's administrative reforms
see W. Seston Diocletien et la titrarchie (Paris, 1946), pp. 294-351. Cf. also
,
E Stein, Geschichte des spdtrdmischen Reiches 1 (Vienna, 1928), pp. 103 seq.
.
,
15 The word "diocese like "province," is used here in the Roman adminis-
,
"
trative sense and not in the modem ecclesiastical sense.
9
in the Egyptian provinces at the beginning of the fourth century

is still debated among specialists. R. Sohm16 rejected the prevalent
opinion that a metropohtan organization existed in Egypt at that
time. He asserted that the bishop of Alexandria was the real
bishop, and that the others acted only as his suffragans, dependent
on him in every respect. Liibeck" presented strong arguments for
the existence of metropolitans in Libya, PentapoUs, and Thebaid,
prior to the Council of Nicaea. This view was opposed by K. Miiller18
whose reasoning deserves serious consideration. The wording of
'
canon six seems to favor Miiller s interpretation in linking Alex-
andria with Rome, This is important, for if there were no metro-
politans in the diocese of Italy at the time of the Council, all
Italian bishops being subject directly to the Bishop of Rome, the
same situation could be assumed to have existed in Egypt. The
Fathers seem here to confirm a situation which had developed in
Egypt, and which could be regarded as contrary to their decision,
proclaimed in canon four, that there should be a metropolitan in
every province.
If this interpretation is correct, it must be concluded that the
bishops of Alexandria were officially given not only a metropo-
litan, but also a supra-metropolitan status, for their jurisdiction
must then have extended over all the provinces of Egypt rather
than merely over one province alone. In this way, perhaps, the
controversial opinions concerning the status of Alexandria could
be reconciled.
The wisdom of the Nicene Fathers' decision concerning the
independence of Egypt is illustrated by the fact that even the
political authorities soon came to the conclusion that Egypt
should be given the status of a diocese. It was between the years
380 and 382 that Egypt became an independent diocese, exempt
from the administrative authority of the comes Onentis, who had
from 335, replaced the vicarius Onentis residing in Antioch.19
M R Sohm, op. cit., pp. 403 seq. Cf. also H. Linck, op. cit., pp. 31-37.
.
17 K Liibeck, op. cit., pp. 116-134.

.
"
"
K, Miiller, "Beitrage zu
zur Geschichte der Verfassung der alten Kirche,
Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist.
Klasse (Berlin, 1922), pp. 18 seq.
1» See on this minor point G Downey, A Study of the Comites Orientis and
.
the Consulares Syriae (Princeton 1939), p. 9.

,
10
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
It is, therefore, almost certain that in 381, when the Council of

Constantinople was in session, Egypt already existed as an ad-
ministrative unit, independent of the diocese of the Orient.20 The
ecclesiastical organization was thus again in accord with the
administrative division of the eastern part of the Empire.
Diocletian's division of the Empire was, however, especially

beneficial to Antioch. The rise of its bishops derived from apostolic
times, though Antioch seems to have lost its leading position
during the second century. Its bishops played no role in the con-
troversy over the date for celebrating Easter, and none of the
numerous synods during that controversy were held there. In
spite of this, however, Serapion, the Bishop of Antioch (190-211)
acted as arbiter in a religious quarrel troubling the Christians of
Rhossos in Cilicia*1 and he seems to have done so as if it had been his
right. He is also said to have consecrated a bishop for Edessa, a
city which had previously been in more intimate relationship with
Jerusalem and Palestine.22 The prestige of Antioch must thus
have been maintained despite the inconspicuous role of its bishops
in the religious life of the East during the second century and the
first half of the third.
The situation changed, however, in the latter half of the third
century. The bishops of Syria and Asia Minor assembled in Antioch
three times between 263 and 268 to judge Paul of Samosata, Bishop
of Antioch, who was arraigned because of his heretical views and
wordly life.23 These bishops acted as a group, conscious of the unity
derived from their belonging to the same province, or from their
being similarly attracted by the prestige of Antioch. At the synods
80 See Th E. Mommsen "Verzeichnis der romischen Provinzen aufgesetzt

.
"
um 297, Abhandlungen der k. Preuss. Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl. 1862
(Berlin, 1863), pp. 494-496. Cf. K. Liibeck, op. ext., pp. 162 seq.
41 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica, 6,12 ; PO, 20, col. 545; ed. E. Schwartz,
,
Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 9, pp. 544 seq.

,
" "T
he Doctrine of the Apostle Addaeus; Martyrdom of Barsamya," ed.
W Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents (London, 1864), pp. 23, 71. Cf.
.
L Duchesne, Origines du culte chrStien (Paris, 1909), p. 19.

.
23 Mansi 1, cols. 1031 ff., 1089 if. For details and a complete bibliography
,
on this subject consult H. de Riedmatten Les Acies du prods de Paul de

,
Samosate. Etude sur la christologie du III6 au I Ve sUcle (Friebourg en Suisse ,
1952).
II
of the bishops of Syria and Asia Minor at Ancyra (314) and Neo-
caesarea (315 or 320)84 the bishops of Antioch presided as a matter of
course.
The administrative reforms introduced by Diocletian stabilized

this situation. The Emperor created the diocese of the Orient,
administered by a vicarius, whose residence was Antioch, capital
of Coele Syria.25 His jurisdiction extended over all Roman pro-
vinces from Arabia to the boundary of Armenia, including Isauria
and Cilicia in Asia Minor, as well as Egypt, and this situation
was further consohdated by Constantine, who in 335, in order to
check the danger from Persia, replaced the vicarius Orientis by
a comes in whose hands administrative and military powers were
concentrated. Thus, at the time of the Council of Nicaea, Antioch
already occupied a privileged position in Church organization,
similar to that of Alexandria.
The wording of canon six of the Council indicates clearly, how-
ever, that the rights claimed by the bishops of Antioch were not
the same as those of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Their
claims are said to be not identical with, but only similar to, those
of their two great colleagues, which indicates that the bishops of
Antioch did not assume the right to ordain bishops for all Christian
communities in the diocese of which Antioch was capital.
It is still a matter of debate whether the rights thus confirmed

to the bishops of Antioch by the Fathers were those of an ordinary
metropolitan or those of a supra-metropolitan. A clear explanation
depends on the interpretation of the wording of canon six. K.
Miiller26 thinks that the Fathers had in mind the tradional rights
which had developed in some Mother Churches, and which some-
times conflicted with the new regulations contained in canon four.
The bishops of many Mother Churches were accustomed to select
bishops for the communities which their missionaries had con-
**
Mansi, 2, cols. 5i3ff., 539. Cf. C. J. Hefele, H. Leclercq, op, cit., 1, pt. 1
pp. 298ff., 3265. B.J. Kidd, op. cit., 1, pp. 543ff.
45 On the political development of Syria under Roman rule, see K. J.
Marquardt, op. cit., 2, pp. 331-384.
M Ibid pp. 22-27. Cf. R. Sohm, op. cit., pp. 398 seq., and K. Liibeck,
.
,
op. cit., pp. 134-140.

12
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
verted, and it was the wish of the Fathers that these estabhshed
rights in Alexandria, Antioch, and other eparchies be preserved.
Even if this interpretation is accepted, it must be admitted that,
in the case of Antioch, these rights were greater than those of a
metropolitan in a province of which his see was the capital. Such
rights were guaranteed to every metropolitan by canon four.
Antioch must have acquired, before the Council of Nicaea, direct
jurisdiction over an area wider than a province.
In the case of Antioch, less documentary evidence survives than
in the case of Alexandria, and it is difficult to say whether the
Fathers acknowledged the authority of the bishop of Antioch over
the metropolitans of all the provinces of the diocese of the Orient,
or only his right to ordain bishops in some areas outside the pro-
vince of Syria over which he had direct jurisdiction as metro-
politan.
A passage from the letter sent by Pope Innocent I (402-417) to
Bishop Alexander of Antioch suggests that at the time of the
Nicene Council Antioch enjoyed direct jurisdiction extending be-
'
yond the Umits of its province. After confirming Alexander s inter-

pretation of the Nicene decision as extending his jurisdiction over
the whole diocese, the Pope indicates how Alexander should proceed
in the ordination of bishops:27 "Therefore we think, most beloved
brother, that, as you ordain the metropohtans according to your
special powers, so you should not allow other bishops to be or-
dained without your knowledge and permission. In this the proper
procedure would be to allow, through written consent, the bishops in
distant places to be ordained by those who do so now according
to their own judgment only. If you so wish, you should summon
the candidates of the neighboring sees to present themselves for
"
ordination by your grace.

It is true that the text is not very clear but it can be supposed
,
that the neighboring bishops, whose ordination by the bishop of

Epistola XXIV P. Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, 1,
,
(Paris, 1721), cols. 851 seq.; PL, 20, chap. 1, col. 548: Itaque arbiiramur
frater carissime, ut sicut metro politanos auctoritate ordinas singulari, sic et
ceteros non sine permissu conscientiaque tua sinas episcopos procreari. In quibus
hunc modum recte servabis ut longe positos litteris datis ordinari censeas ab
,
his qui nunc eos suo tantum ordinant arbitratu: vicinos autem si aestimas ad ,
manus impostionem tuae gratiae statuas pervenire.

13
Antioch is mentioned in the letters, are not only those of the pro-
vince of Syria.. These bishops regarded him in any event as their
metropolitan, and it would have been superfluous to stress Alex-
'
ander s right to ordain them. This distinction between the neighbor-
ing and distant sees of the diocese becomes more logical if the
neighboring sees are assumed to mean those belonging to provinces
other than Syria.
Of course in the same letter the Pope speaks about the juris-
diction of the bishop of Antioch over the whole diocese of the
Orient.28 It is perfectly reasonable to refuse to see in this state-
ment any proof that, at the time of the Nicene Council, Antioch
'
exercised jurisdiction over the entire diocese. The Pope s words

show, however, that by the beginning of the ifth century Antioch
f
had become a supra-metropolis with jurisdiction over all of the
diocese of the Orient.29 This is the final stage of an evolution which
started at the beginning of the fourth century, and which found
a juridical basis in canon six of the Nicene Council giving greater
rights to the bishops of Antioch than an ordinary metropolitan
could claim.
It therefore cannot be said that the bishop of Antioch was pro-
moted by the Fathers of Nicaea to a position of supra-metro-
politan with authority over the whole diocese of the Orient except
Egypt, though it must be admitted that the judgment given by
the Fathers enabled the bishops of Antioch easily to extend their
jurisdiction over the whole of the diocese, and in this respect they
may have interpreted the sixth Nicene canon in a fight favor-
able to their ambitions. The letter addressed by Alexander to
Innocent I reveals that the process of Antiochene expansion met
with some opposition from the metropolitans of the provinces.
Innocent I says in his reply30 that this honor was accorded to
M p Coustant, ibid; col. 851; PL, 20, col. 517: Revolventes iloque auctoritatem
.
Nicaenae synodi, quae una omnium per orbem terrarum mentem explicat
sacerdotum, quae censuit de Antiochena ecclesia cunclis fidelibus, ne dixerim
sacerdoiibus, esse necessarium custodire, qua super dioecesim suam praedictam
ecclesiam non super aliquam provinciam recognoscitnus constitutam.
"
Jerome's outburst against John, Bishop of Jerusalem (see the quotation
injra, p. 22. PL, 23, col. 407), can also be accepted only as proof that in
Jerome's time Antioch exercised its jurisdiction over all of the diocese
of the Orient.
30 P Coustant,
. op. cit., col. 851, PL, 20, col. 517.
14
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
Antioch by the Nicene Fathers not so much because of the im-

portance of the city itself, but because it had been honored by
the presence of St. Peter; and that it was inferior to Rome only
because the apostle had made a temporary stay within its walls,
whereas he had made Rome his permanent see and had died
there.
This papal interpretation reveals to what extent the idea of
apostolicity was appreciated in Rome at the beginning of the
fifth century,31 The Nicene Fathers were undoubtedly aware of
Peter's stay in Antioch, but this was not their reason for con-
firming the city's privileges.
How slight a role the idea of apostolicity had played in the rise
of Antioch to such ecclesiastical prominence is illustrated by the
fact that the Antiochenes did not consider the Apostle Peter to have
been their first bishop though such a claim might have seemed
quite natural in view of the fact that Peter stayed in Antioch, and
that he was the chief of the apostles. Thus it was that Eusebius,82
who had read the catalogue of the bishops of Antioch, quoted Eu-
odius as the first bishop and St. Ignatius as his successor. In this
respect the Antiochenes followed the old Christian tradition which
regarded the apostles as teachers of the whole world and was re-
luctant to call them bishops of particular cities. We shall see that
this tradition had prevailed also in Rome up to the beginning of the
fourth century.33
What is the meaning of the last part of the canon that speaks
of the rights of Churches in other eparchies ? Ought it to be inter-
preted as a measure to protect the rights of the Mother Churches,
whose bishops sometimes exercised jurisdiction over Churches
outside their provinces?34 This is possible, but, if so, why did the
Fathers add the injunction that should a bishop be ordained with-
out the consent of a metropolitan, he should not be allowed to
31 Cf infra, pp. 70 seq.
.
3S Hist eccles., 3, 22; PG,

, 20, col. 256; ed. Schwartz, p. 236. The tradition
attributing to St. Peter seven years of episcopal activity in Antioch seems
to have originated at the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) and to have
been of Roman origin. Cf. Gregory's Epistola ad Eulogium Alexandrinum, 7,
Epist. 40; PL, 77, col. 899.
33 See infra pp. 40 seq.
,
M K Miiller, "Beitrilge," op. cit., pp. 25-27.

.
15
exercise his functions?85 If the Fathers intended to protect the

established rights of Mother Churches, this limitation nullified
their concession, for, if a bishop of such a Church were to appoint
a bishop to another Church outside or inside his province he had ,
to do so with the permission of the metropolitan. This implies a

cancellation of the established rights of Mother Churches.
However, E. Schwarz36 succeeded in determining the original
wording of this part of the canon, and his discovery gives a new
meaning to the passage. The wording of canon six, quoted above,3*8
is taken from the collection of the Nomocanon of Fourteen Titles,
based on the sixth-century canonical collection composed by
John Scholasticus.87 The oldest Latin translation of the Nicene
canons gives, however, a different reading of this passage:38 Simi-
liter autem et qui in Antiochia constitutus est: et in ceteris provinciis
primatus habeant ecclesiae civitatum ampliorum. The civitates
ampliores is an old Latin translation of the Greek word metropolis
with which the Latins were not familiar at the beginning of the
fourth century.
This oldest Roman version is similar to the translation of this
canon which was read in 418 at the Synod of Carthage i96 Nec non
et apud Antiochiam itaque et in aliis provinciis propria iura ser-
ventur metropolitanis ecclesiis. This translation was made from a
copy of the canons brought from Nicaea in 325 by Caecilian,
Bishop of Carthage, who attended the Council. The Council of
Carthage decided to request the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch,
and Constantinople to send to Carthage an authentic text of the
M Mansi, 2, col. 672, canon six: Ka06Xou 6i TTp65TiAow IkeTvo, 611 eItjs
Xcopl; yvdonTis toO yriTpoiroXiTOU yivono tnioKO-nos, t6v toioutov f| (ieyAXT) oO-
voSos copiae uf| Sslv elvoti hriaKoirov £&v jj vtoi tt) Koivfj ttAvtojv v|rf|9<<> eOMycp
'
oOcrr) koI Kardt Kavdva £KKXTiatacmK6v, 6uo f| TpsTs 61 oiKEiav qtiXoveiicfav dvri-
Atycoai, KporrelTco f| tojv TrXftovwv 905. "
38 "DersechstenicanischeKanonauf der Synode vonChalkedon Sitzungs- ,
berichte der Preuss. Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist. KL, 27 (1930), pp. 633-640.
»w P 8. .
37 V N.
. Bene§evic, "loannis Scholastici Syntagma L Titulorum," Ab-
handlungen der Bayrischen Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist. KL, N. F., Heft 14
{1937), P- 32* Syntagma Canonum XIV titulorum. PG, 104, col. 468 (tit. I,
chap. V).
38 C H. Turner, Ecclesiae occidentalis Monumenta iuris antiquissima,
.
1 (Oxford, 1899), p. 121 (Codex Ingilratni).

39 Ibid p. 120 (I). Cf. ibid., p. 581.
.
,
16
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
Nicene canons. Atticus of Constantinople sent the Greek text to

Carthage and added a Latin translation made in Constantinople.
This material later reached Pope Boniface in Rome. Atticus' trans-
lation of the passage in question reads thus i40 Similiter autem et circa
Aniiochiam et in ceteris provinciis privtlegia propria reserventur
metropolitanis ecclesiis. The same version is also to be found in the
Pmca,41 the oldest collection of Roman canon law, which is based
on the tradition preserved in the manuscript of Chieti and in the
translation sent by Atticus.
Thus it appears, that the primitive text of the sixth canon
contained the words tocIs twv pt|tpott6X6cov iKKArjcriais, and that the
words twv |ir|TpoiT6Aecov were dropped in the early collection of
canon law which originated, as E. Schwartz42 has convincingly
shown, in Antioch. The altered text was used by the bishops of
that city in their struggle for power against the metropolitans of
the diocese of the Orient who opposed Antioch's pretensions. This
version was also introduced in Rome, probably from Antioch,
and can even be found in the translation of Nicene canons made
under Pope Innocent I.
This passage of the canon simply confirms, therefore, all the
prerogatives that the metropolitan bishops had gradually acquired
over the provincial bishops. Further confirmation is found in the
ensuing canon regulating the election of bishops, which states that
no bishop may be ordained without the consent of the metro-
politan.
This interpretation contradicts the opinion of many scholars43
who think that in this passage the Fathers had in mind the bishops
of the other three main cities of the East-Ephesus, Caesarea, and
Heracleia-which had begun to claim jurisdiction over the dio-
ceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace in conformity with the new or-
ganization of the Empire. Those who oppose this interpretation
righly point out that, if the Fathers had been thinking of these
three capitals of Eastern dioceses, they would have inserted the
40 Ibid .
pp. 611 seq. (Atticus' letter), 120 (canon six in Atticus' version).
,
"
Ibid., p. i2i (III).
**
Op. cit., pp. 635-640.
43 See K Liibeck, op. cit., pp. 140-148, where numerous bibliographical
.
indications will be found.
a 17
names of the capitals in the canon, as they had inserted those of

Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.
However, although this passage of the canon cannot be quoted as
proof that the Fathers intended to introduce a supra-metropohtan
organization in the Church, it does not exclude the possibility that
the other diocesan capitals were trying to extend their jurisdiction
over bishoprics beyond their own provinces. The fact that the
Fathers felt obliged to stress in canons four and six the rights of
the metropolitans in their provinces indicates that there were some
attempts to disregard those rights. Such attempts might have
come from the bishops of the diocesan capitals, acting in imitation
of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch whose direct
jurisdiction extended beyond their respective ecclesiastical pro-
vinces. The Fathers were ready to give full approval of the practice
for only Rome and Alexandria, and more limited approval for
Antioch. They discouraged its spread to other dioceses, and pro-
tected the rights of the metropohtans.
Canon six cannot therefore be interpreted as the magna charia of

a supra-metropolitan organization, accomodated to the division
of the Empire into dioceses. Nevertheless, there are strong indi-
cations that the whole development of Church organization was
moving in that direction, and that this evolution was somewhat
accelerated by the stipulations of the canon. This impression
seems strengthened by the wording of canon two, voted by the
Fathers of the Second Oecumenical Council which met in Con-
stantinople only fifty-six years after the Council of Nicaea. It
"
reads as follows:44 According to the canons, the bishop of Alex-
andria should limit himself to the administration of Egypt, the
bishops of the Orient should administer only the Orient, provided
that the rights of the Church of Antioch described in the canons of
Nicaea be respected, the bishops of the dioceses of Asia, Pontus,
44 Mansi 3, col. 560: dXWt Kara toOs Kav6vas, Tiw \)kv 'Ate avSpElas hrf-
,
'
okottow T<Jt fv AlyvrrrM n6vov oIkovoixeiv toOs 6i Tfjs AvaroXffc iniOKiTrous Ti\v
dvotToAf)v h6vt|v 8ioiK£lv (puAarroijivwv tcov Iv tois Kavdai T015 kotA Nworfav
'
iroeapelcow Trj Avnox wv KKATiai ' xal tous Tf)$ 'Aaiavfjs BioiKi aECOS firuJiwSTTOUS
'
ra Hard t v Aalav h6vtiv oIkovohsIv Kal tous tt HovTiKiis, tA Tfjs HovTiKfis

\16vov Kal toOs Tfjs 6p<{ctcT|5, tA tt s efxpoKfjj pdvov oltcovoiatlv.
18
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
and Thrace, respectively, should administer the affairs of only

those dioceses."
It is evident from this canon that the Fathers were anxious to
keep the organization of the Church in strict conformity with the
framework of the political divisions of the Empire. The wording
of the canon shows, moreover, that such was the intention also
of the Fathers of Nicaea, or, at least, that the decisions were
interpreted in that sense. The new ordinance was intended only
to reinforce a prescription issued by the First Oecumenical Council.
The canons invoked at the beginning of this injunction can only
be those of Nicaea. Regarding the rights of the bishop* of Antioch
guaranteed at Nicaea, it may be that these were questioned by the
metropohtans of the provinces for whose communities the bishop
of Antioch claimed the privilege of episcopal ordination. The Council
therefore once again confirmed these rights.
The sixth canon, attributed to the Second Oecumenical Council,
but voted most probably by the Council which assembled in
Constantinople in 382,45 confirms the impression that Church
organization was progressing along the lines of the political division
of the Empire toward the formation of supra-metropolitan units
corresponding to imperial dioceses. The canon establishes that
complaints against a bishop had first to be examined by the pro-
vincial synod. The plaintiff could appeal the judgment of the pro-
vincial synod to a larger synod of bishops from the civil diocese.46
Even if the most cautious interpretation of this canon47 were
accepted-namely, that it was not the intention of the Fathers
to assemble a synod of the whole diocese, and that the larger synod
was to be convoked by the same metropohtan who had presided
over the first synod-it must be admitted that there was an un-
mistakable tendency to create a supra-metropolitan organism as
a second means of appeal.
Because the canon speaks of dioceses in general, its meaning
15 Cf C. J. Hefele, H. Leclercq, op. cit., 2, pt. 1 (Paris,
. 1908), pp. 18 seq.
46 Mansi, 3, col. 561D: d S auuPodTi &5uvonfiCTaj tous iTrapxicoraS Trp S
5i6p0coajv twv tm<p£poiJivcov lyKAriudmov t<o i-moKdircp t6t£ oOtou? TrpoCTi vai
lJ£ii.ovi <Tw66a) tcov Tfjs Sioik ctecos hncK6mov fialvTis, Crrrep Tfls atTlas tocuttis
ovyKoXouiiivwv.
47 Proposed by K Miiller, "Kanon 2 und 6 von Konstantinopel 381 und
"
.
382, in Festgabe fiir A. Jiilicher (Tubingen, 1937), pp. 190-202.
19
could not have been restricted to the dioceses of Egypt and the
Orient only. It was to be applied to all civil dioceses of the eastern
part of the Empire, including the minor dioceses of Asia, Pontus,
and Thrace. Even if it be supposed that the larger council could
have been convoked by the metropolitan of the province where the
first synod had met, the logical development would have been for
the bishops of the diocesan capitals to play the principal role in
such cases. Thus the impartiality of the second tribunal-the
larger synod-would have been more strongly guaranteed.
Actually, this tendency appears in the ordinance issued July 30,
381, by which the Emperor Theodosius I confirmed the decisions
of the Council.48 After declaring that the Churches were to be
administered by bishops professing the Nicene Creed, the Em-
peror orders the bishops to establish unity of belief in all dioceses.
He mentions the names of the prelates of proved orthodoxy in
every diocese with whom the bishops should be in communion
in order to obtain possession of the churches from the magistrates.
The first Usted is Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, then follow,
for the diocese of Egypt, Timothy of Alexandria, and for that of
the Orient, Pelagius of Laodicaea and Diodorus of Tarsus. Antioch
is not mentioned because the see was still vacant. For the diocese
of Asia, Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch in
Pisidia, are named, but Ephesus is omitted because the see was
occupied by a heretic. For the diocese of Pontus, Helladius of
Caesarea, Otreius of Melitene, Gregory of Nyssa, Terennius of
Scythia, and Marmarius of Marcianopolis are listed. The diocese
of Thrace is not mentioned, and it is justifiable to suppose that
the Bishop of Constantinople was regarded as the most competent
authority in that diocese.
The principle of adaption to the administrative organization of
the Empire is here fully applied, and it can rightly be assumed
that the bishops of the diocesan capitals soon became the most
prominent leaders. In point of fact, the bishops of Caesarea,
Ephesus, and Heracleia are listed at the head of the Klesis of 218
as metropolitans of the three minor dioceses which, according to
48 Codex Theodosianns, 16, 1, 3; ed. P. Krueger, Th. E. Mommsen (Berlin,
1905), p. 834.
20
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
E Gerland,49 were formed at the end of the fourth century. Their

.
prominence is indicated, too, by the circumstance that each of

them bore the title of exarch, a title found also in the signatures of
the Council of 680.60 Exarchs are mentioned in canon nine of the
Council of Chalcedon, and it would be logical to surmise that these
were the three bishops meant.51
The canons of the Council of Constantinople are, unfortunately,
couched in very general terms, and for lack of other documentary
evidence the growth of Eastern Church organization is unlikely
ever to be clearly traced. According to the canon, the division
of the whole Eastern Church into bodies whose territories coin-
cided with the boundaries of the civil dioceses indicates clearly that
supra-metropolitan organisms were being formed in the East, and
from other evidence given above, it is clear that the bishops of the
diocesan capitals were gradually becoming supra-metropolitans.
This development is important. Canon six of the Council of
Nicaea and canon two of the Council of Constantinople laid the
foundation for the further development of Church organization
and for its division into patriarchates. From this it may be con-
cluded that Ephesus, Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Heracleia in
Thrace were also destined to develop into autonomous patriarchates
because they were capitals of political dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and
Thrace, but this evolution was disturbed by the rise of Constan-
tinople which assumed supreme jurisdiction over the three dioceses.
There is yet another Nicene canon which illustrates the reluc-

tance of the Fathers to grant an exception to the general rule of
adaptation to the administrative division of the Empire. The
bishops of Jerusalem were eager to obtain a status more commen-
surate in importance with the holiness of their city and with the
growing veneration of the faithful for the Holy Places, for this new
"
E. Gerland, Die Genesis der Notitia, episcopatuum, in Corpus notitiarum
episcopatuum Ecclesiae Orientalis Graecae, 1 (Kadikoy, 1931), p. 8.
40 Mansi 11, cols. 688, 689: OtAotX Oris, dvd ios IrrioKoiTO? -rifa Kourotptov
,
invrpoTO&ews, Kort opxos Tfls novnKffc Bioiki cthcos ... GE&kopo; ... f(japxos -rfte
'
'
Aotovwv BioiwfiCTECos. But Sisinnius of Heracleia is called only Bishop Tfjs
HponcfcoTCOv MTVrpoirdAsws t s EOpwiroicov hrapxta?.
81 Cf E. Honigmann, "Le 'Corpus notitiarum episcopatuum,'" Byzaniion
.
11 (1936), pp. 346 seq. Cf. infra p. 92.

,
21
city of Aelia Capitolina which had isen on the ruins of Jerusalem,

,
r
had always been subject in ecclesiastical matters to Caesarea the ,
new metropolis of Palestine.

The Fathers shared the veneration of other Christians for the
Holy Places, but were not yet prepared to disregard the existing
situation created by the principle of adaptation to previous ad-
ministrative divisions. Therefore they granted the bishop of
,
Jerusalem the honorary status of only a metropolitan, leaving him

under the jurisdiction of Caesarea and Antioch. This is the
meaning of canon seven voted by the Council :82
,
"
Because it is an established custom and an old tradition that
the Bishop of Aelia should be treated with special honor, he shall
thus enjoy precedence of honor, but in such a way that the me-
tropolis shall preserve the dignity which is its right."
There does not seem to be any evidence that the see of Jerusalem,
because it was founded by an apostle, was regarded as more vener-
'
able than other sees. Clement of Alexandria s report on the election of
James as Bishop of Jerusalem-a report preserved by Eusebius53-
indicates that Jerusalem was regarded as the most venerable see
because Christ preached and died there, but in spite of this, says
Clement, the three most distinguished apostles-Peter, John, and
James-did not quarrel over the honor of becoming bishop of the
sacred city, but elected James to the office.
The supra-metropolitan organization, founded on the political
division of the Empire into dioceses, for which the Councils of
Nicaea and Constantinople laid the basis, was accepted as a
matter of course in the East. That it was in full operation toward the
'
end of the fourth century is illustrated by Jerome s letter- of

396 or 397-to Pammachius concerning John, Bishop of Jerusalem,
who asked Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, to act as an inter-
mediary in his controversy with Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus and
the monks of Bethlehem.54
81 Mansi, 2, col. 672. Cf. S. Vailh , "Formation du patriarcat de Jeru-
"
salem, Echos d'Orient, 13 (1910), pp. 325-336.
13 Hist eccles,, 2, 1; PG, 20, col. 136; ed. E. Schwartz, p. 104. Cf. K.
,
Liibeck, t>p. cit., pp. 157 seq.

64 S Hieronymxis, Liber ad Patnmachium contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum
.
chap. 37, PL, 23, col. 407 A: Tu qui regulas quaeris ecclesiaslicas, et Nicaeni
concilii canontbus uteris, et alienos clericos, et cum suis episcopis commorantes
22
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
Jerome rebuked John of Jerusalem very severely, and from his

outburst it may be concluded that the sixth canon of Nicaea was
interpreted as having introduced the status of supra-metropolitan
into Church organization. Jerome invokes ecclesiastical rules and
"
uses the canons of the Council of Nicaea when he writes You, who
try to usurp foreign clerics who are in communion with their own
bishop, answer me-what has Palestine to do with the Bishop of
Alexandria? If I am not mistaken, it is decreed there, that the
metropolis of Palestine should be Caesarea, and the metropolis
of all the Orient should be Antioch. You should thus apply either
to the Bishop of Caesarea... or, if you wish to seek another judg-
"
ment, you should write to Antioch

The meaning of Jerome's words is clear. The bishops must first
seek the advice or judgment of their metropohtans, and if they
are not satisfied, they then have the right of appeal to the supra-
metropolitan, but Jerome will not tolerate having a bishop disregard
his own metropolitan or supra-metropohtan, and invoke the inter-
vention of the supra-metropolitan of another diocese, and he
speaks of this procedure as of something generally known and
accepted, and traces it back to the canons of Nicaea.
Canon six of the Council of Nicaea also acknowledges the rights

of the Roman see over the whole of Italy, and suggests, more-
over, that the exercise of these rights by the bishop of Rome was
a precedent that served as a good example for the bishop of Alexan-
dria.65
tibi niteris usurpare, responde mihi, ad Alexandrinum episcopum Palaestina

quid pertinet ? Ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palaestinae metropolis Caesaria
sit, et totius Orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Caesariensem episcopum referre
debueras, cui, spreta communione iua, communicare nos noveras; aut si procul
expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potius litterae dirigendae. Sed novi cur
Caesariam, cur Antiochiam nolueris mittere. Sciebas quid fugeres, quid vitares.
Maluisti occupatis auribus molestiam facere, quam debitum metropolitano tuo
honorem reddere.
86 G Roethe("ZurGeschichtederroin.
. Synodenim3.und4. Jahrhundert,"
in Forschungen zur Kitchen- und Geistesgesch., n {Geistige Grundlagen rom.
Kirchenpolitik, Stuttgart, 1932], p. 7) is inclined to think the first known
bishop of Alexandria (about 187-230), when instituting bishops in Egyptian
localities, simply imitated a practice introduced in Rome by his contempo-
rary, Pope Victor. Cf. also G. La Piana, The Roman Church at the End of
"
the Second Century," Harvard Theological Review, 18 (1925), p. 233.
23
Although the idea of apostoHcity was cultivated in Rome from

the very beginning of its Christian history, and although it en-
hanced the prestige of the bishops as successors of St. Peter, the
fact that the political situation existing in Italy also helped con-
siderably to foster their influence and prestige should not be
overlooked. The inhabitants of Italy were Roman citizens of the
last period of the Republic and Italian towns were Roman muni-
,
cipia. What, therefore, could have been more natural for the
Christians of the Italian towns than that they should regard them-
selves as members of the Christian community of Rome ? It is no
wonder that the bishop of Rome was the metropohtan of the
hundred bishops who existed in Italy about the year 250.
But again, it was the practice of adaptation to the political
structure of the Empire that brought about the limitation of the
rights of Roman bishops. Under Maximian Milan became an im-
perial residence, and thus rose to great prominence. As a conse-
'
quence of Diocletian s administrative reforms, the city became

the capital of the diocese of Italy {Italia Annonaria), a develop-
ment which was confirmed by Constantine the Great in 323. No
direct indication is extant as to when the bishop of Milan assumed
jurisdiction over the North of Italy, but it must certainly have hap-
pened before St. Ambrose became Bishop of Milan, and it is safe to sup-
pose that it happened when the administrative changes took place.5*
From that time on, the bishop of Milan obtained jurisdiction
over the provinces administered by the vicarius Italiae 5'3 ,
-
Liguria, Emilia, Venetia, and Flaminia. The direct jurisdiction of

the Roman bishop was, thenceforward limited to the provinces
,
called suburbicariae58 placed under the vicarius Urbis-Toscana,

M Cf F. Lanzoni, "Le diocesi d'ltalia dalle origini al principio del secolo
.
"
VII (an. 604) Sludi e TVsft', 35 (1927), pp. ioi6seq. "S'inclina a credere che
,
la chiesa di Milano entrasse in possesso di questo diritto allorchfe divenne

capitale effectiva dell' impero e residenza ordinaria dell' imperatore Massi-
'
miano, e quando, nel 297, Diocleziano divise I ltalia in due diocesi ciok nella
diocesi di Roma e nella diocesi di Milano; divisione confermata da Costantino
"
nel 323. Cf. also F. Savio, Gli antichi vescovi d'ltalia, dalle origini al 1300
descriiti per regioni, 1 (Florence 1913), La Lombardia, Milano, pp. 104-108,
,
67 Cf P. Batiffol, Cathedra Petri, dtudes d'histoire ancienne de I'Eglise
.
(Paris, 1938), p. 43.

M This interpretation of the sixth Nicene canon is to be found in later
Latin translations. See C. H. Turner op. cit., 1, pp. 120 (Caecilianus), 121
,
(interpret. Prisca), 150, 197 (Rufinus).
24
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
Ombria, Campania, Lucania-Bruttium, Apulia-Calabria, Samnium,

Flaminia-Picenum, Valeria, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica.
There is no trace of a protest by the bishop of Rome against
this partition, and apparently Rome did nothing to hasten the
creation of further metropohtan sees in northern Italy-Aquileia
and Ravenna59-in order to diminish a possible danger from the
great metropohs of Milan. The new situation was accepted because
it fostered the propagation of the faith in northern Italy, and
because it corresponded to the established practice of adapting the
ecclesiastical to the political division of the Empire.
Another case which may be cited was the effort of the bishops
of Rome to adapt themselves, at least partially, to a new situation
in civil administration. In 379 the Emperor Gratian60 detached
two dioceses, Macedonia and Dacia, which formed the eastern part
of Illyricum, from his part of the Empire, and ceded them to the
Emperor Theodosius. This measure was only provisional, because
in 380 the eastern part of Illyricum was already reunited with the
western part, and so again formed a part of the Empire of the
West. A period of fluctuation followed from 380 to 395 during
which Illyricum was more often governed by the Emperor of the
East than by the Emperor of the West, but in 395 the division
of Illyricum into an eastern part, comprising the dioceses of Mace-
donia and Dacia, and a western part, comprising the dioceses of
Pannonia and Rhaetia, became definitive.81
This splitting up endangered the maintenance of papal juris-
M On the promotion of Aquileia (about 400) and Ravenna (between 426
and 431) to a metropolitan status, see F. Savio, op. cit., pp. 152, 168, 179.
w Sozomenos Hist, eccles., 7, 4; PG, 67, col. 1421.
,
41 See on this complicated history, E. Stein, "Untersuchungen zur spat-
,
"
romischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, Rheinisckes Museum, 74 (1925), pp. 347

"
seq.; E. Demougeot, A propos des partages de l'lllyricum en 386-395,"

Actes du VIe congres international d'dtttdes byzantines, I (Paris, 1950), pp. 87-
92; Cf. also her work, De I'uniti d la division de I'empire romain (Paris, 1951),
"
pp. 1 3 seq. J. R. Palanque, La prefecture du Pr6toire de rillyricum au

IVe siecle," Byzantion, 11 (1951), pp. 5-14. Numerous bibliographical notices
"
will be found in the detailed but less clear study by V. Grumel, L'lllyricum
"
de la mort de Valentinien Ier (375) h. la mort de Stilicon (408) Revue des

,
etudes byzantines, 9 (1951), pp. 5-46. The most complete bibliography on

Illyricum will be found in M. V. Anastos' study "The Transfer of Illyricum
to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 732-733,"
"
Silloge Bizantina" in onore di Silvio Giuseppe Mercati (Rome, 1957), PP- I5>
16.
25
diction over the whole of Illyricum,-a danger which was accen-

tuated by the rise of Constantinople-and this development was
further illustrated by the decisions in its favor made by the Council
of Constantinople in 381. In order to avert the danger, the Roman
bishops felt obliged to create a new ecclesiastical dignity-a vicar
of the Roman see; so the dioceses of Macedonia and Dacia were
placed under the surveillance of this vicar, who was the metro-
politan of Thessalonica, the city which was the residence of the
praefectus praetorio Illyrici .
The establishment of the vicariate of Thessalonica seems to have

gone through an evolution similar to that of the political situation
in Illyricum. A letter of Pope Innocent I62 shows that the new
vicariate was instituted by Damasus (336-384), possibly in 379,
when the changes in Illyricum began. But, doubtless because of
the unstable political situation in that part of the Empire, the
'
vicariate seems to have become secure only under Damasus

'
successor Siricius (384-398). Pope Leo s letter to Anastasius of

Thessalonica63 shows that Siricius delegated special powers to
Anysius, Anastasius' predecessor. This could be interpreted as a
'
confirmation of Damasus initiative, but the problem needs more
thorough examination.
Pope Innocent I (402-417), when writing to Anysius of Thessa-
lonica about his elevation to the see of Rome, declared64 that he
followed the example of his predecessors Damasus, Siricius, and
Anastasius, who were in the habit of communicating to the bishop
of Thessalonica all important events in Rome. This letter shows,
at least, that the bishops of Thessalonica were regarded as the most
prominent prelates in Illyricum, with whom the bishops of Rome,
from Damasus on, had entered into an especially intimate relationship.
.* Letter to Anysius of Thessalonica, Mansi, 8, col. 750, PL, 20, cols. 4635.
*
3 PL, 54, Epist. 6, col. 617.
**
Mansi, 8 cols. 750 seq. The letters concerning the rights of Thessalonica
over Illyricum, the so-called Collectio Thessalonicensis, are preserved in the
Acts of the Roman Synod of 531, and were published, in 1662, by Holstes.
E Schwartz, in his study "Die sogenannte Sammlung der Kirche von Thessa-
.
lonich" {Festschrift fur R. Reitzenstein [Leipzig, Berlin, 1931], PP- i37-I59), '
corrected the many mistakes of Holstes' edition reprinted in Mansi. Schwartz s

remarks are of great importance for the study of the position of Thessalonica
in Illyricum. Another edition of the Collection was made by C. v. Silva-
Tarouca in Textus et Documenta series theologica, 23 (Rome. 1937).
,
26
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
A letter of Siricius (384-398) to Anysius65 gives us, fortunately,

more explicit details about this kind of relationship. The Pope, in
order to prevent irregularities in elevations of bishops in Illyricum,
repeated what he had already made known to Siricius in another
letter: that no-one would be permitted to ordain a bishop in
Illyricum without the consent of the bishop of Thessalonica.
In a letter to Anysius' successor, Rufus, Innocent discussed more
specifically the position of the bishop of Thessalonica in Illyricum,
whom he designated expressly as vicar of the Pope, and enumerated
the provinces that were placed under the bishop's jurisdiction.
They corresponded to the provinces of the two dioceses-Macedonia
{Achaea, Thessalia, Epirus Vetus, Epirus Nova, Crete) and Dacia
(Dacia Mediterranea, Dacia Ripensis, Moesia, Dardania, Prae-
valitana). The rights accorded by the Pope to his vicar were con-
siderable. The vicar was to represent the Pope in Eastern Illyricum,
to confirm the elections of bishops and to consecrate them, to
preside over the local synod of the whole territory, and to act as
judge in all difficulties that might arise among the bishops of his
'
vicariate. Only major cases or appeals against the vicar s decisions

'
were reserved to the Pope s judgment.

The Pope explicitly pointed out that he was not introducing
anything new into the relationship between Rome and Thessa-
lonica, but that he was continuing the practice of his predecessors,
who had given such rights to Acholius and Anysius.66 All of this
permits us to assume that Pope Damasus must already have con-
ceived the idea of giving to the bishops of Thessalonica a privileged
'
position in Illyricum. The terminus a quo of Damasus initiative

could have been the year 379 when the changes in Illyricum had
started. Actually Damasus was in continuous contact with Acholius
'
of Thessalonica, who acted, as the Pope s trustee in Constantinople,

against both the candidature of the Philosopher Maximus to the
bishopric of that city, and against the candidature of Gregory of
M Mansi, 8, col. 751.

Ibid., cols. 751 seq.: non primitus haec ita statuentes sed fraecessores
nostras apostolicos imitali qui beatissimis Acholio etAnysio injungi pro eorum
tneritis ita valuerant .... Arripe itaque, dilectissime f rater, nostra vice per
suprascriptas ecclesias, salvo eorum prtmatu, curam....
27
Nazianzus.67 Unfortunately we have no other documentary evidence

'
concerning Damasus plans for Illyricum, but we have no reason

to doubt Innocent's repeated statements that his predecessors-
Damasus is also expressly mentioned-had already conferred
rights, similar to those he had so fully specified in 415 in his letter
to Rufus, on the bishops of Thessalonica.68
The letter of Siricius to Anysius reveals the second phase of the
growth of an idea which was only vaguely conceived by Damasus.
The fluctuating pohtical status of Illyricum from 380 to 395 may
have induced Siricius to strengthen, with the help of the Bishop
of Thessalonica, the bonds tying Illyricum to Rome. The letter
may be taken as an indication that Anysius, discharging the func-
tion which Damasus had entrusted to him, had complained to the
Pope about irregularities that had occurred recently in Illyricum.
In order to prevent a repetition of these, the metropolitan of
Thessalonica was charged in future to supervise personally, or by
delegating another bishop, all episcopal elections in Eastern Illy-
ricum, so that they might be carried out according to the statutes
of the Nicene Council and of the Roman Church. It can be assumed
that the disorders in question were, at least in part, a consequence
of the unstable political conditions in Eastern Illyricum.
Innocent's letter quoted above reveals that the privilege given
by Siricius to the metropohtan of Thessalonica was confirmed by
Siricius' successor Anastasius (398-402). The establishment of a
vicariate in Thessalonica was a very prudent move and, by thus ,
accomodating themselves to the new administrative change, the Popes

preserved their jurisdiction over Illyricum for a long time to come.
.7 Mansi, 8, col. 750. Cf. E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papstlums, 1 (Tubingen,
1930). PP- 235 seq.
w H Fuhrmann, in his study "Studien zur Geschichte mittelalterlicher
.
Patriarchate," Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung 70, Kanon. Abt., 39 (1953),

,
p. 173, is too rigid when he dated the establishment of the vicariate from
only 415. Cf. also J. Haller Das Papsttum, 1 (2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1950), pp. 511-
,
514. However, it should be admitted that the idea of the vicariat grew
slowly under Damasus, Siricius and Anastasius, and found its full develop-
ment only under Innocent. J. Langen [Geschichte der romischen Kirche ,
1, bis zum Pontifikate Leos I [Bonn, 1881], p. 668) admitted that Anastasius
might already have given to the bishop of Thessalonica the privilege of being
supreme judge in Illyricum. According to Langen Innocent went too far
,
when he dated the establishment of the vicariate from Damasus in order to

create an older tradition.
28
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
When, in 421, the Emperor Theodosius II9* attempted to bring

Illyricum under the bishop of Constantinople, Pope Boniface
(418-422) asked the Emperor of the West, Honorius, to help him
defend the rights of the Roman Church. Honorius sent a letter
to Theodosius II,70 and this document marks, for the first time
in the history of the Roman see, the invocation by Boniface of
canon six of the Council of Nicaea to protect his rights. Honorius
likewise stressed the prominent position of Rome in the Empire,
"
and appealed to Theodosius II not to permit the Roman Church to

lose under Christian emperors what it had not lost under other rulers.''
Theodosius II promptly acceded to Honorius' request. His
letter71 shows that he had acted on suggestions made by some
Illyrian bishops. But, after receiving Honorius' letter, he immedi-
ately informed the praefectus praetorio Illyrici that his rescript
should not be put into practice. Boniface then solemnly confirmed
the dignity of a vicar to Rufus, MetropoHtan of Thessalonica, and
in his letters to the bishops of Thessaly and all Eastern Illyricum
he once more reiterated very outspokenly the rights of the see
of Peter in Illyricum.72
.* P .
Coustant, Epist. Rom. Pontificutnl, col. 1029. Cod. Theod. 16, 2,45;
,
ed. P. Krueger, Th. E. Mommsen p. 852. PL, 20 col. 769. ,
70 P Coustant, ibid., cols. 1029, 1030: Omnibus quidem causis, in quibus

.
nostrum postulatur auxilium intercessionem apud aures tuae clementiae negate

,
non possumus; sed his majorem necessario curam studiumque debemus quibus
sanctae sedis apostolicae desideria continentur. Nam cum favore divino nostrum
semper gubernetur imperium procul dubio ilius urbis ecclesia speciali nobis
,
cultu veneranda est ex qua et Romanum principatum accepimus, et principium
,
sacerdotium . Petit enim ut haec privilegia, quae dudum a patribus con-

,
stituta usque ad tempera nostra servata inconcussa perdurent. In qua parte

,
respicit serenitas tua nihil vetustis decretis, si quae canonum conscripta sunt
,
regulis penitus derogandum

, See also PL, 10, cols. 769 seq.
71 P Coustant, ibid., cols. 1030, 1031. PL, 20, cols. 770 seq.
.
"P
Coustant, ibid., cols. 1034 seq. PL, 20, Epist. 13, 14, 15, cols. 774-
.
784. See also the whole papal correspondence concerning Illyricum in Mansi,
8 cols. 749 seq., in the Acts of the Roman Council from 531. For details see
,
P Batiffol, Le siige apostolique (Paris, 1924), pp. 245-265. J. Zeiller, Les

.
origines chritiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de 1'Empire romain (Paris

1918) pp. 365 seq. Cf. also F. Dvomik, Les ligendes de Constantin et de
,
Mithode vues de Byzance (Prague 1933), pp. 248 seq. Recently R. Honig,
,
Beitrdge zur Entwicklung des Kirchenrechts (Gdttinger Rechtswissenschaftliche

Studien Heft 12 [1954]), PP- 30-45> declared that Theodosius'letters to
,
Honorius and the three letters by Boniface (PL 20, cols. 774-786, Epist. 12,
,
14, 15) had been interpolated after the year 534 ,

and dated the erection of
the Illyrian vicariate no earlier than 535 after the promotion of Justiniana
prima to an archbishopric by Justinian I. Thus Honig renewed the objections
29
In the western provinces outside Italy also the tradition of

conforming to the political division of the Empire was applied,
although sometimes only in a general way.
Africa was divided under Diocletian into nine provinces which
were attached to three dioceses. Libya superior and Libya inferior
formed a part of the diocese of Egypt, and Mauretania Tingitana
that of the diocese of Spain. The diocese of Africa comprised the
provinces of TripoUtana, Valeria Byzacena, Proconsularis Zeugit-
ana, Numidia Curtensis, Mauretania Sitifensis, and Mauretania
Caesariensis. This new division finally replaced the old administra-
tive partition of three provinces: Africa proconsularis, comprising
the TripoUtana and the Byzacena, Numidia, and Mauretania.7*
Carthage, in frequent contact with Rome, the administrative and
religious center of the Empire, exercised, from the beginning, an
irresistible attraction for all Christain communities in Africa.
St. Cyprian, with his genius for organization, firmly established the
supremacy of his see over the whole of third-century Africa. In
one of his letters he declares openly that from the ecclesiastical
point of view there was only one province in Africa, uniting all
three administrative units.74
to the authenticity of the documents raised by Friedrich in his study, "Uber

die Sammlung der Kirche in Thessalonich und das papstliche Vikariat fiir
Illyricum," Sitzungsber. Philos. Phil.-hist. KL der Academie (Munich, 1891),
'
pp. 771 seq. Friedrich s objections were refuted by L. Duchesne in his study
" "
L'lllyricumeccl siastique, BZ, 1 (1892), pp. 531-550, and by Leporski in
IstorijaFessaalonikskago ekzarchata (St. Petersburg, 1901), which I am unable
to obtain. Duchesne's argument was approved by J. Haller also {Das Papst-
tum, op. cit., p. 511), and is still generally accepted. Honig goes further
than Friedrich in thinking that Illyricum was an independent Church unit;
a kind of partriarchate directing its own affairs through its own councils.
Theodosius' decree confirmed this status for Illyricum and stipulated only
that the patriarch of Constantinople should be consulted before a conciliar
decision was made. Honig's interpretation of the decree contrary to opinions
,
held until now, excludes any possibility of a submission by Illyricum to

Constantinople. According to him, also, the papal letters concerning Illyricum,
written before 535, which he regards as genuine respect the autonomous
,
'
status of Illyricum in conformity to Theodosius decree. This interesting,

though too bold, interpretation does not seem sufficiently substantiated.
,
In any case, even Honig's interpretation confirms the general principle

revealed here, namely, that until the sixth century the popes respected the
political division of the Empire, and adapted their ecclesiastical policies to it.
78 For details see K J. Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, 1 (2nd ed.,
.
Leipzig, 1881), pp. 464-488.

7* Cyprianus, Epist. 48, Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, 3,
ed. G. Hartel, 1, p. 607, PL, 3, cols. 732 seq.
30
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
The predominant position of Carthage remained untouched even

after the new administrative division was introduced by Diocletian.
Toward the end of the fourth century the adaptation of the African
Church to the new poUtical status was completed, and the metro-
politans of the six provinces of the African diocese resided in the
provincial capitals; the metropolitan of Africa proconsularis in
Carthage, of Valeria Byzacena in Hadrametum, of Numidia in
Cirta, of Tripolitana in Tripolis, of Mauretania Sitifensis in Setif,
of Mauretania Caesariensis in Caesarea. Only Mauretania Tingitana
was not attached ecclesiastically to the diocese of Spain, to which
it belonged politically, but remained attached to Mauretania
Caesariensis.75
In one respect, however, the Church organization of Africa
differed from that of the other Churches. The bishops of the provin-
ces together formed a synodal unity, but when they convened in
synods the chairmanship was reserved not to the bishops of the
provincial capitals, but to the oldest bishops. The provincial
assemblies were, however, very much overshadowed by the uni-
versal synods of the whole African Church which were convoked
,
and directed by the bishop of Carthage. Although his jurisdiction

over the entire African Church was absolute, extending over all
bishoprics, he had to content himself with the modest title of
primae sedis episcopus.™
Although in constant contact with Rome, the Church of Africa
'
spiritedly defended its autonomous status, as shown by Cyprian s

attitude regarding the question of the Christians who during
Decius' persecution had denied their faith, and particularly by
the decision of the African Synod of 418 forbidding any appeal to
78 A Schwartze, "Nordafrikanische Kirche," in Herzog-Hauck Realenzy-

.
hlopadie fiir protestantische Theologie u. Kirche, 14 (3rd ed., 1904), pp. 160 seq.
H Leclercq, L'Afrique chritienne, 1 {Paris, 1904), pp. 63 seq. H. Leclercq
.
"
Afrique," in F. Cabrol, Dictionnaire d'archiologie chritienne, 1 (Paris, 1904),
cols. 576-775. L. Duchesne, op. cit., pp. 17 seq. Idem., Histoire ancienne
de VEglise, 1 (3rd ed., Paris, 1923), pp. 388-452. G. Metzger, Die Afrikanische
Kirche (Dissertation, Tubingen, 1934). E. Buonaiuti, // Cristianesimo nell'
Africa (Bari, 1928). R. Hoslinger, Die alte afrikanische Kirche (Vienna, 1935).
Cf. also F. Heiler, Altkirchliche Autonomie und pdpstlicher Zentralismus
(Munich, 1941), pp. 3-51.
w Mansi 3, col. 884 (canon 26 of the third Carthaginian synod).
,
31
Rome from the judgment of African bishops," a canon which was

strongly reaffirmed in a synodal letter of 426 in which the Council
of Carthage forbade any further Roman intervention in African
ecclesiastical matters.78 In this the Church of Africa had adopted
an attitude similar to that of the Eastern Churches; indeed, it
went even further than did the Eastern Fathers, for we can find
in the decisions of eastern synods hardly a canon to match that
which was voted in 418 by the Synod of Carthage.
Cyprian's letters not only give us very useful information on
the growth of the ecclesiastical organization of Africa, but also
show that in their synods the African prelates imitated the proce-
dure governing the meetings of the Roman Senate,79 thus provid-
ing another instance of the extent to which the Church adapted
itself to Roman political divisions and customs.
Spain was divided, beginning with the time of Augustus, into
three provinces; Tarraconensis, in the north and northwest parts
of the peninsula, Lusitania, roughly modem Portugal, and Boetica
in the south. Two more provinces were formed in the imperial
period from the territory of Tarraconensis: Carthageniensis and
Gallaecia.80 There is no reason to suppose that the ecclesiastical
organization of Spain did not follow the administrative division
of the peninsula. At least, at the synod of Elvira (Illiberis-Granada),
which was held soon after 300, all five provinces were represented
by their bishops.81 The creation of metropofitan sees in Spain seems,
however, to have come about more slowly than in other parts of
the Empire. The famous fifty-eighth canon voted by the synod of
Elvira is generally invoked as a proof that the metropofitan organ-
ization had by then already been introduced into the Church of
Spain. The canon orders a strict inspection of letters of recommen-
77 Ibid .
, col. 822 (canon 125).
78 Ibid 4, cols. 515 seq. E, Caspar {op. cit., p. 372) calls this letter to
.
,
Pope Celestin "der Schwanengesang und ein testamentarisches Vermachtnis

der cyprianischen Kirchenidee von der unitas ecclesiae an spHtere geistige
Stromungen im Schosse der Kirche, welche den 'Episkopalismus' gegen
den 'Papalismus' auf den Schild zu heben versuchten."
n See F Dvomik, "Emperors, Popes, and General Councils," Dumbarton
.
Oaks Pa-bers, 6 (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), pp. 1-23.

80 K J. Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, 1, pp. 251-260.
.
81 Mansi, 2, cols. 2-20.
32
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
dation presented by peregrinating Christians, "in all places,

and especially where the first see of the bishopric is erec-
ted."82
The wording of the canon is, however, not clear enough to permit,
with certainty, this interpretation, because, in addition to nine-
teen bishops present at the synod, twenty-four priests attended
and signed the Acts, and the words ubique et tnaxime eo loco, in
quo prima cathedra constituta est episcopatus could, therefore, have
been addressed to the priests and to the bishop-of the dioceses.83
The letters of recommendation should be examined carefully
wherever a priest is established, but especially wherever a bishop
resides. In this instance we can invoke this canon only as proof
that at least the diocesan organization was well established in Spain
about the year 300.
The fact that Bishop Felix of Acci (Quadix) was the first to sign
the Acts seems to indicate that the Church of Spain followed the
example of the Church of Africa, with which it kept in constant
touch, in assigning first place to the oldest bishop of the provinces.84
Thus, at least, did the Spanish ecclesiastical organization evolve.
In the fourth century the Church of Spain had a firm metropolitan
organization, and in each metropohs the oldest bishop held the
primacy.85 All metropohtans, however, were subject to the metro-
Ibid., col. 15: De his, qtii communicatorias literas poriant, ut de fide

**
interrogentur. Placuit ubique et maxitne in eo loco, in quo prima cathedra con-

stituta est episcopatus, ut interrogentur hi qui communicatorias literas tradunt,
an omnia recte habeant suo testimonio comprobata. On the synod cf. C. J.
Hefele, H. Leclercq, Hist, des Candles, 1, pt. 1, pp. 212-264. See also,
H Leclercq, L'Espagne chrdtienne (Paris, 1906), pp. 59-77, and Zacharias
.
Garcia Villada, Historia ecclesiastica de Espaita, 1, pt. 1 (Madrid, 1929),

pp. 301-325-
83 Cf A Eitel, "Die spanische Kirche in vorgermanischer Zeit," Abkand-
.
lungen aus dem Gebiete der mittleren und neueren Geschichte und ihrer Hilfs-
xvissenschaften. Eine Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag Prof. H. Finke (Miinster i.W.,
1925), p. 5, fn. 7. P. Batiffol, in his Cathedra Petri (Paris, 1938), pp. 105-121,
thinks that the prima cathedra episcopatus is the see of Rome. This inter-
pretation cannot, however, be accepted. The synod dealt exclusively with
matters concerning Spanish affairs.
**
P. B. Gams {Die Kirchengeschichte Spaniens, 2, pt. 1 [Regensburg,
1864-1876], pp. 173-189) tried to show that the bishops signed according to
the dates of the founding of their bishoprics. The bishopric of Acci was the
oldest in Spain.
.» Cf F. Heiler, op. cit., pp. 51 seq. Garcia Villada, op. cit., pp. 195-213.
.
5
33
politan of Tarragona,88 the capital of the greatest province of Spain.

The five metropoles (Tarragona, Sevilla, Toledo, Braga, Merida)
were estabhshed in the prominent cities of the five provinces, in
complete accommodation to the pohtical division of the country.87
This situation was further consolidated when, under King
Rekkared (586-601), the old Latin Church of Spain was united with
the National Church of the new rulers-the Visigoths-who had
abandoned the Arian Creed. The authority of the metropolitans
was thus even further strengthened. They were the highest judges
in the ecclesiastical affairs of the provinces, and presided at the
provincial synods, but the supreme authority for the whole Church
of Spain rested in the national synods of all the bishops, convoked
by the king and directed by the metropolitan of Toledo, then the
capital of the kingdom.88
It should be noted that the idea of apostohcity had not played
a prominent role in the ecclesiastical organization of Africa and
Spain in spite of the fact that both countries derived their Christi-
anity from apostohc times. Roman missionaries must have been
quite active in Africa at a very early period, and, although Pope
Innocent I seems to have attributed the christianization of Carthage
to Rome alone,88 it is now agreed that Christianity had penetrated
into Carthage and into northern Africa generally, directly from
Asia, before the Roman missionaries started their work there.90
This may have given birth to local popular tales attributing the
origin of African Christianity to St. Peter and his disciple Crescen-
S. Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona, seems to have acted as Spain's

primate when addressing to Pope Damasus a letter on the religious situation
'
m Spain. The letter was answered by Damasus successor Siricius (PL, 13,
cols. 1131-1147).
.7 Only Toledo was not also the administrative capital of its province the ,
Carthageniensis. The promotion of this city to a metropolis shows that the

strategical and geographical position of Toledo gave it pre-eminence over
Valencia in every respect.
88 Garcia Villada, 0 . cit., 2, pt. 1, pp. 17-43, 79-130 Cf. also A. K. Ziegler,
Church and State in Visigothic Spain (Washington, 1930), and E. Magnin,
L'E glise visigothique au VIIe sidcte (Paris, 1912).
*. Innocentius
, Epistolae, PL, 20, Epist. 25, 2, col. 552,
Cf. P. Monceaux, Hisioire Utteraire cU I'A frique chritienne, 1 (Paris, 1901),
pp. 4 seq. and R. Hoslinger, op. cit., pp. 10 seq. On the penetration of
Christianity into Africa in apostolic times see P. J. Mesnage, Le Christianisme
en Afrique, engines, ddveloppements, extension (Paris, 1914), pp. 2 seq., 58-79.
34
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
tius (allegedly ordained Bishop of Carthage by Peter),91 or to

Simon the Cananean and Jude,92 or to St, Mark.98
These tales must have started to circulate quite early, although
Tertullian and Cyprian appear not to have known them. From a
letter of Pope Gregory the Great we learn, however, that the
bishops of Numidia asked him for permission to retain the customs
and traditions which had endured in Africa from the time that
the Apostle Peter had preached there.94 In the fifth century the
belief that Peter had evangehzed Carthage seems to have been
widespread. This is attested by Salvian95 and, to a certain extent,
by Augustine, although the latter is rather vague and seems to
link the origins of African Christianity only very generally to the
apostolic age.96 Thus this legend97 did not become widely accepted
in Africa until later, when the Church organization, based on
the political division of the country, had been completely realized.
The invasion of the Vandals had brought to a halt in Africa
any further development of the apostolic tradition.
Spain can also claim the honor of having been evangehzed by
the Apostle Paul, who, according to the testimony of St. Clement
(I Ep. 5) and the Canon of Muratori,98 had been able to carry out
91 Annonymus Graecus De SS Petro et Paulo, chap. 3, Acta Sanctorum
.
(June 29), 3d ed., 7, p. 379. L. N. deTillemont [Mimoires pour servir d I'hisMre

ecclisiastique, 1 [Paris, 1693-1738], pp. 548 seq.) has already shown the
legendary character of this tradition. Flavins Lucius Dexter Barcinonensis,
Chronicon omnimodae historiae, PL, 31, col. 163, ad an. 50,
.* Nicephorus Callistas Xanthopoulos, Historia ecclesiastica, bk. 2, chap.
40; PG, 145, col. 864.
Ibid bk, 2, chap. 43, col. 876.
.
,
**
Gregorius Magnus, Epistolae, 1, Epist. 77, PL, 77, col. 531.
.* Salvianus De gubernatione Dei, 7, chap. 18, PL, 53, col. 146; CSEL,
,
8 ed. F. Pauly, no. 79, p. 181, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores

,
Antiquissimi, 1, ed. K. Halm, col. 98.

S Augustinus Hipponensis, De Unitate Ecclesiae, chap. 15, no. 37, PL,
.
43, col. 419 Enarrationes in Psalmos, 49:3, PL, 36, col. sbb.GestaCollationis
Carthagine habitae inter Catholicas et Donatistas Cognit. 3, 230 Mansi, 4,
,
col. 229. Enarr. in Ps. 44:23, PL. ibid., col. 508. Epist. 43, chap, 7, PL, 33,
col. 163; CSEL, 34, ed. A. Goldbacher, p. 90.
n P J. Mesnage (op. cit., pp. 43-79) accepted this tradition. It was,
.
however, disproved by J. Gag , "Nouveaux aspects de I'Afrique chrdtienne,"

Annates de I'Ecole des Hautes Etudes de Gand, 1 (1937), PP- 183-188, and by
J Ferron and G. Lapeyre ("Carthage," in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de
.
giographie eccUsiastique, n [1939], cols. 1178 seq.).

**
Lines 38 seq. G. Kuhn, Das muratorische Fragment iiber die Biicher des
Neuen Testaments (Zurich, 1892), p. 12. E. Dubowy, "Klemens von Rom iiber
die Reise Pauli nach Spanien," Biblische Studien, 19 (1914). More recently,
35
his plan, revealed in his letter to the Romans (chap. 15: 24-28),
to visit Spain. The tradition of the activity of the Apostle James
in Spain is legendary, and started to spread only in the seventh
century. Another tradition-that Spain was evangelized by seven
disciples of the apostles- cannot be altogether rejected.99 In spite
of all these connections of Spanish Christianity to apostohc times,
the idea of apostohcity played such a minor role in the organization
of the early Spanish Church that even the activity of St. Paul
in that country cannot be ascertained through any local documen-
tary evidence.
In Gaul there are no traces of a metropolitan organization before
the fourth century, for the bishop of Rome stood at the head of
the hierarchy. He owed his dominant position in Gaul, and in the
West generally, not only to the prestige of St. Peter, the first of
the apostles, whose successor he was, but also to the fact that
Rome was the capital of the Empire.100
Lyons enjoyed prominence in Gaul for some time, owing to the
prestige of its Bishop St. Irenaeus. Aries, however, became im-
portant when Constantine the Great chose it as his residence and
it claimed the honor of being a metropohs, though before that it
had been a simple provincial city. When, however, after 392, the
prefect of the diocese of Gallia had to abandon his residence at
Treves, and take refuge in Aries, the bishops of that city started
to extend their jurisdiction over the bishops of three provinces:
Viennensis, Narbonensis Prima and Secunda. These encroachments
provoked sharp protests from the bishops of Vienne, the capital
of the civil province of Viennensis.
The synod of Turin,101 which attempted in its second canon to
however, K. Heussi {Die romische Petrustradition in kritischer Sicht [Tubingen,
I955]i PP- 62-68) rejects this interpretation of Clement's word. According to
him Clement had in mind not Spain but Rome.
,
M All documentary evidence on the legendary preaching of St. James in

Spain and the activity of the "seven men" in that country is to be found in
Garcia Villada's Hist, eccles. de Espana, 1, pt. 1, pp. 27-104, 147-168.
100 However after Milan became a metropolitan see, the bishops of Gaul,
,
when in difficulty addressed themselves to its bishop. Cf. L. Duchesne,

,
Origines, pp. 32 seq., 84-89.

101 Mansi 3, cols. 860 seq. See the voluminous bibliography concerning
,
the dating of this synod, and its importance in C. J. Hefele, H. Leclercq,

,
op. cit., 2, pt. 1, pp. 129-133, 134 (bibliography on canon two).

36
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
settle this rivalry, declared officially that the principle of adaptation

to the civil organization should prevail also in Gaul, and that the
bishop who proved his city to be the metropohs of a province,
should be recognized as first bishop of the whole province. In
spite of this decision, Aries retained its position, and Pope Zosimus
I (417-418), in confirming its privileges over the province of
Vienne and both provinces of Narbonensis, made its metropolitans
special representatives of Rome in Gallia.102
Pope Boniface I (418-422), however, did not support the pre-
tensions of Aries, and in his letter to Hilarius of Narbonne he
disapproved of an ordination made by the Bishop of Aries in the
'
province of Narbonne. This same letter contains also Boniface s
interpretation of canon four, voted by the Council of Nicaea, to
the effect that in each province there should be only one metro-
politan.103
The conflict between Aries and Vienne flared up anew under the
reign of Pope Leo the Great (404-461), Hilarius of Aries was
deprived of his metropolitan dignity because he used his power
without discretion.104 After his death the bishops of Aries, by
quoting the legendary tradition that the first bishop of Aries-Tro-
phimus-was ordained by St. Peter, claimed that the see of Aries
should exercise the same principate over all Gaul as the see of
Rome, founded by St. Peter, exercised over the whole Church.105
This request and its wording betray a curious blending of two
ideas; the adaptation of ecclesiastical to political organization, and
the idea of apostolicity.
Leo the Great found himself in a difficult position. In order to
108 PL, 20, cols. 642-645, Mansi, 4, cols. 359 seq. Cf. F. Dvomik, Ligendes,
P- 253.
103 See supra p. 7.
,
104 PL 54, cols. 628-636.

,
106 PL 54, col. 881: credentes plenum esse rationis atque justitiae, ut sicui
,
per beatissimum Petrum apostolorum principem sacrosancta Ecclesia Romana

tenetei supra ontnes totius mundi Ecclesias principatum, ita etiant intra Gallias
Arelatensis Ecclesia, quae sanctum Trophimum ab apostolis missum sacerdotem
habere meruisset, ordinandi pontificium vindicaret. Cf. P. Batifiol, op. cit.,
'
pp. 85 seq. Patroclus exaggeration concerning Trophimus may, however,

rest on some historical basis. It is quite possible that Trophimus was sent by
Rome to Aries, though not until the third century. Cf. L. Duchesne, Pastes
ipiscopaux de I'ancienne Gaule, 1 (2nd ed., Paris, 1907), p. 103, and K. Miiller,
"
Beitrage," op. cit., p. 30.
37
settle the quarrel between Vienne and Aries he was forced to dis-
'
regard Boniface s interpretation of the Nicene decision, and to

divide the civil province of Vienne into two metropolitan sees,106
although no change was effected in the civil administration of the
province. He was not willing, however, to recognize explicitly the
primacy of Aries in Gaul, although he continued to transmit his
messages to the bishops of Gaul through the intermediary of the
metropolitan of Aries.107
109 PL, 54, cols. 884-885.
107 Ibid cols. 886 seq. On the primacy of Aries see L. Duchesne, op. cit.,
.
,
"
1, chap. 2, pp. 86-146, and H. Leclercq, Gallicane (Eglise)," Did. d'archeol.

chrit., 6 (Paris, 1929), cols. 395-403, where more bibliographical indications
will be found. For more recent bibliography see H. Fuhrmann "Studien zur
"
,
Geschichte mittelalterlicher Patriarchate , Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiflung,

70, Kanon. Abt., 39 (1953), PP- I47-I76«
38
CHAPTER TWO
The Idea of Apostolicity in the West and in the East before

the Council of Chalcedon
Rome the only apostolic see in the West - Apostolic sees in the East -
Canon three of the Council of Constantinople (381} viewed in a new light
- Reaction in the West - The views of the Council of 382 on apostolicity
- St Basil and the idea of apostolicity - John Chrysostom - Struggle
.
between Alexandria and Constantinople - The principle of apostolicity

at the Council of Ephesus - St. Cyril, Dioscorus of Alexandria, and
Domnus of Antioch - Leo I's success in stressing the apostolicity of his
see in the East - The idea of apostolicity at Chalcedon - Leo I and the
so-called twenty-eighth canon - Attitude of the legates - Omission
'
of apostolicity in the canon - Reasons for Leo s negative attitude -

Leo's apparent success a disguised compromise.
The short review in chapter one of the development of initial

Church organization shows how deeply the principle of adaptation
to the political division of the Empire was embedded in the minds
of Christian leaders in the fourth century, not only in the East, but
in the West and in Rome itself. In this respect, however, one im-
portant difference between eastern and western attitudes deserves
particular emphasis. As has been shown, the idea of apostolicity
played a very limited role in the development of the Church in the
eastern provinces, but this was not true of the spread and or-
ganization of Christianity in the West. Rome owed its prestige in
Italy and in other western provinces not only to the fact that it
was, until the first half of the fourth century, the capital of the
Empire and the imperial residence, but also to the veneration in
which young Christian communities of the West held St. Peter,
founder of the Roman see and chief of the apostles, whose successors
the Roman bishops claimed to be.
.
39
The problem concerning Peter's stay in Rome is outside the

scope of this study,1 but it should be pointed out that the idea of
the Roman bishops' direct succession from the Apostle had to
undergo a short period of evolution before it acquired its full
meaning. The early Christians regarded the apostles only as uni-
versal teachers whom Christ had charged with the mission of
spreading his doctrine throughout the world, and were reluctant
to designate them as bishops of those cities where they had im-
planted the Christian faith, or where they had resided.1' The
apostles, therefore, were regarded as founders of the Churches in
the cities where the Christian seed had taken root, but the series
of bishops in those cities started with the names of the disciples
appointed by the apostles or by their intimate collaborators. Thus
the first known list of Roman bishops given by Irenaeus of Lyon,
'
who is said to have died a martyr s death in 202, designated

Peter and Paul as founders of the Church of Rome. Irenaeus' list
"
was as follows:2 The blessed Apostles, after having founded and
constructed this Church, entrusted to Linus the function of bishopric
.. . He had Anacletus as successor. After him, in third place from
the Apostles, the episcopate went to Clement who had seen the
blessed apostles. After Clement Evaristus succeeded; after Eva-
ristus, Alexander. Then, in sixth place from the Apostles, Sixtus
was installed, and after him Telesphorus who is famed also for
,
his martyrdom. Afterward Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. After
1 See the review of

pertinent literature on this subject in Oscar Cullmann s
'
book Saint Pierre, disciple apotre, martyr, histoire et thiologie (NeufchStel

, ,
Paris, 1952), pp. 61-137. The author discusses the arguments against Peter's
having been in Rome which were raised mainly by K. Heussi, and are
restated and fully developed by him in his recent brief study Die romische
Petrustradition in kritischer Sicht (Tiibingen, 1955). Cullmann concludes that
Peter went to Rome toward the end of his life, and there met a martyr's
death during Nero's persecutions. Cf. also the review of Cullmann's book
by P. Benoit in Revue biblique, 60 (1953), pp. 565-579, and M. Goguel, "Le
livre d'Oscar Cullmann sur saint Pierre," Revue d'histoire et de philosophie
'
religieuse, 35 (1955), pp. 196-209. K. Heussi s arguments were refuted also

by K. Aland in his study "Petrus in Rom" (Historische Zeitschrift, 183 [1957],
pp. 497-516). See J. T. Shotwell, L. R. Loomis, The See of Peter (New York,
1927) for documentation of the Petrine tradition.
ia Cf what O. Cullmann (op. cit., pp. 105 seq.) says on the role of an
.
apostle. Cf. also A. A. T. Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Succession (London, 1953),

p. 65, footnote 1.
2 Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, bk, 3, chap. 3, para. 3, PG, 7, cols. 849 seq.
40
APOSTOLICITY BEFORE CHALCEDON
Anicetus Soter succeeded; then Eleuthenis who now occupies the

"
episcopal office, in twelfth place from the Apostles.

It is clear from this quotation that the Bishop of Lyon did not
count the Apostle Peter among Roman bishops. Moreover, he
regarded Paul, along with Peter, as a founder of Roman Christi-
anity. It is still debated among specialists whether or not Irenaeus
used here a catalogue of Roman bishops estabhshed by Hegesippus.8
If he did, this would be another indication that what he said con-
'
cerning Peter and Paul was the oldest Roman tradition. Irenaeus
catalogue of Roman bishops seems to have been used by Hippolytus.4
In the meantime the idea of the intimate connection of the Roman
see with Peter could only have become more and more insistent.
This seems apparent in the attitude of Pope Callixtus (217-222)
who is the first to quote the famous passage (Matt. 16:18,19) in
which Christ declares that he founded his Church in the person
of Peter to whom he also gave the power of binding and loosing.
Of course we have only Tertullian's testimony for Callixtus' use of
this passage,5 and since what he says is not clear, it is open to
various interpretations 6 We may however, deduce from Ter-
, ,
tullian's words that Callixtus, in quoting the passage, did so in

the belief that he was Peter's successor.
In spite of this, the old custom of distinguishing the apostles
*
See B. H. Streeter, The Primitive Church (London, 1929), pp. 188-195;
H .
von Campenhausen, "Lehrreihen und Bischofsreihenimz. Jahrhundert."
In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer (Stuttgart 1951), p. 247. Cf. also The Apostolic
,
Fathers ed. J. B. Lightfoot, 1, S. Clement of Rome (London, 1890), pp. 202

,
'
seq., and especially E. Holland "Le d veloppement de I id e de succession

"
,
apostolique in Rev. d'hist. et de phil. rel., 34 (1954), pp. 20 seq.

,
*
See E. Caspar, "Die alteste romische Bischofsliste" (Schriften der
Konigsberger gelehrten Gesellschaft Geisteswiss. Kl. 4 [1926]), pp. 206 seq.,
,
Hamack's and Caspar's reconstruction of Hippolytus' list with bibliographical

indications. Eusebius {Historia ecclesiastica 5, 28; PG, 20, col. 512; ed.
,
E Schwartz, p. 500) quotes a short passage from Hippolytus in which the
.
latter calls Victor the thirteenth Bishop thus not counting Peter as first
,
Bishop. See also what A. A. T. Ehrhardt (op. cit pp. 35-61) says on the
.
,
early succession lists .
*
De Pudicitia, chap. 21, CSEL, 20, ed, A. Reifferscheid, G. Wissowa,
p. 270.
. See E, Caspar, Geschichte des Papsitums, 1 (Tubingen, 1930), pp. 27 seq.;
H Koch, "Cathedra Petri, neue Untersuchungen iiber die Anfange der
,
Primatslehre Hefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die neuiestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1

,
"
(Giessen, 1930), pp. 5-32; P. Batiffol, L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme

(Paris, 1909), pp. 349 seq-
41
from the first bishops continued predominant. Tertullian, for

example, is quite outspoken in this respect.7
Of great interest in this matter is Eusebius' treatment of the
question of succession of bishops to the principal sees: Rome, Alex-
andria, and Antioch. He traces the line of bishops in Rome from
Peter and Paul, in Alexandria from St. Mark, and in Antioch
from St. Peter, but he does not place the founders of those
Churches at the head of his lists of bishops. In Rome the list is
headed by Linus, in Alexandria by Annianus, and in Antioch by
Euodius.8 St. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was appointed
by the Saviour and the apostles.9
Although in his Church History Eusebius is eager to emphasize
the theory that the founders of Roman Christianity were St. Peter
and St. Paul,10 he names only Peter in his Chronicle.11 Since the
Armenian and Syriac texts of the Chronicle also quote only Peter
as founder, we must conclude that Jerome, translator of the
Chronicle into Latin, has here rendered faithfully Eusebius' mean-
ing. This indicates that Eusebius was familiar with a tendency
that was becoming more and more manifest in Rome; namely,
the attribution of the foundation of the see of Rome to Peter alone.
Another list of Roman bishops from the year 354, the so-called
Libetian Catalogue, is one of the first documents which not only
abandons the old tradition attributing the foundation of the Roman
see to Peter and Paul, but also minimizes the distinction between
apostles and bishops, putting Peter at the head of the list ,
and
omitting Linus as the first bishop after the Apostles.12
7 De Praescriplione chap. 32, CSEL, 70, ed. E. Kroymann, pp. 39 seq.:

,
Edant ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum,

ita per successtonem ab initio decurrenUm, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ab
apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, nabuerit
auciorem et antecessorem.
*
Hist, eccles., 3, 2, 15, 21; PG, 20, cols. 216, 248, 256; ed. E.Schwartz,
pp. 188, 228, 236.
» Hist eccles. 2, 23; PG, ibid., col. 196; ed. E. Schwartz, p. 164.
,
10 Hist eccles., 3, 2, 21; 4,1; PG., ibid., cols. 216, 256, 303; ed. E. Schwartz,
,
pp. 188, 236, 300. '

11 Annales AbreviaH 2084 = Nero 14. On Jerome s translation see C. H.
Turner, Studies in Early Church History (Oxford, 1912), pp. 139 seq.
lt Chronographus anni 354, MGH, Auct. ant. 9, ed. Th. Mommsen p. 73;
Petrus ann. XXV, mens, uno d. IX ... Passus autem cumPaulo die III Kal.
Julias. Linus ann. XII m. IV d. XII.
42
In spite of that, in the introduction to his translation of the

Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, Rufinus still distin-
guishes the apostolic status of Peter in Rome from the episcopal
status of Linus and Cletus, who are said to have administered the
Roman Church during the life of the Apostle, and of Clemens who
did so after his death.18 Such appears to be the attitude also of
Epiphanius of Cyprus.14
Moreover, the anonymous author of a poem against Marcion,
falsely ascribed to Tertullian which seems to have been composed
,
in southern Gaul at the end of the fifth or the beginning of the

sixth century,15 continues to refer to Linus as the first bishop of
Rome.18
These, however, are exceptions. The whole Latin West, from
the end of the fourth century on, regarded Peter as the only founder
of the Roman see and its first occupant. It must be said
that St. Cyprian of Carthage had contributed considerably to this
change, for he stressed more than any other writer of the Early
Church the identical character of the apostolic and episcopal
offices. In his letter to certain Spanish Churches for example, ,
Cyprian says that Matthias was ordained bishop in place of Judas.17

In another epistle Cyprian admonishes the deacons not to forget
that "the Lord had chosen the apostles, that is to say bishops and
prelates, and that the apostles had instituted the deacons after
"
PG, i, col. 1207. This is particularly interesting because the author of
the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies had already attributed the primacy to
Peter. See B. Rehm,"Die Pseudo-Klementinen," I, Homilien, in Die griechi-
schen chrisllichen Schriftsteller, 42 (1953), pp. 239, 240 (Homily 17). Cf. also
Episiula dementis ad lacobum, ibid., pp. 5-7. Cf. H. Clavier, "La primaut
de Pierre d'apris lespseudo-Clementines, ' Rev. d'hist. et de phil. rel., 36 (1956),
pp. 298-307.1
14 Panarion haereticorum chap. 27, 6, GCS, 25, ed. K. Holl, pp. 308 seq.
,
Cf. C. Schmidt,Studienzuden Pseudo-Clementinen (Texteund Untersuchungen,

'
46 [1929]), pp. 336 seq., 350 seq. On Epiphanius catalogue cf. E. Caspar,
"
Die alt. rom. Bischofsliste," op. cit., pp. 168 seq., 194 seq.
"
K. Holl, Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Kirchengeschichte, 3 (Tubingen, 1928),
pp. 13-53 ( Uber Zeit und Heimat des pseudotertullianischen Gedichts adv.
"
Marcionem"). On page 28 Holl reprinted the part of the poem containing the
list of Roman bishops, from Oehler's edition of Tertullian's works.
18 S F. Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia, 3 (ed. F. Oehler, 1853), p. 729,
.
chap. 3, verses 275 seq.

"
Epist. 67, chap. 4, CSEL, 3, ed. G. Hartel, p. 738: quando de ordinando
in locum Judae episcopo Petrus ad plebem loquitur.
43
the Ascension of the Lord, in order to have servants in their episco-

"
pacy and in the Church. 18

The succession of bishops to the apostles is, moreover, empha-
sized by Cyprian in another missive in which he declares that the
"
saying of the Lord, who hears you hears me and who hears me
hears the One who had sent me" (Luke 10:16), was addressed "to
the apostles and thus to all superiors who had succeeded to the
"
apostles ordained as their vicars. 19 Cyprian also spoke of the

'
cathedra Petri and ecclesia principalis,20 and he based the unity of

the Church on the investiture given to Peter by Christ.21
Such outspoken declarations soon caused the differentiation
between apostles and bishops to be forgotten. During the fourth
century the practice of attributing the foundation of the see of
Rome only to Peter, and of placing him at the head of Roman
bishops became general. This is affirmed by Optatus Milevitanus,82
Jerome,23 and also Augustine.24 In the East, however, the old
practice of not counting the apostles as first bishops of the Churches
that they had founded continued.25 Among the older ecclesiastical
18 Episi 3, chap. 3, ibid., p. 471: meminisse autem diaconi debent quoniam

.
apostolos id est episcopos et praepositos Dominus elegit, diaconos autem post

ascensionem Domini in caelos apostoli sibi constituerunt episcopatus sui et
ecclesiae ministros.
l* Epist 66, chap. 4, ibid., p. 729: qui {Deus et Christus) dicit ad apostolos
.
ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succe-

dunt.
40 Episi 59 chap. 14, ibid., p. 683. R. Hoslinger, Die alte afrikanische
.
Kirche, pp. 480 seq.

21 De Unitate Ecclesiae chap. 4, ibid., pp. 212, 213. Epist. 43, chap. 5,
,
ibid., p. 594.
2t Libri VII bk. 2, chaps. 2, 3, CSEL, 26, ed. C. Ziwsa, p. 36: In urbe
,
Roma Petro primo cathedram episcopalem esse conlatam ... sedit prior Petrus,
cui successit Linus....
23 De Viris Illustribus, chaps. 15, 16, PL, 23, cols. 663-666: Clemens ...
quartus post Petrum Romae episcopus, siquidem secundus Linus fuit, tertius
Anacletus .... Ignatius Antiochenae ecclesiae tertius post Petrum apostolum
episcopus.
M Namely in his letter written about 400. Epist. 53, chaps. 1-4, PL, 33,
col. 196, CSEL, 34, pp. 153 seq.: Si enim ordo episcoporum sibi succedentium
considerandus est, quanta certius et vere salubriter ab ipso Petro numeramus...
Petro enim succedit Linus, Lino Clemens....
24 For example in the letter of the Council of Antioch in 435 to Proclus of
Constantinople (Mansi, 5, col. 1086B): magnum martyrem Ignatium qui
secundus post Petrum apostolorum primum Antiochenae sedis ordinavit
ecclesiam.
44
Greek writers only Socrates called Ignatius third bishop of An-

tioch from the Apostle Peter,26
In the West from the middle of the fourth century on, the Roman
see was often called simply the see of Peter; by Jerome, for example.27
The Synod of Sardica (343) invited priests to appeal to "the
head, that is, the see of the Apostle Peter."28 Palladius of Ratiaria
also called the Roman see the see of Peter, but, when protesting
his condemnation by the Synod of Aquileia (381), he claimed
that Peter's see was equal to any other episcopal see.29
In the time of Pope Damasus (336-389) the idea of apostolicity
made considerable progress in Rome and in the West. In addition
to the identification of the Roman see with Peter's see, which by
then had become common practice,30 Damasus shows his pre-
ference for another title as a further means of emphasizing the
apostolicity of his see: sedes apostolical1 which seems to have been
introduced previously by Liberius.82
This new title was not only used by Damasus' successor Siri-
*. Hist
eccles., 6, 8, PG, 67, col. 692: "Ignace of Antioch, third after the
,
Apostle Peter." Cf. the collection of passages concerning this problem in

C H. Turner, Ecclesiae occidentalis Monumenta iuris antiquissitna, 1 (Oxford,
.
1899), pp. 246 seq. Cf. E, Holland, op. cit., pp. 25 seq. Cf. also E. Metzner,
Die Verfassung der Kirche in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten unter besonderer
Berucksichtigung der Schriften Harnacks (Danzig, 1920), pp. 115-144 (die
ersten Bischofe Roms).
*
> Epist 15, chap. 1, 16, chap. 2, CSEL, 54, ed. I. Hildberg, pp. 63, 69.
.
"
Mansi, 3, col. 40B (letter of the synod to Pope Julius). Cf. also canon
three, ibid., col. 8.
*
. F Kauffmann,y4Ms
. der Schuledes Wulfila. Auxentii Dorostorensis epistula
de fide vita et obitu Wulfilae, im Zusammenhang mit der Dissertatio Maximi
,
contra Atnbrosium (Texte und Untersuchungen zur altgerman. Religionsge-

schichte [Strassburg, 1899], p. 86. Cf. L. Saltet, "Un texte nouveau-
,
la Dissertatio Maximi contra Ambrosium "
,
Bulletin de littdrature ecclisi-
astique publid par I'Institut catholique de Toulouse 3e ser., 2 (1900), pp. n8-
,
129.
30 Collectio Avellana CSEL, 35, ed. O. Giinther, Epist. 1, p. 4. G. B. de
,
Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae 2 (Rome, 1861, 1888), p. 147;

,
N S., 2, ed. A. Silvagni (Rome, 1922, 1935) p. 6 (no. 4096).
.
,
11 Letter to an Eastern Church, in Theodoretus, Hist, eccles., 5, 10, GCS.,

19, ed. Parmentier (Leipzig, 1911), p. 295. P. Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum
Pontificum 1 (Paris, 1721), pp. 685-700 {Epist. 10, nos. 2, 17, 18). Letter of
,
the Roman Synod of 378 to Gratian in Mansi 3, col. 624 {ad sublime sedis
,
apostolicae sacrarium). Gratian in his answer {ibid., col. 628), however, calls
,
the Roman see only sanctissima sedes. Cf also the inscription for the archives
.
of St, Lawrence's Basilica composed by Damasus {PL, 13, cols. 409 seq.).
,
**
In his letter to Eusebius of Vercelli (Mansi, 3, col. 204B),
45
cius,83 but found ready acceptance too in the western provinces.

It became familiar in Spain,3* in Carthage,88 in Aquileia88 and it
was also known to St. Augustine.87 This new trend became so
ingrained in the minds of some westerners that they began to
derive the origin of episcopacy in general from Peter alone. It can
be traced in the Acts of the synods of Mileve, and of Carthage
during the fifth century, and it occurs in the correspondence of
the Popes of the fifth century-Innocent I, Zosimus, Boniface,.
Xystus III. It is reflected also in Augustine's works, and in Pseudo-
Augustine,38 but it dies away in the sixth century
This stressing of the apostolicity of the Roman see in the West
is easy to understand. There was in the Latin world only one see
which could claim the honor of apostolic origin: the Roman see.
Therefore Rome was the apostolic see-sedes apostolica-and
came to be known as such. This made it easy for her to maintain
and to strengthen her authority in the western provinces. The
attitude of the bishops of Aries illustrates better than anything
else this great advantage which Rome possessed over all other sees.
Although able to point to the importance of this city in the poli-
tical organization of Gaul, they thought that their best argument
for the recovery of the primatial rights of Aries lay in linking their
city with Peter. He, so they argued, was the founder of the bishopric
when, according to the legendary tradition, he consecrated
Trophimus as their irst Bishop.
f
There was only one other city in the western provinces besides
Aries that could boast of quasi-apostolic foundation; the city of
Sirmium in the important prefecture of Illyricum. Like Aries, it
was for some time an imperial residence.39 An old legend attributed
"
Mansi, 3,col. 670B.
34 Priscilliani Liber ad Damasum, CSEL, 18, ed. G. Schepss, p. 34, Synod
of Toledo in 400 (Mansi, 3, col. 1006E).
84 Codex canonum Ecclesiae Africanae Mansi, 3, cols. 763A 771E.
, ,
u Rufinus to Pope Anastasius PL, 21, col. 625B.

,
37 Sertno 131 10, PL, 38, col. 734. Epist. 186, 2, CSEL, 57, ed. A. Gold-
,
bacher, p. 47. In his Contra litteras Petiliani II, chaps. 51, n8, CSEL, 52,
ed. M. Petschenig, (1909), p. 88, S. Augustine calls not only the Roman see,
founded by Peter, apostolic, but also that of Jerusalem, founded by James.
88 See the documentation in Batiffol's Cathedra Petri pp. 95-103 {Petrus
,
initium episcopatus).
39 Amianus of Sirmium was well aware of the importance of his see. At
the Synod of Aquileia, in 381, he made a very self-conscious declaration
46
the origin of its bishopric to St. Andronicus, one of the seventy

disciples of Christ. It appears that Pope Zosimus had thought of
establishing in the western part of Illyricum a kind of vicariate
in order to bind the province more closely to Rome. There are
reasons for believing that he had chosen the bishop of Salona in
preference to the bishop of Sirmium for this honor, but the pro-
ject had never been realized, and it is thus impossible to guess
at the reasons that had prompted the Pope to give preference to
Salona. Had it been the fear that the prestige of Sirmium, which
boasted of quasi-apostolic origin, might grow to dangerous pro-
portions? Another danger arose when, between 424 and 437,
Sirmium probably became the seat of the praefedus praetorio
Illyrici,40 then completely incorporated in the eastern part of the
Roman Empire. But the invasion of the Huns put an abrupt end
to all of this. In 448 Sirmium was destroyed, and only the memory
of its glorious past remained.41 There was left in the Latin world
no other episcopal see which could rival Rome in its claim to
apostolicity.
But in regard to apostolicity of sees, the situation in the eastern
part of the Empire was different. There several important sees
could claim the honor of having been founded by apostles. They
were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Ephesus. Beside these,
less important sees in Asia Minor and Greece were at least visited
by the apostles, according to the Acts and apocryphal writings,
The apocryphal literature on the activities of the apostles began
to appear as early as the second century,42 and became very popu-
(Mansi, 3, col. 604B): Caput Illyrici, non nisi civitas est Sirmiensis. Ego igitur
episcopus illius civitatis sum.
44 J Zeiller, Les origines chritiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de
.
I'Empire romain (Paris, 1918), p. 6.

41 For more details on Sirmium and the papal policy regarding Illyricum
see F. Dvomik, Les Ugendes de Constantin et de Mithode vues de Byzance
(Prague, 1933), pp. 250 seq. It is very difficult to say when this legendary
tradition concerning Sirmium began. Aquileia claimed apostolic origin and
to have had as its first bishop St. Mark, who ordained Hennagoras as his
successor. But this claim was not made until the end of the sixth century.
Cf. P. Richard, "Aquil e," in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de giographie eccUsiasti-
que, 3 (Paris, 1924), cols. 1113, 1114. On the claims of Salona, see J. Zeiller,
hes origines chritiennes dans la province romaine de Daltnatie (Paris, 1906),
pp. 6 seq.
4* See infra pp. 19,
,
47
lar in the third and {ourth centuries. When the apocryphal Acts of
St. Andrew43 are examined, it will be seen how many cities in
Asia Minor and Greece, the apostles were supposed to have honored
by their presence. In the latter province the cities of Thessalonica,
Corinth, Philippi,48* Athens, and Patras, which were visited by
apostles, according to authentic or legendary tradition belonged,
it is true, to the diocese of Illyricum. They were thus under the
supra-metropolitan jurisdiction of Rome, but remained aware of
their relationship, through their culture, language, and past
history, with the East.44
This circumstance naturally reduced in the East the prestige
of the claim to apostolicity, and contributed to the easy victory
gained for the principle of adaptation to the political division
of the Empire. So it happened that Alexandria and Antioch
rose to such prominence in the Eastern Church, not by virtue of
their apostolic foundation, but because they were the most
important cities of the Empire after Rome, and capitals of two
'
vital dioceses. Thus Antioch was, for some time, St. Paul s center
of activities, as well as the center of missions in Asia Minor.
This, however, does not mean that the apostolic origin of the
principal sees was completely ignored. Eusebius calls the see of
Jerusalem apostolic,45 but only once, although he speaks of the
bishops who occupied the see on several occasions. He does not
give the title to any other see, which is indicative of an attitude
of particular significance.
The bishops of Jerusalem must have stressed the apostolic
character of their see more readily than others whose sees were
*
3 See infra pp. 172 seq.
,
493 Tertullian, in his De praescriptione haereticorum, chap. 36 (CSEL, 70

ed. E. Kroymann, p. 45), calls these three Macedonian cities, together with
Ephesus and Rome, apostolic.
**
Cf. St. Basil's description, in his letter to Pope Damasus, of the countries
'
which belong to the East: H ' AvorroAfi -rraffot... 54' AvcrToMjv -ri <JnT6 tou
MAXupiKoO j XP1 Alyvmrou. (PG, 32, col. 433C). The meaning may not appear
clear, but as Basil speaks on the troubles created by the Arians, it is evident
that he includes Illyricum and Egypt in the Orient, for both provinces were
greatly perturbed by that heresy,
48 Hist eccles., 7, 32, GCS, ed. Schwartz, p. 730. PG, 20, col. 736. The
,
passage is the more illustrative as Eusebius speaks in this chapter of episcopal

succession to all the important sees in the East. In 7, 18, ed. Schwartz,
p. 672, PG, ibid., col. 681, he calls the see of Jerusalem only "James's see."
48
founded by apostles or their disciples; very likely to strengthen

their pretentions to a more exalted position in the hierarchy, for
St. Jerome reproached John, Bishop of Jerusalem, for boasting
that he was the holder of an apostolic see.48
The same John of Jerusalem seems also to have called Theophilus,
Bishop of Alexandria, apostolic. At least Jerome read John's letter ,
and quoted its opening words in his treatise against John, John
is supposed to have greeted Theophilus of Alexandria as follows:47
"
But you, like a man of God adorned with apostolic grace take ,
care of all Churches, and principally of that which is in Jerusalem,

being at the same time yourself distinguished by boundless soli-
"
citude for the Church of God which is subject to you. John's

wording is, however, not clear. He seems rather to have had in
mind an apostolic zeal that should be the characteristic of any
bishop, and that especially distinguished the Bishop of Alexandria.
The four supra-metropolitan sees are called apostolic by Sozo-
men in his account of the Council of Nicaea. However he gives ,
first place to the bishop of Jerusalem.48 This account illustrates a

slight progress in the use of claims to apostolicity in the East;
such claims, however, seemed to apply only to the main sees.
It might have been expected that the role which the see of
Rome started to play during the Arian troubles would have increased
the esteem in which it was held by orthodox Easterners and would ,
have encouraged them to appreciate the apostolic character of

the bishops of Rome who were such strenuous defenders of the
true faith as it was defined at Nicaea. Actually St. Athanasius
most nearly personified the Western conception of the Roman see.
In his History of the Arians49 he exclaims: "[The Arians] have
44 S .
Hieronymus, Epistola 82, 10, CSEL, 55, ed. I. Hildberg, p. 117,
PL, 22 col, 742: a/>os/o/ican» cathedram tenere se iactans. Cf. Epistola 97, 4,
,
ibid.,
p. 184: S. Marci cathedra. John's predecessor Cyril is said to have
claimed,even then, metropolitan rights, stressing that his see was apostolic.
(Sozomenos, Hist, eccles., 4, 25; PG, 67, col. 1196; Theodoret, Hist, cedes.,
2, 26 ed. L. Parmentier, p. 157.)
,
47 S
Hieronymus, Contra Joannem Hierosol. PL, 23, chap. 37, cols. 406D,
.
407A: <m quidem ut homo Dei, et apostolica ornatus gratia, curam omnium Eccle-
siarum, maximeejus quae Hierosolymis est sustines, cum ipse plurimis sollici-
,
iudinibus Ecclesiae Dei quae sub te est, distringaris.

,
48 Hist, eccles. 1,17; PG, 67, col. 912.

n Historia arianorum chap.35; PG, 25, col.,733, ed. H. G.Opitz, Anastasius
Werke, 2,1 (Berlin, 1940), p, 202: Kocl yip o054 Aiftepiou tou CTriOTaSrrou'Pcbpris
4 49
from the beginning not even spared Liberius, the Bishop of Rome,
and have extended their fury to the citizens of that city. They
have shown no respect for it as an apostolic see, they were not
awed (by the fact) that it is the metropolis of Romania, nor did
they remember that, when they wrote to them, they called them
"
apostolic men? This is interesting, and it is regrettable that the

letters mentioned here by Athanasius are not preserved. In Atha-
'
nasius words may be detected, for the first time in the East, the
blending of two ideas-accommodation to the civil administration,
and apostohc origin. Although fully respectful of the apostolic
character of the Roman see, the valiant champion of orthodoxy
still sees in Rome, above all, the capital of the Empire.
Such was the situation in the Eastern part of the Empire, and
things must be viewed in this light. That the Church had adapted
the organization of its hierarchy to the territorial division of the
Roman Empire, and to its administrative system, is generally
recognized. But not all are ready to admit the logical consequences
'
of this, or to consider the further evolution of the Church
s organi-
zation, especially the rise of Constantinople, in the light of this
fact. The effort of the bishops of the new imperial city to gain
greater ascendancy in the Christian world, however, was one of
the results of this development. It was evident in the conviction,
which had become general, that the importance of the city in the
Empire's political organization should determine the prominence
of its bishop in the Church, and his precedence over other bishops
of the province or diocese. Therefore, the exemption of the bishop
of the new imperial capital from the jurisdiction of the metro-
politan of Heracleia, and the decision of the Council of Constanti-
nople (381)50 to confer upon him a rank second only to that of the
bishop of Rome, were logical apphcations of a principle commonly
practiced by the Church.
kotA Tf|v dpx l*' 6j>£foavTO, AAAA xatl M XP1 t"v ke1 t v Pa av l tretvav Kal
'
oiiyj 4t» <5rrToaToA>K6s iari 9p6vos TiSferSriaav, ou5 6ti HTiTp6iToAis f\ 'Pcipr) Tfjs
'
,
Pcopavias icrriv, EOAafWiihicrav, o05' 6ti trpirnpov 'AttootoXikoOs otOrous 6v5paj

yp6<povT65
'
Eip Kaaiv ijivripidwEuaav.
50 Mansi, 3, col. 560, canon three: Ti>v [iivroi KoovaTawnvovnr6X£cas frri-
"
ctkottov tytw tA upEafiEla Tfjs Ti\iT\s

'
t6v t s PcoiiTis tirioKomov, 6id t6 tlvai
otdrfiv viav PcopiTiv.
50
It is believed that the reaction in Rome to this innovation was

very strong. Certainly it was strong in 451 when the Council of
Chalcedon voted the so-called twenty-eighth canon. This con-
firmed canon three of the Council of Constantinople, and further
extended the privileged position of the bishop of that city. The
legates protested vehemently against this insult to the Church of
Rome, and Leo I, in his letter to Anatolius of Constantinople, de-
clared categorically that canon three of the Council of Constanti-
nople had never been submitted to his predecessors for approval.51
Leo's direct and explicit declaration throws new light on what
had happened in Rome after 381. How can his declaration be ex-
plained and reconciled with other facts, and with the general
'
opinion about Rome s strong reaction against the Council of 381 ?

First, the reason for the convocation of the Council must be con-
sidered. Emperor Theodosius, in convoking it, had in mind an
assembly representing the eastern part of the Empire alone. As a
matter of fact at the beginning, the bishops of only the minor
,
dioceses, and of the Orient were present. The invitation was ex-
tended later to the bishops of the diocese of Egypt, and to the
Bishop of Thessalonica the head of the bishops of Illyricum. Thus
,
it was not originally an oecumenical Council, a fact that was re-

cognized in the East. Its oecumenical character was not acknow-
ledged definitely by both Churches until the time of the Council of
Chalcedon,58 where its creed was solemnly accepted.58
If the origial intentions of the conciliar Fathers, which were to
reorganize the ecclesiastical affairs of the Eastern dioceses and to
legislate for them alone, are borne in mind, Leo's statement be-
comes understandable. The canons voted by the Fathers were to
apply only to the East, and the promotion of the bishop of Con-
stantinople to such an exalted rank was a measure which affected
primarily the status of the bishops of only the eastern diocesan
capitals. Therefore, as this measure concerned the East alone, and
did not affect Rome's precedence, it is quite possible, nay, even
51 See infra pp. 88-92.
62 Cf C. J. Hefele, H. Leclercq., Hisioire des Conciles, 2, pp. 42-45.
.
83 Cf E. Schwartz, "Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanura der

.
Synode von Chalkedon," Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 24

(1925), PP- 38-88.
51
logical, that the canons voted by the Council were not submitted
officially to the Bishop of Rome for confirmation.
An incident which had taken place before the convocation of
the Council illustrates even more clearly that the promotion of
Constantinople was primarily a measure changing the ecclesiastical
constellation of the East. Hitherto, the Eastern Church had been
dominated by the powerful bishops of Alexandria. One of them,
Bishop Peter, a strict Nicene, had extended his influence to Antioch
by supporting the rigoristic Bishop Paulinus against Bishop Mele-
tius.54 The latter, although originally sympathetic to the Arians,
had adopted the Catholic Creed, and was accepted by the majority
of the Antiochenes. Bishop Peter had also tried to install at Con-
stantinople a bishop of his own selection, who would be subservient
to Alexandria. His choice fell on the disreputable adventurer,
Maximus the Cynic. Maximus won the confidence of the guileless
Gregory of Nazianzus, the orthodox Bishop of Constantinople.
But, betraying his generous and naive host, Maximus let himself
be secretly ordained Bishop of Constantinople by some Egyptian
bishops, who had been sent by Peter of Alexandria, with an escort
of a gang of Alexandrian sailors.65 The fraudulent Bishop was
rejected by the catholics of Constantinople and by the Emperor,
and was denounced by Pope Damasus, who learned of the incident
from the Bishop of Thessalonica. After this even Peter of Alexandria
had to dissociate himself from Maximus.
The case of Maximus was considered by the Fathers of the
Council in 381, and it was decreed by canon four that his ordination
was not valid.56 The perpetrator of the scandalous affair was, how-
ever, well-known. When considered in its relationship to these
events, the true purpose of canon three of the Council of Con-
stantinople becomes apparent. It was a measure designed to break
the hold of Alexandria over the Eastern dioceses in religious matters,
and to give to Constantinople authority over the Eastern Church.
54 On this local schism and its consequences see F. Cavallera, Le schisme

d'Antioche (Paris, 1905).
M See Gregorius Nazianzus,Carmen XI de vita sua, vss. 807-1029. PG, 37,
cols. 1085-1100. Hieronymus, De viris illustribus, chap. 127, PL, 23, col. 754.
M Mansi 3, col. 560. Cf. Sozomenos, Hist, eccles., 7, chap. 9, PG, 67,
,
cols. 1436 seq.
52
Because the principle of adaptation to the political division of

the Empire was the leading and decisive factor in Church organi-
zation, especially in the East, and was again stressed at the Council
of 381, the canon encountered no opposition among the Eastern
'
prelates. Peter s brother and successor, Timothy of Alexandria,

had to swallow the bitter pill, and signed with Peter, Bishop of
Oxyrhynchus, the decisions of the Council; its Creed and its
canons.57 The bishop of Alexandria thus ceded the right of prece-
dence, which he had hitherto possessed in the East to the bishop,
of the imperial capital.

When all this is borne in mind, it becomes clear that this first
promotion of the bishopric of Constantinople was in no way in-
spired by an anti-Roman bias. However, it affected the interests
of the West, and, indirectly, of Rome, for the bishops of Alexan-
dria had always maintained the closest relationship with Rome and
the West, where their attitude toward the uncompromising Nicene,
Paulinus of Antioch, was fully shared. The decUne of Alexandria
could easily, therefore, have meant the decline also of Roman and
Western influences on religious affairs in the East.
The intimate link between Alexandria and the West is parti-
cularly well documented in the letter sent by the synod of Aquileia
(381) to the Emperors. Probably under the persuasion of an envoy
of Paulinus of Antioch, Ambrose of Milan, the principal actor in
this affair and the inspirer of the letter, asked the Emperors to
convoke a synod in Alexandria to heal the local schism in Antioch.58
The course of events subsequent to the dispatch of this letter
illustrates, even better, the tension between East and West that
had begun to develop ,
and the determination of the Easterners to
solve their own difficulties without the intervention of the Wes-
terners.59
Maximus, the fraudulent "Bishop" of Constantinople, con-
demned by the synod of that city, appeared in Aquileia, and
succeeded in duping Ambrose and the bishops of the Aquileian
synod into believing that he was the rightful Bishop of the capital,
&7 See E .
Schwartz, "Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts,"
Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 34 (1935), p. 204.
,
68 S Ambrosius, Epistolarum classis i,Epist. 12; PL, 16, cols. 987 seq.
.
59 See E .
Schwartz, "Zur Kirchengeschichte," op. cit., pp. 206 seq.
53
and that he was unjustly condemned and persecuted. The news

which Maximus brought concerning the Council of Constantinople
caused alarm in Aquileia. According to his report, not only had he
himself been condemned, but a layman Nectarius had been appointed
Bishop of Constantinople after the resignation of Gregory of
Nazianzus. There were false rumors that Nectarius had been
excommunicated by his own consecrators soon after the act.
Meletius of Antioch died in Constantinople while the synod was in
session, and instead of giving his see to Paulinus, Theodosius allowed
Flavian to be elected and consecrated as Meletius' successor.
Ambrose and the bishops of Northern Italy were greatly shocked
by the news of Flavian's appointment, and, without prior con-
sultation with Rome or with the Eastern bishops, they accepted
Maximus into communion. They addressed a letter of indignation
to Theodosius,60 complaining that the bishops of the East, when
making their appointments to the sees of Constantinople and
Antioch, had not treated the Westerners with due respect, and
asking for the convocation of an oecumenical synod in Rome,
which was recognized as the premier see in Christendom even in
the East.
The Emperor's answer has been lost, but Ambrose's second
letter allows us to suppose that Theodosius did not appreciate
Western interference in Eastern affairs-another indication that
the decisions of the Council of Constantinople of 381 were regarded
as primarily concerned with the affairs of the East. Of course the
Emperor rejected the proposal for convoking a general council at
Rome.61
Undismayed by the fact that they had committed a serious
blunder in the case of Maximus, Ambrose and his bishops insisted
once more on the necessity of a new synod in Rome, not only to
deal with the Antiochene schism, but also to condemn the doctrine
of Apollinarius. Thus they ignored the fact that he had already
40 S Ambrosius, Epist. 13, ibid., cols. 990 seq. On the role played by
.
Ambrose during these incidents, see especially H. von Campenhausen,

Ambrosius von Milan als Kirchenpolitiker (Berlin, Leipzig, 1929, Arbeiten
zur Kirchengesch. 12), pp. 129-153 and F. H. Dudden, The Life and Times of
,
St. Ambrose (Oxford, 1935), pp. 206-216.

81 S Ambrosius, Epist. 14, ibid., cols. 993 seq.
.
54
been condemned by the Council of Constantinople of 381 and by

Pope Damasus. Letters had been dispatched also by the Emperor
Gratian and by the Western bishops, including Pope Damasus,
inviting the Easterners to attend the Council of Rome. These
letters had been transmitted by Theodosius to the Eastern bishops,
whom he had summoned to a new synod to be held again in Con-
stantinople, not in Rome. The synod convened in the summer of 382.
The Eastern bishops wrote a letter to the Western bishops62
in which they excused themselves from going to Rome because
of the amount of time needed to make the trip, and the length and
difficulties of the journey. Besides, they said, they felt it their
duty to stay at home to look after the interests of their own Churches.
They courteously thanked their Western colleagues for their
soUcitude, which they found particularly gratifying since the West
had been rather reluctant to express its sympathy when the
Eastern Church was persecuted by the Arians for its orthodox
faith. They were, however, the letter continued, sending some
delegates to Rome who would "not only assure you that our in-
tentions are peaceful and directed toward union, but also set forth
"
our feehngs concerning the true faith.

After describing the main doctrines against which the heretics
had fought, and for which the orthodox faith had so greatly
suffered, the Easterners reported on their achievements in the
administration of their Church. Acting according to the canons,
they said, they had elected and ordained Nectarius as Bishop of
the "newly rebuilt" Church of Constantinople. They went on: "In
the oldest and truly apostolic Church of Antioch in Syria, where
for the first time the venerable name of Christians had been heard,
.* It was preserved by Theodoret in his Hist, eccles. 5, ed. L. Parmentier,

pp. 289 seq. Mansi, 3, cols. 581-588. A similar point of view concerning
Rome's position in the Church can be traced in the letter that the Easterners
sent, in 340, from Antioch to Pope Julius, a resume of which is preserved
in the Church History of Sozomen {PL, 61, bk. 3, chap. 8, col. 1053).
Although in this letter the Easterners refused the Pope's invitation to come
to Rome, they showed their great respect for the see "venerated by all ,
which has been from the beginning the dwelling of the apostles and the
"
metropolis of piety (<5fTTOcrr6Acow (ppovnorfipiov Kotl eucrEpdaj uriTpdrroXav 4|

dpxfls ytytvr\ntvr\v). They refused however, to regard themselves subordinate
,
"
because, as they pointed out , the Churches are not ranked according to
their size and populousness."
55
the bishops of the eparchia and of the whole diocese of the Orient
gathered and ordained, according to the canons, the most reverend
and most beloved of God, Bishop Flavian In the Church of
Jerusalem which is the mother of all Churches we recognize as
Bishop, the most reverend and most beloved of God-Cyril "
The whole tenor of the letter reveals that the Easterners were
determined to settle their own administrative affairs alone, with-
out the intervention of the Westerners, which confirms the im-
pression that all disciplinary and administrative measures taken
by the Council of Constantinople in 381 pertained to the Eastern
Church only. Canon three, also, should be so interpreted.
Although this canon was not sent to the West for approval, it
was certainly known in both Rome and Milan in the autumn of 381.
St. Ambrose, in his letters, treats the Council of 381 as nonexistent,
but his intervention in the affair was decidedly undiplomatic,
and ended in failure. He saw clearly that the Easterners were
"
embarking on a dangerous isolationist" policy,63 and tried to

persuade them to regard their affairs from an oecumenical point
of view. Unfortunately, however, because of his impetuosity and
blunders, he only encouraged them in their attitude.
Neither Ambrose nor the Synod of Rome of 382 paid any
attention to canon three, and the West persisted in its support
of Paulinus of Antioch. However, they quietly accepted defeat in
their support of Alexandria, for what could they have done when
the Bishop of Alexandria himself signed the canon and surrendered
his prerogative to the Bishop of Constantinople ? The principle of
adaption to the administrative division of the Empire was still
so deeply ingrained in the minds of the Westerners in the fourth
century that an open protest against the elevation of Constanti-
nople in Church affairs, was unthinkable. It can thus be concluded
that the West tacitly, though reluctantly, accepted the third
canon, which was voted in Constantinople in 381.64
63 Cf P. Batiffol, Le sihge apostolique, pp. 141 seq.
.
"
On part three of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum see P. Batiffol,
ibid, pp. 146-150. It was thought that this was voted by the Roman Synod
of 382 in protest against canon three of Constantinople, because it attributed
the second and third places in the Church to Alexandria and Antioch re-
spectively, by virtue of these sees being connected with the activity of
St. Peter. The document was, however, composed at the end of the fifth century.
56
The letter of 382 from the Easterners to the Westerners is im-

portant in yet another respect. It is a further indication of the
development of the idea of apostolicity in the East. The references
by the Fathers to "the truly apostolic Church of Antioch" and to
Jerusalem as "the mother of all Churches" are noteworthy.
It is regrettable that the tone of the invitation sent to the Easter-
ners is not known. However, it would be reasonable to suppose
that, although St. Ambrose played the main role in these events,
and although Pope Damasus was competely under his influence,
the invitation was conceived in the episcopal chancery of Rome.
Judging from the fashion and style used by the Pope in his
correspondence, it can almost certainly be presumed that he
stressed in his letter the apostolicity of his see. If this is so, it must
be concluded from the courtesy of the answer of the Council of
'
382 that the Easterners were not impressed by Damasus insistence

on the apostolic character of the Roman see. Their letter was ad-
dressed not only to the Pope, but also to all other bishops who
may have signed his invitation:
"
To the most honorable and most reverend brothers and col-
leagues in the ministry Damasus, Ambrose, Britton, Valerian,
,
Acholius, Anemius, Basil, and to other holy bishops gathered in

the great city of Rome the holy synod of orthodox bishops who
,
are gathered in the great city of Constantinople, send greetings

in Christ."
The passage of the letter on the "oldest and truly apostolic
Church of Antioch" is rather interesting. It could be taken as a
gentle reminder to the Pope that there were other apostolic sees,
of which Antioch was the most prominent because it was there
that the believers in Christ were first called Christians. A similar
interpretation could be placed on the Easterners' description of
Jerusalem as "the mother of all Churches," but the polite and
friendly tone of the letter in spite of some rather sarcastic remarks,
,
and the assurance that the Easterners were determined to main-

tain the best of relations with the Westerners seem to disprove
,
such an interpretation. As can be seen while not denying to the see

,
of Rome its apostolic character the Easterners did not consider it

,
the only basis for Rome's prominent position in the Church.

57
This appears to have been the general feeling in the East, as is

illustrated by the attitude of St. Basil. In his correspondence with
the Westerners he never calls the Roman see apostolic, nor does
he give this title to any other see in the East. He addresses his
letters to the bishops of the principal sees by referring to the city
in which their seat was situated. Also, in his report to Damasus,
in which he implores spiritual and material help for the Eastern
Church, St. Basil calls the Pope simply "most reverend Father."65
In another letter66 he addresses him only as "most celebrated
Bishop." There was, of course, an occasion when Basil named
Damasus the "coryphaeus of the West,"67 but at another time,
when speaking of the necessity of communicating with the Pope,
he calls him simply "Bishop of Rome."68 Most of the letters in
his correspondence with the West, are addressed, not to the Pope,
but to the bishops of Italy and Gaul,68 or "to the Westerners."70
Furthermore, when, in his letters to Eastern correspondents, he
refers to contacts with the Western Church, he does not call it the
Roman Church, but speaks of the West, and of the Westerners.71
On two separate occasions he writes rather bitterly about the
West's ignorance of the state of things in the East.72
Naturally, Basil acknowledges Peter as the first of the apostles
to whom the keys of heaven have been entrusted, "but in his letter
to Ambrose74 he also attributes an apostolic character to every
bishop, as when he calls the see of Milan "the see of the apostles."
He thus seems to regard every bishop as a successor to the apostles,
a doctrine which is also reflected in the first Letter of Clement to
the Corinthians,75 and in the Philosophoumena of St. Hippolytus
45 Epist. 70, PG, 32, col. 433C.
Epist. 266, ibid., col. 993B.
47 Epist, 238, chap. 2, ibid., col. 893B.
68 Epist.
69, chap. 1, ibid., col. 432A.
Epist. 92 and 243, ibid., cols. 477, 901.
70 Epist. go and 263, ibid., cols. 472, 976.
11 Epist.
66, 89, 120, 129 (chap. 3), 138, 156 (chap. 3), 214 (chap. 2), 238
(chap. 2), 253, ibid., cols. 424, 469, 537, 560, 580, 617, 785, 893, 940.
72 Epist 214, 239, ibid., cols. 785, 893.
.
73 Sermo VII. De peccato, chap. 5., ibid., col. 1204C.

.
74 Epist 197, ibid., col. 709: oCmSs ce 6 KOpioj (Snrd tww Kprrcow Tfjs yifc ttI
.
t jv Ka&6pav twv Atroa-riAcov prr rjKeu.

74 Chaps. 42, 1-4; 44, 2-3, The Apostolic Fathers, ed. J. B. Lightfoot, 2
(London, 1890), pp. 127 seq., 131 seq. English translation by F. Glimm, The
58
of Rome.76 Similar opinions were held, too, by Tertullian.77 This

is a very wide extension of the idea of apostolicity, which, mean-
while, in the West, because of a different evolutionary process,
became connected only with the see of Rome, founded by Peter.
It would be vain to search in St. John Chrysostom's numerous

works for any passage stressing the apostolic character of the Roman
see, or of its bishops. The famous homihst, when speaking of St.
Peter, often exalts the prominent position of the coryphaeus78
among the apostles, and states that Peter occupied the see of
"
the most imperial city" of Rome.79 The most impressive passage

in the works of Chrysostom is that in which he mentions Peter in
connection with Rome and Antioch. In his homily on the titles of
the Acts of the apostles, St. John comments on Acts 3:2 and Matt.
'
16:18, and recalls Peter s activity in Antioch and in Rome:80
"
When recalling Peter, I remembered also the other Peter, our

common father and doctor [he means Flavian, Bishop of Antioch],
who in achieving the fullness of his virtue, obtained also possession
of his see. This is the great prerogative of our city, that it received
the coryphaeus of the apostles from the beginning as [its] teacher.
It is proper that [the city] which, before the rest of the world, was
adorned with the Christian name, should obtain the first of the
apostles for its pastor. However, when we obtained him as teacher,
we did not keep him to the end, but ceded him to the imperial
Apostolic Fathers (New York, 1947), pp. 42 seq: "[The apostles] ... preaching
... throughout the country and the cities, they appointed their first-fruits,
after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who
should believe .... They appointed the above-mentioned men, and after-
wards gave them a permanent character, so that, as they died, other approved
"
men should succeed to their ministry.

Philosophoumena, Proemium 6, GCS, 26, ed. P. Wendland, p. 3.
77 Cf Liber de Praescriptionibus, PL, 2, chap. 20, col, 32, Adversus Mar-
.
cionem, IV, chap. 5, ibid., col. 366, CSEL, 47, ed. E. Kroymann, p. 430.
Cf. also the letter of Paulinus of Nola written about 394 to Alypius of
Tagaste. Epist, 3 1, CSEL, 29, ed. G. Hartel, p. 14.
,
'8 Here are some of the
passages: De Precatione II, PG, 50, col. 784; Horn.
in Matt. 18 23, vol. 51, col. 20; Horn, in Gal. 2, 11, ibid., col. 379; In Ps. 129
,
vol. 55 col. 375; Horn, in II Tim 3, 1, vol. 56, col. 275; Horn, in Matt.
,
vol. 58 col. 533; Horn. 73 in Joannem, vol. 59, col. 396; Horn. 22 in Acts Ap.,
,
vol. 60 col. 171, Horn. 29 in Ep. ad Rom., ibid., col. 660; Horn. 21, 38 in
,
Ep. I ad Cor. vol. 61 cols. 172, 327.

,
w In Ps 48, PG, 55, cols. 231 seq.

.
M In Inscriptiones actorum II PG, 51, col. 86.

,
59
city of Rome. But [I should] rather [say that] we kept him forever.
Even if we are not in possession of Peter's body, we are in pos-
' "
session of his faith. Possessing Peter s faith, we possess Peter.
This is all that is to be found in Chrysostom's writings about
the apostolic character of a see, but it is especially significant
because, after he was unjustly condemned, he appealed to the
Westerners and to Pope Innocent.81
More revealing than the writings of the Fathers are the Acts of
the Councils and official correspondence between the Eastern
hierarchy and the Roman see. The most outstanding occasion for
bringing into focus the differing points of view between East and
West concerning the idea of apostolicity was the Council of Ephesus
(431), and this Council is additionally important to our in-
vestigation because it marked the culminating point also in the
struggle for the leadership of Eastern Christianity that raged for
several decades between the bishops of Alexandria and the bishops
of the imperial capital of Constantinople, which had only recently
been promoted to second place in the Church.
It was natural that Alexandria, the City of Alexander the Great , .
which had been for centuries the metropolis of a mighty kingdom,

as well as a meeting place and melting pot of great civilizations,
which was the recognized capital of the Egyptian people-proud
of its glorious past - and which always mistrusted anything that
came from Old or New Rome, should be anxious to conserve its
leading position in the Christian East, to which it had given its
first great theologians and thinkers. The theological struggles of
the fourth and fifth centuries are more easily understood when
studied in the light of the antagonism between the two mighty
Eastern cities, Alexandria and Constantinople.82 In this struggle
81 Cf P. Batiffol, op, cit., pp. 312 seq. M. Jugie who studied Chrysostom's
.
attitude toward the Roman primacy, came to the following conclusions

("S Jean Chrysostome et la primaut de S. Pierre, "Echos d'Orient" [1908],
.
"
PP- 5-I5. 193-202): (on page 193) Nous n'avons pu trouver aucun texte
affirmant explicitement et sans conteste possible que I vfeque de Rome est
'
le successeur de Saint Pierre dans sa primaut ."

88 Cf N. H. Baynes' short but masterly sketch of this struggle, "Alexandria
.
and Constantinople: A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy The Journal of

"
Egyptian Archaeology, 12 (1926), pp. 145-156. For more details see J.Faivre,
"
Alexandrie," Dictionnaire d'hist. et de gtogr. eccUs., 1 (1914) cols. 305 seq.

,
60
Alexandria long played the leading role, for Constantinople had

to bow to the pro-Arian poUcy of Constantius, while the energetic
and passionate Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, became the
most eloquent defender of orthodoxy, and was hailed and venerated
throughout the orthodox world.
The ardent opposition of the bishops of Alexandria to the doc-
trine favored by the emperors and bishops of the Imperial City
apparently gained impetus from Egyptian national particularism.
The main reason for Constantius' siding with Arianism lay in his
fear that the orthodox doctrine, accepting Father and Son as two
distinct persons of the same divine nature, might compromise the
idea of the singleness of the divine monarchy and, at the same
time, the strength and unity of the earthly monarchy; this earthly
monarchy, the basileia, being an imitation of its heavenly pattern.
If this was Constantius' reasoning, the adherents of Egyptian
particularism, always inclined to look askance at ideas originating
in the imperial palace, must have felt a certain satisfaction in
defending a doctrine that favored Constantius' idea of the earthly
basileia. These sentiments added to the bitterness of the words in
which Athanasius propounded his theories on the Umitation of
imperial power and the independence of the Church in matters
of faith.88
The enhanced prestige won by Athanasius assured Alexandria
a leading position in the eyes of the Eastern orthodox peoples, and
'
won Western support for the ambitious plans of Athanasius

'
successor, Peter II (375-381). As has been seen, however, Peter s

83 One of the most outspoken declarations in this matter made by Atha-
nasius is to be found in Historia arianorum, chaps. 51, 52; PG, 25, cols.
"
753 s6*!- Why is he [Constantius] so keen on gathering Arians into the Church
and on protecting them, whilst he sends others into exile ? Why does he
pretend to be so observant of the canons, when he transgresses every one of
them ? Which canon tells him to expel a bishop from his palace ? Which
canon orders soldiers to invade our churches ? Who commissioned counts
and obscure eunuchs to manage Church affairs or to promulgate by edict
the decisions of those we call bishops ?... If it is the bishops' business to
issue decrees, how does it concern the emperor ? And if it is the emperor's
business to issue threats, what need is there of men called bishops? Who
ever heard of such a thing ? When did a Church decree receive its authority
or its value from the emperor? Numberless synods have met before and
numberless decrees have been issued, but never did the Fathers entrust such
things to the emperor, never did an emperor interfere with the things of the
Church."
61
plan ended in failure, and his successor, Timothy, had to sign the
third canon voted by the Council of Constantinople, granting to
Alexandria's rival precedence over both Alexandria and Antioch.
In spite of this defeat, however, Timothy did not despair, and he
later enjoyed the satisfaction of seeing Gregory of Nazianzus, to
whom the Emperor Theodosius had restored the church of Hagia
Sophia (26 November 380), which had been held until then by
the Arians, forced to abdicate the bishopric of Constantinople. In
the intrigues that led to this state of affairs Timothy played his part.
Timothy's successor, Theophilus, (394-412) won another major
success in the struggle for leadership in the East when he inter-
vened directly in the affairs of Constantinople. At that time the
Imperial City underwent, thanks to the machinations of Theophilus,
the supreme humiliation of having its Bishop, St. John Chrysostom,
condemned by the Synod of the Oak {403), unjustly deposed, and
sent into exile.
An even greater triumph over the rival see was registered by
St. Cyril of Alexandria (412-444), when Nestorius, Bishop of
Constantinople, was convicted of heresy by the Oecumenical
Council of Ephesus (431), deprived of his dignity, and sent into
exile. This was the greatest success ever recorded by Alexandria.
The alliance between Alexandria and Rome was again estabhshed
'
at this time, and Rome s support helped Cyril in his struggle for power.
Cyril acted unscrupulously in the name of Pope Celestine during
the first session of the Council of Ephesus, before the arrival of the
Roman legates. It matters little that his great victory was ob-
tained by schemes which, for their boldness and lack of scruple,
still cause historians to shake their heads in bewildered astonish-
ment, for this victory illustrates conclusively the degree of as-
cendancy that Alexandria had won in the fifth century.84
In their struggle, the bishops of Alexandria could boast of one

great advantage over the upstart Church of Constantinople. Their
see was an apostolic foundation, and St. Mark, its first bishop,
was a disciple of St. Peter, whose preaching he was believed to
' ' "
84 On Cyril s diplomatic methods see P. Batiffol s study Les presents
de S. Cyrille a la cour de Constantinople," Etudes de liiurgie et d'archiologie
chrdtienne (Paris, 1919), pp. 154-179.
62
have preserved for posterity. It might have been expected that

this fact would be exploited to the full against Constantinople.
In spite of the support he was given by Rome, St. Athanasius did
not, surprisingly enough, use the apostolic argument in his reckless
fight for orthodoxy and the freedom of the Church in matters of
faith. St. Cyril of Alexandria, however, might have been counted
upon to rely more on this argument, which would have strengthened
his position, in the opinion of his Western contemporaries as in
modern opinion, but an examination of the Acts of the Council of
Ephesus, the scene of his greatest triumph, shows that there was
little progress in the East toward any appreciation in Church
leadership of the value of the idea of apostolicity.
This want of appreciation of the significance of apostolicity
becomes clear in a review of the official correspondence between
Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, and Antioch which preceded
the Council. In the correspondence between the four supra-metro-
politans of the Eastern Church there is not one allusion to the
apostolic character of the sees of Alexandria Antioch, or Jerusa-
,
lem. In their letters these bishops addressed each other very simply
by such titles as most reverend, most holy, most beloved, etc.,
colleague in the ministry.85 Nor does Cyril of Alexandria ever try
to give his words more weight by stressing the apostolic origin
of his see. When announcing to Nestorius and to the people of
Constantinople the condemnation by a synod held in Alexandria,
'
of that prelate s doctrine, Cyril points out that it was the synod of
the diocese of Egypt.86
Nestorius' letters to Pope Celestine are written in the same
vein.87 In replying, the Pope aligns the Church of Rome with the
Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, without
" "
adding the word apostolic. 88
86 For example Nestorius to Cyril (Mansi, 4, cols, 885,892; ed. E. Schwartz,
,
t 1, vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 25, 29): tw eeofiAcardrcp kqcI dyioorArcjj \xov ouAXeiTOupyw
.
KuplXXcp ... Tcji EuAa(3saT(5rrcj} teal OeocpiXeardrw CTuAAErroupycj) ...

M Mansi ibid., cols. 1068-1093: KupiAXo$ kocI i\ ovveAOoOaa aiivoBos Jv'AAfi-
,
§av5p(? 4k ttis AlyvtmaKfis SioiK aecoj ... ; ed, E. Schwartz., ibid., pp. 33-42.
87 Mansi, ibid., cols. 1021 seq.
88 Ibid , cols. 1025 seq., col. 1036;
.
ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., pp. 77 seq., 83:
ftmp teal f) 'Pcoualwv teal f|' AAc avep cov ... teal f| <5ty{a f| Kardt ttiv ittyStMiv Kwv-
'
aravrtvovrrroAiv IxKA aia ... Cf. also the Pope s letter to John of Antioch,
Mansi, ibid., col. 1049; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 91.
63
It is interesting to follow Cyril of Alexandria's method of ad-

dressing the Pope and of speaking about him and his Church. He
"
calls him the most holy and most beloved of God, Father Ce-
lestine,"89 "the holy, most pious Bishop of the Church of the Ro-
"
mans, 90 "the most holy and most pious brother of mine and
colleague in the ministry, Celestine, the Bishop of the great city

" "
of Rome, 91 or simply the Bishop of the Church of the Ro-
"
92
mans.
In his letter to John of Antioch, Cyril complains that Nestorius

had dared to quote his doctrine in a letter sent "to my Master,
the most pious Celestine, Bishop of the Church of the Romans.93 In
his letter to Nestorius John speaks also of "my Master, the most
"
pious Bishop Celestine. 94 No expression of a special submission
by the two Bishops to the Pope's authority can however be inferred
from these words. Cyril salutes alike as "my Master" the Bishops
of Antioch95 and of Jerusalem,96 and the Bishop of Antioch uses
the same form of address to Nestorius.97 It is, thus, simply a form of
courtesy.
Such, evidently, was the established etiquette in the Eastern
Church, and the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus followed this
protocol strictly during the first session of the synod. Cyril, who on
that occasion also represented the Pope, is called throughout
"
the most holy and most reverend Father, Bishop of Alexandria"
with no additional title to show the prominent status of his see.
Pope Celestine is often mentioned, and, as revealed in the official
correspondence examined above, is given similar titles, such as
"
the most holy, most pious Archbishop of the Church of the Romans,
holy Father, colleague in the ministry, holy Archbishop of the
M Letter to the Pope, Mansi, ibid., col. 1012B.

90 Letter to the people of Constantinople, ibid., col. 1093; ed. E. Schwartz,
ibid., p. 113.
91 Letter to the monks of Constantinople, Mansi, ibid., col. 1097C.
82 Letter to Juvenal of Jerusalem ibid., col. io6oC.
,
t3 Ibid col. 1052A: tco KupUo nou koI OsoCTEpecTTdTco hnoKiTTtjj xfjj 'Pcoiioicow
.
,
iKKXr|a(ots. ed. E. Schwartz. ibid., p. 92.

,
M Mansi ibid., col. 1064A: 'O xupios nou 6 6£o<piAioT0(Tos KeAEorivos 6 trd-
,
<jKO-rTos; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid. p. 94. ,
.5 Mansi, ibid., col. 1049E.

Ibid., col. 1057E.
87 Ibid .
, col. 1061A; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 93.
64
"
great city of Rome. 96 Popes Julius and Felix, whose writings were
" "
read, are called simply most holy Bishops, as are also the Bishops
of Alexandria and Milan.9*
A definite innovation in this respect is noticed in the minutes
of the second session of the Council. The papal legates. Bishops
Arcadius and Projectus, and the priest Philip, joined the assembly
and brought about a revolutionary change in protocol. They
"
carried a letter addressed to the Council by the most holy and

"
most blessed Pope Celestine, Bishop of the apostolic see, and all
three demanded permission to read it. They stressed the word
" "
apostolic on this occasion.100

This innovation in the title of the Bishop of Rome was unpre-
cedented in the East, but Cyril of Alexandria courteously accepted
it, and gave orders that the letter "of the most holy and most
"
saintly Bishop of the holy apostolic see of the Romans, Celestine,

be read.101 Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Flavianus of Philippi were
not so discreet, for, when asking for the reading of the Greek
translation of the letter, they called Celestine only "the most
holy, and most saintly Bishop of the great city of Rome," In their
acclamations, after the reading of the letter, the Fathers, too,
failed to adopt the new title introduced by the legates, although
they held Celestine in high esteem, eulogizing him as "a new Paul
"
and guardian of the faith. 108 Firmus Bishop of Caesarea of Cappa-

,
docia, however, rallied promptly to the new mode of address, and

in his short speech of thanksgiving spoke of "the apostolic and
holy throne of the most holy Bishop Celestine."
Apparently the legates demanded that they be addressed as
representatives of the apostolic see. In the minutes of the second
session there is still some diversity as to their titles. The legates and
their notary, Siricius, are described as representing the Roman
Mansi, ibid., cols. 1129A, 1177E, 1180B, 1212C, 1240C, 1256E; ed.
Schwartz, t. 1, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 8, 36, 54, 104.
.» Mansi ibid., cols. 1188 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 41.
,
100 Mansi ibid., col. 12816: 'O AyiwraTos Kal potKctpicbTaros irATras fjiicov
,
KeXeorTvos, 6 Tfis AiroCTroAiKfjs Ka&5pas hrioxoTro? .... Col. 1281C, D: ypdiiporra

toO dytou, Kal metA -rrdaiis TrpoCTKUv aeoos 6uo|iai.opivou TrdtTra KeAkttIvou, Tfjs diro-
aroXiKffo Ka&5pas hnaxdiTOu; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., 1.1, vol. 1, pt. 3, pp. 53, 54.
101 Mansi ibid., col. 1281C; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 54.
,
l0S Mansi ibid., col. 1288C; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 57.

,
5
65
Church without the word "apostolic," but beginning with the

third session the minutes, almost without exception, address them
"
as legates of the apostoUc see."108
The legate Philip seems to have insisted strongly on the aposto-
licity of the see of Rome. On two occasions he tried to depict
St. Peter as the source of this apostolicity, caUing him the head
of the apostles, the column of the faith, and the basis of the Catholic
Church, and emphasizing the most holy, and most saintly Pope
Celestine as his successor.104
The Fathers did not acquiesce too readily to this new practice.105
Only Memnon of Ephesus acknowledged the legates as representives
of the apostoUc see of the great city of Rome.106 Cyril of Alexandria,
in his resume of the deposition made by the legates,107 declared
that, as legates, they were representatives of the apostoUc see.
But, in his letter to the Emperors, 108 Cyril reverts to the old
custom of calling the Pope simply Bishop of the great city of Rome,
though he does not forget to caU Alexandria, at the same time, the
great city.
Juvenal of Jerusalem soon became aware of the possibiUties of
the new situation, and proceeded to exploit the idea to his own
advantage. When criticizing the attitude of John of Antioch, he
declared109 that the Bishop should have appeared before the synod
"
and before the apostoUc see of the great city of Rome, which is
sitting with us, and should give honor to the apostoUc [holder]
"
of the Church of God in Jerusalem. Thus he suggested that, in
accordance with an old tradition, Antioch should be judged by
Jerusalem.
It is surprising that St. Cyril, in his numerous letters, did not
103 Mansi ibid., cols. 1293, 1296, 1297, 1300, 1304; ed. E. Schwartz., ibid.,
,
pp. 13, 59, 60, 61, 63 {only Philip signs the letter of the synod to the clergy
" "
of Constantinople as priest of the Church of the Apostles, the two others

contenting themselves with the titles of legates), ibid., cols. 1325, 1329,
1364; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., pp. 26 30.,
104 Mansi ibid., cols. 1289C, especially i296B,C: Celestine Peter's 5uit6oxos
,
'
kccI TOirorripTiTl is ,..; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., pp. 58, 60.
106 Cf Mansi, ibid., cols. 1289,1293,1296; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid.,
. pp. 58-61.
10' Mansi, ibid., col. 1293C; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 39.
107 Mansi, ibid., col. 1300B; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 62.
108 Mansi, ibid., cols. 1301 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 63.
l0* Mansi, ibid., col. 1312E; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 18.
66
make use of the apostolic character of his see in order to impress

his correspondents, and to persuade them to accept his advice
and his teaching more readily. The apostolic origin of the see of
Alexandria was certainly not forgotten; at least one of Cyril's
correspondents was well aware of it. This was Alypius, priest of the
church of the Holy Apostles in the Imperial City of Constantinople,
'
who in his letter to Cyril,110 exalts the Bishop s steadfastness in

defense of the true faith, and recalls the deeds of Cyril's predecessor
St. Athanasius in his defense of orthodoxy against Arianism.
Through his valiant struggles," Alypius tells us, "Athanasius
"
had exalted to the highest degree the holy see of St. Mark, the
Evangelist, and Cyril was following in his footsteps." In view of
these remarks, it is the more surprising that in the Acts of the
Council of Ephesus there is not one allusion to this prerogative
of the Alexandrian see.
It has been shown that, in spite of the insistence of the Roman
legates, the new title so eloquently expressive of the apostolic
origin and character of the see of Rome was accepted only in a
limited way and without enthusiasm by the Eastern Church. This
cannot, however, be interpreted as betraying any lack of respect
for the Roman see.
The fact that the Easterners applied the title "apostolic" sparingly
to their own sees, and that the holders of such sees alluded
very occasionally to their venerable character, without attri-
buting to it any special value, shows that the idea of aposto-
licity had, in general, not yet achieved prominence among them,
and that the traditional practice of adaptation to the political divis-
ion of the Empire continued to find more appreciation in Church
organization than did the idea of apostolicity,
This attitude prevailed also in theEast after the Council ofEphesus.
The struggle between Constantinople and Alexandria continued after
Cyril's death, and reached a new degree of violence at the second Coun-
"
cil of Ephesus (449)-the ill-famed Latrociniutnor R6bheT" synod.

This synod marked a new triumph for Alexandria for at the ,
110 CyriWus, Epistolae, PG 77, col. i48B:ToOTOtSToTsd6Aot5T6woTi9avovToO

'
naprupiou iavmji -rrA a? ( A6avd(nos) ... t6v dytov tou euayyeTnoroO Mdpxoy
ep6vov uv|/coa£V' ols xal aOrds XPTI usvos, Karimv iKsivouToOAylou mptnTdTTiaas.
instigation of Dioscorus of Alexandria, the synod deposed Flavian,

Bishop of Constantinople, although he enjoyed, this time, the
support of Rome.
It is particularly noteworthy that in the Acts of the Latrocinium
of Ephesus, wherein Dioscorus vociferously emphasized the
importance and prestige of Alexandria, no allusion to the apostolicity
of his see is to be found. He boldly assumed the presidency of the
synod, and, in order to humiliate Constantinople, placed the highest
prelates in order of seniority. The papal legate Julius was allotted
second place, the Patriarch of Jerusalem third, the Bishop of
Antioch fourth, and the Bishop of Constantinople last place.111
This, however, does not mean that the principle of apostohc
origin was completely forgotten in the East. A curious echo of it is
to be found in the Coptic biography of the Patriarch Dioscorus. The
biographer, recalhng Diocscorus' manoeuvres against Flavian of
Constantinople, is well aware that in this instance the Bishop of
Alexandria was fighting not only the upstart Bishop of the new
Imperial City, but also the Bishop of Old Rome. He summarizes the
situation in a very singular way speculating that perhaps Mark was
,
greater than Peter.112 Here is an interesting indication that the idea

of apostohc origin of the principal sees, though differing in con-
ception from that of Rome, still existed among the Easterners.
This dissimilarity between the Eastern and Western ideas of
apostohcity is the more remarkable in that Pope Leo, in his letter of
445 to Dioscorus, written prior to the Latrocinium, reminded the
Bishop of Alexandria of the tradition of St. Peter common to both
Churches. He said:113 "We must think and do one thing, namely
that, as we read we are of one heart we be found to be of one soul.
,
111 Mansi, 6, col. 608.

112 F Haase, "Patriarch
. Dioskur I. nach monophysitischen Quellen," in
Max Sdralek, KirchengeschicktlicheAbhandlungen, 6 (1907), p. 204.
113 Epistola IX ad Dioscurum Alexandrinum introduction, Mansi, 5,
,
col. 1140: Cum enim beatissimus Petrus apostolicum a Domino acceperit

principatum, et Romana ecclesia in ejus permaneat institutis, nefas est credere,
quod sanctus discipulus ejus Marcus qui Alexandrinam primus Ecclesiam
gubernavit, aliis regulis traditionum suarum decreta formaverit: cum sine
dubio de eodem fonte gratiae unus spiritus et discipuli fuerit et magistri nec
,
aliud ordinatus tradere potuerit quam quod ab ordinatore suscepit. Non ergo
,
patimur, ut cum unius nos esse corporis et fides fateamur, in aliquo discrepemus;
et alia doctoris, alia discipuli instituta videantur.
68
Because, as the most blessed Peter received from the Lord the
apostolic principate, and as the Roman Church remains faithful to
his institutions, it would be unjust to believe that his holy disciple,
Mark, who was the first to govern the Church of Alexandria, would
have formulated his decrees according to different rules. Without
doubt the spirit of the master and the disciple was one, drawn from
the same source of grace, and the ordained could not transmit
anything other than what he had derived from the ordainer. We
cannot thus permit that, when we confess to being of the one body
and faith, we should disagree in any way, and that the institution
"
of the teacher and the disciple should appear unlike. As has

been seen, Dioscorus paid no heed to the Pope's reminder.
The idea of apostolicity seems to have been better appreciated in
Antioch than in Alexandria. In 448 Domnus, Bishop of Antioch,
was approached by four priests of Edessa, who accused their
Bishop Ibas of Nestorianism. Domnus assembled a synod of his
bishops at Antioch, but they hesitated to acquit Ibas of the accu-
sations, because they learned that two of the accusers, instead of
presenting themselves to the Fathers in Antioch, had gone to
Constantinople in the belief that their complaints would be more
sympathetically received at the imperial court.
When Domnus learned of the action of the two priests, he com-
plained bitterly of their violation of ecclesiastical rules, and of their
lack of reverence "for their apostolic see." This is one of the rare
instances, at this period, of an Eastern see's stressing its apostoUc
character.114 It would be erroneous, however, to interpret the
incident as an act of opposition, by the apostoUc see of Antioch,
emphasizing the non-apostolicity of the see of Constantinople.
Flavian of Constantinople refused to judge the Bishop of Edessa,
and the affair was settled by a commission, appointed by the Emperor
Theodosius II, which assembled at Beirut and Tyre in February 449.
Ibas signed a declaration which satisfied his clergy, and the latter
promised in return to respect in the future the authority of their
supra-metropolitan of Antioch.115
114 Mansi 7, cols. 212-217; ed- Schwartz, 1.1. vol. 1, pt. 3, pp. 19 seq. The
,
Acts of this synod were read during the tenth session of the Council of
Cbalcedon.
118 Mansi, ibid., cols. 197-201.
69
A new test for the divergent Eastern and Western views arose at
the fourth Oecumenical Council held at Chalcedon in 451. This had
to undo the work of the Latrocinium, and solemnly to condemn
Dioscorus' monophysite doctrine.
It was this Council that marked the decline of Alexandria's ascen-
dency in the Church. Egyptian particularism precipitated this
evolution. Egypt, always in opposition to Constantinople, remained
predominantly faithful to the doctrine of its Patriarch, and chose
to stand outside the Church, making monophysism its national
rehgion. The place of Alexandria in the Eastern Church was
taken by Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon was very
influential in furthering the rise of that city.
The Council also, however, afforded Rome a welcome opportunity
to play a leading role in the East and throughout the whole Church.
This phase of the struggle between Alexandria and Constantinople
was dominated by the noble figure of Pope Leo (440-461), deserved-
ly called the Great. His voice, transmitted in the famous dogmatic
letter to Flavian, dominated the debates, and his doctrinal decision
earned general approval in the orthodox East. The Council of
Chalcedon also contributed importantly to the development of the
idea of apostolicity in the East.
It was to be expected that at the Council Leo would stress the
apostolicity of his see more than his predecessor had, because under
his energetic government the idea of Rome's apostolicity and
primacy, which derived from Peter, had made new progress in
the minds of the Westerners. Leo called his see sedes apostolica in
almost every letter that he addressed to bishops or clerics of his
patriarchate.116 His western correspondents also used that title for
A few examples may be quoted from Leo's correspondence before the
Council of Chalcedon (Mansi, 5, cols. 1213 seq., idem, 6, cols. 1 seq., PL, 54,
cols. 593 seq. In order to simplify matters only the letters and chapters are
quoted). Cf. ColleciioGrimanica,ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 4, with different num-
bering of the letters. Epist. i,adA quilejensem ep. chap. 2: apost. sedis auctoritas;
4,ad episc. Campaniae, chap. 2: ap. sed. auctor.; 5, ad eptsc. Illyrici, chap. 1:
ap. sed. auct., 2: ap. dignitatis beat. Ap. Peiro primatum; 6, ad ep. Thessalon.,
chap. 2: apost. sedes; 10, ad episc. Viennenses, chap. 2:apost. sedes; 12, ad ep.
Afrtcanos, chap. 5: ap. sedis statuta; 13, ad ep. Illyrici chap. 1: sed. ap.
,
auctor.; 114, ad Anastasium Thessalon., chap, ti: ad unam Petri sedem univer.
salis ecclesiae cura; 16, ad ep. Siciliae, chap. 1: b. Petri ap. sedes, chap. 7: apost.
sedes; 19, Doro Beneventano, chap. 1: ap. sedes; 61, ad Martinum et Faustum
presb.: ap. sedis auctor.
70
"
the Roman see, regarding it as "The Apostolic See and addressing,
the Pope simply as apostolatus vester.1"

Another striking illustration of the spread of the idea of apos-
tolicity in the West was the constitution concerning ordinations by
Hilarius, Bishop of Aries, issued by the Emperor Valentinian III
in Rome (8 July 445). This contains the following words which ,
sound as if they emanated from the lips of the Pope himself :118
"
Thus, because the primacy of the apostolic see, the great virtue
of Saint Peter, who is the Prince of the episcopal crown the dignity ,
of the Roman city, and also the authority of the synod had confirmed
this, let none presume to attempt anything illicit which would be
,
devoid of the authority of that see. The peace of the Churches will
be preserved everywhere [only] when the universe acknowledges
its rector."
The Emperor says further that Hilarius had acted "against the
majesty of the imperium and against the reverence of the apostolic
"
see, and, he continues, no-one should dare to change established
traditions without the authority of the venerable Pope of the
Eternal City. "But what the authority of the apostolic see has or
"
shall sanction, this should be law to all of them.
Concluding this survey, it will be interesting to examine, in more
detail, the letters sent by Leo to his Eastern correspondents before
the Council of Chalcedon, in order to learn something of the im-
pression made on them by his constant reiteration of the idea of
apostolicity.
In Leo's letters to the deposed Bishop Flavian of Constantinople,
the Emperor Theodosius, and the Empress Pulcheria, Rome's
apostolic character was referred to but casually. The sedes afostolica
was mentioned only in the letter to the Emperor and in two letters
117 For example Epist. 3, Paschasinus ad Leonem, chap. 1: apostolicus papa,

apostolatus vester, chap. 2: apostolatus tester ; Epist. 65, Arelatenses ad Leonem,
chap. 1: ap. sedes, apostolatus vester, chap. 2: aposl. sedes, chap. 3: ap. sedis
mandata; Epist. 68, Ep. Gallorum ad Leonem; apostolica cura, ap. sedes,
principatus sedis apost.; Epist. 97, Eusebii Mediolan. ad Leonem, chap. 1:
in Apostoli sede praesul.
118 Mansi 5, cols. 1153 seq: Cum igitur Sedis apostolicae primalum sancti
,
Petri meritum, qui princeps est episcopalis coronae, et Romanae dignitas

civitatis, sacrae etiam Synodi firmarit auctoritas ne quid praeter auctorttatem
,
sedis istius inlicitum praesumptio attentare nitatur....
71
to Pulcheria,119 but in the letter to the second synod of Ephesus,

Leo spoke of "the authority of the apostolic see," and used the
confession of Peter (Matt. 16:13,16) as his principal argument against
Entyches' doctrine.120
When the second Council of Ephesus developed into a La/rocintMrn,
Leo made a great effort to persuade the Emperor Theodosius to
convoke a new synod, if possible in Italy, in order to undo the evil
wrought by Dioscorus. He did not succeed in convincing Theodosius ,
although he had managed to get the support of the Empresses for

his plan, and he achieved his aim only when Marcian became
Emperor. In this correspondence, Leo, in his anxiety to impress the
Emperors and to obtain the decision he sought, invoked the apostolic
authority of the Roman see more frequently.121
Leo's efforts to exalt the apostolicity of the Roman See in his
contact with the East made some impression there, but he won his
most important success in Constantinople itself. The Patriarch
Flavian, deposed by the Latrocinium, appealed to the "most
"
religious and saintly Father and Archbishop Leo. 122 He confessed
that circumstances obliged him "to make use of the apostolic appeal
to your holiness," and, after describing the injustice done to him, he
disclosed that when he had pleaded about this "to the throne of the
apostolic see of the Prince of the Apostles, Peter, and to the universal
"
synod which is under your Holiness, he had been confined to his

dwelling by soldiers, who cut off all means of communication.
"
» Epist 24, ad Thedosium, chap i: sedes apost.; Epist. 30, Pulcheriae
.
Aug., chap. 1: apost. sedis moderatio; Epist. 36, ad Pulcheriam, chap. 3:

ap. sedis moderatio.
130 Epist 33, S. Synodo, chap. 1: auctoritas sedis apost.
.
181 Epist 43, ad Theodos. The Pope insists that he received from St. Peter
.
the power to promote true faith and peace. Cf. also Epist. 44, chap. 1:
beata Petri sedes, sedes apost. Epist. 45, ad Pulcheriam, chap. 2: sedes b. Petri,
chap. 3: pietas tua. . . supplicaiionem nostram apud clementissimum
principem, sibi specialitera beatissimo Petro apostolo legatione commissa,
dignetur asserere. Epist. 83, ad Marcianum, chap. 2, Epist. 84, ad Pulcheriam,
chap. 3, Epist. 85, ad Anatolium, chap. 2.
144 See the critical publication of the text by Th. E. Mommsen in Neues
Archiv, 11 (1886), pp. 362-364 ("Actenstiicke zur Kirchengeschichte aus dem
"
cod. Cap. Novar. 30 ): Oportuit quidem ad praesens tempus me dignanter

referre et uti apostolica appellatione ad vestram sanctitatem. Me appellante
ihronum apostolicas sedis principis apostolorum Petri et universam beatam
quae sub vestra sanctitate est synodum, statim me circumvallat multitudo
militaris, et volente me ad sanctum altare confugere non concessit....
72
Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum was condemned by the Latroci-

nium, at the same time as Flavian, and exiled. He managed to
escape to Rome whither he had sent an appeal couched in terms
similar to those used by Flavian. The Bishop addressed his appeal
in words which seem to reflect the Roman conception of apostolicity :m
Curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua
perferentes defensare But, because the text of the letter is
known only in its Latin translation, care should be taken in the
interpretation of this expression; for it could have been adapted to
the Roman view by the translator.12* Nevertheless, it is safe to
" "
suppose that the Bishop called the Roman see apostolic.

Leo's invocations of Peter's apostolic authority made an even
more profound impression on the Empresses: Galla Placidia, the
'
mother of Valentinian III, and Eudoxia, Theodosius daughter and
Valentinian's wife. In their letters to Theodosius II they have given
'
us a very eloquent account of the pious pontiff s solicitude for the

restoration of peace in the Church in the anxious days after the
Latrocinium.
Theodosius' Aunt, Galla Placidia,125 in her letter to her nephew
irst recalls the visit she made to the tomb of St. Peter in Rome,
f
'
and writes how Leo, after praying at the Apostle s tomb had
implored her, in the name of the Prince of the Apostles, to intercede
with her nephew. She then recounts how Flavian was molested for
"
sending an appeal to the apostolic see," and asks Theodosius to

"
restore the true faith according to the form and definition of the
"
apostolic see.
Valentinian's mother addressed a letter to Theodosius' sister, the
Empress Pulcheria,126 recalling the same touching scene at the tomb
of St. Peter, and imploring Pulcheria to use her influence with her
brother so that "all that which had been decided in that tumultuous
1,3 Published by Th. E. Mommsen, ibid., pp. 364-367.
m Cf P. Batifiol, Le sUge apostolique, pp. 315 seq., and
.
idem., Cathedra
Petri, p. 162.
l*& Epist 56; cf. also Epist. 57, of Eudoxia, the daughter of Theodosius
.
who recalls similar impressions, Mansi 6 cols. 51 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz.

,
t 2, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 14, 15 (Latin text).
.
>*. Epist 58, Mansi, 6, col. 57C: ITAvrcov dtcfporfcov pev6vtcov, els t6v dnro-
.
otoXik6v 6p6vov, iv (J> TrpcoTos & poKapicImrros tww <5nTO<rr6Acov TThpoj, lit
KXciepa toow oupavoov CnroSEf iiEvos, Tf|v dpxiepoxrvvTiw taSowiae ...; ed.
E .
Schwartz, ibid., p. 13. Greek text, ibid., t. 2, vol. 1, pt.i, p. 50.
73
and horrible synod may be rescinded by all means, and that when
all has been restored to its original state, the cause of the clergy
should be sent to the apostolic see in which the first of the apostles,
the most blessed Peter, who had received the keys of heaven, held
the principate of the priesthood." She continued, "We must accord
first place in everything to the Eternal City, which through its own
virtue was chosen for the domination of the whole world, and which
had entrusted the whole world to our basileia to be ruled and
"
preserved.
Placidia spoke similarly of Rome in her letter to Theodosius also.
She wrote of the prominent position of Rome that prompted in-
numerable bishops from other parts of Italy to visit the city, and
"
gather around Leo. In this apostolic throne she said, the first one
[of the apostles] who was held worthy to be given the keys of heaven
had adorned the principate of the archepiscopacy. It is indeed meet
for us to preserve our reverence in everything for this city, which is
the greatest, and the mistress of all lands."127
This passage of Placidia's letter to Theodosius and the concluding
words, quoted earher, from her letter to Pulcheria are particularly
eloquent. Unintentionally the Empress combined in these interesting
passages the two reasons for which the see of Rome was given the
primacy: its apostolicity, originating with St. Peter, the first of the
apostles, and its leading role in the formation of the Roman Empire,
to which the Byzantine basileia was heir.
There was yet another Easterner whose conception of apostolicity
approximated that of Rome; he was Theodoret Bishop of Kyrros.188
,
In a letter, written after the Latrocinium Theodoret recalls that

,
just as Paul went to Peter in order to obtain a decision in the

controversy at Antioch about the validity of Mosaic prescriptions for
"
converts from paganism, so we humble and poor men have recourse

to your see which is apostohc, in order to obtain from you a medica-
"
ment to heal the ulcers of the Churches. Then he speaks of the
advantages which the city of Rome enjoys and for which it is so
,
127 Mansi , 6, Epist 56, cols. 52, 53A: 4v irpwTOS £keIvos, 6 tAj oupavoO
6tt6t£ irp TTEi finas Tavnr) t§ HEyion] irdAEi, tis Sicnroiva rraaww Cnr&pxei twv
yewv, tv -rraai t6 oifJas irapCKpuAd on; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 15 (latin text).
128 Epist 52, rAeodori/t ad Leowem, especially chaps. i .Mansi, 6 01.36,40.
.
74
famous, these being, its great size its beauty, and its large population.
,
He goes on to say that it is the most noble and celebrated of all

cities, and that it governs the whole world; that it gave its name to
the subjects over which it extended its dominion; but that its
greatest ornament was the true faith, which it received from its
teachers, Peter and Paul, whose tombs it also possessed. "These
two made your see that most noble of all. This see is the apogee of
all your happiness. The Lord has illuminated their see again, now
that he has placed your holiness there to irradiate the true faith."
After recounting all the evil that had been done in Ephesus the ,
Bishop, who was deprived of his see exclaims: "I thus expect a
,
sentence from your throne which is apostolic, and I pray and implore
your holiness to grant me a just and true judgment, and to order me
to come to you and disclose to you my teaching, which follows in the
footsteps of the apostles."
In this eloquent missive ideas on the primacy of Rome similar to
,
those expressed by the Empress Placidia, can again be found. It

is not only-declares the letter-by virtue of its apostolic origin ,
derived from the Prince of the Apostles, that Rome was regarded
as the first city in the Christian world but also because it was, and
,
still is, in some sense, the capital of an Empire to which it gave its
name. All of this shows how difficult it was for the Easterners to
forget a principle which had for so long been the basis of Church
organization. On the other hand, although Theodoret closely
approaches the Roman conception of apostolicity, he does not call
Rome The Apostolic See, as it is called by the Westerners, but only
the see which is apostolic. Nevertheless, it is evident that the idea
of apostolicity had made some progress, at least among some
Easterners, during the years between the Latrocinium and the ,
Council of Chalcedon.129
The greatest contest between the Roman and Byzantine con-

ception of apostolicity took place during the Council of Chalcedon
itself.
1M It should be recorded that Theodoret also calls the see of Antioch

apostolic in a letter addressed to Bishop Domnus (Theodoretus Epist. 112;
,
PG, 83, col. 1309).
75
In his letter to the Synod, Leo was not too insistent about the
apostohc character of his see, but he recalled that the invitation to
the Roman Bishop to attend the Council had been sent by the
Emperor Marcian, and that it had been accepted by Leo, with the
reservation that the right and honor of the throne of the most
blessed Apostle Peter, be respected.180 He also announced that the
Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the priests Boniface and
Basil, would represent "The Apostolic See."
The legates needed no reminder to stress, in the presence of
the Fathers, the prominent apostolic character of the Roman see.
This custom had already become such a habit to all Westerners that
they could not have disregarded it. Bishop Paschasinus gave full
vent to the Roman belief at the beginning of the first session.131
Announced as the legate "of The Apostolic See," he declared: "We
hold in our hands the orders of the most blessed and apostohc
Bishop of the city of the Romans which is the head of all Churches."
Lucentius came to the aid of his colleagues declaring that Dioscorus
had dared to convoke a synod "without the authority of the
apostohc see which had never happened before, and should never
happen again." Then Paschasinus, "legate of the apostohc see,"
"
continued: We are not allowed to run counter to the precepts of
the most blessed and apostolic Pope who governs the apostohc see."
From that moment whenever the legates asked permission to
"
speak, they were announced by the clerks as vicars of the apostohc

" " "
see. 132 They must have informed the chef de protocol that they
wished to be introduced in that way, but this does not seem to have
been the procedure first adopted, for whenever the minutes of the
'
sessions describe the legates interventions, they are called simply

bishops or vicars of the Bishop of Ancient Rome.133 Also, in the list
of imperial functionaries and bishops present at the beginning of
each session, they are invariably called only vicars of the most
130Mansi, 6, Epist. 93, cols. 131 seq.
131 Ibid , cols. 580, 581; ed. E Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 1,
. pp. 65, 66.
132 Mansi, ibid., cols. 680, 976, 984, 1045; 7, cols. 8, 9, 32, 52, 57, 60, 101,
105, 181,189, 257, 261, 270, 289, 296, 297, 425, ed. E. Schwartz, ibtd., pp. 114;
pt. 2, pp. 3, 8, 28, 93, 94, in, 113, 114, 123, 125; pt, 3, pp. 5, 10, 38, 39, 51,
53. 54, 87-
133 Mansi 6, cols. 608, 613, 692, 940, 988, 1020, 1036, 1041, 1044; 7, col.
,
300; ed. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 78, 82, 120; pt. 2, pp. 9,10,11, 24, 27.
76
blessed Leo, Bishop of Ancient Rome.184 In their addresses the

legates seldom neglected to emphasize the apostolic character of
the Roman see, and they sometimes referred to Leo as simply
apostolicus.™5 The titles which they give their master when signing
the synodal decisions in his name are also eloquent.186
In general, in the minutes of the debates, the chancellery of
Anatolius of Constantinople followed the traditional Byzantine
"
custom of giving to the Pope the simple title of the most reverend,
"
most holy Bishop of Ancient Rome. In this respect the patriarchal

chancellery followed the rules estabUshed by its imperial counterpart.
The Emperor Theodosius, for example, in his letters to Valentinian
and in his answers to the letters of Placidia and Eudoxia, called the
Pope "the most reverend Patriarch Leo."137 Marcian, when he
wrote announcing his intention to convoke a new synod, addressed
his letter "to the most reverend Bishop of the most glorious city of
Rome," and was content to call the Pope, "Your HoUness." The
same address and titles can be read in the letter of the Empress
Pulcheria.188
There are, however, two exceptions symptomatic of progress in
this regard. In his allocution to the Fathers during the sixth session
the Emperor, mentioning Leo's dogmatic letter to Flavian, speaks
"
of the holy [man] Leo, Pope of the city of Rome, who governs the
"
apostolic see. 189 In the letter in which the Emperor Marcian

144 Mansi, 6, cols. 565,940,977 (only here is the apostolic see of the Romans
especially mentioned); 7, cols. 4, 97, 117, 180, 185, 193, 272, 301, 313, 424;
ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 56; pt. 2, pp. 70, 85, 121, 130; pt. 3,
pp. 3, n, 42, 56, 63, 86.
195 Mansi 6, cols. 680C: tou dirooroXiKoO dv5p6s tinCTK6irou 'Ptbuiij;
,
7 cols. 101, 257; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 114; pt. 2, p. 123;
,
pt. 3, p. 38.
13* At the end of the third session, after the condemnation of Dioscorus
(Mansi, 6, col. 1080), simply Paschasinus ... i-nix"*' t6v t<Sttov tou dpx' -
'
maK&nov -rfft peydXTis P&jmtis Afovros... but, at the end of the sixth session
{idem., 7, col. 136): tniycov tiw t6itov tou StoTrdrou nou tou naKotpioynScrou kqcI
dTTOOToXiKoO Tfjs olKOv iEviKfj; lKKXr|criocs 4tt«ok6ttou -mSXeco; 'Pcoiitis Afowros....
The Latin translation of the first passage added the words: atque aposiolicae
universalis ecclesiae papae. Cf. ed. E. Schwartz t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 34;
,
pt. 3, p. 141.
137 Lit 62, 63, 64. Mansi, ibid., cols. 68, 69, 72; PL, 54, cols. 876,
.
878.
138 Lit 76, 77. Mansi, ibid., cols. 97, 101, PL, 54, cols. 904, 906.
.
,
3, Mansi, 7, col. 130: f) tou OKMpiXEornStTou Atevros tou t s PoktiWBos
TcbMTjs
&p\ismaK&no\j tou t6v dTTO<rroAiK6v Qpdvov KufJepvcovTos tnvrtoM] ...; ed.
E Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt, 2, p. 140.
.
77
announces the decisions of the Council to the Pope, and asks him
to accept canon twenty-eight giving the second position in the
Church to Constantinople, he calls the Pope "Father," and "Your
Holiness," and terms his see "apostolic."140
There were also some bishops and clerics who during the debates ,
at Chalcedon, did not hesitate to speak at times of the apostolicity

of the Roman see. Anatolius of Constantinople was impressed by
this, and on the very solemn occasion of pronouncing sentence on
Dioscorus, he declared, after Paschasinus had announced the Pope's
"
condemnation i1*1 Being in every way of like opinion with
the apostolic throne, I, too, endorse the condemnation of Dios-
"
corus.
This expression was particularly outstanding because during the ,
third session, when the Fathers, after listening to the letters of

St. Cyril and of the Pope censuring Eutyches, spoke of their respect
for Leo, their acclamations1*2 did not evoke a similar response:
"
We all believe so, Pope Leo believes so This is the faith of

Archbishop Leo. Leo believes so Leo and Anatolius believe so
,
Archbishop Leo thinks so, believes so, writes so "

It is interesting to read the pronouncements of other bishops
recording their approval of the condemnation of Dioscorus during
the third session. Among the one hundred and eighty-eight bishops
listed in the Latin Acts as having pronounced their decision after
Anatolius, only nine mentioned in their declarations that they were
joining the judgment of the apostolic see of Rome. They were
Seleucus, Metropolitan of Amasia, Francion, Metropolitan of
Philippopolis, Peter, Metropolitan of Gangrae Daniel, Bishop of
,
Cadena, Thomas of Theodosiopolis Cecropius of Sebastopolis,

,
Acacius of Ariaratheia and Renus of lonopolis.143 Of the others,

,
twenty-two bishops mentioned the name of Leo in their speeches
140 Lit .
100, Marcionis ad Leonem, chap. 3. Mansi 6, col. 167A; PL, 54,
,
col. 974B; ed. E. Schwartz ibid., p. 55.

,
141 Mansi ibid., col. 1048C: o ocvrri -rqi dTroaroAtKcjj 9p6v<j> 5id -rrivrcov
,
t
9povcov, a\iiJKf/T|pos Kdydlj yfvonai kn\ tij KocdatptoEi Aioaicdpou; ed. E. Schwartz,
t 2, vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 29.
.
142 Mansi ibid., col. 960; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 81.

,
143 Mansi ibid., cols. 1051, 1054, 1062, 1069, 1072; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2,
,
vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 49, 51 58, 63, 65.

,
78
recording the sentence, calling him simply Bishop of the Great and
Old Rome.1"
On a similar occasion, at the beginning of the fourth session, when
the Fathers were asked to express their opinions regarding Leo's
dogmatic letter to Flavian, most of them mentioned Leo in the
declarations, but none of them cared to add that his see was
apostolic.145
Special attention is due to the libellt, despatched to the Pope and
the Council by some Alexandrian clerics - the deacons Theodore
and Ischyrion, the priest Athanasius, and the layman Sophronius -
containing accusations against their Bishop, Dioscorus. All the
libelli are addressed "to the most holy and most beloved of God,
oecumenical Archbishop, and Patriarch of the great city of Rome,
"
and to the holy and universal synod of Chalcedon. In them the

Alexandrians reveal a surprisingly high respect for the Pope,
calling him oecumenical Archbishop and Patriarch. This is, perhaps,
the first use of this title which was later adopted by the patriarchs
of Constantinople. The apostolic character of the Roman see,
however, was recognized specifically only by the deacon Theodore.146
It should be noted that in two passages of his libellus, Theodore's
"
colleague Ischyrion calls the see of Alexandria the evangelic

"
see. 147 He must therefore, have been fully conscious of the
,
apostolic origin of Alexandria, although he ignores the fact that

Rome, too, was of apostolic origin.
144 Mansi ibid., col. 1047: Maximus of Antioch, col. 1049: Diogenes of
,
Cyzicus, Julian of Coe, Peter of Corinth, col. 1050: Theodor of Tarsus, Roman
of Myra, col. 1051: Constantine of Militene, John of Sebastia, col. 1052:
Constantine of Bostra, Patricius of Tyana, col. 1054: Florentius of Sardes,
Photius of Tyre, col. 1056: Julian of Hypepa, col 1059: Paul of Philomelion,
col. 1060: Indimus of Irenopolis, col. 1061: Eutropius of Adardos, col. 1065:
John of Alinda, col. 1066: Eorticius of Nicopolis, col. 1068: Paulinus of
Apamea, col. 1079: Antiochus of Sinope, col. 1080: Theodorusof Claudiopolis;
ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., pp. 47-51, 53, 55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 71.
145 Mansi 7, cols. 9-28; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 93-101.
,
144 Mansi 6, cols. 1005, 1012, 1020, 1021, 1029: Tcjj dyicordrrcj) xal 9eo-
,
'
(piAfordrco oIkouhevikw dp/JEmoKdirCj) Kal irarpidpXTl Tfj? ueydXiis Pcimis Atevri,

'
Kal tti dylqc Kal otKouuEviKfj ouv65cj) xij Iv XaXKE56vi...; Theodoret s Libellus,
col. 1009A: xorxd toO diyicordrou Kal AoicotAtou ArrooroAiKoO 9p6vou irfo
'
(jEydXr); PciiiTis; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 15, 17, 20, 23.
147 Mansi ifcid., cols. 1013A, 1016B: tou eOayyeAtKoO fecjlvou Bpdvov ...
,
KuplXAou, toO Tdv edayyeAmdv 0p6vov BiaKoani oavros ...; ed. E. Schwartz ,
ibid., pp. 17, 18.
79
That the importance of the idea of apostolicity, held in such high

esteem in Rome, should meet with so little understanding in the
East is not surprising when the habits of the Easterners, as revealed
in the Acts, are taken into account. They almost completely
disregarded the apostolic character of their own Churches, such as
those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and called the heads
of these Churches simply bishops or archbishops of the cities (or
great cities) of Alexandria or Antioch. Constantinople, however, was
often called the Imperal City and New Rome.
One detail perhaps deserves special mention. Although Con-
stantinople was the imperial residence, and thus fully deserved to
be called the Imperial City, some bishops in their declaration called
Rome also the Imperial City. At the close of their acclamation
during the second session, the senators demanded:148 "Let the letter
of the most holy Archbishop of the Imperial and Ancient City of
Rome, Leo, be made known."
Maximus of Antioch, who followed Anatolius, who had been
"
given the title of Archbishop of the Imperial City of Constanti-

"
nople, which is the New Rome, did not, at the third session,
imitate Anatolius by calling Rome an apostolic see; but in referring
to Leo, he named him pater noster Leo regiae senioris urbis Romae.1*3
At this same session, Theodore of Claudiopolis mentioned both
imperial cities in his declaration - decreta a... sanctissimo archiepi-
scopo regiae urbis Romae Leone ... et a sanctissimo archiepiscopo
regiae urbis novae Constantinopolitano Anatolio.150
Maximus of Antioch appeared to be consistent in styling Rome
the "Imperial City," for he used the same expression during the
fourth session when he announced to Flavian his agreement with
Leo's letter.151 His attitude was the more significant in that he was
fully aware of the apostolic origin of his own episcopal see.
During the seventh session of the Council, when the question of
dividing the provinces of Antioch between that metropolis and
1W Mansi ibid., col. 960C: dvoryivco<j6fo6co f) IttiotoMi toO dcncordrou dpxtE-
,
'
mcTKiiTOu Tfis paaiXISos kocI trpeapur pas Pcopris Atevros; ed. E. Schwartz,
ibid., p. 81.
M» Mansi ibid., col. 1048D; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 47.
,
1S0 Mansi ibid., col. 1080B; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 71.

,
161 Mansi ibid., 7, col. 12B: f| femoroA toO dtytcorArou dpxioncncdTrou Tfjs
,
PaaiAEUoOcTTis 'Poburis Atewros; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 94.

80
Jerusalem was to be considered, Maximus of Antioch opened the

discussion with the following words:152 "It is agreeable to me and
to the most reverend Bishop Juvenalius, in accordance with a
mutual agreement reached after considerable contention, that the
see of the great city of the Antiochenes, that of Saint Peter, should
have the two provinces of Phoenicia and Arabia, and the see of
Jerusalem, should have the provinces of the three Palestines."
In this connection the letter of the Empress-Mother, Placidia, to
Theodosius II and to his sister Pulcheria is worth recalling. All this
seems to indicate that, in the minds of the Byzantines, their Empire
had two capitals - Old Rome and New Rome - each the object of
their veneration; the first because of its past, the second because it
was actually the residence of the emperors; they were fully aware
too of their debt to Old Rome, which had given its name to their
Empire, and in this it is evident that the traditional principle of
adapting Church organization to the political division of the Empire
was still applied to Rome also. Its primacy in the Church remained
guaranteed in the eyes of many because it was the first capital
of their Empire and would so remain as long as the Roman
Empire, of which Constantinople was now the Imperial City,
endured.
This consideration may assume greater importance when the

changes in Church organization made by the Council of Chalcedon
for the benefit of the bishops of Constantinople are examined.
These changes were voted after the conclusion of the dogmatic
discussions, and after the adoption of twenty-seven canons, in a ses-
sion in which only 185 bishops participated. Most of them were
prelates of dioceses whose fate remained to be decided. The Roman
legates abstained from attending this meeting, pleading that they
had no relevant instructions.
The canon voted by the Fathers is called the twenty-eighth canon,
although the manuscripts of Greek and Latin texts of the Council
enumerate only twenty-seven. The twenty-eighth canon of the
151 Mansi, ibid., col. 180D: wore t6v jiiv 6p6vov xfj? 'Avnox&ov jieyoXo-
ir6X£cos t6w toO dyiou TT rpou; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 3, p. 5.
81
Council of Chalcedon153 appeared for the first time at the end of

the sixth century in Byzantine collections of canon law, in the
Syntagma of Fourteen Titles.
It has been seen that the canons of the Nicene and Constanti-
nopolitan Councils regarding ecclesiastical organization were not
clearly formulated. This accounts for the numerous controversies
among specialists in explaining them, and the same holds true for
the so-called canon twenty-eight of the Council of Chalcedon. Here
is the wording of the canon :154
"
Following in all things the decisions of the Holy Fathers and

taking cognizance of the canon of the 150 bishops beloved by God,
who assembled in the Imperial City of Constantinople, under the
former Emperor, the great Theodosius of happy memory, we decide
and determine the same concerning the rights of honor of the holy
Church of the same Constantinople, the New Rome. For the Fathers
acknowledged the rights of honor of the throne of the Old Rome,
because it was the Imperial City, and moved by the same motives,
the 150 bishops beloved of God have attributed the same rights of
honor to the most holy throne of the New Rome in that they
rightly judged that the city, which is honored by the presence of
143 Cf E. Schwartz, "Der sechste nicaenische Kanon auf der Synode von
.
Chalkedon," Sitzungsber. der Preuss. Akad. der Wiss., Pkil.-hist. Kl., 27

(1930), pp. 612 seq.
IM Mansi, 7, col. 428, ed: E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 3, pp. 88 seq:
riavraxou T0T5 twv dyicov ironipwi' Spot? hrdptvoi Kotl t6v <ip-Hws dvcryvwcOivra
Kotvdva tcov pv decxpiXEOTciKov £incTK6iTcov twv auvax vrcov hrl toO eOatpous Tf)i>
piv iiTiv nsyAAou ©£o6oa(ou toO yevo vou fJaaiAicos £v Tfj paaiXiSi Kwvoravnvou-
mbXei vfajt PcbpT) yvcopltovres, to aOra xotl #iM£l5 6pitopiv te xal v|;ri<pil.6n£6a mpl
'
tcou irpeapeicov Tfis AyicaTdrris lKKAT|CT(as

'
aurfj KcovaTavTivourrdAEcoj via;
PcdtiTi?. Kal yap tco 9p6vcp -tfy irpECTpuiipas 'Pcoijtis Sia t6 PqctiXeOeiv t v tt6Xiv
itcEivriv ol TTcrr pes eIk6tco$ dTroSsScoKaai tA TTpeapeia Kal tco ovitw OKOTrw kivou-
"
nevoi ol pv OECKpiX CTOTOi iirioKOTTOi Tdt Tea TTpEa(3Eta dirivEiuav Tcjj Tfj? via? Pwiaris
iyicoTdTco Opovco, £OX6ycos KpivavTE? -ii\v poaiXEi c Kal ouyKXi Tco TipriOElaav irdXtv
'
Kal tcov Tucov diroXaOouaav TrpEapElcov tt) irpEapuripg PaaiXlSi Pcouti Kal iv toT$
iKKXtiaiaariKois cb$ JkeIvtiv iJi£yotXuv£o6ai trpAynaaiv 5£UT pav uet' KEivriv urrdp-
'
Xouoav Kal coote toOs t s TTovriKfis Kal Tfj? Aaiavfj? koi Tfjs ©p<5n<iKfjs Sioiki'iokos
yriTpoiToXlTas pdvous, ?ti 5i Kal tous iv Toi$ pappapiKots hnoKdirouj tcov trpoEipii-
uivwv 5ioiKfiCT£cov x 'POTOVEtaOai xmb toO irpoEipTiialvou AyicoTdrou 6p6vou Tfis
Kara KcovcrravrivoCnroXiv AyicoTdrris iKKXnaias, StiXaSf) 4k6otou ur|Tpo7roXiTou
tcov trpoEipTiuivcov 6ioiki,|<t£cov u£t6 tcov Tfj? liropxlotj hnaKdiTwv xeiporovoOvTOS
tou5 Tfj Sirapxlocs iTnaKdirous, Ka6cbs T0I5 6e(ois Kavdai 5tiiy6p£vrraf ytxpaio.
V£la6ai 51 koScos Elpr|Tat, toOs UTiTpoTToXfTas tcov irpoEipTii vcov SioiKi aEcov irapd
toO KcovcrravTivouTTdXEcos <5tpx>£Tn<TK6iTou
'
(piaudrrcov auu9cbvwv kotc t6 fOoj
yivop vcov Kal Itr aOT6v dva9£potUvwv.
82
the emperor and the senate and enjoys [in the organization of the
State] the same rights of honor as the Imperial City, the Old Rome,
should also be honored in ecclesiastical affairs and should therefore
occupy the second place after the Old Rome.
"
Consequently the metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia ,
and Thrace and only they, and furthermore the bishops of the
,
above-mentioned dioceses, whose sees are in the lands of the

barbarians, shall be consecrated by the above-mentioned most holy
throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; while naturally
each metropolitan of the above-mentioned dioceses, together with
the bishops of his province, consecrates the bishops of the province,
as has been laid down in the holy canon. The metropolitans of the
above-mentioned dioceses shall however, as stated, be consecrated
by the archbishop of Constantinople, after a harmonious election
has been arranged according to usage and has been passed on to
him."
It is imperative first to examine the intentions of the Fathers
when they enacted this canon. Although the stipulations of the
canon concern primarily the organization of the Eastern Church,
the Fathers intended to secure this time a solemn confirmation of a
situation which had been developing there since 381; so it was not
surprising that they were anxious to obtain the vote of a truly
oecumenical council. As mentioned before, the third canon of the
Council of 381 was meant to apply to the dioceses of only the
eastern part of the Empire, and was not sent to the West for
official approval. If the Fathers hoped that this measure would
break the leadership of Alexandria in the East, events destroyed
their hopes. Alexandria inflicted the greatest humiliations on Con-
stantinople at the Synod of the Oak, and at the Latrocinium of
Ephesus. A canon securing leadership in the East for Constantinople,
and voted by the same general council that had sealed the defeat of
Alexandria in doctrinal matters would also definitively break
,
the dangerous influence of Alexandria on the evolution of the

Eastern Church.
In order to obtain general approval for such a measure, the
Fathers could not afford to alienate the Pope who had played a
,
prominent role during the final stages of the dogmatic struggles, and
6* 83
whose representatives were still present at Chalcedon. It would,

therefore, be illogical to suppose that the Fathers intended to deny
the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, a primacy which had just
made itself particularly apparent in the triumph of orthodoxy at
Chalcedon.
It should be pointed out also that the Chalcedonian Fathers did
not protest the Roman version of canon six of Nicaea. This version
vehemently emphasized the primacy of Rome in the Church, and
it was read, during the last session, by the legate Paschasinus.155
The old Latin translation prefaced the wording of the canon as
follows: Romano, ecclesia semper habuit primatum. Although the
Roman version differed from the original, also read during the last
session, the Fathers did not question the authenticity of the Roman
version and its preface.
Moreover, the fact that the Fathers of the Council, the Patriarch
Anatolius, and the Emperor Marcian himself insisted that the Pope
should sign the canon, is sufficient indication that the conciliar
Fathers saw in its wording no offensive move against Rome.166
The most serious offense to the Westerners lay in the Fathers'
reasons for having accorded positions of primacy to Rome and
Constantinople - namely that both cities were capitals of the Empire,
and residences of the emperor. Here again is a clear expression of
the principle of adaptation to political organization, and indication
of how profoundly it was rooted in the minds of Eastern prelates.
155 Mansi ibid., col. 444; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 95. On this version,
,
which originated in Rome or, at least, in Italy in the fourth century, see
F B. C. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen
.
Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Ausgange des Mittelallers, 1 (Graz, 1870),

pp. 19 seq. Cf. C. H. Turner, Ecclesiae occid. Monum. I, pp. 103, 121; E.
Schwartz, "Der sechste nicaen. Kanon," op. cit., pp. 627 seq.
1M Cf T, Harapin, Primatus pontificis Romani in Concilto Chalcedonensi
.
et Ecclesiae dissidentes (Quaracchi, 1923), pp. 113 seq. P. Batiffol, Le sitge

"
apostolique, pp. 556 seq. Consult especially E. Herman, Chalkedon und die
Ausgestaltung des Konstantinopolitanischen Primats," in A. Grillmeir,
H . Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, 2 (Wiirzburg, 1953), pp. 459-490
(especially pp. 463-472). This unbiased and well-documented study is one
of the best on this subject by a Roman Catholic scholar. Cf. also T. O. Martin,
" "
The Twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon , ibid., pp. 433-458. Cf. also

J. Hergenrother, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, 1 (Regensburg, 1867),
p. 75. Even M. Jugie (Le schisme byzantin, [Paris, 1941], pp. 11-19), although
very critical of the wording of the canon, failed to discover in it an outspoken
negation of the primacy.
84
From their point of view, this was the strongest argument, and they
were unable to see in it any affront to the Roman see, particularly as
the new canon once again confirmed its position.
Moreover, the wording of the canon does not imply that the
Fathers of Nicaea had conferred on the Bishop of Rome rights that
he had not previously possessed. It revealed that they merely
'
acknowledged those rights which were Rome s due, and which she
already enjoyed. It is in this sense that the Greek words drroSeScbKOKTi
Tot Trpea|3Eia should be translated.157
As to the nature of those rights, the meaning of canon six of the
Nicene Council should be recalled and compared with the rights
that canon twenty-eight of Chalcedon guaranteed to the see of
Constantinople. There is no allusion in either canon to the primacy
which the see of Rome claimed and regarded as of divine origin,
reposing on the will of the Founder of the Church, but only a
reference to the extension of the jurisdiction of both sees. Rome
had won its rights not only because of its position as the see
of Peter, but also because it was the capital of the Empire and the
most prominent city in Italy.
Another canon voted by the Council illustrates the principle,
dominant at the assembly of Chalcedon, of adaptation to political
organization. Canon seventeen ruled that, in the event of the founding
of new cities, Church organization should adapt itself to the new situ-
ation.158 This canon, together with others, was also approved by
the legates and was not disavowed by the Pope, which suggests that
neither the legates nor the Pope saw anything unacceptable in it.
Leo must have known that at that time, even in the West, the
principle of adaptation to the administrative division of the Empire
was generally accepted without apparent opposition. He must have
remembered that Valentinian III had also used the principle of
adaptation as an argument for Roman primacy in his novel of 445,
and that the Empress Placidia had thought highly of it.159 He was,
15' Cf E. Herman, op. cii., p. 468.

.
ft
1M Mansi, 7, col. 365; ed. E. Schwartz, "Der sechste nicaen. Kanon,
op. cii.,p. 357: d 5 Ttjix paoiXiKfjs OUff'a? Konvlcrihi iroXts tt avWi? KaiviateiTi.Tois
ttoXitikoI? Kal STiiioafoi? tOttois koI twv KKj CTiaoriKcov irapoiKiwv #| Td iS <5f<o-
15* See supra pp. 73-75.
,
85
therefore well aware that, while opposed to the acceptance of this

,
canon, he could not attack it directly nor question the validity of a

principle still recognized in both Churches. On the other hand,
because he lived at a time when this principle permeated the
ecclesiastical life of the whole Empire he knew that the canon, in
,
itself did not involve any denial of the primatial rights claimed by
,
his see which he conceived to be supreme. This would explain why

he did not attack the principle of adaptation on which the canon
was founded, but resorted instead to the rather abstruse argument
that it violated the Church order confirmed by the Council of
Nicaea.
It is evident that the Nicene Fathers had not intended to
determine for all time the precedence of the major episcopal sees.
Their only purpose was to regulate the extension of the jurisdiction
of the three principal sees. Pope Leo thus interpreted canon six of
the Nicene Council in a way which might have appeared strange
to contemporary observers. In order better to serve his purpose the ,
Pope elevated the Council of Nicaea to the highest rank promoting

,
its sixth canon to a definite regulation of Church affairs, brought

about through the special inspiration of the Holy Ghost and not ,
susceptible to alteration by anyone.160

Another reason for Leo's attitude lay in the fact that, if he
approved the canon in question, it would be admost impossible to
prevent the principle that inspired it from being applied to the
Western Church in Italy, thus jeopardizing the supreme position of
Rome. Leo knew what had happened when Milan became the
residence of the Western emperor. Italy was divided into two
dioceses, and Rome lost direct jurisdiction over Northern Italy ,
which obtained a metropolitan in the bishop of Milan, the residential

city. Pope Damasus had also experienced the difficult situation
created for the Bishop of Rome when the see of Milan was in the
hands of a strong personality such as St. Ambrose, who often had
,
his own ideas about the conduct of Church affairs and was not
,
afraid to act on his own initiative in his relations with the East.
In Leo's time the residential city of the Western Emperor was
lt0 Leo ad Marcionem, Mansi, 6, Epist. 104, col. 192; ed. E. Schwartz,
t
.
2, vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 60 (256).
86
Ravenna. If the principle of accommodation to the division of the

Empire, so clearly expressed in canon twenty-eight, were meekly
accepted and approved by Leo, what would prevent the Western
Emperor's taking similar action with regard to his residence at
Ravenna? In order to avert such unpleasant possibilities, it was
best for Leo to revert to the Council of Nicaea, and to defend its
decision, after proclaiming the sixth canon to be a measure inspired
by the Holy Ghost, and therefore unchangeable.
Leo thus showed more adroitness than his predecessor. Innocent I,
who in his letter to Alexander of Antioch in 413181 directly attacked
the principle of accommodation, declaring that "it was not appro-
priate that the Church of God should be submitted to the changing
necessities of the world or should follow the divisions and
honors which the emperor might regard as expedient in the interest
"
of his own affairs. Although Innocent I does not specifically say
so, it was possible to discern in his declaration an intention to
'
prevent any further growth of Constantinople s prestige in the

Church through the application of canon three of the Council of
Constantinople.
Leo might have been inspired in his choice of arguments by a
letter which one of his predecessors, Boniface I, sent to the bishops
of Illyricum on March 11, 422, in which he defended his jurisdiction
over this province and opposed the claims of the bishop of Con-
' "
stantinople. Boniface s letter contains the following:162 if you...
will examine carefully the sanction of the canons, you will find which
Church is the second after that of Rome and which is the third
Let the great Eastern Churches in question, that of Alexandria and
that of Antioch, keep their dignity, determined by the canons res-
"
pecting the ecclesiastical right. Here, for the first time, the sixth
canon of the Nicaean Council was quoted in defense of the rights of
W1 See supra p. 13.
,
I*s PL 20, Epist. 15, chap. 5, col. 782: Quoniam locus exigit, si placet
,
recensere canonum sanctiones, reperietis quae sit post Ecclesiam Romanam

secunda sedes, quaeve sit tertia. A qtiibus ideo ita rerum videtur ordo distinctus,
ut se ecclesiasticorum pontifices caeterarum, sub uno tamen eodemque sacerdotio
habere cognoscant quibus charitate servata propter ecclesiasticam disciplinan
debeant esse subjecti. Et quidem haec sententia canonum a vetustate duravit ut ,
nunc usque Christo nostro favente, perdurat.... Servant Ecclesiae magnae

,
praedictae per canones dignitates, Alexandrina et Aniiochena, habentes eccle-

siastici juris notitiam....
87
the Roman see. Boniface did not explicitly state that the Fathers
of Nicaea had permanently estabUshed either the order of prece-
dence of the great Churches, or their number.168 His argument turns,
however, against the see of Constantinople, and thus, indirectly,
against the third canon of the Council of Constantinople. Leo im-
'
proved considerably on Boniface s arguments.
The behavior of the Roman legates during the Council of Chal-

cedon, and especially at the fifteenth and sixteenth sessions, poses
an important question: Did the Pope foresee an attempt by the
Fathers to bolster the position of the see of Constantinople, and
did he give his legates certain instructions to oppose it ?
The attitude of the legates during the first session seems to
indicate that there was no objection in Rome, at least in principle,
to applying to Constantinople the traditional practice of adaptation
to the civil organization of the Empire. When the Acts of the
Latrocinium were read, the Fathers were amazed to discover that
on this occasion Flavian of Constantinople had been assigned no
more than fifth rank among the principal prelates. The legate
Paschasinus spoke out with surprising frankness:164 "Behold we
ourselves regard Anatolius to be first, as God also regards him, and
these Acts have assigned to the blessed Flavian the fifth place."
Diogenes, the Bishop of Cyzicus then declared to the legates:
"
Yes, because you know the canons," which could only have been
a reference to the canons of the Council of Constantinople (381).
143 E .
Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, 1, pp. 377 seq., thinks that Boni-
face took this interpretation of the Nicaean decision from the third chapter
of the so-called Decretutn Gelasianum which determined the supreme position
of Rome in the Church, and described Alexandria and Antioch as inferior in
rank to Rome. This chapter is regarded by him as a genuine decree of the
Roman Council of 382 (cf. iim/., pp. 247 seq.) and an answer to the third canon
'
of Constantinople. This does not seem to be the case. Boniface s words are too
mildly expressed and differ considerably from the bold assertion of the
Decretutn. His words sententia canonum [quae] a vetustate duravil should be
related not to the Council of 381, but to that of Nicaea of 325. Chapter three
of the Decretutn should be dated from the time of the Acacian schism at the
end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. See supra, p. 56, and
infra, pp. 109-122 on Gelasius.
184 Mansi 6, col. 608B; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. I, pt. 1, p. 78. TSe
,
fjliElS, Osou diXovTOs, wiptov t6v * AvcnxSAtov irpwrov fxopev. o0to> Trfjjnrrov frot otv
t6v prndpiov <t>Xotuiav6v. Aioyivris i eOXapiararos hrioKOTroj iKKXtjalas KuUkou
elirev. hretSf) upisTs toOs Kavdvas oI5cm.
88
There remains the attitude of Pope Leo himself. When the

legates launched a vigorous protest during the sixteenth session,
which began November ist, against the so-called twenty-eighth
canon. Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum declared that he had read
canon three of the Council of Constantinople of 381 to Pope Leo in
the presence of some clerics of Constantinople, and that the Pope
had approved it. This must have occurred about Easter 451, when
a delegation sent by Anatolius of Constantinople delivered to the
Pope a letter from Anatolius in which he regularized relations
between Rome and Constantinople. The members of the delegation
'
would thus have been witnesses of Eusebius claim. It is certain that
Eusebius, after his deposition by the Latrocinium, had taken refuge
in Rome and was still there in 451.165
During the last days of the Council, when the legates were
invited to the fifteenth session, at which the question of the see of
Constantinople was to be discussed, they refused to attend, declaring
that they had no instructions from the Pope on this matter.168 This
seems to indicate that the Pope had not anticipated the course of
events, and had, therefore, failed to inform his legates as to how to
proceed with regard to the privileges of the see of Constantinople.
However, in contradiction to this conclusion there is some evidence
that during the sixteenth session the legates behaved as if they were
in possession of instructions concerning both the canons of Nicaea
and the question of the precedence of the main episcopal sees, for
when, during the debates provoked by their protest against canon
twenty-eight, Archdeacon Aetius invited them to reveal whether
or not they had been instructed by the Pope on the subject under
discussion, the legate Boniface rose to say:167 "The most blessed and
"
apostolic Pope gave us among others, this mandate, whereupon -

,
as it is reported in the Latin Acts - he read from a short document:

"
Also do not suffer the constitution of the Holy Fathers to be

violated by any temerity, and safeguard in everything the dignity
of our person in yourselves whom we have sent in our stead. And if
1,5 See supra p. 73. Cf. E. Schwartz, "Der sechste nicaen. Kanon,"
,
op. cit., p. 624. Mansi, 7 col. 449; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 3, p. 97 (456).
,
1,e Mansi, ibid., col. 428; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 88, idem., t. 2, vol.. 3,
pt. 3, p. 101.
1,7 Mansi, ibid., col. 443; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 3, pt. 3, p. 109.
89
by chance any should make so bold as to boast of the splendor of

their cities so as to usurp something for themselves, reject it most
"
energetically.
These words might at first be assumed to refer to canon twenty-
eight. E. Schwartz,168 who must be credited with having solved the
difficulties resulting from the differences between the Greek and
Latin versions of this passage, believes that the incident mentioned
by Eusebius of Dorylaeum discloses the intention of Anatolius and
of the imperial court to seize the first opportunity of bolstering the
prestige of the see of Constantinople. This may have been the price
that the Empress Pulcheria had to pay Anatolius to forsake
Dioscorus, and Leo may have acceded to a non-committal agreement
to canon three of 381 under the impression that no general council
would be convoked. When he learned, however, that the Emperor
had convoked a general council, he instructed his legates as set
forth above.
Schwartz's explanation of this incident is, however, not satis-
factory. It makes the attitude of the legates during the first session
with regard to the position of Constantinople, and their denial
during the fifteenth that they had any instructions concerning the
subject, seem very strange. Why did they not protest canons nine
and seventeen which granted the eastern bishops the right of appeal
to the exarch of the diocese or the bishop of Constantinople against
the judgment of the metropolitan ? This measure, which enhanced
the prestige of Constantinople at the expense of the exarchs, was
'
not in accordance with the decisions of Nicaea. If Schwartz s ex-
planation is accepted, the attitude of Leo, attested by the Bishop
of Dorylaeum, warrants rather severe judgment, which should
rightfully cause his admirers some embarrassment.169
Although the text of the Pope's instructions to the legates has
been lost, except for the passage given above, it is reasonable to
assume that it contained nothing that could have been used
against canon twenty-eight, for the legates would certainly not have
failed to quote it. The wording of this one passage, however, does
1M E Schwartz, "Der sechste nicaen. Kanon," op. cit., pp. 624 seq.
.
1M Leo's attitude greatly puzzled L. N. de Tillemont, {Mimoires four

'
servir d I histoire eccUsiastique, 15 [Paris, 1711]}, pp. 617 seq. Cf. P. Batifiol,
op. cit., p. 559.
90
not necessarily signify that the Bishop of Constantinople was ex-

pressly singled out.170 The impression conveyed rather is that the
Pope was anxious to prevent any recurrence of the incidents at the
Lairocinium of Ephesus. There, it was not the Bishop of Constantin-
"
ople, but Dioscorus of Alexandria who, in boasting of the splendor
"
of his city, condemning the Bishop of Constantinople, and ignoring

the Roman legates, had usurped the leading role for himself. The
'
extent of the Pope s preoccupation with the attitude of Dioscorus

can be appreciated from the fact that the Alexandrian was mentioned
specifically in another part of the instructions. At the beginning of
the first session the legate Paschasinus, on the strength of his in-
structions from the Pope, declared that if Dioscorus were admitted
to the Council the legates would quit it.171 The tumultuous scenes
'
which followed this declaration indicated that the Pope s preoccu-

pation with Dioscorus and his influence was not altogether unfound-
'
ed, although he may have overestimated the strength of Dioscorus

position.172
Taking all of this into consideration, it would be better to assume
that Pope Leo did not give any specific instructions to his legates
concerning the precedence of Constantinople in Church organization.
But an explanation must be sought for the excited and bewildered
attitude of the legates when they learned of the vote at the fifteenth
session, and also for the hostile attitude assumed by Leo the Great
toward the so-called canon twenty-eight.
The Pope and his legates may have been reconciled, albeit
grudgingly, to the idea that the see of Constantinople, because it
was the residence of the emperor, should be granted precedence over
the two other Eastern sees. To that extent they could pay Up
service to the old principle of adaptation to the political organization
of the Empire which was still, at that time, generally accepted. In
170 Cf E. Caspar, op. cit., p. 519, footnote 6.

.
171 Mansi, 6, cols. 580 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 65.
172 The discrepancies between the Greek text relating the incident that
occurred during the sixteenth session, and the Latin text, which caused so
much bewilderment to E. Caspar {op. cit. p. 520), have been ironed out by
,
E .
Schwartz ("Der sechste nicaen. Kanon," op. cit., pp. 614-627). The Latin
text seems to be genuine, but the Greek text was slightly toned down after
518, and adapted somewhat to suit the policy of reconciliation, followed by
Justinian I, between the Western and the Eastern Church.
91
that connection canon three of 381 granted to the see of Constantin-

ople only an honorary precedence without granting to its bishops
any extension of their jurisdiction. The legates could overlook, too,
canons nine and seventeen of Chalcedon, which granted to the
bishops of Constantinople a status of concurrent instance in appel-
lations,173 because it did not substantially alter the position of the
bishops of Constantinople.
Canon twenty-eight of Chalcedon, however, promoted the see of
Constantinople to a position of great power in the East, giving it
jurisdiction over the minor dioceses and over new missionary lands,
and this was much more than a precedence merely of honor.
Suddenly there arose before the bewildered eyes of the legates the
spectre of an immense new ecclesiastical power in the East, which,
because it had the support of the emperors, could become exceedingly
dangerous for the unity of the Church and for the primacy of Rome.
It may be that the Westerners had not realized what changes had
taken place in the Eastern dioceses since 381, or that, at the time of
173 It is difficult to interpret the exact meaning of the two canons-
nine and seventeen-giving this privilege to the bishop of Constantinople.
Canon nine (Mansi, 7, col. 361) states: eI 54 irp6s t6v ttis oCrriis tnaa-
Xlas UTppoTroMTTiv tTiioxoTros t\ kAtipix6s dmpicrprvrolii, KOfTaXanPav T&j f\ tov
i apx0" ""IS 6ioiki<|<tecos,
'
t6v rf\s pCKnAtuoOatis KcovaravrtvouudAEWS 6p<5vov,
Kori tn aurcp 6iKaUa6o>. Canon seventeen repeats this measure in the following
words {ibid., col. 365): el 5i tij irapct tou i5(ou ASikoIto jititpottoMtou, irapa
tco trrApxw t s BioiKViaEcos. $ t£> KcovaTavnvouirAAECos 9p6vcp SiKaUofto, Ka0dt
TTpOElpTlTCa.
This wording can be adduced in favor of the interpretation by K. Miiller
{Kirchengeschichte, 1 [3rd ed., Tubingen, 1914], pp. 656-658), who thinks
that the exarchs are the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem who
were soon to be called patriarchs. If this interpretation is accepted, then
Constantinople became the last court of appeal for the three minor dioceses,
which had no proper exarchs. It is true that the bishops of the capitals of
these dioceses were also sometimes called exarchs, but they never achieved
the same status as those of Alexandria and Antioch. In any case, later practice '
seems to confirm this interpretation, as is indicated by two of Justinian s

legislative measures which treat the same subject as do canons nine and seven-
teen. Codex Justianus I, 4,29; Novell. 123, chap. 22, ed. Th. E. Mommsen,
P Kriiger (Berlin, 1928, 1929), 2, p. 45, 3, p. 611. A similar conclusion was
.
'
reached by L. Duchesne (Histoire ancienne de I Eglise, 3, p. 462), by C.Turner

{Studies in Early Church History, pp. 43 seq.), and by P. Batiffol, op. cit.,
P- 555- Cf. also R. Vaucourt, "Patriarches," in Dictionnaire de ttUologie
catholique 11, col. 2262. M. Jugie {Schism byz., p. 20), follows L. Br6hier
{Histotre de I'Eglise, ed. A. Fliche, V. Martin, 5 [Paris, 1947], P- 23S) an<i
C J. Hefele, Konziliengeschichte, 2 (1875), pp. 513 seq.), and thinks that the
.
bishops of Constantinople were given a concurrent jurisdiction over Alex-

andria and Antioch.
92
the Council of Chalcedon, the bishops of Constantinople already

enjoyed virtual direct jurisdiction over the metropohtans not only
in Thrace, but also in Cappadocia and Pontus.174 Strictly speaking,
this amounted to a direct violation of the canons of Nicaea, and
the legates, therefore, considered themselves perfectly entitled to
invoke the quoted passage of the instructions given to them in
writing by the Pope. This passage may not originally have been
intended to be used against the pretensions of the see of Constantin-
'
ople, for such a turn of events was not expected. The legates
attitude was approved by the Pope who, as previously pointed out,
improved considerably on their arguments against canon twenty-
eight.
What would certainly have aroused any Westerner against such

a measure was the fact that the Fathers, in guaranteeing its ancient
privileges to the see of Rome, had completely neglected to stress
either the apostolic character of that see or the fact that the Pope
was the successor to Peter, the Prince of the Apostles.
As has been shown, in Leo's time the principle of apostoUcity was
generally accepted in the West as the decisive factor in Church
leadership, and, as far as Rome was concerned, this principle was
expressed in the primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the Church.
But the East was far slower than the West to appreciate this
principle, and this would explain why the Fathers did not reahze
the importance of emphasizing Rome's apostoUcity or the Pope's
succession from Peter.
It may be that some of them saw what was involved, and tried to
give some assurances to Leo in the letter in which the Council
announced its decisions to him. They spoke therefore, in terms of
,
highest praise of Leo the Great's leading role throughout the con-
174 L S. de Tillemont, op. cit., 15 pp. 702-706 quoted the numerous cases
.
,
of direct intervention by the bishops of Constantinople in the minor Eastern

dioceses. St. John Chrysostom acted as if the three dioceses were within his
field of jurisdiction. Socrates {Hist, eccles., 5, chap. 8; PG, 67, col. 580) goes
so far as to say that the Council of 381 had already put the whole of Thrace
'
under Constantinople s jurisdiction. This was not so, but it can be judged from
this statement that when Socrates wrote his history in about 440, Thrace
'
was already regarded as belonging to Constantinople s jurisdiction. See, for

details, S. Vailh , "Constantinople," Diet, de thiol, eath., 3, cols. 1322 seq.
and K. Miiller ibid., pp. 627-631.
93
troversy.175 "Indeed you," they wrote, "as the head among the
members, presided here in the person of your representatives, who
led the way by their correct counsel." Later on they expressed their
horror that Dioscorus "has extended his fury against him who has
been entrusted by the Saviour with the guardianship of the vine-
yard - we mean Your Hohness - and planned your excommunication,
after you have been so zealous to keep the body of the Church
united. And though he ought to have repented of this, and begged
mercy with tears, he rather rejoiced in it as in something noble,
despising the letter of Your Hohness, and resisting all true doctrine."
These were flattering words, acknowledging quite clearly the
primacy claimed by Leo. Furthermore, the Fathers showed their
willingness to respect also the apostolic character of the see of
Rome, the source of the Pope's claims to primacy, when they wrote
"
concerning the approval of canon twenty-eight: Moreover we have

confirmed the canon of the one hundred and fifty Fathers, who were
assembled at Constantinople in the time of Theodosius the Great,
of happy memory, which defines that the see of Constantinople shall
have privileges so as to rank second after your own most holy and
apostoUc see, in the assurance that, as with your accustomed interest
you have often shone your brilhant apostolic radiance even upon the
Church of Constantinople, you will increase it many times, since
"
you share your own privileges ungrudgingly with your brethren.

The Roman see is called apostoUc also in the Emperor Marcian's
letter to the Pope in which he requested the Pope to accept canon
twenty-eight.176 Anatolius, too, in his missive to the Pope was most
reverent toward the Roman See, and stressed its apostoUc character
in two passages. When urging the Pope to accept canon twenty-
"
eight he wrote:177 And we have engaged ourselves on this subject,

confident that it would be meet for your HoUness to accord this
honor to the see of Constantinople, especiaUy as your apostoUc see is
fuU of soUcitude for it, and Uves in concord with that see, and because
your see has always abundantly accorded its help in things needed
by that see." After recalling the protest of the papal legates and
176 Mansi 6, Epist. 98, cols. 148 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 3,
,
pp. 116 (475) seq.

174 Mansi ibid., col. 169; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. r, pt. 2, p. 55 (251).
,
177 Mansi ibid., chap. 4, cols. 177 seq.

,
94
stressing that the canon in question was voted by the Fathers at

the suggestion of the Emperor, Anatolius asked the Pope once more
for its confirmation:178 "Because the see of Constantinople regards
your apostolic see as a father, uniting itself in a most excellent
way with you, in order that through your solicitude for it all may
,
learn that [as] you have cared for it before, so you will display now
the same solicitude for it."
It seems, then, that through this emphasis on the apostolicity
of the Roman see, the concihar Fathers and Anatolius hoped to
give the Pope some supplementary guarantee, and to appease
whatever fears he may have had. All of their efforts, however, could
not satisfy the Pope, for these were flattering declarations, without
official character. It would have been different perhaps if the Fathers
had inserted into the wording of the canon some of the expressions
they had used in their missives. A clear confirmation in the canon
of the apostolicity of the Roman see, and of the prerogatives which
derived from it, might have satisfied Leo, or might at least have
made it very difficult for him to withhold his approval.
It is most unfortunate that the Eastern Fathers who had formu-
lated canon twenty-eight showed a lack of comprehension of Rome's
anxiety. It is, moreover, surprising, for the dogmatic victory of
orthodoxy at the Council was won under the leadership of the great
Pope Leo, whose name was most profoundly venerated by all. The
East was still greatly influenced by the principle of adaptation to
the new political situation, and could not see beyond its immediate
horizon. That the Fathers failed to find a point of compromise
between the two principles of Church organization is regrettable,
for, as has already been shown, it was within their reach. However ,
their failure marked the beginning of a long struggle over apos-

tolicity, and was the source of new bitterness in relations between
East and West.
It is open to speculation whether a more satisfactory wording of
the contested canon might have been arrived at if the legates had
attended the meeting. In any case, their refusal to be present at the
discussion seems to have been a serious tactical mistake, though
they tried vainly to correct it during the final session. So it happened
178 Idem, chap. 5, col. 180.
95
that the Council, which, in doctrinal matters, should have been, a

great triumph of Roman leadership ended in disagreement between
East and West on matters of Church organization.
The Pope apparently studied thoroughly the Acts of the Council

brought back by his legates, and, considering his situation carefully,
procrastinated for some time before answering the letters of the
Emperor and Anatolius. He seems to have interpreted the presence of
only 185 prelates at the meeting that had produced the twenty-eighth
canon as a sign that the canon was not popular among Eastern
prelates. He was certainly encouraged by the fact that the bishops
of Illyricum had followed the example of the legates and had ab-
stained from attending the session.179 Although the signatories of
the canon had protested vehemently against the accusation of the
legates that they had signed under pressure,180 the Pope appears to
have doubted the sincerity of their protestation.
He overlooked the fact that the signatories included most of the
bishops from the three minor dioceses, and that the Bishops of
Antioch and Jerusalem had also approved the canon. He may have
interpreted the proposal of Thalassius, the Exarch of Pontus, to
open negotiations with Anatohus for settling the question of
ordinations as an indication of the opposition of the hierarchy of
the three dioceses to the stipulations of the canon, an opposition
that might reveal itself more emphatically if the canon were
rejected by the Roman see.
Leo finally made his decision, and, on May 22, 452, sent letters to
the Empress Pulcheria, the Emperor, and Anatohus in which he
endorsed the protests of his legates against canon twenty-eight. In
his letter to the Empress Pulcheria he confirmed the words of his
legate Lucentius that the decision of the Council of Constantinople
"
remained without effect:181 It is a sign of pride and immoderation
[on the part of Anatohus of Constantinople] to try to go beyond the
limits of his power, to want to usurp the rights of others in defiance
of old usage, to contest the primacy of so many metropohtans,
Idem., chap. 7, cols. 429 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., pt. 3, pp. 89 (448) seq.
180 Mansi, ibid., col. 441; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 94 (453).
W1 Mansi, 6, Epist, 106, cols. 196 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 4.
pp. 57 seq.
96
to introduce war and new disturbances into peaceful provinces

which were once organized by the disposition of the holy Synod of
Nicaea and, in order that the decrees of the venerable Fathers
should be rescinded, to put forward the agreement of some bishops,
an agreement which remained ineffective for so many years. The
aforesaid Bishop boasts that this agreement, which he thinks
favorable to his cause, was passed about sixty years ago. It is vain
of him to think that something can be of use to him which, even if
"
someone dared desire it, could not be obtained.
In his letter to the Patriarch, the Pope said:182 "It is useless to
invoke in favor of your claim, the decision of some bishops which
was passed, as you pretend, about sixty years ago. [This decision]
was never sent by your predecessors for the confirmation of the
"
apostolic see. Later on, he defended the right of Alexandria to

second place in the Church, because the see was founded by St. Mark,
disciple of St. Peter, and alloted third place to Antioch because it
was founded by St. Peter, and because there, for the first time, the
faithful were called Christians.183
The principle that in Church organization the apostolic foundation
of the see should be the deciding factor is very clearly defined in
these words, but a shght inconsistency in the statement should be
pointed out. If the principle of apostolic foundation had been
applied correctly, the second place after Rome should have been
given to Antioch, This see was a foundation of St. Peter and St. Paul,
and it was here that Christianity received its name. However, in
this special instance, Alexandria, though founded only by an
evangelist, won precedence because of its importance in the political
and cultural fife of the Empire. This precedence was sanctioned by
the synod of Nicaea, and Leo the Great had to accept it, although, in
the eyes of the Easterners, it could weaken, his argument favoring
the principle of apostolic foundation in Church organization.
182 Mansi,ibid., col. 204 ; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 61.
183 Mansi,ibid., col. 206; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 61: Nihil Ale xandrinae
sedi ejus quam per sanctum Marcum Evangelistam beati Petri discipulutn
meruit, pereat dignitatis nec Dioscoro impietatis suae pertinacia corruente
splendor tantae Ecclesiae tenebris obscuretur alienis. Antiockena quoque
Ecclesia, in qua primum praedicante beato apostolo Petro christianum nomen
exortutn est, in paternae constitutionis ordine perseveret et in gradu tertio
cotlocata numquam se fiat inferior.
7 97
The Pope expressed his opinion more directly in his letter to the
Emperor Marcian:184 "Let Constantinople have its own glory. It is
our wish to let her enjoy, under the protection of the right hand of
God, for long years the benefits of your reign. But there is one way
for earthly things and another for divine things, and no construction
will be stable unless it shall be erected on the rock which the Lord
made as a foundation [Matt. 16:18]. The man who covets that
which is not due to him will lose even that which is his. The aforesaid
[Anatolius] should be satisfied to have obtained, with the help of
your clemency and thanks to my willing consent, the episcopacy of
such a city. Let him not disdain as unworthy the Imperial City
"
which he cannot make into an apostolic see.

In this way the principle of apostolic foundation was reintroduced
into Church organization and became a strong argument, enabling
Rome to defend its rights and tending to place Constantinople at a
disadvantage.
But there was even more to the Pope's argument. In connecting
the sees of Alexandria and Antioch so intimately with St. Peter and
Rome, Leo added a new argument to the arsenal with which
Rome was defending its primacy-the Petrine tradition. It has been
shown how this tradition was known to Innocent I and Boniface,185
but Leo I was the first to use it directly against Constantinople.
It is agreed that Leo the Great had developed, especially through
his sermons, the idea of the Pope as the vicar of Peter, who was
himself the vicar of Christ.186 In his opposition to canon twenty-eight,
Leo tried to combine this idea with the principle that only the sees
intimately connected with Peter's activity could rightfully follow
immediately the see of Rome, which had been consecrated by
Peter's preaching and martyrdom. In his letter to Maximus of
Antioch who had been consecrated, against the canonical pre-
scriptions, by Anatolius of Constantinople, the Pope stressed this
principle more forcefully than in his letter to Anatolius.
184 Mansi, ibid., col. 192; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 56.

"
» See supra pp 14, 15, 87, 88.
.
,
M This has been thoroughly discussed by E Caspar (op. cit., 1, pp. 426-
.
431). Sermon 4 (PL, 54, cols. 148 seq.) is the most important in this respect.
Cf. also E. Caspar's study "Primatus Petri," in Zeitschrift der Savtgny-
Stiftung, 47, Kanon. Abt. 16 (1927), pp. 329-331.
98
He wrote to Maximus:187 "And therefore, most cherished brother,

in your devotion you should be aware, with all your heart, of that
Church government which the Lord wanted you to direct, and you
should bear in mind the doctrine which the first of all the apostles,
the most blessed Peter, preached, uniformly to all the world, but
which he had planted by a special authority in the cities of
Antioch and Rome You should, therefore, watch with utmost
vigilance that heretical depravity may not dare to vindicate
anything, as it behooves you to resist such things with sacerdotal
authority and to inform us more often, through your accounts, on
the progress of the Churches. So it is meet that you should be a
consort of the apostolic see in this sohcitude, and you may be con-
ident that we acknowledge the privileges of the third see, which
f
'
cannot be diminished in anything by anyone s ambition. Because

I have such a great reverence for the canons of Nicaea, I would
neither allow nor suffer that the constitutions of the holy Fathers be
violated by any innovation Therefore, if your love causes you
to think that something should be done for [the preservation of]
the privileges of the Antiochene Church, try to explain it in suitable
letters that we may decisively and appropriately answer your
"
consultations.
When, at last, Proterius the new Bishop of Alexandria, who
replaced Dioscorus, gave satisfactory evidence of his orthodoxy,
Leo sent him, in March 454, a letter echoing the same idea of the
three Petrine sees.188 "It was proper," he says, "that such writing
should be sent from the Bishop of Alexandria to the apostolic see,
showing that the Egyptians had learned, from the beginning,
through the teaching of the most blessed Peter the Apostle and
through blessed Mark, his disciple, the same truths which, as is
known, the Romans believed.... Thus, in all things-in the rule
of Faith and in the observance of discipline-the old idea must be
preserved. May thy love show the firmness of a wise rector in order
that the Church of Alexandria may profit from what I have defended
on my own against the improper ambition of certain persons; that
187 Mansi, ibid., Epist. 119, chaps. 2, 3, cols. 239 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz,
ibid., p. 73.
188 Mansi ibid., Epist. 129, chaps. 1, 3, cols. 271 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz,
,
ibid., pp. 84 seq.
7* 99
is, that the right of ancient privileges should be preserved and that
"
all metropolitans should keep their dignity undiminished.
The Pope's stubborn refusal to approve canon twenty-eight is

reflected, less openly, in his letters of June 21,453, to the Emperor,
to Pulcheria, and to the Fathers of Chalcedon,189 but apparently
earned some support from them. Anatolius, who, the Pope com-
plained bitterly in a letter to Julian of Kios,190 his representative in
the East, was attempting to persuade the bishops of Illyricum to
sign the controversial canon, was at last invited by the Emperor
to make peace with Leo, and to abandon his policy of compromising
with several heretical elements. He did so in a letter to the Pope in
April 454, which is preserved only in a Latin translation. Therein
he calmed the Pope's apprehensions concerning his religious policy
and, after giving the Pope assurances as to his beliefs, defended
himself against the papal accusations of attempting to elevate his
see because of ambitious pride. He said it was the clergy of Con-
stantinople and of the minor dioceses who had taken this step, and,
in any case, he declared, the confirmation of the canon could be
given only by the Pope.191
Anatolius' letter promised nothing, but it was so worded that
the Pope could read into it the inference that Anatolius was a-
bandoning his fight for the acceptance of the contested canon. The
Pope placed a similar interpretation on the Emperor's letter of
February 15, 453, requesting an authoritative confirmation of
dogmatic decisions made at Chalcedon, of which Anatolius was in
188 Mansi ibid,, Epist. 114-117, cols. 225-236; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid.,
,
pp. 67-71. Cf. also Mansi, ibid., Epist. 128, cols. 269 seq. (March 9, 454);
ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 86.
180 Mansi ibid., Epist. 117, chap. 5, col. 236; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 70.
,
1,1 Mansi ibid., Epist., 132, cols. 278 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., pp. 168
,
seq: De his autem quae Constantinopolitanae gratia sedis sancita sunt in

Chalchidonesi nuper universali synodo, pro certo beatitudo vestra hoc habeat
nullam esse culpam in me, homine qui semper oiium et quietem in humilitate
me continens ab ineunte mea aetate dilexerim, sed Constantinopolitanae ecclesiae
reverendissimus clems est qui hoc habuit studium, et istarum partium religiosissimi
sacerdotes, qui in hoc fuere Concordes et sibi pariter adiutores, cum et sic gestorum
vis omnis et confirmatio auctoritati vestrae beatitudinis fuerit reservata. Hoc
igitur bene compertum sanctitas vestra cognoscat nihil ex me istius causa factum
esse negotii, qui semper omnem iactantiae levitatem et aliena adpetendi cupidi-
tatem mihi vitandam crediderim.
100
urgent need, for the partisans of Dioscorus were interpreting the

Pope's attitude toward canon twenty-eight as hostile to all Chalce-
donian decisions. To obtain the confirmation the Emperor added,
"
at the end of his letter, the following:192 Of course in this Your
Holiness has acted with the great wisdom befitting the Bishop of
the apostolic see, that is, in guarding the ecclesiastical canons you
have not suffered any innovations in the old rules and customs,
"
which have been observed to this day inviolate.

The Pope could have interpreted these words also as implying
that the Emperor had in mind the canons of Nicaea, although
Marcian cleverly omitted mentioning them. Marcian could as well
have had in mind canon three of 381 which was confirmed at
Chalcedon as a "norm of old," already in general practice in the
Eastern Church.
However, the outbreak of new troubles in Palestine and the
continued heretical opposition against Chalcedonian decisions,198
concerning all of which Julian of Kios kept Leo informed, forced the
Pope to display a less uncompromising attitude. Although he did
not completely abandon his former opposition to the acceptance of
'
canon twenty-eight, his answer to the Emperor s letter194 reflected

his new attitude of mind, and provoked in Anatolius the reaction
noted above.
Leo's missive to Anatolius,195 in answer to his conciliatory letter
was intended to end the controversy over the contested canon. The
Pope interpreted Anatolius' words as a capitulation, but was anxious
to couch his answer in terms that would not offend the Bishop of
the Imperial City. He took care to avoid all mention of canon
twenty-eight, and contented himself with only a slight allusion to
its contents. The Pope also confessed that he had felt the absence
of the Bishop of Constantinople as a consort in his solicitude for
the Church, and explained that he was obliged to admonish Anatohus
because, as the latter had himself confessed, "things were attempted,
m Mansi ibid., Epist. 110, col. 216; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 1, pt. 2,
,
p 61 (257). This letter reached Rome in June 453 after the despatch of Leo's
.
letters 114-117, mentioned above.

198 Cf E. Caspar, Geschichte, 1, pp. 532 seq.
.
lM Mansi ibid., Epist. 128, col. 269; ed. E. Schwartz, t. 2, vol. 4, p. 86.
,
,9* Mansi
ibid., Epist. 135, cols. 290 seq.; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., pp. 88 seq.
,
101
in transgression of canons which highly scandalized the Churches."

Then, at the end of the letter, taking Anatohus at his word, the
Pope, assuming that his correspondent had repented, said: "This
transgression which ... you have committed on the exhortation of
others, your love would have suppressed more effectively and
sincerely, if you had not performed, on the bad advice of the clerics,
something which could not have been attempted without your
willingness But, most beloved brother, I welcome the fact that
your love professes to dislike now that which you should have
dishked at that time Let the desire to have a privilege which
had not been granted and which had created a dissension be com-
pletely rejected. Let the boundaries suffice which the most provi-
dent decrees of the Holy Fathers have set "
The controversy thus ended with a compromise intended to save
face on both sides. The Pope saw clearly that, under the pre-
vailing circumstances, he could not obtain more from the Emperor
and the Bishop of the residential city. He pretended to have won
the case, and his opponents contented themselves with the right of
the beati possidentes, continuing to apply in practice the stipulations
of canon twenty-eight, without insisting on its official promulgation
and approbation. So it happened that the contested canon was not
listed in the first collections of canon law in the Byzantine Church.
It appeared only at the end of the sixth century, in the Syntagma
of Fourteen Titles.196
Finally, when this compromise, whose true significance was not
fully realized by either party, is considered, it becomes questionable
whether it might not have been better for the Pope to accept the
advice of his representative, Julian of Kios, and to approve the
decision of Chalcedon regarding the see of Constantinople.197 It
1»« V
. N. Beneievid, Kanonideskij sbornik XIV titulov so vtoroj Setverti VII
veka do 88yg. (St. Petersburg, 1903), p. 155. It was also approved by the
Council in Trullo (692), Mansi, 11,col. 960 {canon thirty-six),
'
1,7 It results from the Pope s letter to Julian. Mansi, ibid., Epist. 107,
col. 207; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 62. On Julian, see the monograph by
A Wille Bishof Julian von Kios des Nunzius Leos des Grossen in Konslanti-
.
,
nopel, Dissertation (Wiirzburg, 1909). The author seems to have solved the
problem of the episcopal see of Julian. It was not the island of Kos in the
Aegean Sea, but the city of Kios in Bithynia. Cf. also E. Caspar, op. cit.,
p. 614. On Julian's intervention in favor of canon twenty-eight, see Wille,
tbid., pp. 87-92.
102
could have been done in a document that stressed the apostolic

character of the Roman see and its primacy because of its having
been founded by the Prince of the Apostles and the will of the Lord.
Leo's fears are easily comprehensible. Rome had lost its great
prerogative as the center of the Empire and the residential city, and
retained only its apostolic character and its successorship to St. Peter
as justifications for its claims to primacy in the Church. Leo the
Great correctly foresaw that the new status of the see of Constanti-
nople would endanger the rightful claims of Rome. The victory that
the see of Constantinople, with the help of Rome, had won over
Alexandria was too crushing. The time might come when Rome
would need the help of the oriental patriarchs against the dangerous
rivalry of Constantinople. Leo saw this, and hoped that his defense
of the prominence of Alexandria and Antioch in Church organization
would assure him the eventual support of the two oriental sees
should the necessity for curbing the pretensions of Constantinople
arise.
Unfortunately the prestige of the residential city was too great
throughout the East, where the principle of adaptation to civil
administration was still recognized. It was, moreover, difficult to
arrest this evolution in Church organization which was developing
beyond the sixth canon of Nicaea. This was conspicuously apparent
at the Council of Chalcedon where a new status was granted not
only to Constantinople, but also to Jerusalem, a development which
the Pope preferred to overlook. Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, whose
ights the Pope rose to defend, concluded an agreement with
r
Juvenal of Jerusalem which was contrary to the spirit, if not the

letter, of the Nicene canons; he ceded to Juvenal the three
Palestinian provinces. This arrangement, made during the eighth
session,198 was reached avowedly by mutual consent, and was said
to have rendered all previous decisions in this matter null and void.
The papal legates sanctioned the agreement in the name of the Pope,
thereby considerably weakening the Pope's defense of the Nicene
canons. In this way the see of Jerusalem was promoted to supra-
m Mansi 7 cols. 180 seq. {Sessio VII); ed. E. Schwartz t. 2, vol. i,pt. 3,
, ,
pp. 5-7 (364-366), Cf. E. Honigmann, "Juvenal of Jerusalem," Dumbarton

Oaks Papers 5 (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), pp. 245 seq.This is the most recent
,
and best study on Juvenal (ibid. pp. 209-278).

,
103
metropolitan status, and its bishop became an exarch, a title soon

replaced by that of patriarch.199 The Council of Chalcedon thus
estabUshed, de facto, a division of the Church into five patriarchates,
which was certainly a deviation from the Church division claimed
by Leo to have been definitely estabUshed at Nicaea. It was a
development, however, against which it was useless to struggle.
Another incident illustrated the tendency toward evolution in the
East. In the Spring of 457, after the death of Marcian and the
elevation of Leo I to the imperial throne, the opponents of the
Chalcedonian Creed succeeded in electing their own Bishop-
Timothy Aelurus-and in forcing the military commander of
Alexandria to permit him to function side by side with the orthodox
Bishop, Proterius. Soon afterward, a fanatical mob invaded the
Church in which Proterius was celebrating the liturgy, set upon
him, killed him, and burned his mutilated corpse. Egypt was thus
again in the hands of the heretics.200
It might have been expected that the orthodox Egyptian Bishops
would have appealed to the Pope, who had manifested such zeal in
the defense of Alexandria's rights in Church organization. However,
this did not happen. There is no evidence of an appeal to Rome,
but fourteen Egyptian bishops appeared in Constantinople, and,
together with some priests from the capital, presented their protests
to the Emperor and to Anatolius.201 The Pope heard of what had
happened in Alexandria only from Anatolius himself. Meanwhile,
Timothy also sent his own delegation to Constantinople in order
to defend his case there.
There was a possibility that the Egyptians in defense of the
rights of their supra-metropolitan, might attack canon twenty-eight
if a new council were convoked. The opponents of Chalcedon
clamored for it, but both the Pope and Anatolius saw the danger of
such an attack. The Pope feared a reversal in doctrinal definition,
and Anatolius, realizing that Timothy Aelurus, would defend the
1M See E Honigmann, ibid., pp. 271-275, where the most complete

.
bibliography on the introduction of the patriarchal titles will be found.

800 E Caspar, op. cit., 1, p. 548. For more details see Th. Schnitzler,
.
"
Im Kampfe um Chalkedon," Analecia Gregoriana, 16, sec. B, no. 7 (Rome,

1938), PP- 5-i6.
801 Mansi ibid., cols. 524, 531.
,
104
rights of Alexandria against the encroachment of Constantinople,

sided with the Pope. Thus a peculiar situation was created.
The Pope could not cooperate with the heretics, who were ready
to help him in abolishing the stipulations of canon twenty-eight, but
had to welcome an alliance with Anatolius against the convocation
of a new council. In view of all this, it is particularly unfortunate
that no appropriate compromise was found by the Chalcedonian
Fathers, Anatolius, and the Pope concerning the relative positions
of Constantinople and Rome in Church organization.
105
CHAPTER THREE
Growth of the Idea of Apostolicity during the Acacian

Schism
Acacius and Pope Simplicius - Gelasius' claims derived from Petrine

tradition - Eastern and western reaction to Gelasius' claims - In-
creasing concern with apostolicity in the East - Libellus Hormisdae -
Apostolic character of the Roman see in imperial and patriarchal letters
- Currency of the idea of apostolicity in the East and its possible conse-
quences for Constantinople.
It is not impossible that the restraint practiced by Leo I and

Anatolius during their common campaign against the convocation
of a new council might have led to a compromise acceptable to both
sides had the alliance between Rome and Constantinople endured.
Unfortunately, the period of peaceful collaboration between the
two sees was to be of short duration, for soon after Leo's death
events proved that the apprehensions of this great Pope over the
rise of the see of Constantinople were well-founded.
Acacius of Constantinople (471-489), who eventually became
responsible for the break between Rome and the East, nevertheless
got off to a good start. When, in 475, Basihscus revolted against
Zeno (474-491), the lawful successor of the Emperor Leo, and
undertook to protect monophysitism, Acacius refused to receive
Basiliscus' protege Timothy Aelurus into the church of Hagia
Sophia. Furthermore, with his faithful orthodox following, Acacius
contributed considerably to the downfall of the usurper (477), and
received the congratulations of Pope Simplicius (468-483) on the
part he had played in the victory of orthodoxy in the East.1
1 Simplicius, Epistolae, PL, 5&,Epist. 6, cols. 4 seq; Mansi, 7, col. 995;
Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, ed. O. Giinther, Epist. 57, pp. 129 seq.;
Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae, ed. A. Thiel, Epist. 5, p. 186.
106
APOSTOLICITY DURING THE ACACIAN SCHISM
Like Anatolius, his predecessor, Acacius, too, had his reasons for
"
siding with the Pope.2 Timothy, popularly known as the Cat,"

was determined to defend the leading position held in the East
by Alexandria against the new pretensions of Constantinople for-
mulated in canon twenty-eight.
During the short monophysite reaction, Timothy, on his return
to Alexandria, stopped at Ephesus and reinstated Bishop Paul
in the episcopal see. Paul had been previously elected by the
Ephesians in defiance of the authority of the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, and had therefore been deposed by Acacius. Thus
'
was Timothy avenged for Acacius refusal to open the church of

Hagia Sophia to him when he passed through the capital. At the
same time Timothy convoked a synod at Ephesus which restored
the patriarchal dignity to the see of that city, deposed Acacius, and
requested the usurper to confirm the synodal decision.3
Of course this reversal was of short duration. Reinstated on the
throne, Zeno restored the status quo ante, and deposed Paul of
Ephesus and other supporters of Timothy, who died in 477. The
incident was a reminder to the Bishop of Constantinople that his
pretensions were still open to challenge even in the East, and it may
have been another reason why Acacius tried to stay on good terms
with Rome at the beginning of his tenure of office.
In a letter to Simphcius in which Acacius reported the death of
Timothy Aelurus and the election of the orthodox Timothy Salo-
faciol as Bishop of Alexandria, Acacius even expressed some respect
for the Roman primacy:4 "As you, according to the Apostle [II
8 In his letter of January 10 476, Simplicius requested Acacius to resist
,
all attempts of the heretics to convoke a council. PL, ibid., Epist. 5, col. 41;
Col. Avel., Epist. 58, p. 130, 3; ed. A Thiel, Epist. 2, p. 179, chap. 3.
3 The Syriac Chronicle of Zachariah of Mitylene transl. by F. J. Hamilton
,
and E. W. Brooks, bk. 5 {London, 1899), chap. 4, pp. 109-112; Evagrius,

The Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, chap. 6; ed. J. Bidez, L. Parmentier
(London, 1898), p. 106; PG, 86, cols. 2608 seq. Cf. B. J. Kidd, A. History of
the Church to A.D. 461, 3 (Oxford, 1922), p. 407, and E. Honigmann, "Juvenal
"
of Jerusalem, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5 (1950), p. 273.

4 PL ibid., cols. 46 seq.; ed. Thiel, Epist. 8, pp. 192 seq. It is, however,
,
interesting to note that, although the Pope in his letters to Emperor Zeno and
to Acacius called the see of Alexandria the see of the Evangelist Mark {PL,
ibid., Epist. 4, col. 40C, Epist. 5, col. 41D, Epist. 10; col. 48C; Col. Avel.,
Epist. 56, p. 128, 11, Epist. 58, p. 131, 4, Epist. 62, p. 140, 2; ed. Thiel,
Epist. z, p. 178, chap. 2, Epist. 3, p. 182, chap. 7, Epist. 10, p. 196), Acacius
did not do so in his request.
107
Cor. ii : 8], have care of all Churches, you exhort us ceaselessly,

although we are watching and foreseeing by our own initiative,
and in referring to us, in your desire to find the true status of the
Church of Alexandria, you are manifesting your usual zeal for God's
interests." Of course, in the next part of the letter Acacius associated
himself with the Pope in the final triumph of the good cause. It
should be recalled how Leo the Great used to address the bishops as
consorts of his solicitude for the whole Church. Acacius, through
his phraseology, might have conveyed the idea, which Leo would
have repudiated, that he considered the degree of his own solicitude
coequal with that of the Pope, but he couched his letter in terms
that permitted Simplicius to interpret them in the sense usually
associated with Rome. This Simplicius did, thanking Acacius for
his information and zeal.4*
Events soon took a dangerous turn however. When, in 479, the
opponents of the Chalcedonian Creed killed Stephen, the orthodox
Bishop of Antioch, the Emperor Zeno intervened and caused the
election of the new Bishop Calendio to take place in Constantinople,
where he was consecrated by Acacius himself. The Pope deplored
this transgression of the Nicene canons, and admonished the
Emperor and Acacius never to repeat it.5 Official contact between
Rome and Antioch was reopened only three years afterward when,
in 482, Simplicius received from the hands of an envoy a letter from
the new Antiochene Patriarch6 announcing his enthronement. The
Pope was alarmed further by the promotion of Peter Mongus, a
repentant monophysite to the See of Alexandria.7
,
Acacius had by this time ceased to inform the Pope of develop-

ments in the East, and it was, therefore, with some surprise that the
Pope learned in 482 that the Emperor, in order to influence the
monophysites. still numerous in the East and therefore dangerous
to the peace of the Empire, had proclaimed the so-called Henoticon,
4a PL, ibid., Epist. g, col. 47; Col. Avel., Epist., 61, pp. 138 seq.; ed. Thiel,
Epist. 9, p. 195,
» PL ibid., Epist. 13, 14, cols. 51, seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 66, 67, pp. 147-
,
150; ed. Thiel, Epist. 15, 16, pp. 202-206.

. PL ibid., Epist. 16, col. 55; Col. Avel., Epist. 69, p. 154; ed. Thiel, Epist.
,
17, pp. 206 seq.

7 PL ibid., Epist. 17, 18, cols. 55-59; Col. Avel., Epist, 68, pp. 151 seq.,
,
ed. Thiel, Epist. 18, pp. 208 seq.

108
a profession of faith aimed at establishing a normal status in the

Eastern Churches by making some concessions to the monophysites.
Acacius and Peter Mongus accepted the new Creed and, when
Calendio was replaced by Peter the Fuller, it was also officially ac-
cepted in Antioch. This initiated the so-called Acacian schism
(484-519}.*
It was during this schism that Rome employed the idea of
apostohcity as one of her main weapons against the patriarchs of
Constantinople, although of course even before the outbreak of the
schism the idea of apostolicity was appreciated in Rome. Simplicius,
for example, used to stress in his letters the apostolic character of the
Church of Alexandria, calling it beati Marci evangelistae sedes,9 and
he was also fully conscious of the fact that he was the successor to
St. Peter.10 The gentle Simplicius was, however, not a Leo, and his
letters reflect his rather conciliatory character. He contented himself
'
with refusing Acacius approaches concerning the recognition of

canon twenty-eight of Chalcedon,11 but never adopted the resolute
tone of Leo's letters. Actually, full use of this weapon was made only
by the foremost protagonist of Roman primacy in this period. Pope
Gelasius (492-496), who had administered the Roman Chancery
during the time of his predecessor in office, Felix III (483-492), and
"
. A detailed history of the Acacian schism is given by E Schwartz in
.
Publizistische Sammlungen zum Acacianischen Schisma" {Abhandl. der

Bayr. Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist, Abieilung, N. F., Heft 10 [1934]), PP- i-
262. On pp. 161-170 the author gives a complete schedule with bibliographical
references of all official documents issued during the schism. Almost all
texts of the Verona and Berlin Collections, edited by him, are published in
Migne's Patrology, in Thiel's edition, and in the Collectio Avellana. Only the
latter editions have been quoted.
» PL ibid., Epist. 4, 5, 10, cols. 40, 41, 48, Col. Avel., Epist., 56, 58, 62,
,
pp. 128, 131, 140; ed. Thiel, Epist. 2, 3, 10, pp. 178, chap. 2, 182, chap. 7,
196. See supra, p. 107 footnote 4.
10 PL ibid., Epist. 4, 7, 14, cols. 40, 45, 52; Col. Avel., Epist. 56, 60, 66,
,
pp. 129, 12, 137, 4, 148, 4; ed. Thiel, Epist. 3, 6, 15, pp. 182, chap. 7, 188,
chap. 2, 204, chap. 3. '
11 Gelasius' letter to the bishops of Dardania relates that, at Acacius
request, Emperor Leo I had approached Simplicius urging him to sanction
the contested canon twenty-eight of Chalcedon. The Pope sent Bishop Probus
of Canusa to Constantinople with instructions to convey to them his refusal.
[PL, 59, col. 72D; Col. Avel., Epist. 95, p. 389, 57; ed. Thiel, p. 407, chap. 10):
Eaque nihilominus etiam sub sanctae memoriae papa Simplicio legatum sedis
apostolicae sanctae memoriae Probum Canusinae urbis episcopum Leone
principe tunc petente praesente docuisse nullatenus posse temptari neque his
prorsus praebuisse consensum. Cf. the translation of the passage infra, p. 113.
IO9
had influenced the tone of Felix's correspondence with the East.

From the beginning Gelasius followed Leo's uncompromising atti-
tude, showing, even greater firmness than had Leo.
Gelasius' ideas are evident in Fehx's correspondence,18 and his

influence certainly stiffened Fehx's attitude toward Acacius'
successors Flavita (Phrabitas; end of 488 to March 489) and
Euphemius (489-496). These two had tried to enter into communion
with Rome while refusing to condemn the memory of Acacius or
to break with Peter the Fuller of Alexandria. In one letter to
Emperor Zeno the Pope twice18 quotes the classical passage (Matt.
16:18), to stress the supreme position of the Roman see in the Church,
and in all four letters to the Emperor the apostolic character of
the Roman see is duly stressed.14 Also, in the letters to Peter the
Fuller, Acacius, Fravita, and Thalassius, the Roman see is most in-
timately connected with St. Peter.15 All of this gives the reader the
"
For details see H. Koch, "Gelasius im kirchenpolitischen Dienste seiner
"
Vorganger, der Papste Simplicius and Felix III in Siizungsber. d. Bayr.
,
Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl., Heft 6 (Munich, 1935).

1S PL 58, Epist. 5, col. 917D: Per nostram parvitatem dignare suscipere
,
venerabilem ac divinam beatissimi Petri confessionem, apostolorum scilicet

principis cui et regni claves a Salvatore traditae sunt. Cf. col. giSD. Also,
ibid., Epist. 12, col. 969C; ed. Thiel, Epist. 15, p. 270, chap. 1, Epist. 1,
p. 223, chap. 2.
14 PL, ibid., Epist. 2, cols. 899C: beati apostoli sedes, D: Apostoli Petri
veneranda confessto materna instat vocibus, et suorum praecipue ftliorum com-
pellare non desinens confidentiam tuae pietatis, exclamat: Christiane princeps,
cur me a curricula caritatis, quo Ecclesia universalis astringitur, permitiis
incidi ? (ed. Thiel, Epist. 1, pp. 223-224, chap. 2), Epist. 5, cols. 918D, 920D,
922A, Epist. 9., cols. 934C,D: beati Petri directa legatio, col. 935A: In vestro
relinquo deliberationis arbitrio utrum beati apostoli Petri an Alexandrini Petri,
cuiquam sit eligenda communio (ed. Thiel, Epist., 8, p. 248, 2). PL, ibid.,
Eptst. 12, cols. 969B: dum ad beati Petri apostoli sedem suae refert dignitatis
exordium, 969C, quotation Matt. 16: 18, 19, 969D: apostolicae sedis communio,
97oB,C: beati Petri qualiscunque vicarius, non auctoritate velut apostolicae
potestatis extorqueo, sed tamquam sollicitus pater..., 971C: cuicunque personae
paterna fides, et beati Petri communio debet praeferri (ed. Thiel, Epist. 15,
pp. 270, chap. 1, 271, chap. 2, 272, chap. 3, 273, chap. 5).
15 Epist 4, adFullonem, PL, ibid., cols. 913B: vertex... omnium apostol.,
.
915A: nostri gloriosi praecessoris Petri, qui claves regni a Salvatore nostro
recepit. Epist. 6, ad Acacium, PL ibid., cols. 923B: in laesionem beati Petri
,
apostoli a cuius sede profecti fuerant..., D: apostolica auctorite (ed. Thiel,

Epist., 6, pp. 245, 246). Epist. 13, ad Flavitam, PL ibid., cols. 972A: ad
,
apostolicam sedem regulariter destinaiur, per quam largiente Christo omnium

solidatur dignitas sacerdotum, B: apostolorum summus, petra fidei C: beati
,
Petri communionem fideli corde suscipere D: beati Petri consortia Alex-

,
andrini Petri societas praefertur, 973B: absolvi autem Petrus nulla ratione
110
impression that the intention of the Pope and his secretary was to
emphasize that only one see was really apostolic-the see of
St. Peter-and that the teaching defended by this see was the true
faith of St. Peter; to be accepted, therefore, by every Christian. In
view of this, it is interesting to note that Felix III continued to
follow the tradition established by Leo and Simplicius, and called
the see of Alexandria, the see of St. Mark, who was Peter's dis-
ciple.16
In his own letters Gelasius emphasized the Petrine tradition even
more strongly. Not only is the classical argument for the primacy
(Matt. 16:18)17 frequently used, but the identification of the Roman
'
with the apostolic see recurs so often in Gelasius writing that it

seems pointless to quote the details. In all his correspondence with
the East Gelasius seldom referred to his see without calling it
apostolic. He carefully avoided, too, calling any other see apostolic ,
but contented himself with designating Alexandria as the second

see and Antioch as the third.18
Gelasius also repudiated, and again in strong terms, the twenty-
eighth canon of Chalcedon,19 and in his letter to the bishops of
potuit sine apostolicae sedis assensu... heati Petri fides (ed. Thiel, Epist. 14,
pp. 267, chaps. 1, 2, 286, chap. 3). PL, ibid., Epist. 14, ad Thalasium, cols.
975A: beati Petri fides, beati Petri exemplum, B: beati Petri Veritas (ed. Thiel,
Epist. 16, p. 274). Libellus, PL, ibid., col. 978C: apud beatissitnum Petrutn
apostolum diluere obedienter procuret... apostolicum non debet judicium...
abjicere (ed. Thiel, Epist. 4, p. 241, chap. 2).
"
PL, ibid., Epist. 2, ad Zenonem, col. 899C: ne sedes beati evangelistae
Marci a doctrina magistri sui vel communione permitieres separari (ed. Thiel,
Epist. 1, p. 223, chap.. 2). PL, ibid., Epist. 2, ad Zenonem, col. 904B: sedem
beati Marci evangelistae ad communionem beatissimi Petri, de vitae eorum
meritis devotione reducite. (ed. Thiel, Epist. 1, p. 232, chap. 13). PL ibid.,
,
Epist. 6, ad Acacium, col. 922C: beati Marci sedes (ed. Thiel, Epist. 6, p. 244).
17 Gelasii Papae I Epistolae at decreta PL, 59, Epist. 1, ad Euphemium,
,
cols. I4B, 19B; Epist. 4, ad Faustum Mag. cols. 27C, 30B; Epist. 14, sive
,
Tractatus, col. 89B. Cf. also Epist. 8 ad Anastasium imper. col. 43D: quia
mundo radix est apostoli gloriosa confessio. (ed. A. Thiel Epist. 3, p. 313,
,
Epist. 10, p. 342, Trad. 2,p. 52g, Epist. 12, pp. 352, 353 chaps. 3, 6). Cf. also
,
his letter to the bishops of Dardania (Eptst. 13) quoted infra p. 113 and ,
Epist. 11, ad episc. Dardaniae (col. 59C; ed. Thiel, Epist. 18 p. 385). j i
,
M See infra pp. 112, 116.

,
19 Gelasii tomus de anathematis vinculo PL, ibid., cols. 102, 103; ed. Thiel.,
,
p. 558: alia autem, quae per incompetentem praesumptionem illic (at the
Council of Chalcedon) prolata sunt vel potius ventilata, quae sedes aposiolica
gerenda nullatenus delegavit, quae mox a vicariis sedis apostolicae contradicta
manifestum est, quae sedes apostolica, etiam petente Marciano principe ,
nullatenus approbavit, quae praesul Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae tunc

III
Dardania (495) flatly rejected the thesis that Constantinople had

the right to special privileges because it was the Imperial City.
This is the most outspoken passage in the letter:80 "It is ridiculous
that they wish to give a prerogative to Acacius on the ground that
he is Bishop of the Imperial City. Is it not true that the Emperor
resided at various times in Ravenna, Milan, Sirmium, and Treves ?
And have the priests of those cities usurped for themselves anything
besides the honors which were devolved to them in ancient times ?
If there is any question of the dignity due to cities, the dignity
of the second and third sees [Alexandria and Antioch] is greater
than that of the city [Constantinople] which not only is not number-
ed among [major] sees, but is not even enumerated among cities
'
with metropolitan rights. But when you say Imperial City,'

[remember that] there is a difference between the power of secular
kingship and the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities "
These are forceful words, and it is surprising that Gelasius did not
recognize the metropolitan dignity of Constantinople. As a matter
of fact, in two other passages in the same letter he declared that
Constantinople's metropohtan was the bishop of Heraclea. When
defending Rome's refusal to recognize the orthodoxy of Peter the
Fuller of Alexandria, who was accepted by Acacius of Constantinople,
Gelasius writes:21 "Was it proper for the apostolic see to prefer the
'
judgment of a bishop of Heraclea s district [paroeciae Heraclensis

ecclesiae], I mean the Pontiff of Constantinople, or of some other
bishops who were to be convoked with him, or because of him, when
the Bishop of Constantinople refused to appear before the apostolic
see which is the first see ? This Bishop, even if he were adorned with
the prerogative of a metropolitan, or even if he had a place among
the [major] sees, had no right to ignore the decision of the first see
before whose judgment he was called when the Bishop of the second
"
see had appealed [to it] in accordance with the canons.

Anatolius, nee se praesumpsisse professus est, et in apostolicae sedis antistitis
non negavit posifa potestate; quae ideo... sedes apostolica non recepit, quia
qiiae privilegiis universalis ecclesiae contraria probantur, nulla rattone sus-
tinet. Similar passage in col. 107B; ed. Thiel, Tract. 4, p. 565, chap. 9.
20 PL ibid., Epist. 13, cols. 71, 72; Col. Avel., Epist. 95, pp. 387 seq.;
.
ed."Thiel, Epist. 26, pp. 405 seq., chap. 10.

PL, ibid., col. 65C; Col. Avel., ibid,, p. 376, 21; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 398,
chap. 4.
112
A little further on, the Pope repeated with great emphasis:22

"
It is thus sufficiently clear that Acacius had no authority to annul

the decision of the apostolic see without any knowledge of it [by the
latter]. Thus let them say: 'By what synod did he presume to do so ?
Even this he had no right to do without the [co-operation of] the
apostolic see. The Bishop of what see? Of what metropolitan city
[is he] the Pontiff? Is it not true that [he is the Bishop] of the
district of the Church of Heraclea?'"
It is clear from these statements that Gelasius refused not only
to count Constantinople among the greater sees, but even to recog-
nize its metropohtan status. As has been seen from his Tomus,
Gelasius interpreted Marcian's and Anatolius' letters to Leo very
literally. He is even more outspoken in his letter to the bishops of
Dardania:28 "If the bishops of Constantinople flatter themselves
because their city is the residence of the emperor, and think there-
fore that their persons are more important let them listen to Marcian,
,
the Princeps of that city. When, having interceded for the promotion
of the priest of that city, he was not able to obtain anything that
was contrary to the canons, he extended to Pope Leo of holy
memory the highest praise, because he [the Pope] had not allowed
the rules of the canons to be violated in any manner. Let them
listen to Anatolius, the Pontiff of that same city, or better, to the
clergy of Constantinople, confessing that they were trying to obtain
the same thing, and affirming that all [this] was within the power of
the apostolic bishop. And [let them listen to] the same blessed Pope
Leo, head of the apostolic see, through whose authority the Synod
of Chalcedon was confirmed, ... to rescind by a competent refu-
tation that which had again been attempted in a new way at that
assembly, [and which] would be well outside the canons of Nicaea.
Nonetheless, [they can hear] Probus, Bishop of the City of Canusa
of holy memory, legate of the apostolic see under Pope Simplicius
of blessed memory, teaching the same thing in the presence of the
Princeps Leo, who asked then that it should not be attempted in
M PL ibid., col. 66D; Col. Avel., ibid., p. 378; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 400,
,
'
chap. 5: .. .cujxts sedis episcopus? Cujus metropolitanae civitaiis antistesi

Nonne paroeciae Heracliensis ecclesiae ?
23 PL ibid., col. 72A,D; Col. Avel., ibid., pp. 388 seq.; ed. Thiel, ibid.,
,
p. 406, chap. 10.
s
"3
any way, and refused resolutely to give his consent to it in any way,
and therefore, let them not look at the status of any city, but let
them [rather] properly observe the way of ecclesiastical order con-
firmed by the tradition of the Fathers.24
Gelasius went even further. He established a sub-division of the
three main sees in the Church, and declared that the incumbents of
the major sees could be judged only by the bishop of the first - the
apostolic see. Moreover, he was the first Pope to claim openly primacy
of jurisdiction over the whole Church. He developed his teaching in
three documents in particular: in his instructions to his legate, the
Magister Faustus, in his letter to the Emperor Anastasius, and in the
above-mentioned long letter to the bishops of Dardania. All three
documents deal with the affairs of the Eastern Church.
In his instructions to Faustus Gelasius gave first a very broad
interpretation of the canons of Sardica (343) which established the
right of appeal from the judgment of metropolitans to that of the
bishop of Rome: "These are the canons which decreed that appeals
from the whole Church should be directed to this see. They have,
however, by no means sanctioned an appeal [elsewhere] from [its
judgment]; in this way they have ordained that it should sit in
judgment over the whole Church, but that it should itself be judged
by no-one, and never [have they ordered] that its judgment should
be judged. They have stated that its decision should not be an-
"
25
nulled, but rather ordered that its decrees should be followed.
The Bishop of Constantinople, the instructions continue, was
'
assigned the role of executor of the Pope s decisions, and Acacius

had acted in this role, according to the Pope, when he broke with
24 Gelasius expresses similar ideas in his instruction to Faustus {PL.,
ibid., col. 29A): Et Constantinopolitanae civitatis episcopus, quae ulique per
canones inter sedes nullum nomen accepit...; ed. Thiel, Eptst. 10, p. 345,
chap. 6.
s* PL ibid., col. 28B; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 344, chap. 5: Ipsi sunt canones,
,
qui appellationes totius ecclesiae ad hujus sedis examen voluere deferri ab ipsa
vero nusquam prorsus appellari debere sanxerunt; ac per hoc illam de tota
Ecclesia judicare, ipsam ad nullius commeare judicium, nec de ejus unquam
praeceperunt judicio judicari, sententiamque illius constituerunt non oportere
dissolvi, cujus potius decreta sequenda mandarunt. Cf. also ibid., col. 30B;
ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 347, chap. 9: St quantum ad religionem pertinet, non nisi
apostolicae sedi juxta canones debetur summa judicii totius; si quantum ad
saeculi potestatem, ilia a pontificibus, et praecipere a beati Petri vicario, debet
cognoscere, quae divina sunt, non ipsa eadem judicare.
114
Timothy of Alexandria and Peter of Antioch, who, with others, had

been condemned, sola sedis apostolicae auctoritate. This was a rather
daring statement, and Gelasius obviously reahzed it, for in the
succeeding passage he tried to minimize the roles of the synods and
of the Emperor in the incidents mentioned.
In his famous letter to Emperor Anastasius, Gelasius, after
defining his doctrine on the two powers governing the world -
"
auctoritas sacra pontificum et regalia potestas26 - continued:27 If it

is fitting that, in general, the faithful should subordinate their
hearts to all priests who are correctly administering things divine,
how much more should one endeavor to be in accord with the holder
of the see, whom not only the divine will wished to be superior to all
priests, but whom [also] the common piety of the Church following
[the divine will] has continually celebrated [as such]. As your piety
can clearly realize, never can anyone elevate himself through any
human counsel whatever to that privilege or confession of him [Peter]
whom the voice of Christ had placed above all, and whom the
venerable Church has always confessed and reverently regarded as
its primate. What has been established by divine decree can be
attacked by human presumption; it cannot, however, be defeated
by any power."
Further on, when defending the condemnation of Acacius by
Rome, Gelasius exclaimed:28 "By a succession of canons of the
Fathers and by a multiple tradition the authority of the apostolic
see is estabhshed, since through all the Christian centuries it has
been placed at the head of the Church."
These declarations are particularly important because they are
contained in an official letter addressed to the Emperor, and the
28 Cf F. Dvomik, "Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasius I," Byzanii-
.
"
nische Zeitschrift, 44 (1951), pp. 111-116. A. Michel ( Der Kampf um das

"
politische oder petrinische Prinzip der Kirchenfiihrung, in Das Konzil von
Chalkedon, 2, ed. A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht [Wiirzburg, 1953], pp. 557-562)
' '
misunderstood the main core of the author s thesis. It is the author s intention
to deal with this subject more thoroughly in his book on the Origins of
Christian Political Philosophy, now in preparation. Cf. also P. Charanis,
Church and State in the Later Roman Empire. The Religious Policy of Anasta-
sius the First (Madison, Wis., 1939).
17 PL ibid., cols. 42C,D, 43A; ed. Thiel, Epist, 12, pp. 551 seq. chaps. 2, 3,
,
M PL ibid., col. 45C; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 356, chap. 9: Apostolicae vero
,
sedis auctoritas yuod cunctis saeculis Christianis Ecclesiae praelata sit universae,
et canonum serie paternorum et multiplici traditione ftrmatur.
"5
Byzantines could thus clearly see to what extent claims resulting

from the Petrine tradition might be advanced.
Gelasius was even more outspoken in his long letter to the bishops
of Dardania who were especially susceptible to propaganda reaching
Illyricum from Constantinople. In order to point out to them the
minor position of the see of Constantinople in Church organization,
Gelasius repeatedly spoke of the first, second, and third sees -
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch - stressing at the same time that
the second and third sees could be judged only by the first.89
In the letter or treatise addressed to the Eastern Bishops by
Felix III, Gelasius, its true author, had already questioned the
competence of Acacius to receive Peter Mongus into the Church, even
if the latter had repented of his error of faith, for the only competent
authority in this case was the Bishop of Alexandria who himself
could not have so acted without reporting the matter to the Roman
See.30
This subordination of Alexandria and Antioch to Rome was
proclaimed with particular forcefulness by Gelasius in his second
treatise against Acacius, composed between the years 492 and 496.
When speaking of the reception into the Church of Peter Mongus,
Gelasius emphatically declared r30' "But it will never be taught,
*
» PL ibid., col. 64A; Col. Aval., p. 373; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 396, chap. 3:
,
loannes secundae sedis antistes .. ad primae sedis audientiam cohortatus est,

vel venire debere vel mittere. Licet enitn synodus iteranda non esset, tamen con-
grueret, ut cuiuslibet civitatis episcopus primae sedis iudicium non vitaret, ad
quod convenerat secundae sedis antistes, qui nisi a -brima sede non posset
audiri. PL, ibid., col. 65B; Col. Avel., p. 375, ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 397,chap. 4:
Cur ... lohannem, quern suis litteris impetebat, qualemcumque secundae sedis
episcopum, in primae sedis beati Petri apostoli iudicio confutare despexit.
Cf. also cols. 66B., 67B, 69C,D; Col. Avel., pp. 377, 379, 384; ed. Thiel, ibid.,
pp. 399, chap. 4, 400, chap. 5, 403, chap. 7.
30 PL 58, col. 949B; ed. Thiel, ibid., pp. 21 seq., Epist. 1, pp. 291 seq.,
,
chap. 9: Siquidem Ecclesiae regula vetusque traditio nota sit omnibus: ab

episcopo enim provinciae suae, id est secundae sedis antistite, eum vel discuti
vel recipi convenisset. Qui tamen Alexandrinus antistes, .,. non prius hoc
faceret, quam ad sedem apostolicam retulisset. Docent hoc catholici gesta Timothei,
aliorumque exempla multorum, qui acceptis libellis hereticorum, ... non prius
receptionem eorum communionemque confirmant, quam ad hanc sedem satis-
facientium gesta dirigerent, atque hinc poscerent, sicut factum est, debere
firmari. Cf. also the very severe passage concerning the same incident in
Gelasius' letter to the Eastern bishops (PL, 59, col. 93B,C; ed. Thiel, Epist.
27, p. 426, chap. 4.
soa PL ibid., Epist. 14, sive Tractatus, col. SgA.B; ed. Thiel, tract. 2, p. 528,
,
chap. 8.
116
never be shown, never be proved in any way that his cleansing

{purgatio), which has not been performed according to competent
rules, was legitimate. Because no-one would have been able either
to expel or to demote the head of the second see without the consent
of the first, neither should he [have done so]. Unless it were that
the state of things was already so disturbed and confused, and that the
first, second, and third sees were no longer respected and acknowl-
edged according to the ancient statutes of the Fathers, and that after
their head has been removed, as we see, all the members were in
conflict with each other. For on what grounds should [honor] be
paid {deferendum) to other sees if the traditional reverence {reverentia)
is not paid to the first see, that of Blessed Peter, through which
the dignity of all bishops is constantly being fortified and confirmed,
and whose rank of honor {honor) is expressed through the invin-
"
cible and unique judgment of the 318 Fathers? Gelasius then

quoted the classical argument for the Roman primacy (Matt. 16:
18.) adding to it the two passages from Luke's and John's Gospels
,
(Luke 22:32; John 21:15-17). The whole passage is one of the

most outspoken pleas for the Roman primacy written by Gelasius,
In his letter to the bishops of Dardania, the Pope defined the
extent of the primatial powers. First he claimed the right to execute
the decisions of the general councils. Basing his claim on the tradition
"
of the Fathers, he declared:31 Let no true Christian ignore the fact
that the constitution of any synod which has been approved by
the consent of the whole Church can be executed by no other see
than the first, which confirms any synod by its authority and watches
over it through continuous supervision, especially because of its
principate, which Blessed Peter the Apostle obtained through the
word of the Lord and which it has always retained and continues
to retain "
But, he continued, this was only one of the apostolic privi-
leges; the apostohc see had the power to absolve any person from
"
any sentence pronounced by any prelate:32 The entire Church over

the entire world knows that the chair of the Blessed Peter has the
31 PL, ibid., col. 63B,C; Col.Avel., Epist. 95, p. 372; ed. Thiel, Epist. 26,
p. 395. chap. 3.
32 PL, ibid., col. 66C; Col. Avel., p. 378; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 399, chap. 5.
117
right to loose what has been bound by the sentences of any bishop
whatsoever, as the see of Peter is entitled to jurisdiction over any
Church, while no one is entitled to pass judgment on its decision,
for the canons have permitted that appeals should be directed to
it from all the world but no-one is permitted to appeal its decision."
,
This power extended also to the decisions of synods and was not
bound by them:33 "The apostolic see has often had the liberty
ijacultas), without a synod preceding it, to loose those whom a
synod had unjustly condemned, and also, if necessary, to condemn
"
others without the convocation of a synod.

The Pope then quoted some instances when, according to his
interpretation, though not with strict historical truth, the Roman
"
see had exercised this power: an Eastern synod had rejected

Athanasius of blessed memory; but the apostolic see took him up,
denying confirmation of the condemnation by the Greeks, and
acquitted him: in the same way a synod of catholic bishops
had condemned, too, John [Chrysostom] of Constantinople; him
also the apostolic see released merely by refusing to confirm the
sentence. In the same way the apostolic see released Flavian of
blessed memory, who was similarly condemned by an assembly of
bishops, merely through not agreeing to his condemnation. Further-
more the apostolic see condemned by its authority Dioscorus, the
Bishop of the second see, who had been admitted there; it dissolved
the godless synod by refusing its concurrence and for the sake of
,
truth ordered, on its own authority, that the Synod of Chalcedon

11
'
should be held.
It would be interesting to know what impression Gelasius' un-

compromising attitude made on the Eastern Church in general, and
particularly in Constantinople. Unfortunately, authentic documents
'
emanating directly from the East in answer to the Pope s defense

of his uncompromising position are missing but Gelasius' writings
,
give at least a few indications of how this attitude was received by

Eastern bishops.
The irst treatise, in which Gelasius dealt with some objections
f
sent by the Easterners to Felix III gives an insight into the thinking
33 PL, ibid., col. 67B,C; Col. Avel. p. 379; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 400, chap. 5.
118
of the Eastern clergy. Their position, insofar as it can be determined,

implies that the idea that the universality of the Church should be
represented by and merged with the universality of the Empire
still predominated in the East, but they declared that such an
uncompromising attitude on the part of the Pope, endangered the
whole Church,31 and that it was in the interest of the Empire to
show a more compromising spirit even in matters which concerned
the Creed.86
The Pope's definitions of the extent of his primacy must have
frequently bewildered the Easterners; one special instance being
his letter to the Emperor Anastasius. In this Gelasius complained
that the Easterners termed him "proud and arrogant."38 This,
however, did not mean that they rejected outright his claims to the
primacy, because, in his first treatise, Gelasius quoted the Easterners
"
as saying that the Pope is diminishing his own privileges because

"
of his stubbomess. 37
Moreover, they apparently found the Roman see's condemnation

of bishops, without announcement to the Easterners and without
synodal procedure, very strange and contrary to tradition. The
Pope's answers to those accusations show particular irritation.38
34 PL 58, col. 961 A; ed. Thiel, Epist. 1, p. 305, chap. 32: Sed obstinatione
,
vestra, inquis, in periculum cansam totius Ecclesiae adducitis.

31 PL ibid., col. 958C; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 303, chap. 29: Sed nunc, inquis,
,
utili talis interest reipublicae. Sed sacerdos atlegare debuit, utilitatis interesse
potius publicae, ut divina communio et fides integra servaretur....
34 Commonitorium ad Faustum, PL, 59, Epist. 4, col. 30A; ed. Thiel, Epist.
10, p. 346, chap. 9: isti sedem beati Petri apostoli blasphemare praesumunt...
et nos insurer superbos esse pronuntiant. Epist. ad A nastasium, ibid., col. 46C,D;
ed. Thiel, p. 358, chap. 12: Sed adhuc apostolicam sedem ... superbam vocare
arrogantemque contendunt ... si nos superbi sumus ... si nos elatis sumus...
87 PL 58, col. 961 A; ed, Thiel, Epist. 1, p. 305, chap. 33: Sed apostolicae
,
sedis dignitatem ista obstinatione minuitis..., col. 965C; ed. Thiel, p. 310,
chap. 4: sed privilegia inquis, vestra hoc obstinatione minuitis. Igitur ne
,
minus juris nabeamus, efftciamur haeretici et ne amittamus ecclesiasticae

,
privilegia potestatis, amittamus ipsam religionem ....

M Commonitorium ad Faustum PL., 59, Epist. 4, co\s.2jC,T), 28B; ed.
,
Thiel, Epist. 10 pp. 342, chap. 3, 343, chaps. 4, 5: Ostendant, qui nobis
,
canones nituniur apponere quibus hoc canonibus, quibus regulis qua lectione,
,
quove documento ... sive factum est unquam, vel faciendum esse mandatur....
Euphemium vero miror si ignorantiam suam ipse non perspicit, qui dicit
,
Acacium ab uno non potuisse damnari. I fane non perspicit secundum formam
,
synodi Chalcedonensis Acacium fuisse damnatum ?... Nobis opponunt

,
canones, dum nesciunt quid loquantur. Epist. ad episcopos orientates PL, ibid.,
,
Epist. 15, cols. 94C D.,95A, 97A C; ed. Thiel, Epist. 27, pp. 429, chaps. 6, 7,
, ,
119
Such accusations and the Pope's brisk and sometimes biting

replies naturally failed to ease the tension between East and West.
In some of Gelasius' letters an air of superiority toward "the
Greeks" can be detected. He was puzzled by the attitude of the
Greeks, who could not comprehend the logic of his deductions, and
enjoyed their own combinaiioni with the Creed as defined by the
Council of Chalcedon.89 Here, perhaps for the first time, a papal
document comments on Greek unreliability in matters of faith.
Gelasius launched the accusation against the Greeks by saying that
heretics were "at home" with them,40 an accusation which developed
later into a general condemnation of Greeks as heretics and schis-
matics by the entire West.
Thus there is no doubt that during the papacy of Gelasius the
relationship between East and West deteriorated considerably.
The Pope could rightly boast that he was defending the Creed
defined by Leo the Great, and confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon.
The Easterners, though in the majority, were in the wrong; but,
although they made a few attempts at reconciliation, Gelasius made
little, if any, effort to meet them halfway. He could not, of course,
compromise the Creed, and for this he deserves the gratitude of all
orthodox Christians, but there are ways and means of saying and
doing the right thing in the right way, and in this respect Gelasius
was not adept. Under similar circumstances St. Leo the Great
had also shown admirable firmness, but, at the same time, he
devised a way of handling the Greeks that was effective without
being excessively offensive to their sensibilities.
432, chap. 9, 433, chap. 10: An de uno dolet Acacio, quod speciali synodo non
fuerit confutatus, cum proprium crimen suis litteris ipse detexerit . Certe
quod sedes apostolica deereverat,Orientalibus episcopis non innotuisse jactatur....
Hie vobis synodus numquam venit in menteam, et certe de personis, ut dictum
est, nulla veteri lege constrictis.... Dicitis, synodum in unius hominis persona
debuisse tractari, quam in damnandis tantis pontificibus catholicis non quat-
sistis....
39 Epist XV ad episc. orientates, PL, ibid., cols. 98D,g9A; ed Thiel, ibid.,
.
pp. 434, chap. 11, 435, chap. 12: Sed haec apud Graecos facilis et inculpabilis
putatur esse permixtio, apud quos nulla est veri falsique discretio .et cum omnibus
reprobis volunt esse communes, in nulla monstrantur probitaie constare. This
is of course a gross exaggeration explainable only by the "heat of the struggle."
40 Epist Ill ad episcopos Dardaniae, PL, ibid., col. 23B; ed. Thiel,
.
Epist. 7, p. 335, chap. 2: Apud Graecos, quibus multas haereses abundare non
dubium est.
120
Of course, since the reign of Leo the Great, events had occurred
which inevitably increased the tension between East and West.
The Acacian schism was a serious affair. Gelasius' firmness however, ,
certainly impressed the Westerners, and the prestige of the Roman

'
see undoubtedly grew in the West because of the Pope s uncom-

promising attitude. This is very clearly illustrated by the accla-
mations of the enthusiastic Western prelates who gathered in Rome
in 495 to receive back into the Church the legate Misenus. The
latter, when sent by Felix III to Constantinople, communicated
with Acacius, and was accordingly anathematized by the Pope.
The prelates not only invoked St. Peter to intercede for Gelasius ,
but acclaimed the Pope as vicar of Christ.41

Dionysius Exiguus, the author of the famous Collection of Papal
Decrees, transmitted to posterity the sentiments of admiration and
'
gratitude felt for their master by Gelasius disciples. In the intro-

duction to his Collection, dedicated to Cardinal Julian his bene- ,
factor and Gelasius' disciple, Dionysius inserted a long eulogy on

Gelasius, exalting his humility, his labors for the Church, his charity
"
and chastity, and calling him a shepherd and an imitator of the

supreme good Shepherd-a chosen head of the apostolic see who
"
obeyed and taught the precepts of God. 42

In spite of the bitterness that Gelasius' firmness and sharp
criticism may have left in their hearts, the Easterners were impressed
by the Pope's emphasis on the apostolic character of his see and ,
by the deductions he made from the fact that he was the successor
of St. Peter. A perusal of the correspondence addressed to Gelasius
and to his successors from the Eastern part of the Empire during
the last stage of the Acacian schism shows clearly that the a-
postolicity of the Roman see was stressed more and more by the
Easterners.
41 PL . ibid., col. 190C; ed. Thiel, Epist. 30, p. 447; Col, Avel. Epist. 103,
p. 487: Omnes episcopi etpresbyteri surgentes in synodo acdamaverunt: "Exaudi ,
Christe, Gelasio vital" dictum quindecies. "Domine Petre tu ilium serval"

,
Dictum duodecies. "Cujus sedem et annosl" Dictum septies. "Vicarium Christi

ie videmusl" Dictum undecies. "Apostolum Petrum te videmusV Dictum
"
sexies. Cujus sedem et annosl" Dictum septies trigesies.
41 Dionysii Exiqui Collectio decretorum pontificum Romanorum, PL, 67,
cols. 231 seq. Cf. Thiel, pp. 286, 287. See Caspar Geschichte, 2, pp. 79 seq.
,
Caspar ends his history of Gelasius very fittingly with this quotation of
Dionysius' eulogy.
121
The letters of Eastern prelates to Gelasius are not preserved, and

it is impossible to reconstruct from his replies the titles they be-
stowed on him. Only a letter of the bishops of Dardania to Gelasius
in 494 is extant. In this the prelates of that part of Illyricum assured
the Pope of their fideUty to the faith of Chalcedon and to the
apostolic see. The letter43 is addressed Domino, sancto, afostolico
et beatissitno patri patrum Gdasio papae urbis Romae, and is written
with great respect and in a very devout spirit. The bishops declared
that they would always obey the admonitions and follow the
directives given to them by the "apostolic see," and asked "his
"
apostolate to send a legate from his "angelic see" with further in-
structions.
It was natural that the bishops of the Latin part of Illyricum,
which belonged to the patriarchate of Rome, would hold the popes
in high esteem, and willingly recognize all claims based on the
apostolic and Petrine origin of their see. But, in view of the inten-
sive propaganda to which the bishops of Illyricum were subjected
by the followers of Acacius-which as we have seen, had deeply
impressed the vicars of the popes, the metropolitans of Thessa-
lonica-the declaration of the bishops of Dardania carries some
weight.
However, even the prelates of the three Eastern patriarchates
'
were impressed by the claims formulated so boldly in Gelasius letters,

and by the uncompromising attitude of the Roman papacy. This is
best illustrated in the letter addressed by the orthodox Eastern
'
prelates to Gelasius second successor. Pope Symmachus {498-514).

It is a very moving plea for help addressed by Eastern Christendom
to the head of the Church, the Bishop of Rome. The orthodox
bishops, who were deprived of their sees because of their refusal to
follow Acacius and his allies in Alexandria and Antioch, first recalled
Christ's parables of the lost sheep and the pieces of silver (Luke
43 PL, 59, cols. 21 seq., Col. Avel., Epist. 80, pp. 233-225; ed. Thiel,
Epist. 11, pp. 348 seq: ...patrum in omnibus custodientes praecepta et in-
violabilia sacrosanctorum canonum instituta sectantes apostohcae et singulari
illi sedi vestrae communi fide et devotione parere contendimus .... Apostolatus
vester dignetur admiltere.... Unum ex angelica sede vestra ... ad nos usque
praecipite destinare, ut sub ejus praesentta, quae fides ortkodoxa et vestrae
iussiomis sinceritas postulat, ordinentur ....
122
15:4 seq.), and then appealed to the Pope in a most passionate

way:44
"
We recalled this, o most holy one, daring to plead neither

for one lost sheep, nor for the loss of one drachma, but for the
salvation, dear to us, of both the Eastern parts and of most of the
three divisions of the habitable world, which were redeemed from
the sinful state transmitted by the parents, not with perishable
silver or gold, but with the precious blood of the Lamb of God. So
teaches the blessed prince of the most glorious apostles [I Pet. 1:18],
whose chair Christ, the best shepherd, had entrusted to you, who
came to seek and to free what was lost, and who gave his soul for
the redemption of many. In imitating him, most holy and most
blessed one, hasten to help us, as the blessed Paul, your teacher,
once hastened to help the Macedonians [Acts 16].... You are taught
daily by your holy teacher, Peter, to tend the sheep of Christ
entrusted to you over the whole habitable world, which were
gathered, not by force, but by their own will; you who, with the
'
most learned Paul, cry to us who are subject to you, saying, We

'
are not dominating you in faith, but collaborating in joy [II, Cor.
1:24] But all of us, both the orthodox who are in communion
and [also] those who are abstaining from communion, wait upon
both God and you for the light of visitation and reception {assumptio).
Thus, hasten to help the East, whence the Saviour of the Universe
"
sent two great lights, Peter and Paul, to illuminate the whole world.
This is one of the most straightforward acknowledgments by
Eastern prelates of Roman primacy in the Church, and it is some-
what surprising that Symmachus should have paid almost no
attention to so moving and sincere a plea. The letter of October 8,
'
512,45 regarded by some as the Pope s answer to the plea of the

orthodox Easterners, was in reality addressed to the prelates of
Illyricum. At the end of the missive they were warned that if they
paid no heed to papal admonition, they would find themselves in
the same unfortunate situation as the Church of Constantinople.
This attitude was resented by the Easterners who felt that Rome,
44 Symmachus, Epistolae et Decreta, PL, 62, cols. 56 seq.; ed. Thiel, Epist.
12, pp. 709 seq.
45 PL ibid., Epist. 7, cols. 61-63; ed. Thiel, Epist. 13, pp. 717-722, Cf.
,
Caspar, op. cit., p. 123.

123
while boasting of its own orthodoxy, was not doing enough to help
'
others to attain it; or so at least their use, in their plea, of Paul s
'
epistle [II Cor. i:24]seems to indicate, and Symmachus silence

could easily have given them the impression that their resentment
was not groundless.
Further evidence of respect and recognition of the apostolic
character of the Roman see is to be found in other documents that
reached Pope Hormisda (514-523) from the East during the last
phase of the Acacian schism, for the liquidation of which the Pope
had labored from the beginning of his reign. In a letter dated
January 12, 515, Dorotheus, the Metropolitan of Thessalonica,
hailed Hormisda as a true peace maker and "champion of the true
faith, who never errs," who-as from a tower-calls to unity the
"
separated members of the Church which Christ our God has entrus-
ted to you." Dorotheus wrote: "I write to you and address the
blessed person of your holiness, showing that I am one in joy with
the blessed see of the most holy Apostle Peter, which is governed
by such a hand.. .."45a He also professed that he learned to respect
the Roman see from the tradition of the Holy Fathers, and expres-
"
sed the wish that through the humanity of our Lord and God,
Jesus Christ, and through the intercession of the Apostle Peter,
most blessed above all, and Paul, the most wise above all, due
honor may in justice be given and reserved to their see and to your
beatitude, in order that in your time the apostolic see may obtain
with due honor something like a second principate, so that all discord
"
may be banned from the Church. He expressed at the end of his

letter the hope that "all that which is due to the venerable see
of Peter, who is blessed above all, shall be given to it when the
Church shall again be united in peace."
The above declaration assumes even greater importance when the
ambiguous attitude of Dorotheus and his predecessor Andrew4*
in the Acacian controversy is taken into consideration.
Even the Emperor Anastasius seems in one instance to have
'
moved in this direction, for, together with Dorotheus letter, the
458 Hormisda Epistolae et Decreta, PL, 63, cols. 371 seq.; Col. Avel.,
,
Epist. 105, pp. 495 seq.; ed. Thiel, Epist. 3, pp. 742 seq.
44 On their attitude see Caspar, op. cit., pp. 55, 84 seq., 131 seq., 165 seq.
,
124
Pope received an epistle sent by the Emperor to "the most holy and
pious Archbishop and Patriarch Hormisda,47 in which Anastasius
expressed his relief on learning that the Roman see was then occupied
by someone noted for his mild and conciliatory character. It was ,
in fact, this realization that had induced the Emperor to resume

"
correspondence with the Roman see, and to request what God and
our Saviour had taught the holy apostles through His divine exhort-
ation, and especially the blessed Peter, in whom he founded the
"
strength of His Church. Anastasius first mentioned new rehgious

troubles in the province of Scythia, bordering on Illyricum, whither
discontent with the Emperor's religious policy, exploited by Vitalian
for his own political advancement, had spread from Illyricum. Then
he announced his intention of having these questions decided in a
"
council, and asked his apostolate" to play the role of intermediary
{mediatorem se apostolatus vester facial).
However, the papal legates, sent to Constantinople in the hope
that they would find the Emperor well-disposed to change his
religious policy, discovered otherwise, and returned to Rome with
another imperial letter48 which made clear that Anastasius was
persevering in his original attitude, and which declared that the
Henoiicon was in accord with the decisions of Chalcedon. But,
withal, Anastasius sought to conclude in a more conciliatory
tone, and closed his letter calling the Pope apostolatus vester, thus
recognizing the apostolic and Petrine character of the Roman see.
The papal legates were given a document to be signed by bishops

renouncing the schism. It was the famous Libellus Hormisdae con-
taining a clear definition of Roman primacy in matters of faith.
The following excerpt is most relevant to our inquiry:49 "The first
[condition of] salvation is to preserve the rule of the true faith, and
not to deviate in any way from the constitutions of the Fathers.
47 PL, ibid,, cols. 369 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 107, pp. 499 seq.; ed. Thiel,
Epist. 2, p. 742.
44 PL ibid., cols. 381 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 125, pp. 537-540; ed. Thiel,
,
Epist. 10, pp. 761-764.

*. PL
,ibid., col. 393; Col. Avel., Epist. 116b, pp. 520 seq.; ed. Thiel, Epist.
7, pp. 754 seq. On the text and editions of the Libellus, see Caspar, op. cit.,
"
pp. 764 seq. Cf. also W. Haacke, Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas
"
im Acacianischen Schisma, AnalectaGregoriana, 20 (Rome, 1939), pp. 106-150.
125
And because the declaration of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be

'
omitted, saying Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my
Church,' these words have been proved true by events, for in the
apostolic see the Catholic religion has always been kept immacu-
late. Therefore, desiring not to be separated in any way from this
hope and faith, and following in everything the constitutions of
the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies "
After enumerating all heretics, from Nestorius to Acacius, whom
the bishops were asked to condemn, the Libellus continues: "Thus,
as we have said, in following in all things the apostolic see and in
professing all its constitutions, I hope that I will deserve to remain
in the same communion with you which is professed by the apostolic
see, in which persists the total and true strength of the Christian
religion. Promising also not to recite in the liturgy the names of men
who have been separated from communion with the Catholic
Church, which means who do not agree with the apostolic see...."
Although the Libellus appeared unacceptable to many in the East,
it must be admitted that Hormisda manifested some restraint in
its composition. Almost certainly Gelasius or Symmachus would
have expressed themselves in far more resolute and less restrained
terms, making the acceptance of the Libellus by the Easterners
even more difficult.
Some declarations made by the Easterners went far toward
'
accepting Roman claims and must also be recalled. Anastasius

religious policy found many opponents, as has already been noted,
and this was cleverly exploited by the ambitious Goth Vitalian, to
whom Anastasius had to yield, at least for a time, by appointing
him magister militum and commandant of Thracian troops.50 The
long-protracted schism created some weariness among many
Easterners, and inclined them toward a final reconciliation with Rome.
All of this explains why the Libellus, though undoubtedly read
with mixed feelings by many, did not encounter wholesale disap-
proval in the East. The bishops of Illyricum were the first to sign it.
John, Bishop-elect of Nicopolis, expressed his consent in a letter51
M Cf . for details L. Duchesne, L'Eglise au K/e silcle (Paris, 1925), pp. 37
seq.
"
PL, ibid., cols. 387 seq.; Col.Avel., Epist. 117, pp. 522-523; ed. Thiel
Epist. 15, pp. 770-772-
126
"
sent at the beginning of October 516 to My Lord the most holy

and most blessed Father of Fathers, colleague in the ministry, and
Prince of Bishops Hormisda." In this he asked the Pope "to take
care of all Churches and of that of Nicopolis according to the
habit of your apostolic see [iuxta consuetudinem apostolicae sedis
"
vestrae), and to send back the bearer of the letter Rufinus "with
"
spiritual and apostolic instructions.

The bishops of Epirus, who met in a local synod for John's
election, followed the example of their new metropolitan. Their
letter52 gave the Pope the same title as John's and they assured him
that they persisted in communion with "the apostohc see" as did
John's predecessor Alcison, who died in Constantinople where he
had met the Roman legates. Asking for confirmation of the election
of John as his successor, they declared that he had always followed
the Pope's "apostolic admonitions."
Previously the Pope had announced to Bishop Caesarius of Aries53
the defection of many Illyrian bishops from Dorotheus of Thessalo-
nica because the latter was afraid to break off his relations with
Timothy of Constantinople, who had been appointed by Anastasius
and who replaced the orthodox Macedonius.54 Now the Pope was
pleased to let Avitus, Bishop of Vienne, know of this new
success.55
Hormisda obtained even greater satisfaction soon afterward from
Syria Secunda. The monks who were particularly numerous in that
province remained faithful to Chalcedon, and opposed the religious
policy of the new Patriarch of Antioch, Severus. When they had
organized a mass pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Symeon the Sty lite,
in protest against Severus, the latter let them be attacked by his
adherents. A massacre followed, and three hundred and fifty monks
SJ PL, cols. 389 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 119, pp. 526-528; ed. Thiel. Epis.t
16, pp. 772-774.
83 PL, ibid., Epist. 30, cols. 431 seq.; ed. Thiel, Epist 9, pp. 758-761.
54 See for details, E. Miiller. "Fragments in dits de Theodore le Lecteur
'
et de Jean d Egee," Revue archiologique N.S., 26 (1873), pp. 396-400.

Theodore says that forty bishops from Illyricum and Greece had broken off
relations with Dorotheus. Cf. also Theophanes, Chronographia, ad. an. 6008,
ed. Bonn, p. 250; de Boor, p. 162.
86 PL ibid., Epist. 10, cols. 394 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 137, pp. 560-564;
,
ed. Thiel, Epist. 22, pp. 783-786.
127
were killed. The survivors appealed to Hormisda for help,56 and the
form of address employed in their letter to him clearly shows how
greatly the prestige of the Roman see had risen in the eyes of
'
orthodox Easterners, and how readily they accepted the Pope s

claims based on the apostolic and Petrine character of his see. The
"
monks addressed Hormisda as the most holy and most blessed
Patriarch of the universe, holding the see of the Prince of the
Apostles, Peter," and continued: "Thus, because Christ, our God,
had instituted a head of the shepherds and a physician and a
surgeon of souls, it is fitting that we expose to your holy person
the suffering which had befallen us." After relating how Severus,
Patriarch of Antioch, and Peter, Bishop of Aparaia, the heads of the
heretics, were vilifying the decrees of Chalcedon, and persecuting
the orthodox, the monks exclaimed:
"
We beseech you thus, O most blessed one, entreating and

supplicating you: arise with fervor and zeal and take just pity on
the torn body - because you are the head of all - and vindicate the
despised faith, the trampled canons, the Fathers covered with
blasphemies, and such a Synod threatened with anathema {anathe-
mate impetitam). To you is given the power and the authority to
bind and to loose .... arise, o holy Father, come to our salvation.
Be the imitator of Christ the Lord who came from Heaven on earth
in order to look for the erring sheep, the one Peter, the Prince of the
Apostles, whose chair you are adorning, and Paul who is the vessel
of election, who during their travels have illuminated the whole
"
world.
One could hardly look for a more touching appeal for help, and
'
a more frank recognition of Rome s claims to primacy from an
Easterner. Hormisda was moved, and, unlike Symmachus who had
left a similar appeal unanswered, he promptly dispatched a long
letter57 consoling the persecuted monks and encouraging them to
continue their fight for the orthodox faith.
**
PL, ibid., cols. 410 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 139, pp. 565-571; ed. Thiel,
Epist. 39, pp. 814-819: Sanctissimo et beatissimo umversi orbis terrae patri-
archae Hormisdae continenti sedem principis apostolorum Petri deprecatio....
PL, ibid., Epist. 23, cols. 415-422; Col. Avel., Epist. 140, pp. 572-585;
ed. Thiel, Epist. 40, pp. 820-830. Cf. E. Caspar, op. cit., 2, pp. 148 seq. The
Pope wrote while the impression of a bitter letter he had received from the
Emperor Anastasius was still in his mind {PL, ibid., cols. 409 seq.; Col. Avel.,
128
The death of Anastasius, who was succeeded by Justin I (518-

527), opened the way to a final reconciliation between East and
West. This reconciliation became even easier when Justinian,
during the reign of his uncle, took the direction of political and
religious affairs into his own hands. The correspondence of Rome
with the East, especially with Constantinople, was very lively
during the negotiations leading to a final reconciliation, and many
letters written by Easterners contain expressions of particular
interest for this study.
The Emperor Justin I was very brief in his first two letters
announcing his election and the intention of his Patriarch John II
to make peace with the Pope,58 He was more eloquent in the letter
of April 22, 5ig,59 notifying the Pope that the Libellus had been
signed by John of Constantinople. There he addressed the Pope as
"
the most blessed Archbishop and Patriarch." When speaking of

Acacius and his followers he said that they "were either the first
who acted in opposition to the apostolic constitutions, or became
"
successors in error. By these words the Emperor could have meant
the papal constitutions, from Felix III onward.
In two others letters (dated 520) Justin called the Roman see
the "apostolic see,"60 and on two other occasions he addressed the
Pope as apostolatus vester.61 The latter title is used more often by
Justin's nephew, Justinian, who also called the Roman see "aposto-
ic."62 In his letter of August 31,520, Justinian spoke of the " p rimacy
Epist. 138, pp. 564 seq.; ed. Thiel, Epist. 38, pp. 813 seq). It is the author's
intention to treat the political ideas contained in the imperial and papal
correspondence of this period in his book The Origins of Christian Political
Philosophy, now in preparation.
68 PL, ibid., cols. 426 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 141, 143, pp. 586 seq.; ed.
Thiel, Epist. 41, 42, pp. 830 seq.: Justinus Augustus Hormtsdae papae.
M PL ibid., cols. 450 seq.; Col, Avel., Epist. 160, pp. 610-612; ed. Thiel,
,
Epist. 66, pp. 861 seq. On Justin's religious policy see A. A. Vasiliev, Justin
the First, Dumbarton Oaks Studies , 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), pp. 132-221.
PL, ibid., col. 486D; Col. Avel., Epist. 192 p. 649, 3; ed. Thiel, Epist.
,
116, p. 918. PL ibid., col. 486A; Col. Avel., Epist. 193, p. 651, 2; ed. Thiel,
,
Epist. 114, p. 915, 1.

41 PL ibid., col. 499B; Col. Avel., Epist. 199, p. 658, 1; ed. Thiel, Epist.
,
126 p. 938. PL, ibid., col. 522D; Col. Avel. Epist. 241, p. 740; ed. Thiel,
,
Epist. 145, p. 983.

M PL ibtd., col. 430D; Col. Avel., Epist. 147, p. 592; ed. Thiel, Epist. 44,
,
p.833; PL,ibid., col. 475B C; Col. Avel., Epist. 187, p. 644, 2, 3; ed. Thiel,
,
Epist. 78, p. 875, chap. 1; PL, ibid., cols.496A 497A; Col. Avel., Epist. 196,
,
9 129
"
of the apostolic see, 63 and in that of September 9, 520, he stressed

the Pope's succession to St. Peter.6*
In their correspondence with the Patriarch of Rome, the Patri-
archs of Constantinople-John II and Epiphanius-followed
estabhshed protocol even more consistently than either Justin or
Justinian. Their letters bear, with insignificant deviations, the
conventional form of address: Domino meo et per omnia Dei amatori
sanctissimo jratri et comministro Hormisdae..., but acknowledge
the apostohc character of the Roman see. The new Patriarch John II
(518-520), when announcing to Hormisda the change in religious
"
pohcy that had taken place in Constantinople, asks him to write
in an apostohc style," and to accept the answer in a brotherly way
for the love of God. At the end of this same letter he requested the
Pope to send legates to Constantinople who "would be worthy of
"
your apostolic see. 65

Although ready at this time for reunion with Rome, the Patriarch
John found it rather difficult to sign the Libellus, as requested by
the Pope. One of the Pope's legates, the Deacon Dioscorus, reported
to Hormisda66 that, after some discussion, the Patriarch consented
to sign, but asked whether he could take the liberty of adding a few
words of introduction. His request was granted, and in his short
pp. 655, 2, 656, 7; ed. Thiel, Epist. 120, p. 921, chaps. 1, 4; PL, ibid., cols.
507D, 5o8A,B; Col. Avel., Epist. 200, pp. 659, 660, 4; ed. Thiel, Epist. 127,
P- 939 {apostolico pairi, apostolatus tester, apostolica sedes); PL, col. 509A;
Col. Avel., Epist. 235, pp. 715, 1, 716, 5; ed. Thiel, Epist. 132, pp. 954, 955;
PL, ibid., col. 510A; Col. Avel., Epist. 243, p. 743; ed. Thief, Epist. 135,
P- 957-
M PL, ibid., col. 508; Col. Avel., Epist. 200, p. 660, 4; ed. Thiel, Epist. 127
p. 939: Aeternitatis igitur supernae tremendique judicii non immetnor sanctitas
vestra, quae sibi commissa sunt, efficaciae tradi deproperet, ut intellegant cuncti
recte vos apostolicae sedis esse primatum sortiios.
**
PL. ibid., col. 509A; Col. Avel., Epist. 235, p. 716, 5; ed. Thiel, Epist.
132, p. 955 :Ostendatergo tuus apostolatus, [quod merito] Petro successit apostolo,
quoniam dominus a vobis utpote summis pastoribus exacturus est universorum
salutem, qui poterunt esse salvi firmata concordia.
,
s PL ibid., col. 429; Col. Avel., Epist. 146, pp. 591, 1, 592, 5; ed. Thiel,
,
Epist. 43, pp. 832, chap. 1, 833, chap. 2: scribere igitur apostolice et rescripta
suscipere fraterne Dei amore dignemini... rogamus vos pacificos viros destinare
et vestrae dignos apostolicae sedis. See also his letter of April, 519, PL, ibid.,
col. 450B; Col. Avel., Epist, 161, p. 613, 7; ed. Thiel, Epist. 67, p. 864,
chap. 3.
**
PL, ibid., col. 447C,D: Col. Avel., Epist. 167, p. 620, 10, 11; ed. Thiel,
Epist. 65, p. 860, chap. 4.
130
preface John stressed the union of the two Churches as follows:67

Sanctissimas enim dei ecclesias, id est superioris vestrae et novellae
istius Romae unam esse accipio; illam sedem apostoli Petri et istius
augustae civitatis unam esse definio.
Although it is evident from this that the Patriarch attempted
to hide the fact that he had to sign a document dictated by the Pope;
although he tried to give the impression that he was not obliged
to do so, since, in his own words, he would have made identical
professions; and although he endeavored here to put both sees on
the same level, it should be pointed out that in fact he attributed
the apostolic character not to his own see, but to Rome alone.
In the same preface John, continuing his declaration stressed
that he was accepting the decisions of the Four Oecumenical
Councils. This statement might have been a deliberate manoeuver,
The oecumenicity of the Council of Constantinople (381) had not
then been explicitly recognized by the Roman see and this recogni- ,
tion might have been a tacit condition to Constantinople's readiness

to agree to a concession demanded by Rome.
John had already mentioned the Four Oecumenical Councils in
his first letter.68 The Pope in his reply, contented himself with
,
mentioning the councils in general but singled out the Council of

,
Chalcedon as a guide, which John had promised to follow 68 and ,
John's emphasis on the Four Councils in the second patriarchal

letter must have been intentional. Although in his letter of thanks
to John70 Hormisda avoided any allusion to the Four Councils the ,
oecumenicity of the Council of Constantinople was tacitly recog-

nized by Rome. Justinian writing on June 29, 519, spoke of the
,
.7 PL , ibid., col, 444A; Col, Avel., Epist. 159, p. 608, 2; ed. Thiel, Epist. 61,
p. 852, chap. 1.
48 PL ibid., col. 429; Col, Avel., Epist. 146, p. 591, 2; ed. Thiel, Epist. 43,
,
p. 832, chap. 1: Ego enim iniquisibili ratione doctrinam sanctorum apostolorum

secundum traditionem sanctorum patrum tenens similiter honorem consub-
stantiali et per omnia sanctae Trinitati offero, sicut in Nicaea 318 coetus
promulgavit et in Constantinopoli 150 conventus firmavit et in Ephesina [200]
concursio firmavit et in Chalcedone conventus catholicus signavit.
.» PL ibid., Epist. 29, col. 430A; Col.Avel., Epist. 145, p. 589, 3;ed.Thiel,
,
Epist. 47, p. 836, chap. 2: dilectionis tuae confessionem gratanter accepimus ,
per quam sanctae synodi comprobantur, inter quas Chalcedonem

70 PL ibid., Epist. 45, cols. 455 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 169, pp. 624-626,
,
ed. Thiel, Epist. 80, pp. 879-881.
9* 131
Four Councils as a matter of course.71 This was the practice in the

East, as Hormisda had already learned from the letter of the Bishop
of NicopoUs, who also spoke of the Four Councils as the source of
the true faith.78
John's successor, too, the Patriarch Epiphanius {520-536), in
his letter to Hormisda announcing his enthronement, enumerated
the Four Councils which had defined the true faith. After writing of
his election, Epiphanius said:78 "Therefore I thought it necessary
to include in my letter this first announcement in order to show
how I am disposed toward your apostolic see. It is my greatest
desire to be united with you and to embrace the divine doctrines
which have been entrusted to your holy see by the blessed and holy
disciples and God's apostles, especially by Peter the head of the
"
apostles, and to esteem nothing more than them.

Epiphanius further promised to preach the true faith to his
Churches, and to keep them always united with himself and with
the Pope, "since they should always be united and inviolate, and
belong to the one body of the common apostolic see and always
"
preserve it as such. 74 Here again the translation is ambiguous, and
it is not clear whether, by the "apostolic Church" he meant the
whole Church or the Roman Church, The see of Rome was, how-
ever, designated as apostohc in the next passage, although at the
beginning of the letter the see of Constantinople was called only
sedes ... sanctae ecclesiae catholicae regiae urbis.
In September 520 Epiphanius addressed another letter to the
Pope in which he recommended moderation in the Pope's con-
71 PL ibid., col. 475C; Col. Avel., Epist. 187, p. 644, 2; ed. Thiel, Epist.
,
78, p. 875, chap. 1.

71 PL ibid., col. 3870,0; Col. Avel., Epist. 117, p. 523, 5, 6; ed. Thiel,
,
Epist. 15, p, 771, chap. 2.

n PL ibid., cols. 494 seq.: Col. Avel., Epist. 195, pp. 652-654; ed. Thiel,
,
Epist. 121, pp. 923-925. The letter is evidently a translation from the Greek
original. The translation is occasionally rather clumsy, as in the following
passage; Est mihi oratio magnopere, beatissime, unire me vobis et divina
amplecti dogmata, quae ex beatis et Sanctis discipulis et apostolis Dei, praecipue
summi Petri apostolorum, sedi sanctae vestrae sunt tradita....
74 Vobis enim manifestum feci et sub me ecclesiis haec praedico, festinans
,
per omnia eas mihique et vestrae beatitudini vinculo caritatis adunari, quas
omnino oportet unitas esse et inviolabiles et corpus unum communis apostolicae
ecclesiae eundenufue perpetuo custodire .... Quos vestra apostolica sedes con-
demnans in sacrts diptychis recitare non iussit....
132
ditions for reconciliation, thus supporting the Emperor's request

that the elimination of Acacius' name from the dyptica should
suffice. In this he mentions again the Four Councils and, including
Constantinople among the major sees, he speaks of the unity of the
"
two patriarchal sees." At the end, however, in his description of
the gifts he sent to the Pope, he calls the Roman see apostolic.78
The imperial embassy, which brought imperial and patriarchal
letters to Hormisda, gave him also a written report of the synod
of Constantinople that had elected Epiphanius to the patriarchal
dignity.76 The Pope, in these communications, is addressed as
"
Father of Fathers, Archbishop and Patriarch." It is interesting

to read in the report a clear allusion to the main argument used in
Rome for the primacy (Matt. 16:18) though interepreted in the
Byzantine way, namely, that the rock on which the Church is built
is the "true incorrupt faith" professed by Peter "After the death
of the late Archbishop and Patriarch of the City of Constantinople,
John of holy memory, God, who had founded this holy Church on the
rock of true incorruptible faith, and decreed that the gates of hell
should not prevail against it, gave us a holy shepherd and Patriarch
-
Epiphanius." At the end of the report the bishops recommended

themselves to the fatherly love of "his apostolate - the Pope," and
" "
mentioned the legates of the apostolic see. The apostolic character
of the Roman see was acknowledged, too, in letters sent to Hormisda
by Pompey,77 a relative of the Emperor Anastasius, by Pompey's
wife Anastasia78 and by his relative Juliana Anicia,79 by the Empress
76 PL, ibid., cols. 498B, 499A; Col. Avel., Epist. 233, pp. 708, 6, 710, 11;
ed. Thiel, Epist. 949, chap. 2, 950, chap. 4: Nam dum una utraque sit ecclesia,
procul dubio et bona, quae per vigilantiam eveniunt, communis exinde laudis
gloria utrisque patriarchalibus sedibus rimatur, ut ... Christus ... magnificetur.
7* PL ibid., cols. 483 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 234, pp. 710, 711, 5, 712, 8,
,
713, ed. Thiel, Epist. 131, pp. 951, chap. 2, 952, chaps. 2, 3.
7** Cf F. Dvomik, The Photian Schism, History and Legend (Cambridge,
.
1948), p. 165, footnote 4, on this interpretation in the East and in the West
in the ninth century.
77 PL ibid., col. 451; Col. Avel., Epist. 163, p. 614; ed. Thiel, Epist. 69,
,
p. 864: apostolico pafri.

78 PL ibid., cols. 451 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist. 165, p. 616; ed. Thiel, Epist.
,
70, p. 865: Patri patrum archiepiscopo universali ecclesiae ... apostolatus

vester, .., apostolico honore suscipiende pater....
n PL ibid., col. 451; Col. Avel., Epist. 164, p. 615; ed. Thiel, Epist. 71,
,
p 866: principalis sedis apostolicae; PL, ibid., col. 488; Col. Avel., Epist. 198,
.
pp. 657 seq.; ed. Thiel, Epist. 119, p. 920: apostolicae sedis probatissimo
133
Euphemia,80 by the nobleman Celer,81 and by Bishops Theodorius of

Lignidum,82 Andrew of Fraevalis,88 and Dorotheus of Thessalonica,.8*
From all of this evidence it is reasonable to conclude that the

long negotiations between East and West, conducted during the
Acacian schism, had contributed considerably to the popularization
of the idea of apostolicity in the East. The apostolic and Petrine
character of the Roman see was generally recognized by the Eastern
Church, and the signing of the Libellus by the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople and the Eastern bishops sealed the victory not only
of orthodoxy, but also of the idea of apostohcity.
On the other hand, however, the Petrine idea, as conceived by
Leo the Great and accepted by Gelasius and Symmachus, did not
achieve the same success; Alexandria remained a monophysite
stronghold, despite some orthodox growth in Egypt, and Antioch,
too, was for the greater part lost to orthodoxy.
The situation would have been different if orthodoxy had been as
firmly restored in the two major sees of the East as it was in Con-
stantinople. Actually there were indications that Alexandria would
have sided with Rome against Constantinople in the struggle over
the recognition of the so-called canon twenty-eight of Chalcedon.
The attitude of Timothy Aelurus on this point has been reported.
Another document indicates that similar sentiments existed in
Alexandria in 497. This is the document that the legates of the see
of Alexandria handed, in Constantinople, to the papal legates who
pontifici.... Venerabilis pater, quod de nostrae fidei inUgritate curam geris,
vicariis gloriosi Petri apostoli ista conveniunt, cut dominus pascendarum ovium
iniunxit officium... tuus apostolatus....
80 PL ibid., col. 487; Col. Avel., Epist. 194, p. 652; ed. Thiel, Epist. 117,
,
p. 919: apostolicae sedis auctoritas....

81 PL ibid., col. 487; Col. Avel., Epist. 197, p. 657; ed. Thiel, Epist, n8,
,
p. 919: apostolico patri ... ad apostolatum vestrum....

8J PL ibid., col. 452; Col. Avel., Epist. 166, p. 617; ed. Thiel, Epist. 62,
,
p. 854: adorando apostolico patri ... ad vestrum pium et sanctum apostolatum..

vestro offerens apostolatui....
83 PL ibid., col 443; Col. Avel., Epist. 215, pp. 673 seq.; ed Thiel, Epist. 63,
,
pp. 855 seq: beatissimo et apostolica sede intima veneratione praeferendo aique
angelicis mentis coaequando patri patrum.. .servi sedis apostolicae....
M PL ibid., col. sooA.B; Col. Avel., Epist. 208, p. 668, 4, 5; ed Thiel,
,
Epist. 128, p. 940. On the ambiguous attitude of Dorotheus and the difficulties
which the Roman legate encountered in Thessalonica see Caspar, op. cit. t
pp. 165 seq.
134
had been sent by Pope Anastasius II to negotiate with the Emperor

Anastasius for the termination of the schism, and it contains an
interesting declaration which stresses the intimate ties between
Alexandria and Rome. The letter began as follows r85
"
The venerable holy Churches of the cities of Rome and Alex-
andria have always preserved concord, not only in the true and
immaculate faith from the time the word of salvation was preached
in them, but also in divine ministry. That is to say in both of them
the foundation of faith was laid by the same man - we mean the
blessed Apostle Peter, whose imitator in everything was the holy
Evangelist Mark - so that, whenever it happened that in times of
uncertainty some councils of bishops were due to be held, the most
holy [man] who presided over the Church of Rome used to delegate
the most reverend archbishop of the city of Alexandria to take his
"
place.
Here is another allusion to the tie between Rome and Alexandria
through St. Peter.86 Moreover, the Roman see was mentioned
throughout with great reverence, and often called apostolic.87 Roman
primacy was at least alluded to at the end of the document when the
legates asked that the Pope88 "may regard also our peoples as his,
"
and may address to them his directives.
In spite of these favorable dispositions, Rome could make no
alliance with Alexandria because the Egyptians persevered in their
heretical beliefs.88* The profession of faith added to this document
was nothing more than that contained in the Henoticon.
85 Mansi, 8, col. 194; Col. Avel., Epist. 102, pp. 468-473; ed. Thiel, Epist.
5, pp. 628-633.
Col. Avel., ibid., p. 469, 6; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 629, chap. 3: Verumtamen
eius volentes satisfacere sanctitati nos earn fidem tenere, quant princeps aposto-
lorum Petrus eiusque discipulus Marcus beatissimi traditerunt....
87 Col Avel., ibid., pp. 469, 3, 471, 10, 472, 13, 473, 14; ed. Thiel, ibid., pp.
.
629, chap. 2, 631, chap. 6, 633, chaps. 7, 8.

88 Col Avel., ibid., p. 473, 16; ed. Thiel, ibid., p. 633, chap. 9: Confidimus
.
auietn in Domino nostra Jesu Christo, quod huic fidei eius beaiitudo consentiens
juxta ilia, quae in responsione suntposita, veluti proprios etiam nostras populos
arbitretur, et pro eorum regimine sollicitudinem gerat.... Cf. Caspar, op. cit.,
pp. 86 seq.
Ma The learned defender of monophysitism in this century, JohnPhiloponus
of Alexandria, writing against the Council of Chalcedon, gives vent to his
very radical opposition to the principle of apostolicity on which Rome
was basing its primacy. The work is lost, but Michael the Syrian has pre-
135
The negotiations for peace were held with the see of Constantinople
which was recognized, de facto, by Rome as a major see in spite of
all that had happened under Leo the Great, Gelasius, and Sym-
machus. It could not have been otherwise, for even papal opposition
could not have stopped the march of history.
In the letter of the Patriarch John II one passage seems to indi-
cate that Constantinople had also attempted to obtain, surrep-
titiously, a recognition de jure of canon three of 381, and of canon
twenty-eight of Chalcedon. In his preface to the Lihellus, which he
signed, John II inserted the words:89 Omnibus actis a Sanctis istis
quattuor synodis, id est Nicaeae, Constantinopdi est Ephesi et Choice-
done, de confirmatione fidei et statu ecclessae adsentio....
This passage seems to indicate that John II had also in mind the
changes in Church administration, made at the Councils of Con-
stantinople and Chalcedon, in favor of the see of the Imperial City.
served in his Chronicle some long extracts from it, in Syriac translation.
In commenting on the instruction given to the legate Paschasinus by Pope
Leon I, Philoponus says, with great emphasis {Chronique de Michel le Syrien ,
translated by J. B. Chabot, 2, bk. 8 [Paris, 1901], chap. 13, pp. 101 seq.):
"
Paschasinus [reprfsentant] de L&m dit: 'Nous avons ordre de I'archevSque

L on, que Dioscorus ne sifege pas dans I'assemblde, mais cju'il soit chass ,...'
Quel canon eccl siastique, quelle loi imp riale a donn a I' vfique de Rome
'
une puissance qu il puisse faire ce qu'il veut, promulguer l gitimement un

d cret en dehors du synode, agir ill galement, et alors m6me que personne
' '
n est d accord avec lui, faire ce qui lui plait? Cela est le propre des seuls
tyrans.-S'ils mettent en avant I'autont apostolique de Pierre, et s'ils
'
croient que le clefs du ciel leur ont iti donates: qu ils considirent les autres
villes qui sont orn es de raurtole apostolique. Je passe sous silence la n6tre
'
qui dirige le si ge de I vang&iste Marcus; mais celle des Eph£siens, institute

'
par I apfitre Jean, est dirig e par un autre, par celui de Constantinople,
'
parce que le si ge de I empire fut transfer la.-Quoi done! Si IdvSque de

Rome est convaincu de penser mal, k cause de ce tr6ne apostolique, on
'
changera la foi de tout le monde ? Pourquoi ceux d Antioche la grande ne

revendiquent-ils pas pour eux la prdseance: premiirement parce que Pierre, '
sur qui les Romains appuient leur grande pretention, y a tout d abord exerc6
'
I autorit ; ensuite parce que la le nom honorable de chr&iens obtint droit
de cit6 ? Pourquoi pas celui de Jerusalem ? Parce que lui seul eut I'autorite
dans la ville imp riale, il obtint la pres ance sur tous les autres, par un certain
'
usage, a cause de la grandeur de la ville et de I autorite imperiale. Mais

' '
aucun canon eccl siastique n a institu , aucune loi imperiale n a etabli

I' v que de Rome autocrate de tout le monde. This is, of course, the voice
"
of a heretic, and it is difficult to say to what extent Philoponus was able to

influence the orthodox who defended Leo's condemation of monophysism.
Photius, in his Bibliotheca [PG, 103, col. 97), devotes a very short remark to
Philoponus' work, with which he was apparently not favorably impressed.
8, PL ibid., col. 44A: Col. Avel., Epist. 159, p. 608, 2; ed Thiel, Epist. 61,
,
pp. 852 seq., chap. 1.
136
It would, however, be an exaggeration to think that the acceptance

of those canons by Rome was conditional on the final reconciliation,
and that Rome had thereby tacitly agreed to it,90 It has already
been pointed out that canon twenty-eight did not appear until
much later in the collection of Byzantine canon law,91 and nothing
in Hormisda's answer to John's letter indicates that the Pope was
aware of having made such a concession.92
In fact, however, the see of Rome was obliged to treat the see of
Constantinople as a major see. John II's attempts98 to put both
sees on the same level have been noted above, and it would have
been quite understandable if some of the clergy of Constantinople
had gone even further and had attempted to claim an apostolic
character for the see of Byzantium also.
In Justinian's letter sent on June 29, 519 to Hormisda a slight
involuntary indication is found as to how this claim could have
been made. Therein, for the first time, a faint reflection of the apos-
tolic glory is allowed to fall upon Constantinople. Hormisda is
invited by Justinian94 to grant his request for the complete pacifi-
cation of the Church, and thereby to honor the rehcs of the apostles
and their church in the residential city.
10 As did Caspar op. cit., p. 158. J. Haller (Das Papsttum, Idee und Wifk-
,
lichkeit, 1 [Urach and Stuttgart, 1950], p. 536) is justified in critisizing Caspar

for this exaggeration.
91 See supra p. 102.
.2 PL, ibid., Epist. 45, cols. 455 seq.; Col. Avel., Epist., 169, pp. 624-627;
ed. Thiel, Episi. 80, pp. 879-881.
.3 See supra p. 131.
,
M PL, ibid., col. 475D; Col. Avel., Epist. 187, p. 645, 5; ed. Thiel, Epist.
78, p. 877, chap. 2: Praesumentes autem de beatttudinis vestrae benivolentia
paternam dilectionem nimium petimus, quatenus reliquiis sanctorum apostolorum
tarn nos quam basilicam eorum hie in domo nostra sub nomine praedictorum
venerabihune constructam illustrare et illuminare large dignemini.... In three
passages of the same letter Justinian recognized the apostolic character of
the Roman see.
137
CHAPTER FOUR
The Birth of the Andrew Tradition Concerning Byzantium
The transfer of Andrew's relics and its meaning - No trace of the

Andrew tradition in Chrysostom's writings - St. Gregory of Nazianzus,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret and Basil of Seleucia on Andrew -
Western writers on Andrew, his cult in the West - The Andrew Legend
unknown in the sixth century - The see of Constantinople called
" "
apostolic from the seventh century onward - This usage not originated
by the Andrew Legend - The defenders of image-worship promote the
idea of apostolicity in Constantinople - The Narratio key to the dating
of writings containing the Andrew and Stachys Legend ? - First codifi-
'
cation of the Andrew Legend in Pseudo-Epiphanius List of Disciples -

Origin of List of Apostles and Disciples; dating of Pseudo-Epiphanius'
List - Pseudo-Dorotheus' List later than Pseudo-Epiphanius' List and
the Narratio.
The course of events had made the Byzantines increasingly aware

of the importance which the idea of apostolicity was gaining in
their relationship with Rome. That the bishopric of Byzantium
was not of apostohc foundation must have appeared to many a
serious handicap; so it would hardly have been surprising if some
Byzantine zealots had tried to surmount it by showing that the
bishopric of Byzantium was also founded by an apostle.
It was not very difficult to connect the beginnings of the Church
of Byzantium with a disciple of Christ. The rehcs of one of the most
prominent of them-St. Andrew-reposed in the Church of the
Holy Apostles, together with the bodies of the holy Evangelist
St. Luke, and Paul's disciple St. Timothy. St. Andrew was one of
Christ's principal disciples. He was Peter's brother and the first of
the apostles to be chosen; it was he who had introduced Peter to
Christ, and it was on Peter's name that all Rome's pretensions to
primacy in the Church rested.
138
BIRTH OF THE ANDREW TRADITION
It was on such facts as these that the tradition of Byzantium's

apostolic origin was to be based, but it is important to learn when
the tradition appeared for the first time, how it developed and
how it came to be taken for granted by all Byzantines.
It would appear, at first, that the transfer of the relics believed
to be those of the Apostle Andrew, St. Luke, and Timothy, to the
Church of the Holy Apostles in the newly-founded city of Con-
stantine was intended to bolster the prestige of the bishops of the
residential city, but this was not the case. The transfer of the relics
should be attributed not to Constantine, but to his son Constantius,1
who intended thereby to stress the sublime position of the emperors
'
and the priestly character of the basileia.2 That such was Constantius
intention, is indicated by Socrates, although he ascribes the con-
struction of the Church of the Holy Apostles and the transfer of the
'
relics to Constantine. In his report on Constantine s death, Socrates

"
says:3 After this, when Constantius arrived from the East [Con-
'
stantine s] body was honored with a royal funeral, and was placed
in the church named for the apostles, which he [Constantine] had
built for this purpose, so that the emperors and priests should not
be separated from the relics of the apostles."
The last words cannot be interpreted as meaning that Constantine
intended to reserve the church for the burial of both emperors and
bishops. They are, rather the expression of the priestly character with
,
which the Hellenistic theory of kingship adorned the basileus and which
was finding acceptance among the first Christian political thinkers.4
1 See G Downey, "The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostles at
.
Constantinople," Dumbaton Oaks Papers, 6 (1951), pp. 51-80. Cf. also the
reviews of this study by the following scholars: F. Halkin in Analecta
Bollandiana, 70 (1952), pp. 349-350; R. J. H. Jenkins in Journal of Hellenic
Studies, 73 (1953),p. 192; A.E.R. Boak in Speculum, 28 (1953), pp. 155-158;
N H. Baynes in English Historical Review, 68 {1953),pp. 79-82; J. Goubert in
.
Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 19 (Rome, 1953), pp. 234-236, and D. Talbot

Rice in Antiquaries Journal 33 (1953), pp. 91 and 92.
,
*
It is the author's intention to study the political ideas of Constantius in
his book Origins of Christian Political Philosophy (chap. 7) now in prepar-
,
ation. In the present work only some essential remarks are made on this subject.
s Historia ecclesiastica 1, 40; PC, 67, col. 180: Mrrd 84 ToOra ix twv dva-
,
toXikwv pcpcov hnordvros Kcovoravriou, KrjSelas t s PaaiAiKfjs fifioOro, Atto-

'
teQeIs iv Tfj iKKAtjijict rrj Ittoovuhco twv Attoot6Xcov, f|v 61' aCrrb toOto ireiroti'iKsi,
irfi&s &v ol patnXels T6 koI Upds twv dTrooroXiKcov Astvfdvcov prf| AttoXihttAvoivto.
*
See F. Dvomik "Emperors, Popes and General Councils," in Dumbarton
Oaks Papers, 6 (1951), pp. 16-22.
139
LEGEND OF THE APOSTLE ANDREW
The testimony of St. John Chrysostom, who occupied the see of

Constantinople from 398 to 404, can also be adduced as a clear
indication that the church of the Holy Apostles was regarded only
as a burial place of the emperors. In one of his homilies5 he exclaims:
"
In the most imperial city, Rome, emperors and consuls and

generals cast all else aside and ran to the tombs of the fisherman and
the tentmaker [Peter and Paul], and in Constantinople those who
wear the diadem consider it a source of satisfaction to have their
bodies buried not close to the apostles, but outside, alongside the
vestibule, and so the emperors have become the doorkeepers of
the fishermen, and in their death they are not dishonored but
are rendered proud, not themselves alone, but their children as
"
well.
This idea is even more clearly expressed by Chrysostom in another
homily:6 "For there, too [in Constantinople], his son [Constantius]
considered that he was honoring Constantine the Great with a great
honor if he laid him in the vestibule of the fisherman; and what the
gatekeepers of palaces are to the sovereign, the emperors are to the
fishermen in their place of burial. For the latter [the apostles] are
the masters who dwell within the place, and the former [the emper-
ors], like neighbors living nearby, are happy to have the gate of the
courtyard entrusted to their care, so that from these places they
may show unbelievers that at the time of resurrection the fishermen
"
enjoy greater prominence.

The fact that the relics of St. Andrew, St. Luke, and St. Timothy
were brought to Constantinople in order to increase the prestige of
the hasileia in the eyes of the Byzantines did not encourage them to
associate these apostolic relics with the bishops of the capital, and
this must have retarded the growth of the apostolic idea in Con-
stantinople. Actually, it is surprising to note that, in the two
centuries that followed the foundation of Constantinople, very little
attention was paid to St. Andrew, and no attempt was made to
connect with the bishopric of Byzantium the belief that his relics
reposed in the residential city.
6 Homilia contra Judaeos et Gentiles 9, PG, 48, col. 825.

,
. Homilia in Epist 2 ad Corinth. 26, 53, PC, 61, col. 582.

.
140
It is again St. John Chrysostom who supplies the most valuable

information in this respect. Of course, in his numerous homilies
and other writings, he had often to speak of the apostles. However,
it is not Andrew who enjoys his full attention, but Andrew's brother
Peter. Sometimes in Chrysostom's works praise of Peter may be
found such as not even one of Chrysostom's contemporary western
ecclesiastical writers could surpass. Peter is called, in addition to the
"
coryphaeus of the apostles,7 an immovable foundation, the rock

which cannot be broken, the Prince of the Church, the unassail-
able haven, the unshaken tower.... the column of the Churches,
the haven of faith, and the doctor of the universe."
To these glorious epithets, Chrysostom adds other significant
titles. Peter was "the mouthpiece of the disciples, column of the
Church, basis of the faith, foundation of the confession, the fisherman
of the whole world, who brought our race from the depth of error
into heaven..., always mindful of the salvation of others."8 The
love of Christ of this "prefect of the universe" is highly praised,9 his
firmness, meekness, and zeal are stressed,10 the virtue of his miracles
is said to have converted the whole earth,u and he is the rock on
which Christ would build his Church.12 Paul, too, earns highest
praise, but it is always stressed that he regarded himself inferior to
Peter.13
Chrysostom, of course, speaks also of Andrew, and in one of his
homilies is found a short passage which can be interpreted as an
allusion to Andrew as a teacher of Byzantium. Scandalized by the
fact that many people preferred on Fridays to go to the hippodrome
7 Homilia in Petrum Apost et in Heliam prophetam, PG, 50, cols. 727 seq.
.
The epithet coryphaeus or "Prince of the Apostles" is given to Peter almost

every time Chrysostom speaks of him.
8 Homilia De Decern millium talent debitore, PG, 51, col. 20.
,
. Homilia In illud hoc scitote quod in novissimis diebus {II Tim. 3:1), PG,
,
56, col. 275.

10 In Matthaeum Horn 50(51), PG, 58, col. 535 (Peter again called cory-
.
phaeus of all apostles). In Acta Apost. Horn. 4, PG, 60, cols. 63 seq.; Horn. 8,
ibid., col. 88, In Joan. Hom. 73(74), PG, 59, cols. 395 seq.
11 In Matth Hom. 56(57), PG, 58, cols. 550 seq.
.
11 In Matth Hom. 46(47), ibid., 58, col. 535, particularly clearly in Hom.
.
19(18) in Joan., PG, 59, col. 122. These are only a few quotations of the
numerous references to Peter in Chrysostom's works.
11 Particularly in Hom. In illud, in faciem ei restiti, PG, 51, col. 378, and
Hom. 3 in Epist. 1 ad Cor., PG, 61, col. 24.
141
or to the theater rather than to church, Chrysostom exclaims:14

"
Is this the city of the apostles, the same which possesses such an
interpreter?" He evidently has in mind not only the church of the
Holy Apostles in Constantinople, but also the relics of St. Andrew,
Luke, and Timothy which reposed there. In this connection the in-
terpreter whom Chrysostom mentions could be Andrew, and B. de
Montfaucon, the first editor of the homily, which was reprinted by
Migne with his commentary, explained the passage as referring to
the Andrew tradition-namely, that this Apostle had preached in
Byzantium. On the other hand, it has been suggested that Chry-
sostom had in mind the relics revered as those of the prophet
Samuel, which were transported by the Emperor Arcadius from
Judaea to Constantinople.15 St. Jerome16 describes this transfer in
glowing terms and, judging from his description, the ceremony must
have left a great impression on the faithful of the capital. It would
seem quite natural, therefore, for Chrysostom to have made an
allusion to the presence in the city of the relics of such a great
prophet.
There is, however, some difficulty concerning the dating of this
transfer. Jerome simply attributes the initiative for it to the Emperor
Arcadius, who reigned from 395 to 408, without indicating the exact
date. Theodore the Lector17 and the Chronicon Paschale,1* however,
add that it occurred when Atticus was Patriarch (that is, from 405
or 406 to 425). The Chronicon dates the transfer in the year 406,
and since the dating of the Chronicon is generally reliable, there is
no reason to reject it in this instance and to place the transfer in
the year 397. Thus it is evident that Chrysostom could not have had
the relics of the Prophet Samuel in mind.
Neither, however, can the interpretation of Montfaucon be accep-
u Horn , contra ludos et theatra 1, PG, 56, col. 264: TOtOra f| 116X15 tww
diTOCTT6Xcov; TOtOra f| toioutov XapoOaa itnToq> TTiv; the homily was pronounced
"
on Sunday, July 3, 399. See for details P. Batiffol, De quelques homilies de

S Jean Chrysostome et de la version gothique des ecritures," in Revue
.
biblique, 8 (1899), p. 567, and especially J. Pargoire, "Les homilies de S. Jean

Chrysostome en Juillet 399," in Echos d'Orient, 3 (1899-1900), pp. 151-155.
16 Such is the opinion of J. Ch. Baur, Der heilige Johannes Chrysostomus
und seine Zeit, 2 (Munich, 1930), p. 77.
14 Contra Vigilantium, 5, PL, 23, col. 358.
17 Hist eccles. 2, 63; PG, 86, col. 213.
,
18 Ed Bonn, ad an. 406, p. 569.

.
142
ted. It seems evident that the panegyrist makes an allusion here to

Andrew, but the words do not mean that Andrew had preached in
Byzantium. Strictly interpreted, Chrysostom's words point to his
own time, and indicate that he had in mind only the reUcs of Andrew,
the great interpreter of Christ's words, which had been received
by the city and were then in its possession. It cannot therefore be
concluded from this passage that Chrysostom knew of the tradition
'
concerning Andrew s preaching in Byzantium.

It is rather significant that neither in this homily nor elsewhere
does Chrysostom give special prominence to Andrew, In another
passage in the same homily Chrysostom recalls19 how, a short time
before, when torrential rain had threatened to ruin the crops, "the
whole of the populace of our city in a mighty surge hastened toward
the place of the apostles. We implored our defenders. Saint Peter
and Blessed Andrew, and this apostolic pair, Paul and Timothy.
And after that, when the tempest had subsided, we courageously
crossed the sea and the waves and we hastened to the coryphaeus,
Peter, the foundation of the faith, and Paul, the vessel of election,
"
20
celebrating a spiritual feast
That the Apostle Andrew is not given a more prominent place in
these supphcations is somewhat surprising. The relics of Peter and
Paul were not in Constantinople; nevertheless both Apostles were
mentioned and given prominence before Andrew. Perhaps the fact
that Chrysostom came from Antioch, whose Christianization was
intimately connected with Peter, influenced him.
Even on other occasions Chrysostom has little to say of Peter's
brother. When speaking of him in his homily on Matthew's Gospel,
he makes the point that Andrew was the first of the apostles to be
invited by Christ to join him, but, having done this, he devotes all
his attention to Peter, dwelling on the Lord's words with which
Peter was greeted when introduced by his brother.21 When naming
the apostles, Chrysostom emphatically places Andrew after Peter,
although before all other apostles of course, but that is his only
» PG, 56, col. 265.

20 For more details on this pilgrimage see Pargoire, op. cit., pp. 156 seq.
"
In Maith. Horn. 14, PG. 57, cols. 218 seq.; In Joan. Horn. 19(18), PG,
59, cols, 120 seq,
143
reference to him here.23 In another instance88 he counts Andrew

among the four coryphaei of the apostles, naming Peter, Andrew,
James, and John.
It is significant that when speaking of some deed or virtues of
the apostles he does not cite Andrew as an example, but only Peter,
James, and John,24 and his evaluation of the fact that the relics of
an apostle repose in a church in Constantinople is also interesting,
He does not ignore the fact, but in one of his homilies25 apostro-
"
phizes his listeners as follows: We came to the tombs of the apostles.

We can see their wounds and stigmata, their blood flowing more
precious than gold, the chains, the cudgels, their daily death which
they had suffered for the Church. Paul's disciple who travelled
everywhere with him, who is equal to his master, a heifer in the
same yoke with the bull; the brother of the first of the apostles, a
fisherman, who had spread out the net, and instead of catching
fishes, was claiming men; and the messenger of the Gospel-and
let us consider with pleasure their famous deeds...."
The homilist was evidently pointing to the relics of Timothy,
Andrew, and Luke, but it is surprising that he placed Timothy-for
whom he seems to have had a special predilection26-before Andrew,
' '
although Peter s brother should have taken precedence over Paul s

disciple.
This is not the only instance of Chrysostom's-relegating Andrew's
rehcs somewhat to the background. When Chrysostom returned
from his first exile he was apparently greeted in the church of the
Holy Apostles where he is said to have addressed his faithful
extemporaneously. Pointing to the relics deposited in the church,
he exclaimed:27 "Therefore I called you to come to the Holy
M In Maith . Horn. 32(33), ibid., 57, col. 380.
a In Matth Horn. 37(38), ibid., col. 424: Philip and the two pairs of the
.
coryphaei.
24 Ad eas qui scandalizati sunt liber unus PG, 52, cols. 512 seq. In Matth.
,
Horn. 46(47), ibid., 58, cols. 479 seq.: In Matth. Horn. 65(64), ibid,, cols. 621
seq. Andrew is mentioned only in Horn. 3 in Acta Apost., PG., 60, cols. 33 seq.,
'
as staying in Jerusalem with Peter after Christ s resurrection. Moreover, in

one spurious homily Andrew is said to have preached in Greece: Hom. in
12 Apost., PG, 59, col. 495.
Hom. jo, in illud, messis quidem multa, PG, 63, col. 518.
24 Cf Chrysostom's homilies on Paul's letters to Timothy, PG, 62, cols.
.
503-700.
,7 Ibid
.
, 52, col. 440.
144
Apostles. We, the exiled, came to them who were exiled. We were
assailed with intrigues, they were banned. We came to Timothy,
the new Paul. We came to the holy bodies which had carried Christ's
"
stigmata. There is no mention of Andrew in this short speech.

The second version of Chrysostom's address contains the following:28
'Therefore I invited you to the church of the Holy Apostles in
order to come to them who once had suffered persecution. We have
been subjected to intrigue, they have been attacked. But the
enemies did no damage to them because they have conquered the
whole world. Let us go to Timothy, the new Paul, and to Andrew,
the other Peter. We believe that we are supported by their merits."
Timothy is again given precedence, although Andrew is mentioned
as a second Peter.
To evaluate this indifference to Andrew's relics in Constantinople,
'
we should read Chrysostom s enthusiastic eulogies addressed to Rome

because it was the burial place of Peter and Paul.29 "Heaven,
when the sun is emitting its rays is not as resplendent as the city of
the Romans radiating everywhere in the universe the light of these
two lamps. Fom there Paul will be taken away, and from there
Peter also. Consider and be amazed, what a spectacle Rome will
witness when Paul and Peter shall suddenly be resurrected from
that tomb and be lifted up to meet Christ. What a gift will Rome
present to Christ, with what two crowns is it adorned! With what
golden chains is it girded, what founts it possesses! I admire this
city, not because of its multitude of gold, not because of its col-
umns, not because of its pomp, but because of these two pillars
"
of the Church. One can detect here a kind of nostalgic envy of
Rome's possession of such treasures, but it does not occur to Chry-
'
sostom to point out that his city, too, can boast apostles tombs.
Rome was still the venerated source of Roman glory, the first ca-
pital of the Empire, and Peter and Paul were the heroes of whom
the whole Church and Empire were proud.
In one homily on the epistle to the Hebrews30 there is a passage
which deserves special quotation. After praising Joseph, who,
28 Ibid ,
. col. 442.
w Horn .
36, Encomium in S. Apost. Paulum, PG, 63, cols. 846 seq.
» Horn , 26, PG, 63, col. 179.
to 145
'
although living in Egypt, had never lost faith in the Lord s promises
to Abraham, and had ordered that his remains be returned finally
to the land of promise (Exodus 13:19), Chrysostom goes on: "What!
tell me, do not even Moses' bones repose in a foreign country ? We
do not know where the remains of Aaron, Daniel, Jeremiah, and
many of the apostles are resting. The tombs of Peter, Paul, John,
and Thomas31 are known; [the tombs] of the others who are so many
have never become known. But let us not be sad or downhearted,
because wherever we may be buried, 'the earth is the Lord's and
the fullness thereof" (Psalms 23:1, 24:1).
This is puzzling. Strictly interpreted, these words would mean that
Chrysostom had some doubts as to the authenticity of the relics,
'
supposedly Andrew s, that reposed in the church of the Holy

Apostles, for he said rather emphatically that he knew the location
of the tombs of only Peter, Paul, John, and Thomas. In any case,
the passage shows clearly that in Chrysostom's time little attention
was paid to the fact that Constantinople was in possession of
apostolic relics, and that no connection had yet been made between
the foundation of Byzantine Christianity and St. Andrew.
John Chrysostom was the first of the Greek writers to devote

particular attention to St. Andrew and his relics. Gregory of
Nazianzus, who occupied the see of Constantinople from 379 to 381,
referred to Andrew only very briefly82 in his catalogue of apostles,
mentioning Greece as his missionary field. Cyril of Jerusalem (362-
373) mentioned the twelve apostles in general, and wherever he
singled out any of them he named only Peter, Paul, John, Thomas,
and Philip.33 He mentioned Andrew only once in his seventeenth
31 The relics of St Thomas, who seems to have died near Malaipur in

.
South India, were transported, during the third century, to Edessa. Cf.
R A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, 1, pt. 1
.
(Brunswick, 1883-1890), p. 226 seq., 2,pt. 2, pp. 418 seq.

**
Oratio 33 contra Arianos et de se ipso, PG, 36, col. 228. In one of his Songs
he gives the names of the twelve apostles, with Andrew (Carminum. lib. 1,
Poemata dogmaiica, cant, ig, PG, 37, col. 488), and he mentions briefly in
another one {Carm. lib. 2, Historica, Poemata de se ipso 4, vers. 59, ibid., col.
1258) the church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. Cf. aXso Oratio 42
(PG, 36, col. 489). In Oratio 4 (PG, 35, col. 589B) he mentions Andrew too
among the Christian heroes whose feast days are celebrated.
38 Caiechesis 14, .PG, 33, col. 853, Catech. 17, ibid., col. 996 seq.
146
Caiechesis,9* when he commented on the apostles' speaking various

languages on the day of Pentecost, and in this connection he ventured
the guess that Peter and Andrew, both of whom were Galileans,
*
probably conversed in Persian or Medic.84
Proclus, who occupied the see of Constantinople from 434 to 447,
devoted a short homily to St. Andrew,35 but the panegyric is
'
written in very general terms, extolling the sublimity of the apostles

vocation, and the merits of their activity. Only in the last part of
his sermon did the Patriarch describe how Andrew responded to the
invitation of the Lord to join him. Andrew hastened to bring this
"
news to his older brother, Peter. We have found the Messiah,"
the panegyrist has Andrew exclaim, and then, forgetting his hero,
he addresses Peter, exhorting him to leave his occupation, his
country, Jerusalem, and the temple, and to follow Christ. Nothing
in the homily suggests any connection between Andrew and the
see of Byzantium, and there is no indication that the Patriarch
intended to exalt Andrew because of Peter. On the contrary, Peter
occupies a more prominent place than Andrew.
It should be noted also that the apostolic idea found no recognition
in the correspondence of Proclus with Antioch. Proclus gave the
"
city only the usual epithet, the great city,"86 although he must
have known that the Antiochenes were well aware of the apostolic
origin of their see. In a letter addressed to Proclus the synod of
Antioch, convoked by Bishop John, recalled the apostolic origin of
the see when enumerating the Fathers whose doctrine confirmed its
teaching. The name of the great martyr Ignatius, who came "second
after Peter the first of the apostles and organized the Church of the
"
see of Antioch, starts the series of Fathers.87
**
Ibid., col. 988.
According to the Chronicon Paschale (Bonn), p. 566, Arcadia, daughter
of the Emperor Arcadius (395-405), constructed a church in honor of St.
Andrew, which shows that the cult of the Apostle was then alive in Byzan-
tium.
» PG 65, cols. 821-828.
.
'*
Ibid.yCoX. SSiD wv'Avnox tov y«yaXoTT6Xeco$ f) 116X1$. Cf. what E.Caspar
[Geschichte der Papsttums, 1, p. 583) says oh the origin of this title: "GroB-
kirche scheint geradezu eine fruheste eigene Bezeichnung fiir die Weltkirchen
Rom, Alexandria und Antioch gewesen zu sein."
17 PG 65, col. 878.
,
10* 147
Proclus' contemporary, Theodoret, also knew of the Antiochene

tradition, and he termed apostolic not only the see of Antioch,38
but also that of Alexandria.39 The apostolic tradition concerning
Antioch and Alexandria is most clearly expressed by Theodoret in
his letter to Flavian of Constantinople. Complaining about Dioscorus
"
of Alexandria,Theodoret says:40 He will not obey the holy canons,

but is exalting the throne of the blessed Mark although he well
knows that the great city of the Antiochenes is in possession of the
see of the great Peter, who was also the teacher of blessed Mark.
"
and the first and coryphaeus of the apostles.

With regard to Andrew, Theodoret mentioned him only when
speaking of the lands where the apostles had preached. He also
assigned Greece to Andrew.41
There exists another homily on St. Andrew which was once
ascribed to St. Athanasius,42 but which was actually written in the
fifth century. Its author is Basil, Metropolitan of Seleucia, who died
about the year 459 43 No trace of tendentious exaltation of Andrew is
found in this short oration on Peter. On the contrary, Peter is
recognized as the first of the apostles, although Andrew was the
first who was called by the Lord. Andrew is said to have preached
in Greece and to have suffered martyrdom in Achaea. The homilist
seems not at all inclined to bring Andrew into closer connection
with Byzantium. Evidently the importance of the claim to apos-
tolicity was not yet felt in Constantinople. The privileged position
of the city as the imperial residence was still regarded as sufficient
reason for assuring to the patriarch of Constantinople a prominent
rank in the Church.
38 Hist eccles., 3, 14; PG, 82, col. 1109; GC5, 19, ed. L. Parmentier, bk. 3,
,
chap. 17, p. 197. Letter 112 to Domnus of Antioch, PG, 83, col. 1309.
M Letter 83 to Dioscorus of Alexandria PG, 83, col. 1272. In his letter to
,
Pope Leo, Theodoret also calls the Roman see "apostolic." PG, ibid., cols.
1313A, 1316D.
40 PG 83, col. 1280C (Letter 86). On two occasions Theodoret mentions
,
the relics of the apostles, but only in very general terms, without specifying
whose relics he had in mind. In Psalm. 46, PG, 80, col. 1208C, andt« Psalm.
67, ibid., col. 1381C.
41 Interpretation in Psalm. 116, PG, So, cols. 1805 seq.
42 PG 28, cols. 1101-1113. Cf. infra, p. 217.
,
44 This has been shown by B Marx in his study "Der homiletische Nachlass
.
des Basileios von Seleukia," in OCP, 7 (1941), pp. 329-369 (on the homily,
PP- 350-352).
148
There exists also a document of Latin and Western origin which

makes it evident that the Andrew Legend was not yet known at
the beginning of the fifth century. It is a Latin poem composed by
Paulinus, who was born probably in 353 in or near Bordeaux, and
who became Bishop of Nola about 409 and died in 431,
In one of his poems Paulinus glorifies the city of Constantinople,
comparing it to Rome.44 He states first that Constantine, when
he founded his city and started to build its walls, was invited by
God, not only to imitate the city of Romulus by the building of
walls, but also to strengthen them with the bodies of apostles. So
Constantine brought Andrew from Greece and Timothy from Asia.
"
Thus," Paulinus continues, "Constantinople stands with twin

towers of strength, a rival of great Rome, and more truly like the
Roman walls in this honor, because God, in an effort to make the
honor equal, gave the like of Peter and Paul to the city which was
worthy of taking to itself the disciple of Paul and the brother of
Peter."
Paulinus must have been a great admirer of the Apostle Andrew
and of Luke, for he congratulates himself on having obtained part
of their relics for his basilicas in Nola and Fondi,45 and he mentions
them on two other occasions in his poems 46
His attitude as shown in his poems confirms, in the first place,
that the transfer of the relics of St. Andrew to Constantinople was
in no way regarded in the West and in Rome as an act of rivalry
with the old Imperial City which possessed the relics of St. Peter
and St. Paul, and, in the second place that his way of referring to
,
the relics of St. Andrew was an indication that in the West the
legend of the foundation of the see of Constantinople by Andrew was
still unknown at the beginning of the fifth century. Finally, the
comparison between Timothy and Paul, and between Andrew and
Peter, brought out by Paulinus reveals that a compromise between
,
the principle of apostohcity and that of adaptation to the changes

of political organization was possible in this period, and it is the
**
Paulinus Nolensis, Carmen 19, vss. 329-342, CSEL, 30, ed. G.Hartel,
pp. 129, 130.
*'
Epist. 32, ibid., 29, p. 292, Carmen 27, vss. 406,424, ibid., 30, pp. 280, 281.
*
. Carmen 19 vss. 73-83, 336 (Andrew and Timothy) ibid., 30, pp. 121,
,
130, Epist. 29, chap. 7, ibid., 29, p. 252 (Luke).
149
more regrettable that the Eastern Fathers in Chalcedon failed to

see this possibility, and displayed less comprehension of the Roman
principle of apostolicity than did a Latin writer of their principle of
adaptation to political organization.
Gaudentius of Brescia, who died about 410, also testifies to the
fact that the Apostle Andrew was greatly venerated in the Western
Church in his day. In his sermon on the day of dedication of a
Concilium Sanctorum"-a church that contained all the holy relics
of which Brescia could boast-the Bishop proudly points out that
the most precious rehcs in the Church are those of St. John the
Baptist, the Apostles Andrew and Thomas and the Evangehst
,
Luke. He does not mention the last burial place of St. Andrew
and Luke in Constantinople. He says only that they are believed to
have suffered martyrdom in Patras in Achaea. In any case, Gau-
dentius seems to have known nothing of the Andrew Legend's
connection with the see of Byzantium. He apparently obtained
the relics of the Apostles from St. Ambrose who must have
received them as a gift from Constantinople.
Brescia was neither the first nor the only Italian city that could
boast possession of relics of St. Andrew at that early period. St.
Ambrose constructed in Milan a church dedicated to the Holy
Apostles and deposited there some rehcs of the Apostles Andrew,47'
John, and Thomas. According to the Martyrium Hieronymianum,
the deposition was commemorated yearly in that city on the ninth
of May. The same source marks, too, the anniversary on September
third of the dedication of a basilica in Aquileia to SS. Andrew, Luke,
and John.47b S Victricius, Bishop of Rouen who died at the be-
.
47 Sermo 17 {De diver sis capitulis septimus), PL, 20 cols. 961 seq. Post
hunc [Joannem Baptistam] habemus Andreambeatissimunt, primum loannis
ipsiusdiscipulum,deinde Salvatoris, quern prioremChristus apostolum scribiiur
elegisse.... Horum quatuor beatas habemus in praesenti reliquias, qui regnttm
Dei, et justitiam praedicantes, ab incredulis, et iniquis occisi, Deo semper vivere
operationum suarum virtutibus demonstrantur. loannes in Sebastena urbe
provinciae Palaestinae, Thomas apud Indos, Andreas et Lucas apud Patras
Achaiae civitaiem, consummati referuntur.
471 F Savio, Gli antichi vescovi d'ltalia dalle origini al 1300 descritti per
.
regioni, 1 (Florence, 1913), La Lombardia, Milano, p. 822.

«'b ActaSanctorum Novembris 2, p. 57: Mediolano. De ingressu reliquiarum
,
apostolorum loannis, Andreae et Thomae, in basilica. Ibid., p. 115: In Aquileia.

Dedicatio basilicae Andreae apostoli, Lucae, loannis, Eufemie et Aristoni. The
city of Concordia in Lombardy also possessed some souvenirs of apostles ,
150
ginning of the fifth century, also mentions with satisfaction the

deposition in his cathedral of some relics of SS. Thomas, Andrew,
and Luke.470
During the same early period there were in Ravenna also monu-
ments dedicated to St. Andrew. Theodorich constructed a church
in the name of the Apostle and dedicated it to the cult of the Goths.47d
His contemporary, Bishop Peter II (494-519) erected in his residence
a chapel of St. Andrew,47* and Bishop Maximian (d. 546) restored
the church of St. Andrew and deposited there the rehcs brought
from Constantinople.47' Maximian must have been in Constantinople
soon after 548 when, during the demohtion of the old basilica, relics
of Sts. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy were rediscovered and placed
in the new building constructed by Justinian.478 This is indicated
in the report of Agnellus, ninth-century author and Church historian
of Ravenna, who, on this occasion, wrote of an imaginary encounter
including those of Andrew. See P. Paschini, "Note sull' origine della chiesa
di Concordia," in Memorie Storiche Forogiuliesi, 7 (1911), pp. 9-24 (unavail-
'
able to the present writer). On St. Andrew s relics at Nola and Fondi see
"
supra p. 149. Cf. also H. Delehaye, Loca Sanctorum," AnBoll, 48 (1930),
pp. 9-13. A church of the Holy Apostles was built in Lodi also. Ambrose
may have given part of the apostolic relics to this church too because he
was invited by Bishop Bassianus to consecrate the church. Cf. S. Ambrosii
epistolae, Epist. 4, 1; PL, 16, col. 927. The iniator of this cult of the apostles
in northern Italy was St. Ambrose.
170 S Victricius, Liber de laude sanctorum, PL, 20, col. 448C.
.
47d w Ensslin, Theodorich derGrosse (Munich, 1947), pp. 261, 266 (without
.
reference). The church of St. Andrew designated for the Arians was destroyed
by the Venetians in 1457. The Goths seem to have had a particular veneration
for St. Andrew. His feast is duly commemorated on November 29th in a
fifth-century Gothic calendar composed in Thrace. See H. Achelis, "Der
"
alteste deutsche Kalender, in Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,
1 (1900), pp. 308-335. Cf. PL, 18, col. 880. Petrus Chrysologus of Ravenna,
'
who died in 450, commemorated Andrew s feast day in a short sermon in

which he said that the Saint was crucified on a tree {Oratio, 133, PL, 52,
cols. 563,564).
7e See for details G. Gerola, "II ripristino della cappella di S. Andrea nel
,
"
palazzo vescovile di Ravenna, Felix Ravenna, N. S., 41 (1932), pp. 71 seq.

See Agnellus, Codex pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatensis, ed. A. Testi Raspomini,
L A. Muratori, Rerum italicarum scriptores, 2, pt. 3 (new ed., Bologna, 1924),
.
'
pp. 149, 150. On St. Andrew s relics in Milan, Aquileia, Concordia, and Ra-
venna cf. also H. Delehaye, Les origines du culte des martyrs (2nd ed., Brussels ,
1933), PP- 325, 326. 332, 333, 338.

"
f Agnellus ibid., pp. 195, 122.
,
«6 Procopius De aedificiis Justiniani (Bonn), pp. 188 seq., ed. J. Haury

,
(Teubner, 1913), pp. 24 seq.; Malalas, Chronographia (Bonn), p. 484; Theo-

phanes, Chronographia (Bonn), p. 352.
151
between Maximian and Justinian which reveals the intensity of the

veneration in which St. Andrew was held throughout Byzantium
and the West.
Agnellus reports that Maximian wished to take the body of
St. Andrew to Ravenna, but that the Emperor thought it fitting
for the New Rome to own the relics of St. Peter's brother, since Old
and New Rome were sisters, and Peter and Andrew were brothers.
Maximian, however, succeeded, by means of a ruse, in obtaining
at least the beard of St. Andrew, which he transported to Ravenna.
In closing his fictitious narrative, Agnellus exclaims with an almost-
"
audible sigh, and believe me, brothers, if the body of the blessed
Andrew, the brother of Peter the Princeps, had been buried here
[in Ravenna], the Roman pontiffs would never have subjugated us."
Agnellus' words reflect the echo of Ravenna's struggle for ecclesi-
astical autonomy against the claims of the Roman popes, a struggle
that started under Maximian, was continued by Bishop Maurus
who in 666 had obtained from the Emperor Constans II47b a decree
of autocephaly for Ravenna and that endured as long as the ex-
,
archate of Ravenna existed. The spirit of independence was still

alive in the ninth century as is apparent from Agnellus' words. His
,
remark concerning the relics of St. Andrew reveal in what high

esteem the idea of apostolicity was held in the West at that time.47'
His comment is particularly significant, for the rediscovery, under
Justinian, of St. Andrew's relics does not appear to have very
greatly stirred Byzantine ecclesiastical circles of that period.
This is not all. Let us not forget that the Feast of St. Andrew was
celebrated in Rome in the fourth century, and was preceded by a
vigil with fasting. The Sacramentarium Leonianum has a particular
Mass formula for the vigil and three other formulas for the Feast
of St. Andrew, with special prayers and prefaces. The prefaces of
the second and fourth formulas are particularly interesting because
they attest to the intimate relationship between Andrew and his
«h p Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Retches, i
.
(Munich, Berlin, 1924), p. 27. L. Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, 1 (Paris, 1886),

p. 360.
«. It is doubtful that Justinian ever contemplated the possibility of a
transfer of Andrew's relics to Ravenna, as is suggested by. O. G. von Simson,
Sacred Fortress, Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna (Chicago, 1948),
pp. 17 seq.
152
brother Peter.«j We read in the preface of the second formula:

"
[Andrew] who was verily a brother of the glorious Apostle Peter,

through the fate of birth, through the community of faith, through
the dignity of belonging to the apostolic college, and through the
glory of martyrdom, so that they whom Your Grace had united
during the course of this life with so many bonds of piety are joined
in the heavenly kingdom with a similar crown."
The second preface contains a similar passage: "We celebrate the
day dedicated to the glorious martyrdom through which the
venerable Andrew showed himself a true brother of the blessed
Peter, as well in preaching Thy Christ as in confessing him, and
at the same time adorned the order of the apostolic dignity with
martyrdom and glory, so that they who were struggling for the same
"
cause obtained the same recompense and reward.

The cult of St. Andrew grew in Rome particularly during the
Acacian schism. The first basilica in honor of St. Andrew was
erected there on the Esquiline by Pope Simplicius {468-483).
Gelasius I (492-496) had also constructed, on the Via Labicana, an
oratory in honor of St. Andrew. Symachus (498-514) symbolized
the intimate relationship between Peter and Andrew when he
built a rotunda dedicated to St. Andrew near the basilica of St.
Peter.47k It is quite possible that the number of the Mass formulas
in honor of St. Andrew corresponded to the number of St. Andrew
sanctuaries extant in Rome in the fifth century.
The spread of the cult of St. Andrew in Rome, in Italy and in ,
Gaul during the fourth and fifth centuries indicates clearly that,
contrary to the conviction of some scholars,471 the Westerners were
not yet aware of any Byzantine attempt to overshadow or to
«i PL 55, cols. 144-146. Cf. A. I. Schuster, Liber sacramentorum, 6 (Milan,
,
I94i), PP- 70-75-

«7k See on these churches L. Duchesne, op. cit., 2, pp. 249, 250, 255, 256,
,
261, 265. In the writings of Victor, Bishop of Vita, there is some indication
that Andrew's cult penetrated into Africa in the fifth century {De perse-
'
cutione vandalica, 5, 20; PL, 58, col. 258). In M. Petscheng s critical edition
{CSEL, 7, p. 106) the passage on Andrew was, however, omitted since it did
not conform to the tradition of the manuscripts.
«l For example B. Kraft, "Andreas," in Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche,
,
"
1, ed. M. Buchberger (Freiburg i. B., 1930), col. 411; J. Beran, Hat Gregor
der Grosse dem Embolismus der romiscben Liturgie den Namen des hi.
Andreas beigefugt ?", Ephemerides Liturgicae, 55 (N. S. 15,
.
15, 194
1941), pp. 83 seq.;
J A. Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia (Vienna, 1948), P- 345-
.
153
"
equalize the prestige of Peter with that of his brother, the first
"
called. When we take into consideration how slowly the idea of
apostolicity progressed in Constantinople, it is no wonder that
there was no attempt, up to this period, to connect Andrew with
the origins of Christianity in Byzantinum.
With time, however, the bishops of the Imperial City must have
become increasingly conscious of the disadvantage under which they
suffered in their controversies with the apostolic see of St. Peter,
and this must have been especially apparent during the Acacian
schism (486-519). Its liquidation by Pope Hormisda demonstrated
the strength of the Roman argument of apostolicity, and undoubted-
ly impressed the Byzantines.
In the meantime, two incidents occurred which were potential
links between St. Andrew and the bishops of Byzantium. Thanks
to a curious intervention of fate, it was John Chrysostom who was
'
chosen, after his death, to modify Constantius view that only

emperors could be buried near the relics of the apostles. Chry-
sostom was sent into exile by order of Emperor Arcadius, who was
influenced in this matter by the Empress Eudoxia, but his relics
were brought back to Constantinople from Comana, where he had
died in 407, by order of another Emperor, Theodosius II, on
27 January 438.48
Theodosius II, Pulcheria, and the Patriarch Proclus made an
impressive show of reverence for the relics of the Saint and, in
order to atone for the great sin committed by his parents, Theo-
dosius II permitted the interment of the relics in the church of
Constantinople that was most venerable after the church of Hagia
Sophia-the church of the Holy Apostles. Thus, for the first time,
the body of a patriarch of Constantinople was placed near the
burial-place of the emperors and the rehcs of the apostles.
This act became the source of another legend that developed
fully at a later period, and that attributed to Constantine the
intention of making the church of the Holy Apostles a burial-place
for both emperors and patriarchs. First to interpret the use of the
Hist, eccles. 5, 36; PG, 82, cols. 1265 seq. ; GCS, 19, ed.
48 Theodoret,
L Pannentier, pp. 338 seq.; Theophanes, ad. arm. 5930, ed. Bonn, p. 143 seq;
.
de Boor, pp. 92 seq.
154
church for this purpose was the Church historian Sozomen, who
wrote his Church History about 440. Reporting the funeral of
"
of Constantine, he says:49 When Constantius, who was in the East,

learned of the death of his father, which was speedily reported to
him, he came quickly to Constantinople; and he gave him an
imperial funeral and buried him in the church named for the
apostles, where Constantine himself, while still living, prepared his
own tomb. And from this the custom took its beginning, and the
Christian emperors who died in Constantinople after this were laid
there. Likewise bishops were buried there, since the priestly dignity
is of the same honor as the imperial dignity; or rather in holy places,
the priestly dignity takes first place."
When we compare this report with that given by Socrates, we
detect a certain correlation between the two. Socrates is, however,
more moderate and comes nearer the truth than Sozomen. The
latter tries to give his own explanation of Socrates' words PoktiXeTj
te Kott lepsls. He does not deny the sacerdotal character of the
bastleta, but gives the emperors equal status with the bishops.
However, he stresses the precedence of bishops over emperors in the
church, that is, in the liturgy, implying thereby that the sacerdotium
is, in this way, more important than the imperiutn. This seems to
have been Sozomen's general attitude towards the bastleta, and its
relationship with the Church.50 The deposition of the rehcs of
St. John Chrysostom in the church of the Holy Apostles gave him
a welcome opportunity of expressing his ideas.
Another incident which helped to break the "imperial charm"
that had thus far surrounded the church of the Holy Apostles,
was the burial there of St. Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople.
Flavian was deposed in 449 by the "Robber synod" of Ephesus
and died shortly afterwards. His death was attributed by his
followers to his ill treatment at the hands of the heretics who had
deposed him. The Empress Pulcheria ordered the transfer of his
relics to the Church of the Holy Apostles in 451.51
*» Hist eccles., 2, 34; PG, 67, col. 1032.
,
'
M Sozomen's political ideas will be treated more fully in the author s book
"
on the Origins of Christian Political Philosophy," now in preparation.
81 Theophanes, ad. ann. 5942, ed. Bonn, p. 158; de Boor, p. 102. It is
important to note that Theodosius I did not dare to bury St. Paul, Bishop of
155
Thus it seems that, because of the transfer of the relics of St. John
Chrysostom and St. Flavian to the Church of the Holy Apostles,
' '
and particularly because of Sozomen s interpretation of Socrates

report on the burial-place of emperors and priests, the patriarchs
of Constantinople were, in the second half of the fifth century,
sufficiently Unked to the apostles-especially to St. Andrew-to
fire the imagination of those who were jealously anxious to promote
their prestige even further. It is no wonder, therefore, that the
origin of the tradition that the bishopric of Constantinople was
founded by the Apostle Andrew is dated by some in the period of
the Acacian schism (485-519).52
There is actually in existence a document which, if genuine,
would indicate that the tradition concerning the founding of the
bishopric of Byzantium by St. Andrew must have started at least
in the second half of the fifth century, if not much earlier. This is
the catalogue of the seventy disciples of Christ, which includes a
list of bishops from Andrew to Metrophanes as well as a list of the
apostles. This catalogue is ascribed to Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre,
who is said to have suffered great persecution during the reign of
Diocletian, and to have lived to the reign of Julian. He died a
'
martyr s death under Licinius when he had reached the one hundred
and seventh year of his life.68 In addition to biographical data on
the legendary author, the compilation contains a report of an in-
cident supposed to have happened at Constantinople on the occasion
Constantinople (340-341, 342-344, 348-350), who had been killed by the

Arians, in the church of the Holy Apostles. He transferred his relics to
Constantinople, but they were deposited in the church that Paul's antagonist,
Bishop Macedonius had built (Theophanes, ad. ann. 5876, ed. Bonn, p. 109;
"
ed. de Boor, p. 69). In 377 the imperial charm" surrounding the church of
the Holy Apostles was still too strong.
"
Cf. S. Vailh6, "Origines de I'Eglise de Constantinople," Echos d'Orient,
10 (1907), p. 293.
88 On Pseudo-Dorotheus see Th .
Schermann, "Propheten und Apostel-
legenden nebst Jiingerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte,"
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 31
(Leipzig, 1907), pp. 174-198. Cf. also infra, p. 178. There is no evidence for
the existence of a Bishop of Tyre of this name. Some confusion seems to exist
about two men of this name-a priest, Dorotheus of Antioch, who was pre-
viously director of a purple dye-bouse in Tyre, and a courtier of the same
'
name who died a martyr s death under Diocletian. Both are mentioned by
Eusebius (Hist, eccles., 7,32; 8, 1, 6; PG, 20, cols. 721, 740, 753; GCS, 9, ed.
E Schwartz, pp. 716, 736, 748).
.
156
'
of Pope John I s visit in 525.64 Invited by the Patriarch of Con-

stantinople to join him in celebrating the liturgy on Christmas Day,
the Pope is said to have declined the invitation and to have insisted
on celebrating the liturgy before the Patriarch did, inasmuch as
his see was older than that of Constantinople. He was then presented
with the document translated for this occasion by Procopius from
Dorotheus' description of the activity of the seventy disciples. This
"
contained a story relating that St. Andrew while navigating in the

Sea of Pontus, instituted as Bishop of Byzantium in Argyropolis
of Thrace, Stachys-of whom mention is made in the Epistle to the
Romans." After studying the document, the Pope acknowledged
its authenticity, but continued to claim the right of precedence over
the Patriarch, as he was the successor to the Prince of the Apostles.
This prerogative was recognized by his colleague in Constantinople,
who was satisfied to have had it proved that his see was an older
foundation than that of Rome.
The compiler of this story enumerates twenty other bishops who
succeeded Stachys, in an uninterrupted series, down to Metro-
phanes, the first bishop whose name can be traced with certainty,
and who held the see under Constantine the Great.66 This catalogue
forms the basis of numerous lists of patriarchs of Constantinople
which sometimes contain many variations.68
However, a more thorough examination of the story of John I's
visit contained in the compilation shows that it is completely
legendary. The story is contradicted by a contemporary account
of the voyage made by Pope Agapetus to Constantinople in 536,67
eleven years after the incident said to have occurred in Constanti-
nople in 525. The author of this later account has no knowledge of
44 PG 92, col, 1072 {De Septuginta discipulis Domini et duodecim Apostolis,

,
cols. 1060-1073). Th. Schermann, in his collective edition Prophetarum vitae

fabulosae, indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorothea, Epiphanio,
Hippolyto aliisque vindicata (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 151 seq.
This is attested by the Chronicon Paschale, ed. Bonn, p. 522; by Theo-
phanes, ad ann. 5799, ed. Bonn, p. 19; ed. de Boor, p. 13, note 18, and by
Photius, Bibliotheca, cods. 88, 256, PG, 103, col. 292; 104, cols. 105 seq.
M On these catalogues see M F. Fischer, De patriarcharum Constantino-
.
politanorum Catalogis et de chronologia primorum patriarcharum, published in

Commentarii philologici Jenenses, 3 (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 263-333.
47 The account is quoted in extenso by Cardinal Caesar Baronius in his
AnnatesEcclesiastici, ad ann. 536, ed. A. Pagi, (Lucca, 1738-1759), nos. 59-63.
157
the incident reported in the compilation nor, what is even more

important, of the catalogue of bishops who, according to the docu-
ment ascribed to Dorotheus, had succeeded Stachys in the see of
Byzantium. The chronicler enumerates the bishops of Byzantium
from Metrophanes onward, and the Patriarch Epiphanius who
occupied the see of Constantinople from 520 to 536 is the twentieth
in the series. Further on in the account, when speaking of the
'
ordination of Epiphanius successor, Menas, by the Pope himself,

the author distinctly states that Menas was the twenty-first Bishop
of Constantinople.
This, surely, is a very important statement. The anonymous
author of this account seems to have followed the official diptychs
of Constantinople. He evidently leaves out the heretical patriarchs
whose names did not appear in the diptychs, which could mean that,
in 536, in the fatriarcheion of Constantinople, the legendary account
of the apostolic origin of the see of Byzantium was not yet known,
and that, even if there had been some bishops in Byzantium before
Metrophanes, their names were not inscribed in the diptychs which
began with the bishop who occupied the see when the little town of
Byzantium became Constantinopohs, capital of the Empire,
There are, moreover, strong indications that the legendary
account reported by the document ascribed to Dorotheus was
unknown, at least in Rome, during the pontificate of Gregory the
Great (590-604). This Pope held the Apostle Andrew in particular
veneration, and devoted to him a special homily which he preached
in the Basilica of St. Andrew in Rome58 on the day of Andrew's
commemoration. In this, of course, he linked Peter with his brother,
giving Peter precedence over Andrew, but he nevertheless referred
to Andrew with great respect, and urged the Romans to follow
Andrew's example.
In another homily, when speaking about the missionary work of
the apostles and of Christ's disciples, he singled out only five
apostles, presenting them as they bring their converts before the
Lord :59 Peter, who had to do with the people of all Judaea, Paul
with those from virtually the whole world, Andrew with those of
68 Homiliae in Evangelia, Horn. 5, PL, 76, cols. 1092-1095.
68 Homiliae in Evangelia, Horn. 17, PL, 76, col. 1148.
158
Achaea, John with those of Asia, and Thomas with those of

India.
It was also because of this predilection of Gregory for Andrew
that the Apostle's name was added by the Pope to the Tprayer Libera-
nos in the canon of the Mass of the Roman rite.*0 The names of only
three Apostles are Usted in this prayer: Saints Peter, Paul, and
Andrew; and it is certainly very significant that Gregory the Great
gave so prominent a place to St. Andrew in the Roman liturgy.
Gregory had testified to this veneration for the Apostle Andrew
at the beginning of his ecclesiastical career when, after renouncing
the world and devoting the vast fortune inherited from his father
to the construction of monasteries, he dedicated to the Apostle the
monastery into which he had transformed his family palace about
the year 574.61 There he lived first as a simple monk. His biographer
John the Deacon says62 that he was believed to have administered
the affairs of his monastery not alone, but jointly with St. Andrew.
Bearing all this in mind, it is logical to suppose that Gregory had
collected, during his stay in Constantinople from 579 to 586, as legate
of Pope Pelagius all the information available on St. Andrew and his
,
relics. He must very often have venerated the supposed relics of

the Patron Saint of his monastery in the church of the Holy
Apostles. According to a record preserved in the papal archives
consulted by Baronius,63 he was given, for his monastery, two very
"
40 H . Grisar, "Der gelasianische Messkanon , Zeitschrift fiir katholische
Theologie, 10 (1886), pp. 30 seq. J. Beran, op. cit., pp. 81-87, doubts that
this addition was made by Gregory the Great. In view of the fact that the
cult of St. Andrew had spread in Rome before Gregory, he thinks that the
name of Andrew could already have been added to the prayer in the fifth
century. This is possible, but no new argument against the earlier opinion
was produced by Beran.
41 Joannes Diaconus S. Gregorii Magni vita, 1, chap. 6, PL, 75, col. 65.
,
.* Ibid chap. 10, col. 66: taniis est virtutibus publicatus, ut omnibus secum
.
,
viventibus, et exemplo fuerit, et terrori, quippe qui nan solus, sed socialiter cum
beato Andrea apostolo, suo monasterio, signis evidentibus, sit praefuisse putatus.
'
43 C Ba.ion\\is AnnalesEcclesiastici, ad ann. 586, 10, ed. A. Theiner (Bar-le-

.
,
Duc, 1867), chap. 25 p. 391: Gregorius igitur tempore Tiberii eo bene functus
,
munere, illo defuncto, Romam reversus est et quidem magnis donatus muneribus ,
nempe sacrosanctis reliquiis Andreae Apostoli, et Lucae Evangelistae, quas

nuper tempore Justiniani refossas et honorificentiori loco reconditas vidimus.
Quod enim {ut dictum est) erexisset in Urbe in Caelii mantis regione ad clivum
Scauri monasterium Gregorius sub titulo S. Andreae, ejusdem sancti reliquias
sibi dart petiit ab imperatore; quas et accepit insignes quidem nempe brachium
159
precious relics by the Emperor-an arm of St. Andrew and the

head of St. Luke.
As has been seen, Gregory the Great, when he became Pope, was
careful to keep himself well-informed about the situation in Con-
stantinople. Would this Pope, the valiant defender of Roman
primacy who, at every opportunity, stressed so strongly the
apostohcity of his see, have been such a fervent admirer of St.
Andrew if he had known that the prestige of this Apostle had been
debased-as it would have been in his eyes-to provide the see of
Constantinople with the privilege of an apostohc foundation ? It is
in fact quite safe to conclude, on the basis of Gregory's attitude,
that, until the beginning of the seventh century, the account of the
apostolic origin of Byzantium, contained in the writing ascribed to
Dorotheus, was not known either in Rome or in Constantinople.64
All of these considerations point to the end of the sixth and the
beginning of the seventh centuries as the possible terminus a quo
for the definitive formation of the legendary Andrew tradition
concerning Byzantium.68 The new controversy as to the title of the
oecumenical patriarch, which aroused ecclesiastics in Rome and
Constantinople, might have suggested to some anonymous zealot
S Andreae cum capite S, Lucae. Et de his in Vaticanis monumentis vetus

.
assertio in priori pagina Codicis signati numero centesimo quinquagesimo

terlio, Extat adhuc in eodem monasterio S. Andreae ipsum ejusdem Apostoli
brachium argentea theca ornatum..., caput vera sancti Lucae in Basilica
Vaticana reconditum, ibi hactenus honorifice asservatur. Cf. F. H. Dudden,
Gregory the Great, His Place in History and Thought, i (London, 1905),
pp. 119, 157. '
.* The cult of the apostles and of Christ s disciples spread in the West
during the sixth century. That the interest in apocryphal stories concerning
their lives also increased is clear from the popularity of the writings of
Gregory of Tours on the apostles-particularly on Andrew-and by the
eagerness with which the relics of Andrew were sought for some western
'
churches. Cf. Gregory s Liber in gloria martyrum, 1, chaps. 25-32 (on the
apostles); MGH, Ss. Rer. Merov. 1, pp. 503-508. In chapter 30 (pp. 505 seq.)
Gregory reports some miracles ascribed to Andrew, and mentions also
(pp. 506, 540) that the churches of Neuvy-le-Roi, near Tours, and of Agde
' '
were privileged to possess some of Andrew s relics. Cf. ibid., pp. 826, Gregory s
Liber de miraculis S. Andreae Apostoli, about which more will be found on
pp. 183 seq. In his Historia Francorum, 4, chap. 31, ibid,, p. 167, Gregory
mentions the church of St. Andrew at Clermont Ferrand.
'
.* This is also the opinion of L. Duchesne in his book, L Eglise au VI*
siicle (Paris, 1925), p. 76.
160
in Constantinople the idea of enhancing the prestige of the see of

the residential city by promoting it to an apostolip foundation. In
this way the only great prerogative held by Rome over Constanti-
nople would be levelled, and the two cities would be equal in every
respect.
Actually, insofar as can be determined, the first documents
attributing an apostolic character to the see of Constantinople also
date from the beginning of the seventh century. Of special interest
among these is a composition of Arcadius, Archbishop of Cyprus,
who lived under the reign of Phocas (602-610) and Heraclius
(610-641). In his biography of St. Symeon of the Marvelous
Mountain (6 Oauyao-roopchris), who lived from 521 to 596, he calls
the see of the Imperial City apostolic on two occasions.66 He reports
the prophecy of the Saint that John Scholasticos would become
Patriarch of Constantinople, and this came to pass after the death
of Eutychius (582). The case is especially interesting because the
"
new Patriarch in question is John IV, called the Faster." This did
not mean that John IV regarded his see as of apostolic character,
'
although such seems, to have been Arcadius conviction when he

wrote this biography.
Another hagiographer of the same period, Eleusios, also called
George, expresses the same high opinion of the character of the see
of Constantinople. He is the author of the Life of St. Theodore,
who died, according to his hagiographer, in the third year of
Herachus' reign (613). The Life was written soon after the Saint's
death, and it is worth-while reading for anyone interested in the
reigns of Maurikios, Phocas, and Herachus. It is written in a very
lively style and provides useful information on the Patriarchs of
this period-Cyriacus, Thomas I, and Sergius. In two instances the
hagiographer calls the see of Constantinople apostolic, first when
he announces that the monastery of St. Theodore was placed
directly under the patriarch of Constantinople, and again when he
describes how Sergius, the new holder of the see, asked the Saint
A .
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, TTspl tiwos ovyypa9fjj 'ApxaSlou 'apxiern-
ctkAttou Kvrrrpou. Vizantijskij Vremennik 1 (i894)(p. 6o8:KalyapT dTTOcrToXiKM
,
6p4wtj> -ri s PootiAsuoOcttis iriXscos <5tmKXii|pcooi cte 6 9c6s. P. 609: spAiVhi tou
airooroAiKou dp6vou Tfjs PoktiAeuowtis ir6A£ws EOrvxios 4 dyiwraros TrarpvipxTis.
I6l
to pray that "the Lord may make him worthy of the episcopal
dignity and of the apostolic throne."67
At the same time the title "apostolic" is applied to Constantinople
in an official document, a novel issued by the Emperor Heraclius
(sometime between 620 and 629), and addressed to the Patriarch
Sergius (610-638).68 This novel specified regulations regarding the
reception of clerics who came to Constantinople uninvited by the
patriarch, and it seems to have been an isolated instance, at least
insofar as can be judged since the official documents of the following
period are only very unsatisfactorily preserved.
Moreover, two other Patriarchs had been buried in the Church of
the Holy Apostles. St. Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople from
552-565 and again from 577 to about 582, was interred there.**
This honor may be explained by the fact that Eutychius died
with a reputation of sanctity. Theophanes70 also reports the burial
of Domitian, Bishop of Melitene, in the same Church in the year
a d 602. The Bishop was a relative of the Emperor which may
. .
explain why he was so honored. Thus, the link connecting the see
of Byzantium with the Apostle Andrew became stronger.
The Acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council held in Constantinople
in 680 also clearly show how the use of the title "apostolic see" had
spread in Byzantium during the seventh century. In these Rome is
" "
called the apostolic see more often than in the acts of previous
councils, and when the names of its legates are mentioned they are
almost always introduced as representatives of the apostolic see of
Old Rome,71 although the bishops still frequently contented them-
n Theophilos Joannou M\n\v£\a AyioAoyiKd (Venice, 1884), Bio? 6<Ho\;

,
96oS6pou, chap. 82, p. 437: Crn-6 tov dTrocrroXtKiv Qpdvov Tfjs AyKordrns toO
QtoO peyAXTis ekkAti Igc?, chap. 135, p. 484: dfiow avrr6v Tfj; iiTtOKOiTfjs Kal tou
dTTOoroXiKou 6p6vou -noxi aaaa.
M J Zepos, P. Zepos, Novellae et aureae bullae imperatorum post Justini-
.
anutn (Athens, 1931) Nov. 24, Jus Graeco-romanum, 1, p. 33: toO t6v
,
drrooroXiKiv touttis Si ttovtos Qpdvov otKouusmoO TraTpidpxou. This title is

used only in the introduction to the novel, not in the novel itself.
H Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (Propylaeum
.
ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris), (Brussels, 1902), cols. 587 seq.

70 Chronographia, ad aim. 6094; ed. Bonn, p. 438; ed. de Boor, p. 284.
51 Mansi 11, cols. 200D, 201E, 2I2D, 213B, 216C, 220E, 225A, 297E,
,
320C, 325C, 329D, 332A, 368c, 388A, 392D, 509B, 528E, 588B, 625C, 640E,
641A, 644E, 660C, 665C D 669B,C.
, ,
162
selves with referring to Agathon simply as the Pope of Old

Rome.72
It should be noted that the Emperor Constantine IV showed greater
logic than the bishops, both in his letters and when mentioning the
see of Rome during the debates.73 In his letter to Agathon, an-
nouncing the convocation of the Council, the Emperor gave to the
Pope the title of "Oecumenical Pope," as he did also to the Patriarch
of Constantinople.74
In the same letter75 he spoke in general, of "God's most holy
"
catholic and apostohc Churches, meaning, evidently, the five

patriarchates. That such was his intention is indicated by the
Emperor's order, pronounced at the end of the eighteenth meeting,
that the decisions of the Synod be sent to the five patriarchal sees.
The sees were enumerated as follows:76 "To the see of the holy Peter,
Coryphaeus of the Apostles, namely, to the most holy Agatho,
Pope of Old Rome. To the see of the most holy, catholic, and apostohc
great Church of Constantinople, namely to George, the most holy
and most blessed Patriarch. To the apostolic see of the holy Evange-
list, Mark, who is honored in the great city of the Alexandrians
through Peter, the most beloved by God, priest, monk, and legate.
To the see of the Antiochenes or Theopolitans the great city, ,
through Theophanes the most holy and blessed Patriarch. To the

see of the Holy Resurrection of our Lord Christ, God, namely to
Jerusalem "Here, then, is found the beginning of the pentarchic
idea, namely that the whole Church should be governed by the five
patriarchs. Because the patriarchs represented the apostles, all
patriarchal sees were to be regarded as apostohc. This idea was
particularly defined in the Acts of the Ignatian Council of 86g-870.77
"
Ibid., Actio 8 (cols. 336 seq.), the bishops' opinions on Agathon's letter.
684 seq., letter of the Council to the Pope.
73 Ibid cols. 197A, 360C, 392D, 509E, 716E, 7i9A,D.
.
,
74 Ibid col. 196: tco AyicoTdrco xal paKapicoTcrrco <Sp)(ieTn<TK6Trcp Tfjs irpeapu-
.
,
'
Tlpas Pcomtis, Kal oIkouhevikco TTffrrnjt. The letter starts with a eulogy of Rome,
the basis of Constantine IV's imperial dignity. Cf. col. 201 seq. letter to the
,
Patriarch, and col. 713 letter to Pope Leo. See also col. 737, letter to Pope
,
John. When signing the decrees of the Council, at the end of the eighteenth
" "
session, the legates call the Pope also oecumenical, ibid., cols. 640, 668.
75 Ibid .
,
col. 200C.
79 Ibid cols. 681 seq.
.
,
77 See infra pp. 268.

,
163
In the imperial letter of Constantine IV the apostolic designation

is given especially to the three main sees, i.e. Rome, Constantinople
and Alexandria, but this was not the only time that the see of Con-
stantinople was called apostolic. It was so called frequently during
the Synod, especially when the deacons of the pairiarcheion-
Constantine and Theodore-who acted as secretaries or readers at
the Council, were mentioned.78 They were given almost the same
titles as the Roman legates when their intervention in the debates
was announced. This was the first time, in an official ecclesiastical
document, that the title of apostolic see had been given categorically
to Constantinople.
It raises, however, another problem. Was Andrew's connection
with the Church of Constantinople responsible for this promotion
of the Constantinopolitan see ? If so, it would mean that the docu-
ment, attributed to Dorotheus, cataloguing the bishops of Byzantium
from Andrew and Stachys onward, was perhaps already known in
Constantinople in the sixth century, and that its authenticity was
generally accepted in the seventh century. It seems very doubtful,
however, that this was so. A very important source may be quoted
which completely ignores the Stachys Legend and the Pseudo-
Dorotheus catalogue of Byzantine bishops, in spite of its having
been written in the first half of the seventh century during the reign
of the Emperor Heraclius (610-641). This is the Chronicon Paschale.
Its anonymous author lists Metrophanes as the first Bishop of
Constantinople,79 ignoring the long list of his supposed predecessors
presented by Pseudo-Dorotheus.
It might be argued that the anonymous Church historian was
here simply copying his predecessor, the Church historian Socrates, ,
a native of Constantinople.80 Of course Socrates could have known

nothing about the legendary tradition, for, as had already been
shown, it was not in existence in the fifth century when he wrote
n Mansi 11, cols. 389E, 460D {in the Latin translation the title "apostolic"
,
is often omitted), 521D, 553B, 585D, 616E, 624B, 629D. Of other eastern
apostolic sees, only Jerusalem eagerly seeks this title, ibid., col. 640E, 669A.
"
Ed. Bonn, p. 522, PG, 92, col. 700: tf)? iv rep Butavrlcp £KKXT|(7ia$ fiytiTon
'
TTpwros MiyrpoipAvTis 8tt| t Bonn, p. 524; PG, ibid., col. 701: Alexander is said
.
to have been the second Bishop of Constantinople.

60 Hist eccles, 1, 37; PG, 67, col. 173: t6t€ Tfls iv KcovoravrivovmbXei
,
'
irpoeorcbs AA av pos iKKXiicrias, MiiTpo<p6vTiv -rrdXat StaSsgdiJEVos.
164
his history. Socrates was not emphatic in declaring Metrophanes

first Bishop of Constantinople, and this might explain why the
Socrates tradition was ignored after the Andrew Legend became
known.
However, when the Chronicon Paschale is more thoroughly

perused, it must be concluded that its anonymous author could not
have known of the list of apostles and disciples contained in the
compilation attributed to Pseudo-Dorotheus, for his own list of the
apostles and of the seventy disciples is a much simpler one.81 In it
he quotes Andrew second after Peter. He also mentions Stachys,
but says nothing of Andrew's supposed connection with the foun-
dation of the bishopric of Byzantium. This is the more noteworthy
in that he speaks of the sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria as
apostolic foundations, and is well acquainted with their relationship
to Peter.82
All of this is important. It is logical to conclude that the anonymous
Church historian of the seventh century knew nothing of the Andrew
and Stachys Legend concerning Byzantium, and that, in the irst
half of the seventh century, the Pseudo-Dorotheus lists of apostles f
and disciples were not in circulation in Constantinople. Such a con-
clusion is further confirmed by the fact that the author of the
Chronicon Paschale quotes, as the source of his information on the
apostles and disciples, the Hypotyposis written by Clement of
Alexandria. This work, now lost, was known also to the first Church
historian Eusebius,83 who, when numbering Cephas, whom he
distinguishes from Peter, among the seventy disciples, quotes the
'
same source as the anonymous Chronicon-the fifth book of Clement s

Hypotyposis. This is somewhat surprising because this same
Eusebius writes, in another passage,84 that at this time a complete
list of the seventy disciples did not exist. Apparently, therefore,
the list given by Clement was incomplete, and the story of Stachys
81 Chronicon Paschale ed. Bonn, pp. 399, 401; PG, 92, cols. 520, 521, Cf.
,
infra, p. 176.
84 Chron Paschale, ibid., pp. 416, 421, 431, 432; PG, ibid., cols. 540, 545,
.
557. 560-
83 Hist eccles. 1, 12, 2; ed. E. Schwartz, 1, p. 82, PG, 20, col. 117.
,
84 Hist eccles, 1, 12, 1; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 80, PG, ibid. Cf. R. A.
,
Lipsius, Die apokr. Apost., 1, pt. 1, p. 201.
165
was not known to Clement, to Eusebius, or to the anonymous

author of the Chronicon Paschale.
This indicates that the new idea of terming the see of Constanti-
nople apostolic, could hardly have been put into circulation by the
statements of the Pseudo-Dorotheus document attributing the
foundation of the see of Byzantium to St. Andrew. How, therefore,
could such an innovation have been introduced? The anonymous
author of the Chronicon Paschale may be of help in supplying an
answer to this question. On several occasions, when speaking of
liturgical feasts introduced into the Church calendar, he stresses that
they are celebrated annually on fixed dates by "God's catholic and
"
apostolic Church. 85 It is obvious from the text that he had in mind

not so much the universal Church in general as the Church to which
he belonged, the Eastern Church including that of Byzantium,
which he calls catholic and apostolic.
It is reasonable to see in this the influence of the Roman emphasis
on the apostolic character of the Church in general and of the Roman
see in particular. Under this strong influence the idea of the apos-
tolicity of the Church found more appreciation in Byzantium also,
and the custom of calling the see of Constantinople apostolic should
in a sense, therefore, be attributed to the Roman influence.
There may be, however, an additional explanation of the origin
of this usage insofar as it concerns Byzantium. It has been seen86
that, when the Byzantines started referring to their patriarch as
" "
oecumenical they intended not to reserve the designation ex-
clusively for the holder of the see of the capital city, but to give it
also to the patriarch of Rome. This can easily be explained. Accord-
ing to the Byzantine conception, since Constantinople was called
the New Rome, the holder of its see should enjoy the same titles as
the holder of the see of the Old Rome-as is suggested in the
'
cannons confirming Constantinople s rank in the Church-and this

should also apply in reverse. Because the holder of the see of the
Old Rome called his Church apostolic, there was no reason to refuse
.s Ed Bonn, pp. 373: the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25: iopTd Ei
.
t6w euayyEAi<jp6v Tffc Ayiaj Stcnrolwris pcov fvSd ou 6eot6kou xcd dEnrapd vou
Maplas toO GeoO KaeoXiKf) kocI dTTOoroXiirf) KKAriala. 393 (Epiphany), 417
(feasts in general), 429 (Easter). PG, 92, cols. 488, 512, 540, 553.
See supra, p. 163. Cf. also pp. 77 79.
,
166
to the holder of the see of New Rome the same privilege. If it is

true that the Andrew Legend was unknown in Byzantium in the
seventh century, there can be no other reason for the origin of this
practice in Constantinople.
For the following period at least, one document may be quoted

to indicate that the see of Constantinople continued to be called
apostolic. Written in 713 by Agatho, chartophylac of the church
of Hagia Sophia,87 it describes the reign, as well as the fall of ,
the usurper Basiliscus, and records the proclamation of the new

Emperor Anastasius II. In his account of the election of AnastasiusII,
he reports that the new Emperor was first proclaimed "in God's
most holy catholic and apostolic great church, and crowned by the
Archpriest and Patriarch John in the holy and most venerable
thysiasterion [sanctuary]." The deacon refers, of course, to the church
of the Patriarch, the Hagia Sophia.
The title was, however, not yet used officially by the patriarchs
themselves, as can be inferred from the letter sent by the Patriarch
John to Pope Constantine I. In its address the writer does not give
this title either to himself or to the Pope, but within the letter he
twice calls the Roman see "apostolic."88
The approach of the iconoclastic period brought new develop-
ments. Although it would have seemed natural for the iconoclasts
to have favored this idea as giving more prestige to the see of Con-
stantinople, it appears, on the contrary, that the iconoclastic
emperors preferred to hark back to the old Hellenistic definition of
imperial power, stressing the priestly character of the basileia*
87 Mansi 12, col. I93C: dvayopeudel; npwroi' dw -HJ AyiwrdrTi tou 0£oO
,
KaOoXiKfj Kal drrocrroXiKT) lirydXij iKKA ah Kal aropOels imb tou dtpxtepdcos Kort
'
iTaTpi<ipxw l<Ax5tvvou iv Tcji dyicj) Kal TravodirrCjj Ouoiaorriplcjj.

M Ibid , cols. 200A, 205D.
.
M M Anastos will deal more

.
fully with this problem in his study, 'EKKXriffia
Kal iToXmia ds t u Trpconiw elKovo|iaxiKf|v TrepioSov, to be published in Athena
in I958{ ?) in a Festschrift honoring Hamilcar Alivizatos. As far as Andrew
himself is concerned, his prestige seems to have been respected also by
the iconoclasts, as indicated by the confirmation of privileges given to the
metropolitan of Patras by Nicephorus II (802-811) and by Leo V (813-820).
Leo V is said by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De administrando imperio ,
chap. 49; ed. Bonn, pp. 217-220; ed. Moravczik-Jenkins, pp. 231 seq.) to
have fixed the tributes which the Slavs were to render to the metropolitan
after their defeat in 805 by the citizens of Patras, whose victory had been won
with the help of St. Andrew who had been seen leading his worshipers in battle.
167
Because of this they were inclined to exalt the position of the

emperors in religious matters, at the expense of the priests, par-
ticularly since the patriarchs of the truly apostolic sees did not
favor the iconoclastic doctrine.
So it came about that the apostolic idea became a weapon for
the defenders of the image cult against the intervention of emperors
in the doctrinal field. It can thus be said that the iconoclastic
struggles contributed in great measure to the definitive acceptance
of the principle of apostolicity by the Byzantine Church. As a
logical consequence, the principle that Church affairs should be
decided by the five patriarchs-the so-called pentarchic idea-was
also considerably strengthened during the iconoclastic period by
the defenders of images.
This is especially clear in the writings of St. Theodore of Studios,
one of the most prominent defenders of the cult of images. He was
anxious to deny to emperors the ight of intervention in matters of
r
faith ;w so he stressed the thesis that decisions in dogmatic affairs

were the exclusive concern of the Church, represented not by the
emperor, but by the five patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria. Antioch, and Jerusalem, who were the successors of
the apostles. He pointed out, too, that the decision of one of the
patriarchs was not sufficient, but that the consent of all five was
necessary, and that the iconoclastic council which was approved
only by the Emperor and his heretical Patriarch, and condemned
by the other four patriarchal sees, was therefore without value.
Theodore emphasized above all the apostolicity of the see of
Old Rome because the popes were the most valiant defenders of the
cult of images. On some occasions he gave the Pope the title of
apostolicus*1 but this did not mean that he endowed only the first
patriarch with apostolicity. In his letter to Thomas, the Patriarch
of Jerusalem, whom he called in one instance the first of the
90 In this respect Theodore follows St. John of Damascus whose plea for
the cult of images contains a very outspoken condemnation of imperial inter-
ventions in religious matters. (De Imaginibus, orationes ires, 2, PG, 94, cols.
1296 seq.)
M Letter to Pope Leo [Theodori Studitae Epistolae 1, Epist. 34, PG, 99,
,
cols. loaiA, 1025D); Letter to Epiphanius (ibid., 2, Epist., 35, col. 12096);
Letter to the Patriarch Thomas of Jerusalem, (ibid., Epist. 121, col. 1397A).
Cf. also Letter to Naucratius (ibid., Epist. 63, col. 1281B).
168
patriarchs, although he was the fifth of the series,92 Theodore also

stressed the apostolicity of the see of Jerusalem98 and called the
Pope the apostolicus of the West.94 which implies that there were
also apostolici of the East.
An important passage from Theodore's letter to Leo the Sacella-
rius95 shows clearly that this is what Theodore had in mind. He
"
says in the text: There is no discussion about secular things. To

judge them is the right of the emperor and the secular tribunal. But
[there is discussion] about divine and celestial decisions, and these
are not committed to others than those to whom God the Word
himself said, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in
Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
Heaven' [Matt. 16:19]. Who are the men to whom this order was
given? The apostles and their successors. And who are their
successors ? He who holds the throne of Rome, which is the first;
he who holds the throne of Constantinople, the second; and after
them they who hold those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
This is the pentarchic authority of the Church; these have juris-
prudence over divine dogmas. To the emperor and to the secular
authority belong the giving of assistance and the confirming of what
has been decided."
It is clear from Theodore's words that he likewise counted the
patriarch of Constantinople among the successors of the apostles; so
he must have regarded the see of Constantinople as an apostolic
see, similar to the others. He argued further that when one of the
ive patriarchs deviates from the truth, he must be judged, not by
f
the emperor, but by the other patriarchs. The passage is important,

too, from another point of view. Theodore recognized the emperor's
right to convoke a council, but insisted also on the prominent
position of the pope in general councils. If the convocation of a
council was not desired by the emperor, he recommended that the
case be submitted to the Roman patriarch for decision. The content
of the letter as a whole indicates that Theodore opposed the secular
M Ibid
. Epist. 15, col. 1161A.
,
w Ibid
. Epist. 121, col. 1396C: oTye tw AttocttoXikco |3a6p$ CnrtpaweorwrES,
,
*
Kori t6 toO 6.btK<foQio\i 81 ivv6\io\j 6ia8oxil5 tirfyovTes irpdawiTOV
M Ibid Epist. 121, col. 1397A: 6Tffa AOotws <iiTTOOToXiK6s.
.
,
"
Ibid., Epist. 124, col. 1417C.
169
power of the emperors as against the sacerdotal power of the

patriarchs, which they inherited from the apostles. This strengthens
the assumption that he regarded the see of Constantinople as an
apostolic see.
Theodore's giving of the title apostolicus to the popes finds a
'
supplementary explanation in the fact that this was the West s

official title for the Pope at that time.96 Theodore of Studios must
have known that. He was in constant touch with the Greek monas-
teries in Rome,97 and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he
learned from his Greek correspondents98 how to address the Pope
in his letters. He was surely quite ready to adopt this title for it
expressed his own belief that dogmatic questions could be decided
only by the five patriarchs, the successors of the supreme teachers
of the faith-the apostles-among whom the successor to St. Peter
was the foremost.
Theodore's attitude is certainly important, and it illustrates
particularly clearly the growth of the idea of apostolicity in Byzan-
tium. In official documents, however, no clear evidence of this new
tradition can be found. In the Acts of the Seventh Oecumenical
Council the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople are given the
"
usual titles- most holy Pope of Old Rome, most holy Patriarch
"
of Constantinople, that is New Rome. Rome is called "apostolic

"
see ; so also are the sees of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem.99 Only once does Tarasius seem to raise his voice as
an apostle, and that is when he addresses the Eastern patriarchs,
inviting them to send legates to the Council: "I beseech you as
brethren, and in the language of the Apostle, as though God did
beseech you by us, I entreat you " Another allusion to the
apostolicity of the patriarchal sees can be found in the same letter
"
when he apostrophizes as his allies, fellow-warriors, fellow com-

batants"100 the Eastern patriarchs whose sees have been built upon
.8 The author has discussed the problem in detail in his book Les Ligendes
de Constantin et de Methode, vues de Byzance, (Prague, 1933}, pp. 297 seq.
.7 On Greek monasteries in Rome see ibid pp. 285 seq.
.
,
»* See Theodore's letter to Basil, Abbot of one of the monasteries in Rome

(Epist. 1, 35, PG, 99, cols. 1028 seq.) Cf. also Theodore's letter to Epiphanius
[ibid., 2, Epist. 35, col. 1209).
.» Mansi, 12, 13, especially at the beginning of each session.
109 Ibid ,
. 12, col. 1126C, D.
170
the foundation of prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being

the chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20).
This is, of course, slight testimony, but the Eastern patriarchs in
their reply to Tarasius, while laying great stress on the apostolicity
"
of their sees and calling Hadrian I Holy and Apostolic Pope," do

not seem to deny the title to the Patriarch of Constantinople. They
"
address their letter to the most holy and most blessed Lord and
Master, Archbishop of Constantinople and Oecumenical Patriarch,"
but they praise also "the most holy and divinely inspired epistle of
"
your Paternal and Apostlic Holiness. 101

A very faint echo of Theodore's teaching as to the supreme role
that the five patriarchs should play in the Church can be discovered
in the refutation of the iconoclastic council by the Deacon John,
read at the beginning of the sixth session. This declared that that
council could not be called oecumenical because the patriarchs of
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not represented
and had not accepted its decisions.102
Thus it appears that the importance of apostolic origins in Church

organization was fully grasped in Constantinople at the end of the
seventh and the beginning of the eighth centuries. Thanks to the
defenders of image worship, the idea of apostoUcity in Constanti-
nople had considerably advanced. It would, therefore, seem quite
logical to look for some kind of codification of the Andrew tradition
in this period, and this problem deserves a more thorough ex-
amination.
The key to the dating of the writings containing the Andrew and
Stachys stories is probably to be found in the Martyriutn sancti
Apostoli Andreae, pubhshed by Max Bonnet in 1894 and called by
him NarreUio.10* In it the anonymous author states (chap. 8) that
101 Ibid , cols. 1127C, II34B,D,E.

.
104 Ibid , 13, cols. 208E, 209A.

.
103 In Analecta Bollandiana, 13 (1894), pp. 253-372, reprinted in his

Supplementum codicis apocryphi (Paris, 1895), pp. 45-64. Cf. also R. A.
Lipsius, M. Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 2 (Leipzig, 1898), p. xvi.
The text in AnBoll., p. 358 in Supplementum, chap. 8, p. 50: 'EkeIOsv te cxOOij
,
4 9ww 5id toO KcrrdrrrXou tou outoO Eu eivou irdirrou tou dapiovros irpdj t6
BuUvtiov Se ioT; tUpeaiv fx P - Kori irpdj Tiva x pav koAou vtiv 'ApyupiiroAiv
KorraXapcbv Kal iKETaE KKXTjcriav Beipdnevos t6v Iva twv tpSo Kovra liaOTyrcov
171
Andrew, "after having sailed down through the same Pontus

Euxeinus [Black Sea] which flows toward Byzantium, landed on
the right bank, and after arriving at a place called Argyropolis, and
having constructed there a church, he ordained one of the seventy
disciples called Stachys whom also Paul the Apostle, the mouth-
piece of Christ, the vessel of election, mentions in the Epistle to the
Romans [Rom. 16:9] as beloved [by him]. Bishop of Byzantium,
and left him to preach the word of salvation. He, because of the
pagan godlessness that prevailed in that region, and the cruelty of
the tyrant Zeuxippus, a worshipper of idols, who held sway there,
turned toward western parts (ccCrris Trp6s tois SutikoTs |jipemv A-mJei),
illuminating with his divine teaching the darkness of the West
(Tf|v SuriKfjv Anaupdnyra) [chap. 9]. After wandering through
Thessaly and Hellas and after affirming in their cities the mystery
' ' '
of Christ s salvation, he came to Achaea. -
It seems clear from this description that, according to the author

of the Narratio, Thessaly, Hellas, and Achaea belonged to the
western parts illuminated by the preaching of Andrew. Actually,
with Macedonia and Epirus, they formed part of Illyricum which
was subject to the western patriarchate of Rome, and thus could
be termed "western parts"-T<ic SutikA prv This indicates that
this description of Andrew's activity must have been compiled at a
time when Illyricum was not subject to the patriarchs of Constanti-
nople. Some think104 that the date of this transformation-attributed
to Leo III-should be moved from 733 to about 752-757. If this
ZtAxwv dvinart, oi Kod TTaOAos 4 drrAaToXo?, t6 oriija XptoroO, t6 okeOo? Tffc

ixXoyfis, iv Tfj irpds 'Popodous vi\ivr\jm hriaroXfi (5cyofrrrvr6v aOrdv fivro x£,Poto-
vi'iaas tou Butawriou hrlaxoirov koI KorraXnrcbv Biayy Atiw t6v awn'ipiov X6yov,
8idt rfiv JkeToe ETmparoOaav t6t£ el5coXiKf)v A9E6TTiTa Kal Ti\v toO Tvpdvvou kocI
etScoXopavous Zeu Tm-ou cbiiirnTO toO iv oanru TTf>oKcxQtio\xtvo\j aOris TTp6s toI?
SutikoIs nfpeatv dinliet, KaTa9COT(tcov Tals iv6fois otvnroO 5i5axals Kal t v Sutik v
6i\iaup&n\-TCt. Chap. 9: AieAOwv te Tf|v QtaadKiav xal 'EAAA5a Kal toOs iv aOrals
TaTs .rT6X£aiv t6 Tfls olKovop(as Xpiarou tou 6eou viu<nY|piov Mtiitvos abritev
'
\itn\a\v Trp6s Ti\v Axatotv.

104 See V Grumel, "L'annexion de rillyricum oriental, de la Sicile et de la
.
Calabre au patriarcat de Constantinople," Recherches de science religieuse

(Melanges Lebreton), 40 (1952), pp. 191-200. Grumel's arguments are,
however, far from convincing, as was shown by M. Anastos in his study:
"
The Transfer of Illyricum to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Con-
"
stantinople in 732, Silloge Bizaniina in honore di S. G. Mercati (Studi

bizantim e neoellenici, 9 [1957]).
172
interpretation is justified,105 the composition of this document

should be allocated before the year 733, perhaps in 757 or, at the
latest, very soon after this date, when the new situation had not yet
been fully accepted. In any case, it can hardly be supposed that
these provinces would have been called "western" at the beginning
of the ninth century. In fact the decree of the iconoclastic Emperor
was very welcome to all Byzantines, iconoclastic and orthodox
alike, and the Tacticon, dating from the patriarchate of St. Nice-
phorus-about the year 810-included the metropolitan of Illyricum
among the ecclesiastical provinces under the jurisdiction of Byzan-
tium. So also did another list of sees compiled by Basil the Armenian
about the year 829 at the end of the reign of Michael II or at the
,
beginning of the reign of Theophilus.106
The Narraiio is probably not the first document to have codified

the Andrew tradition concerning Byzantium. There is a work which
apparently preceded all others of this kind: the Index apostolorum
discipulorumque Domini Epifhanio attributus.im This text was
erroneously regarded by R. A. Lipsius106 as the first re-edition of
Pseudo-Dorotheus. Th. Schermann has convincingly shown however, ,
that it is an independent work, attributed in the best manuscript

,
containing it {Parisinus Graecus 1115), to Epiphanius of Cyprus.

Here a very short and simple version of the story of Byzantium's
'
apostolic foundation is given. In his description of Andrew s

'
missionary activities, the compiler says nothing of the Apostle s
106 This date was also tentatively suggested and rejected by J. Flamion
in his study Les Actes apocryphes de I'ApStre Andri (Louvain, Paris,
Brussels, 1911), pp. 68, 69, because he was under the influence of M. Scher-
mann s dating of Pseudo-Dorotheus at the beginning of the ninth century,
'
and thought that the author of the Narratio had used the text of Pseudo-
Dorotheus.
104 See G Parthey, Hieroclis synecdomus et notitiae episcopatnutn (Berlin,
.
1866), notitia 8, pp. 162-180, notitiae 6 and 9, pp. 145-149, 181-197, and
H Gelzer, Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani {Leipzig, 1890), pp. xiii-xv,
.
1-27 Cf. also J. Pargoire, L'Eglise byzantine de 527 d 847 (2nd ed., Paris,
.
1923), p. 298.
107 Prophetarum vitae fabulosae indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini,
,
Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicata, ed. Th. Schermann,

Teubner series (Leipzig, 1907), pp. xxxiv seq., 107-126.
»«. Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, 1 (Brunswick,
1883), pp. 23, 194 seq.
173
"
stay in Thrace. He merely reports:109 Andrew, his [Peter's] brother,

as our ancestors have transmitted to us, preached to the Scythians
and Sogdianians and Gorsinians, and in Sebastopolis the Great,
where are the encampment of Apsarus110 and the Bay of Hyssus
and the River Phasis, beyond which live the Ethiopians;111 he is
buried in Patras of Achaea after having been put on the cross by
Aegeus the King of Patras."
If this statement is compared to that of the Narratio, it will be
'
seen that the two documents give identical descriptions of Andrew s

preaching in Scythia, in Sebastopolis, and at the mouth of the
10» Prophetarum Vitae ed. Th. Schermann, pp. 108 seq.
,
110 R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen, 2, pt. 2, p. 430, proposed the following

translation: "Der Garnisonsort Apsaros." On these nations see pp. 208 seq.
111 The mention of Ethiopians designated sometimes as "Ethiopians of
,
the interior," in these geographical regions is puzzling. Perhaps we could see

in this the fusion of two traditions; that of Andrew whose activity was
generally primarily limited to Pontus Euxeinus from where he had reached
Byzantium and Achaea, and that of Matthew who, according to the Martyrium
Matthaei, of Ethiopian origin, originally in Greek and preserved in Latin
translation in the so-called Abdias Collection {J.A.Fabricius, Acta apostolorunt
apocrypha, sive historia certaminis apostolici, adscripta Abdiae, Babyloniae
episcopo, 2, pp. 636 seq.), had preached in Ethiopia. This Martyrium was
composed in Ethiopia after 524 (R. A. Lipsius, op. cit., 1, pp. 168, 223, pt. 2,
pp. 135-141), and so was certainly known in Byzantium in the seventh and
eighth centuries. Matthew was often confounded with Matthias (cf. R.A.
Lipsius, M. Bonnet, loc. cit., 1, pt. 1, p. xxxiv). Because the Acts of Andrew
and Matthias which spoke about the common activity of both Apostles in
the city of the cannibals were read also in Byzantium (they were composed,
as we shall see, at the end of the fourth century-probably in Egypt), it may
be permissible to suppose that the author of the catalogue of the apostles and
disciples, anxious to reconcile the two traditions, had invented the existence
of Ethiopians in the Hinterland of the Colchis. In reality the monk Epipha-
nius, of the ninth century {Vita S.Andreae, PG, 120, cols. 225 seq.), speaks
'
of Matthias and Andrew's preaching there. It is possible that this operation
was facilitated by the stories which could be read in Herodotus. In his
History (2, chaps. 103,104; ed. A. D. Godley, 1 [Loeb Classical Library, 1931],
pp. 390 seq.) Herodotus describes the military success of the Egyptian King
Sesostris who is said to have extended his rule through Asia Minor over the
Scythians and Thracians. When returning home from his expedition he is
said to have left part of his army in Colchis, on the river Phasis. The Colchians,
therefore, affirms Herodotus, are Egyptians. Further (2, chap, no, ed. cit.,
ii P- 398)» Herodotus says that Sesostris was the only Egyptian ruler who had
succeeded in subduing Ethiopia, which suggests that Ethiopians were among
the Egyptian soldiers who had settled on the Phasis. In reality, Herodotus
speaks of Ethiopians of Asia (3, chap. 94, ed. cit., 2, p. 122) when enumerating
the nations paying tribute to Darius, but he places them in the seventeenth
province, together with the Paricanii, on the coast of the Erythrean Sea, in
or near Beluchistan. They are also enumerated by Herodotus among the
nations whose soldiers composed the army of Xerxes (7, chap. 70, ed. cit., 3,
p. 382), and are called Ethiopians of the East, or of Asia.
174
rivers Apsarus and Phasis. The author of the Narratio adds a

description of how Andrew reached Scythia: He started preaching
in Bithynia, visited Nicaea, went from there to Thrace and thence
to Scythia. In his account of the Apostle's return journey from
Scythia to Thrace, he neglects to mention the Sogdianians and the
Gorsinians, and contents himself with calling the people beyond
these places Ethiopians."2 He has Andrew proceed from the land
of the Ethiopians to Sinope, and from Sinope to Byzantium.
Pseudo-Epiphanius is also brief in speaking of the apostolic
foundation of the see of Constantinople. In his list of the disciples
the following statement is made concerning Stachys: "Stachys,
whom Paul also mentions in the same Epistle [Rom. 6:9], was
instituted first Bishop of Byzantium by Andrew the Apostle, in
Argyropolis of Thrace."
The conciseness of this information indicates that the Pseudo-
Epiphanius contains the first known version, in its simplest and
earliest form, of the Andrew and Stachys Legend concerning Byzan-
tium. The Narratio gives a more elaborate account of Andrew's
travels. It is thus possible to regard the writing of Pseudo-Epipha-
nius as earher than the Narratio.
Next arises the question of the possible date of the composition
'
of Pseudo-Epiphanius catalogue. The atribution of this catalogue

to Epiphanius of Cyprus, who died in 402, is, of course, incorrect.
He is believed, however, to have composed a catalogue of prophets,118
and this may explain why other similar writings-the catalogues of
apostles and of disciples-were attributed to him. It seems probable
that these two catalogues circulated anonymously at first, were
added later to the catalogue of prophets composed by Epiphanius,
and so were finally attributed to him.114
Such an attribution was certainly accepted at the beginning of
the ninth century. The monk Epiphanius who wrote115 a Life of
114 Ed M. Bonnet,
. op. cit., chaps. 4, 5, pp. 48 seq.
'
118 On Epiphanius of Cyprus authorship of a catalogue of prophets see
Th. Schermann, Prophet, und Apostel., pp. 2-6. Moreover, in his Adversus
Haereses (chaps. 20, 4:51,6; PG, 41, cols. 277D, 897 seq.) Epiphanius quotes
some names of disciples. This may be another reason why an anonymous
catalogue of disciples was attributed to him.
114 Cf Th. Schermann, ibid., p. 350.
.
115 For further details see infra p. 178.

,
175
Andrew during the first half of the ninth century, discloses that in ,
collecting material for his work, he had at hand a composition by

Epiphanius of Cyprus on the apostles and the seventy disciples,
including the story of Andrew's travels and stay in Byzantium.
But it is possible to reach a more precise conclusion. The two
catalogues-or at least the list of disciples-could not have existed
in the middle of the seventh century. This is indicated by the way
in which the anonymous author of the Chronicon Paschale treats
the problem of the fate of Christ's disciples. Instead of availing
himself of the generous amount of data concerning the disciples
supplied by Pseudo-Epiphanius, he refers his readers to a work of
Clement of Alexandria, the Hypotyposis, shown above to have been
very fragmentary and incomplete.116
The author of the Chronicon knew only a very simple list of
apostles and disciples, which must have been circulating at that
time in Byzantium and which he copied.117 This catalogue was
' '
probably founded on Clement s Hypotyposis and Eusebius Church

History, for it begins with the same names mentioned in these
writings.118 In the catalogue of the Chronicon Paschale the names of
Christ's remaining disciples are compiled from names of persons
'
contained in Paul s letter (Rom. 16, I Cor., Col., II Tim., Titus,
Philemon., II Cor.) and in the Acts of the Apostles.119
All of this calls for a short recapitulation of what is known on the
'
origins of detailed lists of Christ s disciples. It is agreed among
specialists that the origin of the catalogues of apostles should be
sought in Egypt and Syria.120 The more or less legendary accounts
'
of the apostles missionary activities, based on short notices pre-

served in early Christian writings, also originated in these countries,
and from there were introduced into Byzantine ecclesiastical circles
where they were often adapted to local traditions.
114 Chron Paschale, ed.

.
Bonn., p. 421. Cf. supra, p. 165.
117 Ibid , pp. 400-403.
.
11S The catalogue starts with the names of Matthias Sosthenes, and
,
Cephas, all three of these disciples being mentioned in Eusebius' Church

History (1, chap. 12, PG, 20, col. 117; GCS, 9, pt. 1, ed. E. Schwartz [1903],
p. 80).
118 For a detailed description see Th. Schermann, op. cit., pp. 299 seq.
180 Cf R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen, 1, p. 200, and especially Th. Scher-
.
mann, op. cit, pp. 204-216.

,
176
The first attempts to compile a list of Christ's disciples (Luke

10: i) were made by Clement of Alexandria in his lost Hypotyposis
and by Eusebius in his Church History. They served as a basis for
further speculation on the fate of Christ's disciples, and for the
composition of more complete lists. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d. 402)
'
quotes the names of only some of Christ s disciples, though he

seems to have known the names of all seventy-two.121
While the apostles were being listed, further progress was being
'
made in Syria in the compilation of lists of Christ s disciples. This

is indicated by the list preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions.122
Although this catalogue is incomplete, it not only contains the
names of the disciples, but reveals a growing interest in their fate.
It presents them as bishops instituted in different cities by the
apostles.
Such a Syriac list translated into Greek must have been introduced
into Byzantium in the second half of the seventh century. It is
preserved in two manuscripts. The older manuscript {Cod. Vat. gr.
"
2001, twelfth century) of this Syriac" catalogue does not contain

'
the stories of Stachys' ordination by Andrew123 or of Andrew s

journey through Byzantium; neither do these stories appear in the
later manuscript {Cod. Vat. gr. 1506, thirteenth century). This
catalogue presents the original Syriac tradition, and it must have
begun to circulate in Byzantium after the publication of the
Chronicon Paschale, for the author of the Chronicon does not appear
to know of the "Syriac" catalogue. Because this catalogue ignores
141 Adversus Haereses,
chaps. 20, 4; 51, 6; PG, 41, cols. 277D, 897 seq.
m Didascalia et Constitutiones apostolorum 1, vii, chap. 46; ed. F. X. Funk,
,
1 (Paderbom, 1905), pp. 452 seq.

ia For more details see Th Schermann, op. cit., pp. 301 seq. The author
.
rightly stresses the fact that in Vaticanus Graecus 1506 some names were already
listed not according to the Syriac, but according to the Byzantine tradition.
Thus it is especially interesting to note that Stachys' story was not added by
the translator. In both manuscripts Stachys seems to be listed among the
successors to the twelve apostates. Unfortunately folio 8ov of Vat. gr. 1506,
'
where Stachys name should be read, is almost illegible. Vaticanus graecus
2001 remarks as follows on Andrew, who is listed after Peter and Paul
(fol. 302v): *Av5pfas 6 d&EAq s S|iwvos FUrpou, Krjpu a? kv Tij 'EAAdSi. Els
TOcrpas -reAsioOron Crrri tou AtyE<5mj. In manuscript Vat. gr. 1506 (fol. 78)
Andrew is listed after Peter, and Hellas is not mentioned: ' Av8p as SkOOois,
0y5oavols xod ZAxais. Cf. Th. Schermann, Prophet, vitae, pp. 171-177. Ibid.,
*
p. 218, a short Syriac list of apostles in Latin translation, probably from the
sixth century, which reports merely that Andrew died in Patras.
12 177
the story of Stachys' ordination by Andrew, it must be anterior to

the composition of the list erroneously ascribed to Epiphanius of
Cyprus.
All of which indicates that the composition of the Pseudo-Epipha-
nius list should be dated, at the earliest, around the very end of the
seventh century, or, more probably, at the beginning of the eighth.
Its author simply adapted a Graeco-Syriac list to Byzantine use,
often following in his account of the activity of the apostles an older
tradition than that he had found in his prototype.124 It can be
supposed that this catalogue, because of its many details about the
further destinies of the disciples, achieved greater popularity than
the list of names given by the author of the Chronicon Paschale.
Regarding the list of disciples contained in the compilation
attributed to Dorotheus of Tyre, it is possible to see in it the final
elaboration of a legendary tradition that for some time had been
gradually developing in Byzantium. This development was similar
to that of the lists attributed to Epiphanius of Cyprus, for here,
too, the only part of the compilation that is original is the list
of prophets, probably first written in Aramaic and translated or
adapted into Greek by the priest Dorotheus. The forger who added
to this list of prophets the list of apostles and disciples, and the
catalogue of pre-Nicene bishops of Byzantium, promoted the
'
priest Dorotheus to Bishop of Tyre, and had him die a martyr s

death under Julian. To add authority to his list of apostles and
disciples, the forger inserted a special notice on Dorotheus,125
lauding his erudition and attributing to him the translation of
Hebrew books into Greek.
It may be that the lists contained in the collection attributed to
Dorotheus of Tyre did not appear, at that time, under his name.
As to the catalogue of pre-Nicene bishops of Byzantium, the
possibility that it was unknown in the Capital City in the eighth
century seems confirmed by the oldest Menologion of Constantinople,
composed in the eighth century, in which there is no mention of
124 Cf L. Duchesne, "Les anciens recueils de l gendes apostoliques,"

.
Compte rendu du troisibme congres scientiftque international des catholiques,

1894 (Brussels 1895), section 5, Sciences historiques, p. 77.
,
m See Th Schermann, op. cit., pp. 351, 353. Cf. supra, p. 156.
.
178
Stachys or of the twenty-one bishops who are said to have preceded

Metrophanes, and who are commemorated on the fourth of June.128
Thus the list of bishops of Byzantium was apparently compiled
at the end of the eighth century, or at the very beginning of the
ninth. This appears to be attested by Theophanes who wrote his
Chronicle about 810-811, and who spoke even then of Dorotheus,
Bishop of Tyre, mentioning, among his numerous writings, lists of
"
bishops of Byzantium and of many other places."127

Theophanes, however, does not yet seem to know of a catalogue
of apostles and disciples, also ascribed to Dorotheus. This catalogue
could, therefore, have been compiled only after 811, and could not
have been added to the list of Byzantine bishops until an even
later period. This catalogue is, in fact, based on the text of Pseudo-
Epiphanius' list, and betrays a further elaboration brought about by
the plagiarist. There exists a certain interdependence between the
Narratio and Pseudo-Dorotheus. J. Flamion128 analyzed the similar
statements contained in both documents, and concluded that the
Narratio is later than Pseudo-Dorotheus. The reverse is, however,
shown to be probable. The Narratio apparently preserves the
tradition of Andrew's travels in a purer form than Pseudo-Dorotheus,
and its author seems to have used greater logic in his description
'
of Andrew s travels. He has the Apostle go to Byzantium from
Sinope and then travel through the "western parts"-Macedonia,
Thessaly, and Hellas-to Achaea; whereas Pseudo-Dorotheus writes
that Andrew went from Byzantium to Sinope. This makes it difficult
to understand how the Apostle reached Achaea which, according to
the tradition-also recorded briefly by Pseudo-Dorotheus in his list
of apostles-should have been his last missionary territory.
It is, of course, curious to note that the monk Epiphanius, who
126 S . A. Morcelii, Kalendarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, II (Rome,
1788), pp. 119 seq. Cf. K. A. H. Kellner, Heoriologie (Freiburg i. Br., 1901),
p. 220 (2nd ed., [1906] p. 272).
,
127 Theophanes,
Chronographia, ad. ann. 5816, ed. Bonn, p. 35; ed. de Boor
p. 24: oOtos AKpifJws Kotl TTEpi twv tinox6iTcov toO Butavriou Kal &AXcov iroXXabv
t6itcov SiE n tev- Cf. Th. Schennann, op. cit., pp. 175 seq., who rightly
supposes that Theophanes is using here the same source as Pseudo-Doro-
theus, but is more accurate in describing the legendary career of Dorotheus
'
as based on Eusebius report of the two men with the same name (see supra,
p. 156).
128 Op cit., pp. 64 seq.
.
12* 179
wrote his Life of Andrew after 815, did not know the Narratio, but
it can perhaps be explained by the outbreak, soon after the Narratio's
composition, of the iconoclastic struggles. The violent reaction,
under Leo the Armenian, against image-worship hardly favored the
spread of hagiographical literature, and so it came about that the
Narratio fell into oblivion. The iconoclastic troubles may also ex-
'
plain the Byzantines need to import lists of apostles and disciples

from Syria in order to revive their own interest in the fate of Christ's
disciples.
The composition of the lists of apostles and disciples contained
in Pseudo-Dorotheus should thus, be dated, at the earhest, around
,
the very end of the eighth century. If, however, the statements of
the monk Epiphanius, the author of Andrew's Life, concerning his
principal source are taken into consideration, this date should be
placed even later. To Epiphanius, who wrote his Life after 815,129
Pseudo-Dorotheus' list was unknown, for he quotes Pseudo-
Epiphanius as the main source for his composition. This permits the
conclusion that all portions of Pseudo-Dorotheus as they are now
,
kown, were not brought together under the name of that author
and circulated throughout Byzantium until about the middle of
the ninth century.
Where could the above-mentioned writers have found the basis
for their legendary account of Andrew and Stachys? Their main
'
source could only have been a report on Andrew s apostolic activity

that must ultimately be traced to the apocrypha generally regarded
as of heretical-mostly Gnostic-origin, and which, from the fourth
century onward, were often mentioned and rejected by the Church
Fathers.130
12' See infra p. 225.

,
130 Namely by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Philastrius of Brescia, Timotheus of

Constantinople, Turibius of Astorga St. Augustine, Euodius of Uzala. For
,
details and precise quotations see R. A. Lipsius op. cit., 1, pp. 543 seq.
,
180
CHAPTER FIVE
The Legendary Elements in the Andrew Tradition
The lost apocryphal Acts of Andrew as the ultimate source of the

Constantinoplitan tradition - Gregory of Tours on Andrew's stay in
Byzantium-The apocryphal Acts of Andrew known in the East and
West from the fifth to the ninth centuries-Date of the composition of
the apocryphal Acts of Andrew - Scythia, not Achaea, as Andrew's
missionary field - Did Andrew preach in Asia Minor ? -The legend of
the maneaters as a reflection of the old tradition of Andrew's preaching
in Scythia - Later tradition identifying the city of the maneaters with
Sinope - The "Scythian tradition" reflected in the original Acts and in
the Legends of Andrew's preaching in Colchis and in Georgia - Legendary
traits in the "Achaean tradition" - Oldest traditions quote Luke as
"
missionary of Achaea - Spread of the new Achaean tradition" -

Legendary accounts of Argyropolis and Zeuxippus - Probable origin of
the "Achaean tradition" - Conclusion.
The apocryphal writings on Andrew must now be searched in

order to trace the origin and development of the tradition con-
cerning his activity in Byzantium, and to determine the legendary
elements which it contained.
Of the original apocryphal description of Andrew's activity-
The Acts or Travels of Andrew-less survives than of similar
apocryphal Acts of three other Apostles-John, Paul, and Peter.1
Only a short text of the original Acts of Andrew seems to be
preserved in a Greek manuscript in the Vatican Library.2 Fortu-
nately the Acts of Andrew have survived, at least in part, in some
western and eastern texts whose authors using the original Acts,
,
1 For more details see I E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen

.
(2nd ed., Tubingen, 1924), pp. 163-256.

2 It is the Vaticanus Graecus 808 published by M. Bonnet in R. A. Lipsius,
,
M Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum apocrypha, 2, pt. 1 (Leipzig, 1898), pp. xiv,

.
38-45.
181
based their information on what they found in them, sometimes

copying whole passages from these sources.
The western texts are: the Latin letter of the priests and deacons
of Achaea describing the martyrdom of Andrew8-also preserved in
Greek versions-a Latin passion of the apostle,4 and, most important
of all, the Book of Miracles of St. Andrew the Apostle, compiled by
St. Gregory, Bishop of Tours.5
The main Greek texts are the accounts of Andrew's martyrdom,
called Martyrium Andreae Prius and Martyrium Andreae alterum*
the Acta Andreae et Matthiae, which exists also in Syriac, Ethiopic,
Coptic, Latin, and Anglo-Saxon versions, and the Acta Petri ei
Andreae.1
The descriptions of Andrew's martyrdom, although important
for attempts at a reconstruction of the original acts of St. Andrew,
are of little interest for our investigation.8 The Latin letter was
composed by an African, who had found refuge in Sardinia, after
» Ed M, Bonnet in Acta
.
Apost. apocr., published by Lipsius and Bonnet
'
on the basis of Tischendorf s edition, 2, pt. 1, (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 1-37, with
Greek versions.
*
Ed. M. Bonnet in Supplementum codicis apocryphi, 2. Ada Andreae
(Paris, 1895), pp. 66-70. The Passio starts with the words Conversante et
docente, by which it is often quoted.
6 Ed M. Bonnet, Gregorius Turonensis Episcopus, Liber de miraculis beati
.
Andreae Apostoli, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum

Merovingicarum, 1 (1883), pp. 826-846. Cf. ibid., 7 (1919), pp. 707-756,
B Krusch's remarks on Bonnet's edition.
.
. Ed M. Bonnet, in R. A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, op, cit., pp. 46-57, 58-64.

.
7 Ed M. Bonnet, ibid., pp. 65-127. On the non-Greek versions of the Acta

.
Andreae et Matthiae cf. R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und

Apostellegenden, 1, pp. 546 seq. J. Flamion, Les actes apocryphes de I'Apotre
Andri (Louvain-Paris-Brussels, 1911), pp. 310 seq. The Anglo-Saxon version
was published by J. Grimm {Andreas und Elene [Cassel, 1841]). The Acts of
Peter and Andrew are preserved also in an Ethiopian and old Slavonic transla-
tion (Lipsius, ibid., p. 554). Cf. also F. Haase, Apostel und Evangelisten in den
orientaltschen Obertieferungen (Miinster i. WM 1922), Neutestam. Abhand-
lungen, ed. M. Meinertz, 9, Heft. 1-3, pp. 249-252. C. Schmidt, "Apokryphe
koptische Apostelgeschichten und Legenden," in A. von Hamack's GescAicAte
der altchristlichen Literatur, 1 (Leipzig, 1893), pp. 919-922; I. Guidi, "Gli
Atti Apocrifi degli Apostoli nei testi copti, arabi e etiopici," Giornale delta
Societd Asiatica Italiana, 2 (1888). M. R. James, Apocrypha anecdota, Texts
and Studies 2, no. 3:5, no. 1 (Cambridge, 1893,1897); A. S. Lewis "The
,
Mythological Acts of the Apostles" in Horae Semiticae 4 (London, 1904),

,
pp. 1-30, Arabic translations of Andrew texts.

8 See the detailed examination of the Greek and Latin descriptions of
Andrew's martyrdom and of their relation to the primitive account now lost ,
in Flamion op. cit., pp. 89-191.

,
182
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
being exiled by the Vandal King Thrasamond at the beginning of

the sixth century. The Latin text of this letter is older than its
Greek versions, and even the text of the Latin passion reveals some
affinities with the letter, although the author of this passion has
also consulted the original Acts of Andrew.9
Of the Greek descriptions of Andrew's martyrdom, only the
introduction to the Martyrium prius-which should very likely be
dated from the end of the eighth century-10 gives any indication
'
of Andrew s missionary activity. From it we learn how Bithynia,
Lacedemonia, and Achaea were assigned to Andrew for preaching
the Gospel,11 although, in this account, Macedonia should probably
be substituted for Lacedemonia. However, in describing Andrew's
activity, the author simply dismissed Macedonia, and allowed
Andrew to reach Achaia direct from Asia Minor. Neither the Acts
of Andrew and Matthew, nor the Acts of Peter and Andrew give
'
any specific information concerning the area of Andrew s activities.

The first, however, designates Achaea as Andrew's missionary
territory, and reports that Andrew was brought miraculously by
Christ Himself acting as pilot, with two angels disguised as
sailors, to the city of the anthropophagites-not identified by
name-in order to deliver Matthias, who had been imprisoned
there and tortured by the natives, from the tragic fate that was
' '
awaiting him. The other document describes Peter s and Andrew s

preaching in the land of the barbarians, but again without precise
geographical designations, although it is full of accounts of fanciful
miracles.12
For the purpose of the present study the most important of all
the Andrew texts just mentioned is the Book of Miracles of St.
Andrew. This was written by St. Gregory of Tours toward the end
of his life, in 591 or 592.13 Gregory discloses in his preface14 that he
had found a book De viriutibus S. Andreae which, because of its
" "
verbosity was regarded by many as apocryphal. From these

9 Ibid pp. 40 seq.
.
,
10 J Flamion, op. cit., pp. 61 seq.

.
11 R
A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, op. cit., 2, pt. 1, p. 47.
.
14 Cf
the analysis of the contents by Lipsius, Die apohr. Apost. 1, pp.
.
550-557- R- A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, op. cit., 2, pt. r, pp. 65 seq., 117 seq.
18 J Flamion, op. cit., pp. 50-55.
.
14 MGH Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, 1, p. 827.

,
183
'
writings he made a selection of Andrew s miracles, and, after purging

them of all incongruous additions, incorporated them in his book
'
on Andrew s miracles.
Gregory mentions, again in his preface, a collection of passiones
apostolorum which was accepted by the Christians of Gaul, and
which originated in a Prankish monastery around the middle of
the sixth century.15 After Gregory's death, this collection was
"
enriched by the addition of the Virtues and Miracles of the

Apostles," and was circulated under the name of "Abdias," the
supposed Bishop of Babylon.16 The attribution is, of course, le-
gendary, and the main source of the Virtuies Andreae et Miracula
'
added to this collection, as mentioned, was Gregory s writing.17

In Gregory's composition Andrew is said to have begun his
preaching in Achaea, which had been allotted to him before the
'
apostles had separated. On the Lord s order, given by an angel,

Andrew sailed from Achaea to the city called Myrmidon, in order to
free St. Matthias from the prison into which the inhabitants had
thrown him. No mention is made of anthropophagites. When this
story is compared with that in the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and
Matthias, it is clearly apparent that Gregory of Tours knew of this
work, and that this part of his compilation is merely an abridged
version of the narrative contained in the Acts.
What follows in Gregory's Miracles of Andrew was taken from
another apocryphal writing which could only have been the book
De Virtutibus Andreae mentioned by Gregory in his preface.
Gregory has Andrew, after delivering Matthias from prison, preach
11 L Duchesne, "Les anciens recueils de l gendes apostoliques," Compte

.
rendu du troisUme congris scientifique international aes catholiques, 1894

(Brussels, 1895), section 5, Sciences historiqtus, pp. 75 seq. Cf. R. A. Lipsius,
op. cit., 1, pp. 165 seq., 557-566-
14 Published by J. A. Fabricius, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, sive historia
certaminis apostolict, adscripta Abdiae, Babyloniae episcopo, in his Codex apo-
cryphus Novi Testamenti, 2 (Hamburg, 1719), pp. 456-515 {de gestis beati
Andreae apostoli). The description of Andrew's passion starts on p. 508. On
Abdias see Lipsius, op. cit., pp. n7-178.
17 This collection of Pseudo Abdias seems to have been known to Venantius
-
Fortunatus (d. 609), who apparently quotes it in his poem De Virginitate

(verses 137 seq., PL, 88, col. 270). It was also used by the author of the
Auxerre edition of Martyrium Hieronymianum at the very end of the
sixth century. Cf. G. B de Rossi, L. Duchesne, Martyrium Hieronymianum,
in AS, Nov. 2, pt. 1 (Brussels, 1894), pp. LXXV seq.
184
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
to the inhabitants of the city, and then goes on to describe, in great

detail, how he journeyed back to his province of Achaea. The
Apostle sailed first along the southern coast of the Black Sea,
visiting the cities of Amaseia, Sinope, Nicaea, and Nicomedia,
performing, of course, numerous miracles all along the way. At
Nicomedia he boarded a ship for Byzantium, and on the journey
through the Hellespont appeased by his prayers a violent storm
which was endangering the safety of his companions,
While journeying from Byzantium through Thrace, Andrew was
menaced by a multitude armed with swords, but, after he had
implored help from the Lord, an angel appeared and disarmed the
hostile crowd. The Apostle then reached Perinthus on the Thracian
coast, whence he sailed to Macedonia. He preached and worked
miracles in Philippi and in Thessalonica, and finally arrived at
Patras in Achaea.18 In the compilation attributed to Abdias, Andrew's
'
story is copied, with slight differences in style, from Gregory s

'
writings, although Andrew s stay in Byzantium and in Thrace is

described as it was by the Bishop of Tours.
For any investigation into the origins of Byzantine tradition con-
cerning the Apostle Andrew it is important to point out that in
Gregory's writings, as early as the end of the sixth century, Byzan-
tium and Thrace were mentioned among the places and provinces
'
visited by Andrew, and it is evident from Gregory s introduction

to his writings on the Apostle's miracles that the Bishop did not
18 MGH Script. Rer. Merov., i, p. 831, Byzantium and Thrace are mention-
,
ed in chaps. 8, 9, and 10. Chap 8: Egressus inde apostolus Domini navem con-
scendit ingressusque Helispontum fretum, navigabat, ut veniret Byzantium. Et
ecce commotum est mare, et incubuit super eos ventus validus, et mergebatur
navis. Denique, praestolantibus cunctis periculum mortis, oravit beatus Andreas
ad Dominum praecipiensque vento, siluit; fluctus auiem maris quieverunt, et
tranquillitas data est. Ereptique omnes a praesenti discrimine, Byzantium
pervenerunt. Chap. 9: Inde progressi, ut venirent Thracias, apparuit eis
multitudo hominum a longe cum evaginatis gladiis, lanceas manu gestantes,
quasi volentes in illis irruere. Quod cum vidisset Andreas apostolus, faciens
crucis signum contra eos, ait: "Oro, Domine, ut decidat pater eorum, qui haec eos
agere instigavit. Consturbentur virtute divina,ne noceant sperantes in te." Haec
eo dicente angelus Domini cum magno splendore praeteriens, tetigit gladios eorum ,
et corruerunt proni in terra. Transiensque beatus apostolus cum suis, nihil est
nocitus ; omnes enim, proiectis gladiis, adorabant eum. Angelus quoque Domini
discessit ab eis cum magno lumine claritalis. Chap. 10: Sanctus vero apostolus
pervenit ad Perintum civitatem Traciae maritimam et invenit ibi navem quae
in Machedoniam properaret....
185
invent this information. He quotes a work on Andrew's virtues or

deeds as his main source. Thus he copied his description of Andrew's
travels from this manuscript which was regarded by many as
apocryphal, and it is therefore essential to determine whether such
a work ever existed, whether it has been known earlier in the West,
as well as at the time of Gregory of Tours, and whether it was still
in circulation in Byzantium in the seventh, eighth, and ninth
centuries.19 Furthermore, could it have been used by the anonymous
authors who, in this period, codified the legendary tradition of the
foundation by Andrew of the episcopal see of Byzantium ?
Concerning Andiews activities, we still have today the testimony
'
of Eusebius, made known also in the West by Rufinus translation

'
of Eusebius Church history. After enumerating the canonical books
of the New Testament, Eusebius adds the titles of some writings
which were regarded with suspicion by the orthodox;20 the so-called
"
Acts of Paul," as well as the so-called "Shepherd's Book and

the Apocalypse of Peter," the epistle of Barnabas, the so-called
"
Doctrine of the Apostles," and the Gospel of the Hebrews, Then

he continues: "We should know also the writings propagated by
the heretics under the names of the apostles, such as [the writings]
containing the so-called Gospels of Peter, and Thomas, and Matthias,
and similarly of other apostles, or like the Acts of Andrew and
John, and the other apostles."
The Acts of Andrew are thus explicitly mentioned and designated
as apocryphal writings. It may be that Eusebius already had in
mind a Corpus of apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, containing the
Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, because he
enumerates only these Apostles in the above passage.31 Thus it will
"
Cf. also the short dissertation by F. Piontek, Die katholische Kirche und
die hdretischen Apostelgeschichten his zum Ausgang des 6. Jahrhunderts,
Dissertation (Breslau, 1907), published also in Sdralek's Kirchengeschichtliche
Abhandlungen, 6 (Breslau, 1907).
20 Historia ecclesiastica 3, chap. 25; GCS, 9, pt. 2, ed. E. Schwartz (1903),
,
p. 252 (Rufinus, ibid., p. 253); PG, 20, col. 269.

11 Cf C. Schmidt, Dte alten Petrusakten itn Zusammenhang mit der apokry-
.
phen Apostellitteratur untersucht, Texte und Untersuchungen, 24, N. F., 9

(Leipzig, 1903), pp. 29 seq. The best study on the Petrine Act is that of
J. Flamion, "Les actes apocryphes de Pierre" in Revue d'histoire ecclisiastique,
9 (1908), pp. 233-254, 465-490; 10 (1909), pp. 1-29, 245-277: " (1910),
pp. 5-28, 233-256, 447-470, 675-692; 12 (1911). PP- 209-230.
186
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
be seen that some heretics were using thisCor/»Ms of apocryphal Acts

instead of the canonical Acts of the Apostles.
The use of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles by the heretics for
the same period in the fourth century is attested to by Epiphanius.22
He might have in mind the same collection of apocryphal Acts as
Eusebius, although he mentions, in one instance only, the Acts of
Andrew and Thomas and in another those "of Andrew and the
,
"
others.
This, however, does not mean, a priori that all these Acts were
,
composed by heretics, although they contained encratic views in

ascetic practice and other passages which could be used by heretics
-Gnostics Manichaeans, and PrisciUianists-as confirming their
,
doctrines on those matters.

These apocryphal Acts were soon circulating also in Latin ,
translations, in the West, where they were propagated principally

by the Manichaeans and later by the PrisciUianists but where they
,
were read, too, by Catholics. The use of these apocryphal writings

in the West is first attested by Philastrius Bishop of Brescia, who
,
was probably of Egyptian origin. In his description, written about

383 or 384,23 of different heresies known to him, Philastrius enumer-
ates the canonical books of both Testaments, urging that care be
taken in reading apocryphal books because of their having been
altered by heretics. He does not forbid such reading, but only advises
readers to be cautious in using the books and to beware the dangerous
ideas that had been insinuated into them. He mentions the Acts of
Andrew, John, Peter, and Paul, and, although he does not single
out the Acts of Thomas, it may be presumed that he had in mind
the same Corpus of the Acts to which Eusebius seems to be alluding.
The Acts of Andrew were an integral part of the Corpus.
**
Adversus Haereses, chaps. 47,1; 61,1; 63, 2; GCS, 31, ed. K. Holl {1922),
pp. 216, 381, 399; PG, 41, cols. 852, 1040, 1064.
n Filastrius Diversarum hereseon liber, CSEL, 38, ed. F. Marx (1898),
,
chap. 61 (old editions, chap. 88), p. 48; PL, 12, col. 1200. Cf. also Fabricius,
op. cit., 2 p. 751: Scripturae autem absconditae, id est apocryfa, etsi legi debeni
,
morum causa a berfectis, non ab omnibus debent quia non intelligentes multa
addideruni et tulerunt quae voluerunt heretici: Nam Manichei apocryfa beati
Andreae apostoli id est Actus quos fecit veniens de Ponto in Greciam quos con-
,
scripserunt tunc discipuli sequentes beatum apostolum, unde et habent Manichei

et alii tales Andreae beati et Joannis Actus evaneelistae beati, et Petri similiter
beatissimi apostoli, et Pauli pariter beati apostoli....
187
For this investigation Philastrius' views on the Acts of Andrew

'
are particularly important. He says that the Acts described Andrew s

deeds while journeying from Pontus to Greece. In Gregory's
Miracles of St. Andrew the Apostle's travels are depicted in the
same way, for there he is said to have started his journey to Greece
from Amaseia and Sinope in Pontus.
Thus we may surmise that Philastrius had in mind the work that
Gregory called Liber ed virtutibus Andreae and that this work was
a Latin translation of the original apocryphal Acts, which have
been shown to have formed a part of the Corpus of the five apocry-
phal Acts of the Apostles.
If this is true, the work mentioned by Philastrius must have
included Byzantium among the places in Thrace visited by Andrew
on his journey from Pontus to Greece, as do the Virtutes Andreae
by Gregory, who had made an abridged and expurgated edition of
the original Acts translated into Latin.
In the fifth century the Acts of Andrew, in their original form,
circulated also in the West. This is confirmed, first of all by Pope
Innocent I (402-417). In his letter to the Bishop of Toulouse,84 the
Pope attributes the composition of the Acts of Matthew, James, Peter,
and John to Leucius, and of the Acts of Andrew-if this passage is
authentic-to the philosophers Nexocharides and Leonides. The
Pope seems here to have in mind the same Acts as Eusebius.
The letter of Turibius, a contemporary of Leo the Great (440-
461), to Hydacius and Ceponius also warns the faithful against
reading the Acts of Andrew.25 In the Prologue of Pseudo-Mellitus to
the Passion of St. John the Evangelist26 the composition of the Acts
of Andrew is attributed to Leucius. The same attribution is made
u PL 20, col. 502. See R. A. Lipsius, op. cit., 2, pt. 2, p. 430, and I. E.
,
Hennecke, Handbuch zu denneutestamentlichenApokryphen(Tuhingen, 1904),

p. 546 Cf. J.Flamion, Les Actes d'Andrd, p. 263, footnote 1 on this attribution.
.
It is possible that these two were mentioned in the original Acts among the
names of the pagans converted by Andrew and that, in some circles, they
were regarded as authors of the Acts.
28 PL 54, col. 694C: specialiier autem Actus illos qui vocantur S. Andreae.
,
24 Fabricius op. cit., 3, p. 604: volo solititam esse fraternitatem vestram de

,
Leucio quodam, qui scripsit Apostolorum Acta Joannis Evangelistae, et Sancti

Andreae, vel Thotnae Apostoli. Quaedam de virtutibus quidem quae -per eos
Dominus fecit, vera dixit; de doctrina vera mult a mentitus est..,. The last
sentence recalls what Gregory says in his preface on the work De Virtutibus
Andreae.
188
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
by Evodius, a contemporary of St. Augustine, in his treatise against

the Manichaeans.27
A study of allusions to the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, found
in Augustine's works, 28 has shown that the Manichaeans of North
Africa and the Priscillianists of Spain were in possession of a Corpus
of Acts of the Apostles containing the Acts of Peter, Andrew, Thomas,
John, and Paul. They held this Corpus in high esteem, and regarded
it as belonging to the canonical Holy Books of the New Testament,
replacing the Acts of the Apostles considered canonical by the
Catholics. It appears that Augustine and his Manichaean adversaries
still regarded this Corpus as anonymous, although Augustine
himself mentioned the name of Leucius in one of his works.29
All of this evidence confirms that the Acts of Andrew, although
regarded by many as apocryphal and heretical, were well-known in
the West in the fifth and sixth centuries and that the work was
easily accessible to Gregory of Tours. Although no direct proof is
extant, it can safely be assumed that Gregory made an extract from
the same work as that quoted in previous testimonies.29*
There is no direct evidence to show that the original Acts of
Andrew circulated in Byzantium during the fifth and sixth cen-
turies, but it is reasonable to presume that the apocryphal Acts of
the Apostles were known in Byzantium during this period. That this
was the case is indicated by the sixth-century chronicler Malalas,80
27 Enodius Uzalensis De fide contra Manichaeos, chap. 38, CSEL, 25, ed.
,
J. Zycha (1891), pp. 968 seq. Cf. J. Flamion op. cit., p. 188.
,
"
To record these allusions a survey of Augustine's works was made by
C Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 44, 52. The most important passage for the Acts
.
of Andrew is to be found in Augustine's Contra Faustum Manichaeutn, 14,

chap. 1, 30, chap. 4; CSEL, 25, ed, J. Zycha (1891), pp. 402, 751,
*. Contra Fehcem
,2, chap. 6; ibid., p. 833. J. Flamion (op. cit., pp. 189 seq.)
thinks, in contradiction to C. Schmidt (op. cit., p. 50), that even in this
passage Augustine had the Acts of Andrew in mind.
»»» It is important to note that the Manichaean Psalm-book mentions the '
same episode described by Gregory in chapter 12 of his book on Andrew s

miracles (op. cit., p. 832), namely the burning of the house in Thessalonica in
'
which Andrew s disciple stayed (C. R. C. Alberry, A Manichaean Psalm-book:
Manichaean Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Collection, 2 [Stuttgart,
I938], p. 142). This is an additional indication that Gregory very probably
had at hand the same Acts of Andrew as those used by the Manichaeans and
other heretics.
30 Ed Bonn,
.
pp. 252 seq. See in C. Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 64, 65, the
discussion of allusions to Acts of Apostles in the works of Epiphanius, Theo-
doret, and Amphilochius. Andrew's Acts are not specifically mentioned.
189
who had copiecLin his account of St. Peter, a part of the apocryphal
Acts of this Apostle and seems to have adapted them to his own
taste.
From the end of the seventh century the testimony of John of

Thessalonica is available. In the preface to his new edition of a
'
work describing the Blessed Virgin s death, John emphasizes the

desirability of concentrating on re-editing pious writings which,
though originally orthodox, had been disfigured by fanciful
additions and changes contrived by the heretics who had used them.
He does this for the works on the Virgin Mary's death, and by so
doing follows the example of others who had recently done likewise
with regard to works on the travels of Peter, Paul, Andrew and ,
John.81 Although there is no evidence that the Acts of Andrew had

been so treated, it can clearly be seen from what John says that
Andrew's Acts were known and read in Byzantium in John's time,
but were looked upon with suspicion.
With regard to the ninth century, we may quote George the
Monk, who had also copied a passage from the Acts of St. Peter**
in his World Chronicle, composed in the reign of Michael III, and
who may have copied his passage from Malalas. But another
important witness is available for this century-the Patriarch
Photius. He testifies in his Bibliotheca*3 that the "Travels of Andrew"
31 M Bonnet, "Bemerkungen iiber die altesten Schriften von der Himmel-
.
fahrt Mariae," in Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 23 (1880) p. 239:

,
outco yAp EOpi'jKapEV XPI00 0 Kal toOs fvotyxos fiiwts TrpotiyncraiJivous koA
T0O5 ttoXAcJ} irp6 oarrcov Ayiouj rrorrfpas, T0O5 piw irepl tAj KocXouiiivas tStxAs
'
TrEpi65ous tcov Aylcow AirocrdAcov TUrpou Kal naOAou Kcrt AvSpteu Kal 'Icodwou,
toOs 5i irepl t6 irXdcrra twv xpiaroq pcov piapTiipwv ovyypAmiara.
L Vouaux, Les actes de Pierre et ses lettres apocryphes (Paris, 1922),
.
p. 191, suggested that John of Thessalonica had in mind the attempts made
by Malalas and Pseudo-Marcellus to purify the Acts of Peter (ibid. pp. 186
seq.). Let us not forget that, as mentioned before (p. 183) the Martyrium
,
Prius was written in the eighth century and is based on the original Acts.
M Bk 3, chap. 21; ed, E. G. von Muralt (St. Petersburg, 1859), pp. 269
.
seq.; PG, no, cols. 428 seq.; ed. de Boor, 1 (Leipzig, 1904), pp. 364 seq.
33 PG 103, Cod. 114, col. 389: 'Aw£yvcbo6r| P»Pmov, al XEyinevai Twv 'Atto-
,
'
aT6Ao>v FlEpioSoi, iv als mpidxovro irp& iS nrrpou, Ico&vvou, AvBpfou, Gcouqc,

riauAou. rpd<p£i Si aOrds, w$ 5nAoI T6auT6pipAlov, Aeukios XapTvoj. Cf. also Cod,
179, col. 524D. See the thorough examination of these passages by Schmidt ,
oh. cit., pp. 67-75, who tries to show that Photius cannot have studied the
Corpus of Acts thoroughly, and might have attributed its authorship to Leucius
'
,
although the latter s name was mentioned only in the Acts of John. Schmidt
thinks that Photius might have contented himself with the lecture of the
Acts of Peter and John, the first part of the Corpus. L. Vouaux, Les Actes
190
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
"
which were a part of the Travels of the Apostles"-a clear allusion
to the Corpus of the Acts of the Apostles mentioned above-were
known and read at this time. This is important, for it shows that
the authors of the Byzantine Andrew texts, under examination
here, had easy access to the apocryphal writings on the Apostle
Andrew, and could have found in them the basis for the creation
'
of their story on Andrew s activity in Byzantium.
Before drawing conclusions from these findings, an attempt must

be made to determine the most probable date of composition of the
original apocryphal Acts of Andrew. This is essential to tracing the
origin and development of the Andrew Legend. It is well known that,
although the dates of the composition of the apocryphal Acts of John
(about the middle of the second century), of Peter (about 180-igo),
of Paul (about the year 20o),33a and of Thomas (third century) are
generally agreed upon among specialists, the date of the composition
of the Acts of Andrew is still subject to controversy. If these Acts
were really composed by heretics-Gnostics or Manichaeans-
they must have originated, if not in the second century, then, at
least, at the beginning of the third. The fact that the Fathers
testify unanimously that these Acts were used and highly valued by
heretics seems to favor the conclusion that Andrew's Acts owe their
origin to the Gnostics or Manichaeans.
Such is also the judgement of Lipsius,34 the foremost speciahst in
this kind of apocryphal literature. After a minute analysis of all
available Andrew texts, he concluded that all of them are directly,
or indirectly, derived from the original Acts or Travels of the
de Paul (Paris, 1913), pp. 61 seq,, thinks that Photius had at hand a copy
of the Corpus of Acts which had been doctored by heretics. However, the
accounts of many unlikely miracles and of numerous visions of the Lord in
various manifestations described in the Acts as we know them, as well as
their strong encratite character, would have justified Photius in rejecting
them as unorthodox fables. As for Leucius, it is interesting to note that
Pacianus, Bishop of Barcelona (d. bet. 379-392), in a letter against the
Novations, numbered him among the teachers of the heretics (Pacianus ,
Epistolae tres; 1, PL, 13, col. 1053B).

33a Concerning the dating of Acta Petri and Acta Pauli see C Schmidt,
.
Acta Pauli nach dent Papyrus der Hamburger Staats-und Universitatsbibliothek

(Hamburg-Gliickstadt, 1936), pp. 127 seq.
84 Op ext., 1, pp. 586 seq,
.
191
Apostles which were composed by Gnostic writers. He thought that

he had discovered in them slight traces of Gnostic doctrines that
had escaped the scrutiny of both their Catholic censors and their
editors. He beheved that the strongest arguments for his thesis of
the Gnostic origin of Andrew's Acts lay in the two fragments quoted
from them by Evodius, and in the third fragment preserved in the
work De vera et falsa poeniimtta,96 falsely attributed to St. Augustine.
On this basis he thought that the origin of Andrew's Acts or Travels
' '
should be dated in the same period as that of Peter s and John s Acts
or Travels, namely, in the second part of the second century.
Lipsius' thesis still has many supporters, although it has been
thoroughly re-examined and criticized by J. Flamion,86 who under-
took the painstaking task of reconstructing the original Acts of
Andrew from the material contained in Latin and Greek Andrew
texts, all of which must ultimately derive, in one way or another,
from the original composition. Contrary to Lipsius' belief, he found
that the original Acts were not Gnostic, but were written by an
orthodox writer who was strongly influenced by neopythagorism
and, even more, by neoplatonism. The ideas which are regarded
by Lipsius as Gnostic can be explained and understood in the light
of strong encratite tendencies, not uncommon in the early Church
and also manifested by the author of the Acts. This encratite
tendency is particularly apparent in the description of the Apostle's
martyrdom.
The account of Andrew's martyrdom formed the second part of
the original Acts. The first part, describing Andrew's travels and
preaching, is reflected in the work of Gregory of Tours, which is
really an expurgated, abridged, and corrected edition of the original
Acts. Gregory did not dwell on the Apostle's passion, because some-
'
one else had made a similar revision of the description of Andrew s

*
6 PL 40, chap. 8, 22, cols. 1120 seq. The treatise seems, however, of too
,
recent a date-ninth to eleventh century-to be of use in this respect. Cf.

J. Flamion, op. cit., p. 191,
*
. Op cit., pp. 89-263. A resume of this important study, by H. Coppieters,
.
'
will be found in Revue d histoire eccUsiastique, 13 (1912), pp. 325-332. A. von
Hamack had already expressed his doubts about the Gnostic character of
passages quoted by Lipsius. Von Harnack thought that the original Acts
were re-edited in an expurgated catholic version in the post-Constantinian
period (Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, 2 [Leipzig, 1897],
pp. 543 seq.)
192
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
martyrdom in Latin, and the Bishop of Tours had at hand the

result of this revision: the Latin martyrdom Conversante et docente.
In Flamion's opinion, the original Acts of Andrew were written
in Greek in Achaea. This is indicated by an almost exclusive use of
Hellenic names by the author and by the style of the whole com-
position which is intimately related to the style of Greek romances.87
They were written by an intellectual Greek, who was an orthodox
Christian with tendencies toward excessive asceticism, who was
fond of Greek rhetoric, and who was influenced by philosophic traits
which were in vogue at this period. The composition should be
dated from the second half of the third century, a time when neo-
pythagorism and especially neoplatonism were capturing the minds
of many.
Gregory must also have known the Acts of Andrew and Matthias,
because, as already mentioned, at the beginning of his Book on
Andrew's miracles he summarized their fantastic account in a very
condensed form. A Latin translation of these Acts actually existed
in Gregory's time, for not only fragments, but also two independent
redactions of it have since been found.38 Holding a contrary opinion
to that of Lipsius, Flamion thinks that the Acts of Andrew and
Matthias, together with the Acts of Peter and Andrew, did not form
part of the original Acts of Andrew. Some characteristic features
which the two compilations present, i.e. a talking sphinx, mention
of Ethiopians, a predilection for psalmody and liturgy, the promi-
nence given to monachism, etc., would seem to indicate that the
two Acts originated in Egypt where monachism was strong, and
that they were written about the year 400 by an Egyptian monk,
who was well-versed in the Greek language. Since the teaching is
orthodox, they may represent the reaction against apocrypha and
its heretical tendencies, which was condemned byAthanasius in 367
"
37 See in this respect
the interesting study by Rosa Roder, Die apokryphen
Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike," Wurzburger
Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft, 3 (Stuttgart, 1932),
38 Cf R. A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, op. cit., 2, pt. 1, p. XXI, and F. Blatt,
.
Die lateinischen Bearbeitungen der Acta Andreae et Matthiae apud anthrp-

pophagos (Giessen, 1930).
.» J Flamion, op, cit., pp. 310-319. See Athanasius' Easter letter 39 from
.
367 (PG. 26, cols. 1436-1440) in which the Bishop reviews canonical and
'
non-canonical books. Cf. infra, p. 202, for this author s thoughts on Flamion s
'
theory concerning the origin of the Acts of Andrew and Matthias.
193
E Hennecke40 gave vent to doubts concerning some of Flamion's

.
findings. He was loath to share Flamion's appreciation of Gregory's

work for the reconstruction of the original Acts, and hesitated to
admit the existence of neoplatonic tendencies in the Greek Martyria.
For this reason his proposed reconstruction of the Acts is extremely
fragmentary and limited mostly to the events in Patras, which are de-
scribed also in the short text preserved in Fo&canws Gra ws 808 re- ,
garded by him as the only genuine part of the original Acts preserved
down to our time. B, Pick followed Hennecke's suggestions, and
limited himself in his reconstructions to Andrew's passion only.41
Hennecke's disciple, M. Blumenthal,42 seems to have been well
aware of this disadvantage, and tried to reconstruct the original
Acts by using the Acts of Andrew and Matthias those of Peter and
,
Andrew, the Narratto, the work of the monk Epiphanius, and the
Laudatio, the two latter compositions dating from the ninth century.
The result is not much more satisfactory than the work of Hennecke
himself, for Gregory's Miracula were completely left out in the
reconstruction. Both specialists neglected the testimony of Philas-
trius of Brescia, who knew of a work called "the Deeds of Andrew ,
"
'
which described the Apostle s exploits on the way from Pontus to

Greece. As mentioned before, Gregory also described Andrew's
travels and deeds from Pontus to Greece and his description,
,
although abridged and expurgated, is of the utmost importance

for the reconstruction of the original Acts.
On the whole, Flamion's findings concerning the Acts of Andrew
were not disproved by his critics, and were accepted by the English
specialist in apocryphal Uterature M. R. James.43
,
40 Cf his short review of Flamion's work in Theologische Literaturzeitung,

.
38 (1913), cols. 73, 74. For more details see his Neutest. Apokr. (and ed., 1924),
p. 250. He expressed the same scepticism without giving any convincing
,
"
argument, in his short review Zur christlichen Apokryphenliteratur," in
Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, 45 (1926), p. 313.
41 B Pick, The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew, and Thomas
.
(Chicago, 1909), pp. 200-221. The author uses for his reconstruction only
the Mariyrium Prius and Alierum and the Greek letter of the Achaian priest ,
neglecting completely the other important texts.

18 Formen und Motive in der apokryphen Apostelgeschichte, Texte und
Untersuchungen, 59 (Leipzig, 1933), pp. 38-57-
48 See James's review of Flamion's book in the Journal of Theological
Studies, 13 (1912), pp. 435-437, and his work The Apocryphal New Testament
(Oxford, 1924), pp. 337-357 (Acts of Andrew), 357-363 (The Martyrdom),
453-460 (Acts of Andrew and Matthew, Acts of Peter and Andrew).
194
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
The pubhcation of a recently discovered fragment of the original

Acts, translated into Coptic from the Greek original43* has, however,
re-opened the controversy concerning the gnostic character of these
Acts. The fragment describes an incident involving Andrew and the
' "
proconsul Varianus (Virinus in Gregory of Tours s Miracles"),

that happened in Thessalonica. Andrew is said to have addressed
the soldiers, sent to arrest him, in the following words: "Are you
ashamed to face me because you see your nature convicting and
"
exposing you ? The discoverer of this fragment gives to these words

a gnostic meaning, for he says that the author of the Acts knew of
a basic distinction between psychic men whose nature predestined
them to heavenly life and those who are of only a corporeal
physical nature. This distinction was a characteristic trait of
second-century gnosticism. The discoverer of the fragment sees,
too, a similar allusion in the Vaticanus Graecus 808 and the
Laudatto whose author, according to G. Quispel, also had access
to the original Acts.431*
This is an interesting observation which should be taken into
consideration, but it would not, of itself, prove the gnostic origin of
the Acts. Their author might have been influenced only by some
gnostic notions or expressions currently popular among his con-
temporaries and regarded as harmless. The fragments of the ori-
ginal Acts contain really very few allusions which could justifiably
be thought to suggest gnosticism.430 Moreover, everything seems
to indicate that the Acts were written in Achaea in honor of a
«» G Quispel, "An Unknown Fragment of the Acts of Andrew (Pap. Copt.

.
Utrecht N, 1)," Vigiliae Christianae, 10 (1956), pp. 129-148.

*»b R
"
.
A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, op. cit., 2, pt. 1, p. 44, line 14; M. Bonnet,
Acta Andreae Apostoli cum laudatione contexta," Analecta Bollandiana, 13
(1894), p. 348, lines 7-14; idem, Supplementum codicis apocryphi, 2 (Paris,
I895), p. 40. J. Flamion however, seems to have shown {op, cit., p. 205 seq.)
,
that the author of the Laudatto did not use the original Acts. P. M. Peterson ,
in his pamphlet Andrew, Brother of Simon Peter his History and his Legends,
,
Supplementum to Novum Testamentum, 1 (Leiden, 1958) pp. 26 seq., fol-

,
lows Quispel's dating without adding any new evidence.

R Liechtenhan, in his study "Die pseudoepigraphische Literatur der
.
Gnostiker," Zeitschrift fur die neuiestamentlichen Wissenschaft, 3 (1902),

'
pp. 295, 296, had reduced Lipsius gnostic indings in Andrew's Acts to a
f
minimum. Flamion was able however, to show that even those findings that
,
remained can be explained in the sense of neo-platonic teaching (J. Flamion ,
op. cit., pp. 152, 155, 162).
195
martyr whose body was taken for that of the Apostle Andrew.
Gnosticism, however, was not as popular in Greece, apparently,
as in Asia Minor where it had originated.
The discoverer of the Coptic fragment sees also an interdependence
between the Acts of Paul and the Acts of Andrew, but this does not
mean that the author of the Pauline Acts used the Acts of Andrew,
for if it could be proved that he had, it would mean that the Acts
of Andrew had been composed before those of Paul-toward the end
of the second century. Up to the present time, however, it seems
safer to regard the Acts of Andrew as dependent upon the Acts of
Paul.43d All of this reveals how difficult it is to determine from the
few fragments available for study the true character of the original
Acts. Perhaps at some future date new discoveries will shed more
light on this complicated problem, but, for our present purposes ,
we must be content to investigate further with evidence that thus

far seems secure.
As already mentioned, the apocryphal Acts of John Paul, Peter,
,
Andrew, and Thomas were united in a special corpus of five books

by the Manichaeans, who used them instead of the canonical Acts
of the Apostles, This explains the repeated warnings of the Fathers
against the reading of those Acts, some of which expressed ideas in
vogue among the Manichaeans. The composition of all five Acts was
often attributed, as by Photius, to one author-Leucius, who was
'
supposed to have been St. John s disciple.44 It is, however, agreed
now that Leucius composed only the apocryphal Acts of St. John;
the authors of the other Acts, including that of Andrew, remain
anonymous 45
Such are the results of our investigations. Regarding the Acts

of Andrew, whether the original Acts were of gnostic origin, or
M"1 The question of the inter-relationship of the apocryphal Acts of Paul ,
Thomas, and Andrew is still under discussion and cannot yet be regarded as
near solution. For details see C. Schmidt, W. Schubert Acta Pauli nach dent
Papyrus der Hamburger Staats- und Universitdtsbibliothek (Hamburg-Gliick-
stadt, 1936); E. Peterson, "Einige Bemerkungen zum Hamburger Papyrus-
fragment der Acta Pauli," Vigiliae Christianae, 3 (1949) pp. 142-162; P. Devos,
"
,
Actes de Thomas et actes de Paul," AnBoll, 69 (1951), pp. 119-130.

**
Cf. Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses, chap. 51, 6, PG, 41, col. 896; GCS,
31, ed. Holl (1922), p. 255.
48 I E liQttaQc]s.e,Neutest. Apokr. (2nded.),p.171,M. R. James,p.228.
. .
196
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
whether they were written by an orthodox Greek rhetorician has

not been seriously significant for our study. The principal point at
issue was to determine at what period the report on Andrew's
travels through Thrace and Byzantium to Achaea originated. In
this respect it can be regarded as established that the account of
Andrew's stay in Thrace was circulated in the East at a very early
period; in any event, before the fourth century.
This is a very important conclusion. It remains now to determine
to what extent this tradition of Andrew's stay in Byzantium can be
regarded as trustworthy, how it originated, what legendary elements
are hidden within it, and how it influenced the development of the
Andrew tradition concerning Byzantium. Perhaps the examination
of the reliability of this account will also help to determine its date
and origin more accurately. In this respect the oldest reports of the
activity of the apostles must first be examined in order to see if
there is sufficient evidence for the assumption in the original Acts,
and in their derivatives, that Andrew worked and died in Achaea.
It is well known that posterity is poorly informed as to the where-
abouts of the apostles after they separated to convey their message
throughout Palestine and the rest of the world.46 With regard to
Andrew's apostolic activity, the oldest and most reliable information
must be attributed to Origen, whose knowledge has been transmitted
to us by the first Church historian, Eusebius.47 This old source
**
Cf. the summary of known facts concerning this in I. E. Hennecke,
op. cit., pp. u7-125.
47 Hist eccles., 3, 1; GCS, 2, pt. 1, ed. E.Schwartz, (1903), p, 188; PG, 20,
,
'
col. 216. Eusebius quotes this information from the third book of Origen s
commentary on Genesis. Even A. von Hamack (Die Mission und Ausbreitung
des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten [Leipzig, 1924], p. 88), in
spite of his-unjustified-hesitation to attribute this report to a pre-
Origenist or Origenist tradition, agrees that "in the Paradosis on the three
Apostles-Thomas, Andrew, John-we have the oldest account of the allo-
"
cation of the lands of the earth to the Apostles. This is what Eusebius '
reports: toov 54 Upcov toO acorfipo? fmwv dnrocrrdXcov te koI iiocStitcov ty drraaav
KorracriTap vTCOw Tf|v o\KO\Juivr\v, econas \iiv, d>s i\ irapASoais TTtpUxs'. t v TTapSlav
elATix£v, AvSptes 84 t v ZKu61av, * Icodvvris -rfjv 'Aaiav, "rrpAs 0O5 kocI Siaroivyas tv
'
'
E acp TsXEura, TTirpos 6' iv Ttevrco KCtl rotXarig teal BifK/vlqt KonnraeoKU? re Kal
'
Aaitf KEKTipuxivai toTs [4k] 5iacnrop5s 'louSoriois Ioikev 65 Kal tn\ t4Aei 4v 'Pcopiri
yEvop4wo5, dvECTKoAiria Ti kotA K£<fiaXfiSi ovmos 001x65 d lcoaas iraecTv. Ti 5eT Trepi
TlaOXou A4y£iv, inrb 'tepouaaWm ulxP1 "
*l up»Kou ireTrXTipcoKdTOS t6 fOay-
y4Xiow toO XpioroO Kal Oarepov 4w Tfj PcbpTj M Nipcovos liEuapiupTiKdros; Taura
(0piy4vEi kotA A45,w 4v TplTtp T6pcj> twv eIj Tf)v r4vEaiv 45TiyTiTiK6jv Etptyron.
*
Rufinus' translation of this passage (see ibid., ed. Schwartz, p. 189) added to
197
states that Scythia was assigned to Andrew for his missionary

activity, and such an assignment seems entirely credible.
The Scythians-an Indo-European people-established an im-
portant empire between 700 and 200 B.C. in what is now Southern
Russia. They became well known to the Greeks, who had already-
heard of them through the intermediary of numerous Greek colonists
on the northern shores of the Black Sea, and also to the nations of
Asia Minor because the Scythians promoted commercial relations
between the Russian interior and Asia on the one hand, and with the
civilized Greek world on the other. When their empire collapsed
about 179 B.C. under pressure from their racial brothers, the
Sarmatians, the lands beyond the shores of the Black Sea and the
Sea of Azov continued to be known in the Hellenistic world as
Scythia. The Greek colonies on the coast were able to establish
commerical relations with the new masters, and again became
prosperous. Cherson and Panticapaeum, however, were incorporated
into the Bosporan Kingdom, which was under Roman protection
at the beginning of the Christian era.
It is known, too, that from the last century B.C. onward numerous
Jewish settlements existed among the Greek colonies on the Crimean
coast and the coast of the Sea of Azov. The Jews of this Diaspora,
moreover, manifested an unusual religious zeal. Around their
synagogues were grouped many proselytes called, in the inscriptions
dating from the first centuries of the Christian era, worshippers of
the Highest God.48 Thus it seems quite natural that this region
Eusebius' report of what he had learned about Matthew and Bartholomew:
Thomas, sicut nobis traditium est, sortitus est Parthos, Matthaeus Aethiopiam,
Bartholotnaeus Indiam citerioretn, Andreas Scythiam, lohannes Asiam, unde
apud Ephesum et comntoratus est et defunctus. Petrus Pontum, Galatiam,
Bithyniam, Cappadociam ceterasque confines provincias ludaeis dumtaxat
praedicans circumisse deprehenditur.,.. A. A. T. Ehrhardt (The Apostolic
Succession [London, 1953], p. 68) refutes von Hamack's misgivings. However,
Origen does not mention Achaea as a missionary field of Andrew, and this
'
contradicts Ehrhardt s contention that, because Andrew is mentioned
'
along with four other apostles whose Acts were then known, Andrew s Acts
must also have existed in Origen s time.
'
48 See E Schiirer, "Die Juden im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossen-

.
schaften der aEB6pEvoi Btiv Oyiorov, Sitzungsberickte der koniglichen

"
preufiischen Akaaemie der Wissenschaften, Phil-hist. Klasse (Berlin, 1897),

pp. 200-225. See also his additional notes in Theologische Literaturzeitung, "
22 (1897), cols. 236-238, 505-507. F. Cumont in his short study "Hypsistos
in Supplement d la Revue de I'instruction publique en Belgique (Brussels, 1897),
198
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
should have been one of the first targets of Christian progaganda in

apostolic times. This Diaspora opened an easy route of access into
the "hinterland" still called "Scythia."
There are some extant indications that missionary activity in
Scythia must have started early, and that it had some success.
Arnobius, Origen, and Tertullian speak of Christianity among the
the Scythians and Parthians,49 which shows that during the second
century there already existed among the Scythians some Christian
'
communities that, to judge from Eusebius words,50 were, by his

time, well organized.
Thus Origen's statement that Andrew preached in Scythia seems
to be well founded. In the same passage he further testifies that
Peter preached to the Jewish Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia,
Cappadocia, and Asia, and from there went to Rome where he was
crucified. It has been seen that some legendary accounts-namely
the Acta Petri et Andreae-present the two brothers, Peter and
Andrew, as preaching the Gospel together in the lands of the
barbarians. In Gregory's Miracles, Andrew is said to have preached in
'
completed Schiirer s findings showing that a similar influence of the Jewish

Diaspora on paganism existed in Asia Minor also. He discovered intimate
links between the cult of Sabazius, especially widespread in Phrygia, and
Judaism (Sabaoth or Sabbath ?), concluding that in that region "les colleges
' "
d adorateurs du Tr s-Haut sont n4s des anciens thiases de Sebazios {p. 6).
All this prepared the ground for Christianity. "L'on s'explique mieux,"
Cumont continues, "en tenant compte de cette situation, que la foi nouvelle "
ait op r plus de conversions en Asie Mineure, que dans toute autre region
(p. 8). This provides an explanation for the apostles' concentrating their
'
activity on this region, and strengthens the probability of Andrew s preaching

in the Crimea and Scythia. The Jewish Diaspora of these lands was in intimate
contact with the Jewish communities in Asia Minor. Cf. also E. Schiirer,
Geschichte des jUdischen Volkes itn Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3 (4th ed., Leipzig,
1909), p. 174, and F. Dvomik, Les ligendes de Constantin et de Mdihode vues
de Byzance, p. 171, footnote 2. The Ethiopian text, "Martyrdom of St. Andrew
in Scythia" (The Contendings of the Apostles, 2, transl. and ed. by E. A.
Wallis Budge [London 1901], pp. 215 seq.), seems also to reflect strongly
,
the early tradition of Andrew's missionary activity.

Arnobius, Adversus nationes, 1, chap. 16, CSEL, 4, ed. A. Reifferscheid
(1875), p. 12; Origen, Commentarii in Matthaeum {Matt. 24:9), GCS, 38, ed.
E Klostermann (1933), p. 76; Tertullian Adversus Judaeos, CSEL, 70, ed.
.
E Kroymann (1942), p. 273. See more complete references in A. von Harnack,

.
cp. cit., pp. 533 seq., 537, 539 seq., 542, 546.
60 Demonstratio evangelica, 3, chap. 4, GCS 23, ed. I. A. Heikel, p. 119.
Cf. also ibid., 1, chap. 2, p. 9, PG 22, col. 204B; cf. col. 25D. Cf. also Justin's
Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, chap. 117, PG, 6, col. 748, and von Hamack's
comment on it in Die A usbreitung, p. 546,
199
Pontus (Amaseia), in Paphlagonia (Sinope), in Bithynia (Nicomedia),

and in Asia (Nicaea). A part of this tradition could be based on .
fact.50* If other, more secure, confirmation is not available on
Peters' and Andrew's joint activities in Asia Minor, it is at least
reasonable to see in the report an indication that Andrew reached
Scythia through Asia Minor, and that the goal of his travels in
Asia Minor was the northern coast of Pontus or of Paphlagonia,
whence he wished to embark for Scythia.
In reality, Sinope in Paphlagonia, which is mentioned in Andrew's
apocrypha, was, at the beginning of the Christian era, the most
important trading center on the coast of the Black Sea, and a port
that virtually monopolized the trade between the interior of Asia
Minor and Parthia and the northern coast of the Black Sea. Under
the reign of Mithridates (113-62 B.C.), King of Pontus, who had
extended his domination over the Bosporus, Sinope was also a
first-class military base, and the city retained its important position
even after the decline of Pontus and the Bosporan Kingdom. Its
importance was eclipsed only in the fourth century when Con-
stantinople was founded and began to attract all commercial
traffic to its port. The belief, popular at the time of its eminence,
that Sinope boasted an ambo from which Andrew preached61 may
be older than the original Acts, and thus could be founded on fact.
In this tradition the apocryphal writers found a historical basis
for some of their stories.
Even the stories about the city of the anthropophagites, may

'
reflect an indirect echo of Andrew s missionary activity in Scythia.
60" Cf . what Th. Zahn says in his Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutesta-
'
mentlichen Kanons, 6 (Leipzig, 1900), pp. 220 seq. In Muratori s Fragment

John is said to have started his Gospel alter having been urged by Andrew to
"
write it. See what A. A. T. Ehrhardt says (in his study, The Gospels in the
Muratorian Fragment," Ostkirchliche Studien, 2 [1953], pp. 126 seq.) on
Andrew's relation to the "Johannine circle," and on the frequency with
which Andrew appears in the old tradition of Asia Minor. Some local tradi-
tions also seem to point to Andrew's stay in Asia. Theophanes Continuatus
(ed. Bonn, p. 21) reports, for example, that when the Emperor Nicephorus I
(802-811) was hunting on the Asiatic coast near the ruins of a Satyrus temple
he found there an altar with the inscription: "This is an altar of St. Michael,"
prince of the celestial army, which was erected by the Apostle Andrew.
Cf. R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine (Paris, 1950), pp. 460 seq.
41 R A. Lipsius, op. cit., 1, p. 604.
.
200
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
Some of the tribes of the Northeastern coast of the PontusEuxeinus

had had, since classical times, a very bad reputation as particularly
dangerous pirates, Strabo,52 who wrote his Geography in the last
decade before Christ, mentions especially the Achaei, the Zygi, and
the Heniochi, and describes the daring raids of their fleets of
" "
camarae -covered boats-against merchant vessels cities, and ,
even whole countries. He says also that the peoples of the Bosporus
were often in collusion with them.
Here, then, we find the source of the extravagant charges of
cannibalism leveUed against these tribes by Aristotle.58 Such stories
also circulated among Christians, and Tertullian5* preserved a
vivid reminder of them in his writing against Marcion. This was a
topic which appealed particularly to the writers of romances, and
it provides a logical explanation of the origin of the strange ex-
periences attributed to the Apostles in the fabulous city of the
anthropophagites.
The city's name also should be connected with the early tradition
'
of Andrew s preaching in Scythia. The Greek Acts of Andrew and
Matthias do not disclose its name, but in Gregory's extract from
these Acts the city to which Andrew was sent by the Lord to free
Matthias is called Myrmidona.55 This could be identified with the
62 Strabo Rerum geographicarum, u, chap. 2, 12, ed. H. L. Jones, 5
,
(Loeb Classical Library, 1924), pp. 202 seq. Strabo distinguishes Scythia
proper from Little Scythia, modern Dobrudia, which was a part of Thracia,
but which was established by Diocletian as the separate province of Scythia
[ibid., 7, chap. 4, 5, chap. 5,12,ed. H. L. Jones, 3, pp. 241, 273). With refer-
ence to Andrew only Scythia proper can be meant,
M Aristotle Politics, 1338b, 22, ed. H. Rackham (Loeb Classical Library,
,
'
1932)> P- 646: TToAXd 5 &rrl tmv {Ovwv & 11065 t6 kteCveiv Kal irpbs Tr\v
dv6pwn-o<|>ayiav eOxepws fx8,» KoOdnrEp tcov irept t6v ndvrov 'Axotiol t£ Kal
'
Hvlxioi, xal twv f|ir6«pa)TiKwv iBvwv Jrepa,,, . Herodotus [Historiae 4, pp. 18,
106, ed. A. D. Godley, 2 [Loeb Classical Library, 1938], pp. 218,306) mentioned
maneaters, a tribe dwelling north of the farming Scythians. He probably
meant a Finnish tribe, ancestors of the Mordwa,
M Adversus Marcionem, 1, chap, 1, PL, 2, col. 271; CSEL, 47, ed. E. Kroy-
mann (1906), p, 291. Curiously enough the pagan philosopher who attacked
the Christian teaching on the Eucharist, and whose objections are refuted by
Macarius Magnes seems to know nothing of Scythian cannibalism. Cf. A. von
,
Hamack, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einent griechischen Philosophen

des 3. Jakrkunderis, in Texte und Utitersuchungen, 37 pt, 4 (Leipzig, 1911),
,
chap, 3, PP- 15. 46-

ss Cf A. von Gutschmid, "Die Konigsnamen in den apokryphen Apostel-
.
geschichten" in Kleine Schriften, ed. F. Riihl, 2 (Leipzig, 1890), pp. 380 seq.,
first published in Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie, Neue Folge, 19 (1864),
pp. 391 seq.
201
city of Myrmekion on the Chersonnesus of Taurus. It lay on the

"
shore of the Cimmerian Bosporus, at a distance of twenty stadia
from Panticapaeum," which is called by Strabo6* "the greatest
trading center of the barbarians."
Although the Greek Acts of Andrew and Matthias, in the version
extant today, do not name the city of the anthropophagites, Gregory
must have used a Latin translation of these Acts in which it was
named. Actually both versions of the recently discovered Latin
translation call the city in which Matthias was kept prisoner, Merme-
donia or Mirmidonia.57
However, the reticence of the author of the Greek Acts of Andrew
and Matthias concerning the name poses a problem. Flamion
advanced the theory that these Acts were written in Egypt, and
that the maneaters to whom Matthias was sent to preach were
Ethiopian tribes invading Upper Egypt at the time the Acts were
'
composed.58 This theory has its weaknesses. First, Flamion s main

argument for the Egyptian origin of the Acts-the reference to
speaking sphinxes - cannot be regarded as definitive, for Egypt
was not the only country where such a story could have originated.
All cultivated Greeks must have known about the existence of the
sphinxes, and were certainly as much impressed by the imposing
monuments of Egyptian architecture as are most people today.
Moreover, Herodotus had already spoken of the sphinxes, and had
placed such monuments in Scythia as well as in Egypt. According
to him, the palace of the Scythian King Skyles was surrounded by
'
sphinxes and griffons.69 This, of course, does not mean that Flamion s
deductions are not correct. On one point-the most important one-
his findings concerning this literary document are without doubt
correct; namely, that the Acts of Andrew and Matthias have never
formed part of the original Acts of Andrew.60 They are an independent
work with no doctrinal purpose; simply an account of the miracles
M Op cit., 7, chaps. 4, 5, ed. H. L. Jones, 3, ibid., p. 240.

.
67 F Blatt, op. cit., pp. 33, 35, 39, 41 (recensio Casanatensis), 96-98, 101,
.
103, 138, 140, 146, 148 (recensio Vaticana). His commentary on Myrmidonia,
pp. 6 seq.
48 J Flamion, op. cit., pp. 310 seq.
.
69 Herodotus op. cit., 4, chap. 79, ed. A. D. Godley, ibid., 2, p. 278.

,
.0 J Flamion, op. cit., pp. 301 seq.

.
202
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
'
attributed to the Apostles. Flamion s comparison61 of these Acts

with the Acts of Peter and Andrew, the Martyrium Matthaei, and
the latest recensions of the Acts of Thomas and the Acts of Peter ,
the latter of which are preserved only in a Slavonic translation,62

clearly shows that all of these writings represent a new kind of
apostolic romance, free of the doctrinal tendencies traceable in the
original Acts of Peter, Paul, John, and Andrew, and that they mani-
fest a different spirit more imbued with orthodox Christian thinking,
,
than do the original Acts.

Nor should the possibility of Egyptian origin for these Acts be
dismissed. There are in all of them many instances which strongly
suggest that their authors were entirely familiar with monastic life
as it existed in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries, and this
seems a stronger link to Egyptian origin than any mention of
'
sphinxes. Flamion s63 suggestion that they were written in Egypt

before the year 400 can, therefore, be accepted.
41 Idem , pp. 269-300.
.
"
.« Published by I. Franko, Beitrage aus dem Kirchenslavischen zu den
Apokryphen des N. T.: Zu den gnostischen TTspioSoi nh-pou," Zeitschrift
fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 3 (1902), pp. 315 seq.
.» J Flamion, op. cit., p. 318. S. Reinach ("Les apdtres chez les anthro-
.
"
pophages, Revue d'histoire et de littirature religieuse, 9 [1904], pp. 305-320)

had already tried to show the Egyptian origin of this romance. The newly
discovered fourth-century Coptic fragment of the original Acts of Andrew,
"
which is followed by a typical monk-story" from an account of the Patriarch

Joseph, testifies to the popularity which Andrew's Acts had enjoyed in
Egyptian monastic circles. This strengthens Flamion's thesis concerning the
Egyptian origin of the Acts of Andrew and Matthias and the Acts of Peter
and Andrew and of their fourth-century date when monachism flourished
in Egypt. P. M. Peterson's opinion (in his pamphlet, Andrew, Brother of
Simon Peter, pp. 7, 32) that the Acts of Andrew and Matthias were
' '
written before 254 and that Origen s report of Andrew s preaching in Scythia
was taken from these Acts is altogether unsubstantiated. The Acts do not
mention Scythia; it was Matthias not Andrew, who was sent to the land
,
of the maneaters. The land where Andrew preached before he was ordered
by the Lord to liberate Matthias was apparently far from the city of the
cannibals, as was the land of the barbarians to which Andrew proceeded
after liberating Matthias but there is no evidence to suggest that the two
,
lands were identical. It can be assumed that the anonymus author of the
Acts imagined Andrew preaching in Achaea whence he was sent to the
,
"
city of the maneaters. Only there did he begin to preach to the "barbarians.
There are several serious errors in Peterson's short compilation for ex-
"
,
ample: He puts both the twelfth-century homilist Theophanes Cerameus"

and the fourteenth-century Church historian Nicephorus Callistus Xantho-
pulus in the ninth century (pp. 17, 18), and quotes them in connection with
his dating of Pseudo-Epiphanius. He calls Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus
,
(Kyrros) in Syria, Theodoret of Cyprus (p. 12), On page 11 he says that

203
The alternative suggestion-that the maneaters to whom Matthias

was sent to preach should be identified with Ethiopian tribes which
were invading Upper Egypt in the fourth century-is the weakest of
all the arguments, and is inadequately supported, although it should
be admitted that ancient authors located anthropophagites in
Africa also; a point missed by Flamion, Ptolemy*4 located them on
Africa's east coast, somewhere between Zanzibar and Sofala. These
tribes were far removed from Upper Egypt. Pliny,65 however,
speaks vaguely of maneaters in the upper reaches of the Nile, which
'
strengthens Flamion s theory. Unfortunately, there is nothing in

the Acts to justify our thinking that its author had the Ethiopians
in mind. He located the maneaters66 in a city near the sea because
they were said to hunt their prey in boats, and it could hardly be
claimed that such a city existed among the tribes that Pliny had in
'
mind. The author s very apparent vagueness in his geographical
references suggests that he located the city of the maneaters not
near Egypt, but in a far distant land. One would expect that if
he had had the Ethiopian tribes in mind, he would have been more
specific, for their invasions must have filled the minds of the native
population with horror and hatred.
On the other hand, tales of the existence of cannibals along the
northeastern coast of the Black Sea were widely circulated and were
known not only in Greece, but also in Africa, as is attested by
Tertullian; so it seems logical to think that they were known in Egypt
as well. Thus we can conclude, with some justification, that the
the Church historian Socrates "makes the first mention of Argyropolis
"
possessing a bishop. This is a misinterpretation of a passage (Hist. Eccles.,

7, 25; PG, 67, col. 796) explaining that, because of its beautiful location,
the Patriarch Atticus named the suburb of Constantinople that was opposite
Chrysopolis, Argyropolis. Hesychius of Jerusalem died not in 440, as Peter-
son says (p. n), but probably after 450; and Petrus Chrysologus died not
in 450 (p. 12), but about 433. In all of this the author betrays an unfortunate
misunderstanding or inaccurate evalution of elementary matters, and,
further, he occasionally quotes primary sources from secondary authorities.
44 Geographia 4, chap. 8, 3: AMMottes (iv6p«irO(pdyor I used the photo-
'
reproduction of Codex UrhinatusGraecus82 (ClaudiusPtolemaeus.GeograpAj a*

Codex UrbinasGraecus 82, ed. P. Franchi de' Cavalieri (Leipzig, 1932), fol. 36v.
.* C Plinius Secundus, Historia Naiuralis, 6, 195, ed, H. Rackham, 2
.
(Loeb Classical Library, 194.2), p. 482, Pliny himself calls the region in which
he places his Anthropophagi purely imaginary.
Ed. R. A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet in Acta Apost. apocr., 2, pt. 1, chap. 22,
p. 96.
204
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
author of the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, who may have lived
in Egypt or in some other country where Greek was a common
language had in mind Andrew's original missionary territory, Scythia,
,
when speaking of the anthropophagites, and located the cannibals

in that neighborhood.
This conclusion seems supported by the fact that in the Acts of
Peter and Andrew, which are the continuation of the Acts of Andrew
and Matthias, or at least assume their existence, Andrew, after his
return from the city of the maneaters to the mountain where Peter,
Matthias, Alexander, and Rufus were gathered, is sent with Peter
and these disciples, by Christ, to the city of the barbarians.67 This
lends further support to the tradition that Andrew was Apostle to
the barbarian Scythians. The Greeks of Achaea could hardly have
been called barbarians by a Greek writer of the fourth or fifth
century.
Moreover, another of these apocryphal writings, the Martyrium
Matthaei, calls the city of the maneaters to which Matthew-not
Matthias here-is sent by Christ, the city of Myma (Myme).88 This
'
name recalls the city of Myrmidona in Gregory of Tours s works,

and of Mirmidonia about which we read in both versions of the
Latin translation of the Acts of Andrew and Matthias. This strongly
suggests that Myma, or a similar name, might also have been given
to this city in some Greek versions of the Acts of Andrew and
Matthias. If such was the case, it would be clear that the author of
these Acts had in mind Myrmekion, near Andrew's original mission-
ary land.69
87 Idem,
p. chap, i, pp. 117, 118.
48 Idem,
chap. 4, p. 220.
*.
Even the fourteenth century Church historian, Nicephorus Callistus
-
Xanthopulus (Historia Ecclesiastica, 2, chap. 41, PG, 145, col. 865) preserved
the memory of the story, and in describing Matthias' death called the city
,
in which he died Myrmene, basing his account on the apocryphal Martyrium

Matthaei. The legend of the maneaters attracted the attention of V. G. Vasil'-
"
evskij, who devoted a short monograph to it: Choidenie apostola Andreja

v straneMirraidonjan, Zurnal ministerstva narodnago prosve&enija, 189, pt. 2
"
(1877), pp. 41-82, 157-185. Cf. also the account of Andrew's legend given by
S V. Petrovskij, "Apokrifiieskija skazanija ob apostol'skoj propovedi po
.
iemomorskomu pobereiiju
"
Zapiski imp. Odesskago ob$(estva istorii i

,
drevnosti, 21 (1898) pp. 1-84. The author rightly pointed out that all of
,
these accounts assumed Andrew's activity to have been along the north coast
of the Pontus Euxeinus.
205
As has been shown, the Greek version of the Acts of Andrew and
Matthias does not specify the country in which Andrew was preach-
ing when he received the Lord's command to go to the city of
the maneaters. The Acts of Peter and Andrew speak only of the
lands of the barbarians where the two Apostles were sent to preach.
The Latin translation of the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, also
used by Gregory of Tours, identifies the country, however, as
Achaea. This is reminiscent of two traditions-the earlier at-
tributing Scythia to Andrew as his missionary field, and the later
placing his activity in Achaea. The authors of the two Greek Acts
seem still to have been impressed by the earlier tradition, and
although they probably knew the later one, they did not dare
to follow it explicitly and preferred to be vague about Andrew's
missionary field. The Latin translator, on the other hand, followed
the new tradition.
Nevertheless, even Gregory's description provides a faint sug-
gestion of the old tradition. He has Andrew come from the city of
the maneaters to Amaseia and Sinope in Pontus and Paphlagonia,
which indicates that the site of Myrmidona was usually located in
the older apocrypha on the coast opposite Pontus-in the Crimea or
Scythia.
The city of maneaters is identified with Sinope only as a later

tradition which we come upon in the last phases of the develop-
ment of the Andrew Legend when popular imagination concen-
trated on describing the Apostle's activity in better known lands,
such as Asia Minor, Greece, and Achaea, and his activity in
Scythia was forgotten.
This identification of Myrmidona with Sinope can be found for
the first time in Theodosius' description of his pilgrimage to
Jerusalem, written about 550.70 The author of the Narration was
also acquainted with this new tradition, but he was still to some
70 Theodosius De situ Terrae Sanctae in Itinera Hierosolymitana, CSEL,

,
39, ed. P. Geyer (1898), pp. 144: De Cersona usque in Sinope, ubi domnus
Andreas liberavit damnum Matheum evangelistam de careere.... Quae Sinopi
illo tempore Myrmidona dicebatur, et omnes, qui ibi manebant, homines pares
suos comedebant.
71 M. Bonnet, Supplementum cod. apocr., 2, p. 48 [AnBoll., 13, p. 356).
206
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
degree impressed by the old one, and toned down the whole story.
He has Andrew preach first in Bithynia, and then mentions a
miracle performed by the Apostle in Nicaea. After that he transports
his hero to Thrace whence he is allowed to reach Scythia. From
Scythia, Andrew is said first to have visited the shores of Colchis, and
afterward to have reached Sinope.
The people of Sinope are depicted in the Narratio as "blood-
"
eaters ; cruel to their neighbors and to all visitors. They imprisoned
Matthias, along with others, but no allusion is made to their

cannibalism, which shows how the original tradition, placing the
anthropophagites in or near Scythia, was even then being slowly
pushed into the background, while the new tradition identifying the
city of the cannibals with Sinope was gaining ground.
This explains why the copyists of the Acta Andreas et Matthiae-
one in the tenth and the other in the sixteenth century-influenced
by the new tradition, identified Sinope with the city of the ma-
neaters 72 although the older manuscripts of these Acts, as noted
,
above, do not mention the city of the cannibals by name.

The monk Epiphanius accepted the new identification in his Vita
Andreae,73 written in the ninth century. He not only placed the
anthropophagites at Sinope, but, in addition, blamed the Jews of
that city for furthering this practice, and in this respect he was
followed by the Laudatio,™ a homily of St. Andrew of the same
period. It is interesting to see how the tradition grew, and how one
legend was replaced by another.75
Parisinus Graecus, 881 (tenth century), Escorial Y II, 4 (sixteenth

century). Moreover in the Parisinus Graecus, 1313 (fifteenth century) Andrew
starts from Amasia to go to the city of the anthropophagites (fol. no) in
order to liberate Matthias. On fols. 1 jg1,! 59v the city of Myrmyne is mentioned.
The present writer has been able to verify the readings in only the Parisian
manuscripts. Cf. R. A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, ibid., pp. xxiii, 65. The principal
manuscript used by M. Bonnet for his edition of the Acts of Andrew and
Matthias {Parisinus Supplementum Graecum, 824 [ninth century]) is not
listed in Omont's catalogue. We find in the catalogue, under this number,
only Passio S. Barbarae. The A eta A ndreae et Matthiae are scattered throughout
the manuscript on the following folios, and in the following order: iov, 9, 8,
7. 2. 5. A, 3, iv.
n PG 120, col.
, 220. On Epiphanius see infra p. 225.
74 M .
Bonnet, op. cit., p. 9 [AnBoll, 13, p. 317). Cf. infra p. 227.
'
s See also S V. Petrovskij, op. cit., pp. 155 seq.
.
207
It is most probable-as mentioned before78-that the original

Acts depicted Andrew's activity in only Asia Minor, Thrace, and
Achaea. This is clearly indicated by Philastrius of Brescia, who says
that the Acts described Andrew's activity on his way from Pontus
to Greece, Gregory of Tours, as already noted, also starts his
' '
narrative of Andrew s miracles with the Apostle s stay in Pontus.
This, however, does not mean that the anonymous author of the
'
original Acts did not know about Andrew s activity in Scythia,

although very likely he did not even mention that country in
his narrative.77 At the end of the third century, when he composed
his work, the tradition of Andrew's apostolic activity in Scythia was
still too well known to be ignored. He simply supposed that Andrew,
after finishing his preaching in Scythia, returned to the northern
'
coast of Asia Minor; so he limited himself to describing Andrew s

journey from Pontus to Greece, and evidently wrote Andrew's Acts
only in order to connect the Apostle with Greece, Achaea, and
Patras where, in his belief, Andrew had died a martyr's death. The
lack of reference to Scythia in the original Acts cannot, therefore, be
'
used as an argument against Andrew s activity in that country.

There is yet another tradition which, although it also developed
later, can be explained in the light of the oldest report on Andrew's
missionary activity in Scythia. This is the belief that Andrew
preached in Sebastopolis, on the northeastern coast of the Black
Sea, and at the mouths of the Apsarus and Phasis Rivers. This
tradition is reflected in Pseudo-Epiphanius' List of Apostles and
Disciples, which, as has been shown, could have been composed
only at the end of the seventh or, rather, at the beginning of the
'
eighth centuries. When the tradition of Andrew s preaching in

Greece and Achaea was created and connected with his activity in
Byzantium, it was necessary to have him return from Scythia to
the shores of the Pontus Euxeinus whence he could have reached
Thrace. If the Sogdianoi mentioned by the author of Pseudo-
Epiphanius' list could be identified with an Alanic tribe living
between Phoullae and Sugdaea in the Crimea, it would be quite
7* See supra pp. 188, 194.

"
J. Flamion, op. cit., pp. 244 seq., saw very clearly the importance of
this statement.
208
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
natural that the author should first have Andrew come back from
the interior of Scythia to the coast of the Crimea. The Sugdaeans
may have been known to him. They were Christians in his time,
although in the ninth century the Slavic missionary Constantine-
Cyril on his way to the Khazars, found that they still practiced
some pagan rites. His biographer quotes the Sugdaeans among
peoples using their own language in the liturgy,78
This identification, although extremely hypothetical is possible
because Pseudo-Epiphanius places the Sogdianoi immediately after
the Scythians, and because some manuscripts also use the form
Sogdianoi. In any case, writers dependent on Pseudo-Epiphanius-
if not he himself-identified the Sogdianoi with the inhabitants of
,
Sogdiana between the Rivers Oxus and laxartes.

The Gorsinians cannot be identified with certainty. The most
logical suggestion appears to be that their name is a deformation of
Georgia, as the country of Iberia is now called,79 and this imphes
that Pseudo-Epiphanius regarded Andrew as a missionary to the
Georgians also.
To these peoples are added, in some texts, the Sakai,80 fisted
after the Sogdianoi. The Sakai were a mysterious people, located
by the old geographers in the neighborhood of the Indians, Baktroi
and Sogdians, either east of the Caspian Sea or beyond the River
laxartes. This must have sounded fantastic, for other copyists
preferred to call it, instead of Sakai, Thrakai,81 thus bringing Andrew
nearer his goal. This confusion of names among nations occupying
such widely distant regions, sometimes summarized merely as
" "
exterior Ethiopians, is poor testimony to the reliability of such

a tradition.
The city of Sebastopolis, which arose in Augustus' time near the
78 See F Dvomik, Ugendes, pp. 205, 208, 370, 375.

.
n This interpretation was proposed to R. A. Lipsius {op. cit., 2, pt. 2,

p. 430) by A. von Gutschmid, in a letter, and was also approved by Noldeke.
so See the different readings of the names of peoples to whom Andrew was
supposed to have preached, in R. A. Lipsius, op. cit., 1, pp. 567 seq.; especially
in Th. Schermann, Propheten und Apostellegenden nebst Jiingerkatalogen des
Dorotheus und verwandter Texte, pp. 247 seq.
81 See the com parison of the different readings in the manuscripts of the
texts in R. A. Lipsius, ibid., pp. 568 seq. Cf. also Th. Schermann, ibid.
pp. 134 seq.
4 209
ruins of the former Greek colony of Dioscurias82 on the coast of

Colchis, was a logical stopping place on the way from the Crimea to
Sinope. According to local tradition, St. Andrew preached there,
together with Simon the Cananean. It is difficult to ascertain when
this tradition began, but it became fully developed only in the
ninth century, when it was reported by the monk Epiphanius.83
However, some traces of the tradition, as it concerned Simon, are
found in Moses of Chorene's Armenian history (fifth century).84
It is possible that the legend of the preaching of Simon the
Cananean in Sebastopohs and on the coast of Colchis penetrated
from Syria to this region at an early date, but it would be bold to
venture a similar supposition concerning Andrew. In any case it is
an estabhshed fact that the Georgians themselves knew nothing
before the very end of the ninth century about the preaching of the
Apostle Andrew in their country.85 It is mentioned for the first time
in the Life of St. Peter the Iberian, an enlarged edition of which was
composed by the archpriest Paul.86 The author of the Life got his
information from Nicetas the Philosopher who can only be the
,
Byzantine author (d. 890) of a panegyric on Andrew actually re-

porting Andrew as having preached in Iberia.87 Thus it is evident
that this idea was imported into Iberia from abroad.
82 Cf . M. Orbeli, "Gorod Bliznecov AiooKoupfas i plemja Voznic 'Hvioxoi,"
jturnal ministerstva narodnago prosve&enifa, N.S. 3 (St. Petersburg, 1911),
pp. 195-215.
M Vita S Andreae, PG, 120, col. 244. On
.
Epiphanius see infra p. 225.
M See V Langlois, Collection des historiens
. anciens et modernes deVArminie,
2 (Paris, 1867), bk. II, chap. 34, p. 98. Cf. R. A. Lipsius op. cit., 1, p. 580;
,
2, pt,, 2, pp. 142-146 who took some of his information from A. von Gut-
'
,
"
schmid s very useful study Die Konigsnamen in den apokr. Apostelgesch.,"
op. cit., pp. 369 seq. {Rhein. Mus., 19, pp. 361 seq.).
85 This was demonstrated very clearly by I. Difavakov in his study
"
PropovMnifeskaja dSjatel'nost' ap. Andreja i sv. Niny. II. Apostol Andrej

v Gruzii,
"
Zurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveSdenija, 333 (St. Petersburg,

1901), pp. 101-113. On the origins of Christianity on the coast of Colchis and
among the Georgians see K. Kekelidze, Die BekehrungGeorgiens zum Christen- "
tum (Leipzig, 1928). For more complete indications see P. Peeters ,

Les ddbuts
"
du christianisme en G orgie d'apres les sources hagiographiques AnBoll, 50

,
(1932), pp. 1-58. The legendary tradition on Andrew's activity in Iberia was
invoked by the Georgians in the eleventh century when they claimed the
independence of their Church from the patriarchate of Antioch. See the
"
Life of St. George the Hagiorite" in P. Peeters' study "Histoires monastiques

"
g6orgiennes, ibid. 36-37 (1917-1918), pp. 116 seq., 132 seq.
8* Published by N. Marr in Palestinshij Sbornik, 47 {1896), pp. xv, 82.
87 PG, 105, col. 64.
210
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
This conclusion is of some importance for the purposes of our

investigation. If the Gorsinians mentioned in Pseudo-Epiphanius'
catalogue can be identified with the Georgians, Pseudo-Epiphanius
should be regarded as the inventor of this legend. He was followed
by other Byzantine writers, and from Byzantium the Legend at last
penetrated to the country where, logically, it should have originated,
but which, until the end of the ninth century, had been content to
have as its principal missionary St. Nina.88 It is a fact that the oldest
tradition had Andrew preach in Scythia, whither he came by sea
from Sinope in Paphlagonia, and it was this that induced Pseudo-
Epiphanius to indicate that Andrew had preached on the Caucasian
coast on his return from Scythia.
On the whole it is, therefore, reasonable to say that the oldest

'
report on Andrew s activity, attributed to Origen, seems to be as

reliably confirmed and clear as can be expected in view of the few
sources of information extant today; but what of the other tradition
'
of Andrew s voyage through the Black Sea to Byzantium and
thence through Thrace and Macedonia to Achaea where, in Patras,
he is said to have suffered a death similar to that of his brother
Peter in Rome ?
First of all, it is, strange that Origen, or the transmitter of this
'
old tradition to Eusebius, who knew about Andrew s missionary
activity in Scythia, knew nothing of his work in Achaea, or of his
death in Patras. Origen-or Eusebius' witness to the old tradition-
reports on the activity of five Apostles: Thomas in India, Andrew
in Scythia, John in Asia, Peter in the provinces of Asia Minor and
in Rome, and Paul from Jerusalem to as far afield as Illyricum.
But in only three cases does he indicate where they died: Peter and
Paul in Rome under Nero, and John in Ephesus. Nosuch information
is given about Thomas and Andrew, and one gets the impression
that, in the opinion of Origen or whoever transmitted the oldest
tradition, these two Apostles died where they had preached: Thomas
in India and Andrew in Scythia.
88 See S V. Petrovskij's analysis of the Georgian Legend and its comparison
.
with Epiphanius and the Laudatio, op. cit., pp. 132-150. The author dated
the composition of the Georgian Legend after that of Epiphanius and
the Laudatio, perhaps also after that of Symeon Metaphrastes.
211
, 4.
Origen's silence in this respect-his name is at least quoted by

Eusebius-carries the more weight in that he had been in rather
close contact with Achaea. He visited that country twice; first
about 230 and then about 240.89 He must thus have been well
acquainted with the religious traditions of this province, and if he
had heard of Andrew's activity in Achaea and of his death in Patras,
he would undoubtedly have mentioned it in his report on the
Apostle's activities. The fact that he did not indicates that, in his
time, this tradition did not exist.
Moreover, there seem to be some details in the description of
Andrew's martyrdom in Patras which do not agree with historical
facts. The names of the proconsuls of Achaea-Lesbius and Egeates
-found in the Acts cannot be verified. This, and the fact that their
names are Greek rather than Latin, arouses the strongest doubts.
Even if it be admitted that, between 44 and 67, and again after a
few years' interruption, Achaea had been governed under the
mandate of the Senate by former praetors with the title of pro-
consul, it can hardly be conceded that they resided in Patras.
Corinth was much more suitable as the residence of a Roman
governor; it was the first Roman colony in Achaea, and the most
important trading center of the country.
The report on Andrew's preaching in Achaea conflicts with other

more reliable reports on the penetration of Christianity into the
province. St. Paul was its principal Apostle. He founded the
Christian community in Corinth and was especially solicitous of the
first Christians; tasks in which he was aided by his disciples, par-
ticularly by St. Luke the Evangelist. Admittedly there is no reason
to reject the possibility that Achaea could have been the missionary
field of more than one apostle, but it seems at least strange that the
'
oldest tradition, represented by Luke s Acts of the Apostles and by

Origen, did not even mention Andrew's preaching in that country.
Moreover, according to another very old tradition, St. Luke is
said to have written his Gospel in Achaea. This is attested by the
.* Eusebius, Hist, eccles. 6, 23, 32; PG, 20, cols. 576, 592; ed. E. Schwartz,
pp. 570, 586. Cf. E. de Faye, Origine, sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pens6e, 1 (2nd ed.,
Paris, 1923-1928), pp. 31, 43. See what J. Flamion (op. cit., pp. 245 seq.)
'
says on Origen s relations with Achaea.
212
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
'
old Prologue to Luke s Gospel.90 Its anonymous author, in empha-

'
sizing Luke s eagerness to expound to the Greeks the mystery of

Christ, and to protect them from being influenced by Jewish or
pagan teachings, at the same time indirectly indicates that the
Greeks were the principal subjects of his preoccupation, meaning
that he preached to them. These first Prologues were dated by
Corssen from the irst third of the third century.91 Dom de Bruyne
f
saw in them an anti-Marcionist tendency, and dated them from the

second century. M. J. Lagrange,92 however, refusing to see in them
any such tendency, dated them from the second half of the second
century, before the year 170, suggesting that they bear a certain
affinity to the Canon of Muratori,98 which dates from the end of the
second century. Recently, R. G. Heard,94 who is more skeptical
about the early origin of the Prologue, was inclined to date its
present form from the third century; but it may incorporate, he
"
says, if not an earlier and purely biographical Prologue, at least

"
earlier and very valuable biographical material. Without becoming

deeply involved in the controversy, we may deduce from what has so
*"
See the edition of the Greek text and of its Latin translation, compared
with the so-called "
Monarchian" Prologue, by Dom de Bruyne "Les plus ,

"
anciens prologues latins des 6vangiles, Revue binidictine, 40 (1928), pp. 196
seq. The English translation of the passages from the Greek Prologue made
by R. G. Heard is particularly interesting for our purpose ("The Old Gospel
Ptologues," in The Journal of Theological Studies, 6 [1955] p. 7): "Luke is a
,
Syrian of Antioch, a doctor by profession, who was a disciple of the apostle,

and later followed Paul until his martyrdom. He served the Lord without
distraction, unmarried, childless, and fell asleep at the age of 84 in Boeotia ,
full of the Holy Spirit.-When the Gospels were already in existence...

impelled by the Holy Spirit he wrote this whole Gospel in the regions of
Achaea. He shows by means of the preface this very fact that before him other
,
Gospels had been written, and that it was necessary to set forth for those of
,
the Gentiles who believed, the accurate narrative of the dispensation, that
they should not be distracted by the Jewish fables nor miss the truth through
deception by heretical and vain fantasies...." Most of the Latin manuscripts
of this Prologue read Bithynia" for "Boeotia." A later version of theGreek
"
text mentions Thebes of Boeotia as Luke's resting place. Cf. infra p. 214,
footnote 96.
.1 P Corssen, Monarchianische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien; ein Beitrag
.
zur Geschichte des Kanons, Texte und Untersuchungen 15 (Leipzig, 1896),

,
pp. 17 seq., 63 seq.

n In his recension of de Bruyne s'
study. Revue biblique, 38 (1929), pp. 115-

121.
M M J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Luc (Paris, 1948), pp. xiii-xx. On
.
the Fragment of Muratori cf. also the recent study by A. A. T. Ehrhardt

"
,
The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment op. cit,, pp. 121-138.

"
,
M Loc cit., p. 11.
.
213
far been established, that, according to the oldest known tradition,

the true missionary of Achaea was, after Paul, Luke. No trace is to be
found in this tradition that Andrew engaged in missionary activities
there.
This tradition is also reflected in a Coptic inscription of the sixth
or seventh century, though based on a much older text, apparently
more ancient than the Latin Prologue and independent of it.95 A
Greek original of the text was published by H. von Soden.96
This Achaean version concerning Luke is further confirmed by
Jerome,97 although the latter, influenced by the Acta Andreae.
believed that Andrew ended his career in Patras. These accounts
lend an aspect of doubt concerning Andrew's activities in Achaea.
All of these facts are important also for dating the original Acts
of Andrew. They indicate that this work, which is responsible for
the new tradition of Andrew's activity in Thrace and Greece and
of his death in Patras, could not have been composed in the second
century, but only after Origen at the end of the third century. Thus
the dating proposed by Flamion seems confirmed.
Although the new tradition appealed to many, it was some time
before it spread everywhere and was accepted without hesitation.
We quoted above some of the early copies of the Acta Andreae
et Matthiae and the Acta Petri et Andreae in which the new tradition
cannot be detected, but this is understandable when it is recalled
that both apocrypha were composed in Egypt.
This is not all, for yet another fourth-century document may be
w G Lefebvre, "Egypte chr tienne, a propos de S. Luc," Annates du
.
service des antiquitis, 10 (1909), p. 1. Cf. M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., p. xiii.

Herrmann von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testamentes, in ihrer
dltesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, 1 (Gottingen, 1913), p. 327. The Greek text
'
gives as the place of Andrew s death not Bithynia-as can be read in most
latin manuscripts of the Prologue to Luke's Gospel,-but Boeotia. M. J.
Lagrange, op. cit., p. xvii,'thinks that the mention of Thebes in Boeotia has
been added to the Greek text after the transfer, by Constantius, of Luke's
relics from Thebes to Constantinople. It seems probable however, that in the
,
Latin text the name of Boeotia was corrupted into Bithynia. For other
interpretations see Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3rd ed.,
Leipzig, 1924], pp. 340, 341 as indicated by him in Das Evangelium des Luhas
,
(Leipzig, 1913), pp. 13-19, 738-745-

In his commentary on St. Matthew: Tertius Lucas medicus, natione
Syrus Antiochensis, cuius laus in evangelio, qui et ipsediscipulusapostoli Pauli,
in Achaiae, Boeotiaeque partibus volunten condidit, quaedam altius repetens et,
ut ipse in proemio confitetur, audita magis quam visa describens; PL, 26, col. 18.
214
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
cited which was written outside Greece-the Syriac Dodrina

Apostolorum. Here again is discovered a faint reflection of the origi-
'
nal tradition of Andrew s preaching in Asia Minor and on the
northern shores of the Pontus, and although the reflection may
already be weak, there is no allusion to Andrew in Achaea or Greece.
On the contrary, these countries are said to have been evangelized
by John and Luke.
First, when enumerating the letters written by the apostles which
were kept with great reverence by their disciples and read in the
"
churches, the compiler of the text says:98 They again [the successors
'
of the apostles disciples] at their deaths also committed and

delivered to their disciples after them everything that they had
received from the apostles; also what James had written from
Jerusalem, and Simon from the city of Rome, and John from
Ephesus, and Mark from the great Alexandria, and Andrew from
Phrygia," and Luke from Macedonia, and Judas Thomas from
India."
Reviewing the missionary activity of the apostles, he writes:100
"
Ephesus and Thessalonica and all Asia and all the country of the
Corinthians and all Achaea and its environs, received the Apostles'
Hand of Prieshood from John the Evangelist, who had leaned upon
the bosom of our Lord, and who built a Church there and ministered
there in his office of Guide. Nicaea and Nicomedia and all the
country of Bithynia and of Gothia, and of the regions round about
it received the Apostle's Hand of Priesthood from Andrew, the
brother of Simon Cephas, who was Guide and Ruler in the Church
which he built there and was Priest and ministered there. Byzantium
,
and all the country of Thrace and its environs even to the great
river, the border which separates the Barbarians received the
,
Apostle's Hand of Priesthood from Luke the Apostle, who built a

Church there, and was Priest and ministered there in his office of
Ruler and Guide."101
Flamion102 thought that "Thracia" should be substituted for
98 W
.
Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents (London, 1864), p. 32.
Cf. E. Hennecke, Handbuch, p. 547, footnote 1.
104 W Cureton, op. cit., p. 34.
.
101 Cf the other versions of the Doctrina Apostolorum quoted by F. Haase

.
in Apostel und Evangelisten, pp. 52-55, repeating the same tradition.

101 Op cit., p. 242.
.
215
"
Gothia" in the passage describing Andrew's missions. This,

however, is impossible. This passage seems to have appeared strange
to one copyist103 who replaced "Gothia" with "Inner Galatia."
But the word "Gothia" is perfectly correct. In the fourth century
the Goths were already strongly entrenched in the Crimea, and
stayed there even when their racial brothers had migrated toward
the West. The Crimean Goths were christianized in the fourth
century,104 an event which must have excited the interest of the
entire Eastern Christian world, and they remained loyally or-
thodox in spite of their racial brethren's acceptance of Arianism.
With good reason, therefore, an echo of the original tradition that
attributed Scythia to Andrew may be seen in this description of his
"
activity. Also, the wording Gothia and of the regions round about
it," suggests the meaning: the Crimea and the Scythian lands around
it. The distribution of Greek lands between John and Luke may
seem strange; however, on one point the Syriac tradition of the
fourth century is clear-it is unaware of Andrew's preaching in
Thrace, Macedonia, or Achaea.
In Greek lands, however, and in the Latin West the new tradition
'
concerning Andrew s preaching and martyrdom in Achaea began

to spread in the second half of the fourth century. Gregory of
Nazianzus105 still seemed very much under the influence of the old
tradition making Luke the Apostle of Achaea; so he assigned that
country to Luke, and Epirus to Andrew. Also, Theodoret of Cyrus,100
in the middle of the fifth century mentioned "Hellas" as Andrew's
,
missionary field, and Pseudo-Chrysostom107 does the same.

In the West Gaudentius of Brescia108 apparently knew of the new
1W W Cureton, op. cit., p. 172: "Inner Galatia."
.
104 Cf. G. Vernadsky, Ancient Russia (New Haven, 1943), p. 119. F. Dvor-
nik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome (Paris, 1926), pp. 65, 144, 164; idem ,
Ugendes, pp. 160 seq.

io» Oraiio 33 chap. 11, PG, 36, col. 228.
,
104 In Psalm 116:1 PG, 80, col. 1805.

,
107 Homilia in duodecim apostolos PG, 59, col. 495.

,
108 Smno 17 PL, 20, col. 963: Andreas et Lucas apud Patras Achaiae
,
civitaUm, consumati referuntur. At that time Pope Damasus seems to have

believed that Andrew had suffered martyrdom on the cross (Carmen 8, PL,
13, cols. 381 seq.), but Eucherius, Bishop of Lyon (d. ca. 450) still knew only
the old tradition. In his Instructionum libri duo, 1 (PL, 50, col. 809) he says:
Andreas Scythas praedicatione molivit.
2l6
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
version about 420, for he confesses to have heard that Andrew and
Luke died at Patras in Achaea. St. Gregory the Great109 seems also
to have accepted this tradition when he attributed the conversion
of Achaea to Andrew without mentioning Scythia.
Most remarkable is the case of St. Jerome. Although he certainly
knew of the tradition, reported by Eusebius, of Andrew's preaching
in Scythia, and although he knew that Luke was regarded as the
principal Apostle of Achaea, he was so greatly influenced by the new
Andrew tradition, which had spread through the circulation of the
Ada Andreae, that he admits that Andrew preached in Achaea.110
The original tradition was, however, not forgotten. The Pseudo-
Athanasius111-in reality Basil of Seleucia-was much impressed
by the Ada Andreae et Matthiae, as may be seen in his homily on
St. Andrew, written about the year 459. He must have read this
for he combines both traditions in his homily, and says that Andrew
had "filled with grace not only Hellas, but also the lands of the
barbarians." The later reports on Andrew's activity112 combine the
two traditions, and present Andrew as responsible for the penetration
of Christianity into Scythia and Achaea. Both traditions are re-
lected also in Greek Synaxaries.113
f
When all this is taken into consideration, the tradition according

to which Andrew journeyed from Pontus, by way of Thrace and
w Homilia 17 in Evangel 17, PL, 76, col. 1148. Eucherius of Lyon,
.
however, still followed the old tradition transmitted by Eusebius and his
Latin translator Rufinus, and speaks only of Scythia as Andrew's missionary
field (Instructiones, bk. 1, CSEL, 31, ed. C. Wotke, p. 135).
110 Epist 59 ad Marcellam, 5, CSEL, 54, ed. I. Hildberg, p. 546: In omnibus
.
locis versabatur [Jesus] cum Thomas in India cum Petro Romae, cum Paulo
,
in Illyrico, cum Tilo in Creta, cum Andrea in Achaia (ed. J. Lebourt, Col-
lection Guillaume Bud6,13 [Paris, 1953], p. 89). Cf. G. Griitzmacher [Hierony-
mus, 1 [Leipzig, 1901], p. 99) who dates this letter from the year 394, and F.
Cavallera {Saint Jirome, sa vie et son oeuvre, 1 [Louvain, Paris, 1922], p. 167) '
who refers the letter to 395-396. See other minor writings in Th. Scherman s
Prophet, vitae fabulosae, pp. 206-217. See J. Flamion, op. cit., p. 32-38, on the
growth of the Andrew cult in the West in the fifth century, after the apocryphal
Acts of Andrew, translated into Latin, had prepared the terrain.
111 PC 28, col. 1108. Cf. sufira p. 148. Cf. also Venantius Fortunatus, a
,
contemporary of Gregory of Tours, in his Carminani libri decern, 8, MGH,

Auct. Antiq., 4, pt. 1, p. 185: Nobilis Andream mittit Achaia suum. Ibid., t,
op. cit., p. 7, Venantius praises Bishop Vitalis for having built the church
of Andreas in Ravenna.
112 See supra pp. 174 seq.
,
118 Ed H. Delehaye, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris, cols. 265 seq.

.
217
Macedonia to Achaea, appears highly suspect, if not completely

legendary. No less suspect is the story, first told in Pseudo-Epipha-
'
nius catalogue and ampUfied by Pseudo-Dorotheus, of Andrew's
stay in Byzantium. In the former Andrew preaches not in Byzan-
tium, but in nearby Argyropolis. The Narratio and the Pseudo-
Dorotheus impute the inability of the Apostle to preach in Byzan-
tium to the fact that it was governed by a tyrant called Zeuxippus
who imprisoned and put to death anyone who sought to preach
Christianity there.
The name of Zeuxippus was always well known to the Byzantines.
The Chronicon Paschale11* recounts that the Emperor Severus built
in Byzantium a public bath which he wished to be called Severium,
but which the natives called Zeuxippus because on the Tetrastoon,
a place with four porticoes a short distance from the baths, there
once stood a bronze statue of the sun god with the inscription
"
Zeuxippus." Severus had removed the statue to the temple of

Apollo which he had constructed on the city's Acropolis.
The name of Zeuxippus seems to derive from the mythical story
of Zeus Hippios. According to Hesychius of Miletus,115 Zeus tamed
the horses of Diomedes in the holy grove of Hercules, located where
the public bath was later built. Another explanation, in Eusebius'
World Chronicle,116 mentions a King of Sikyon called "Zeuxippus,"
the twenty-first in the succession of its rulers, and connects him with
the baths in Byzantium bearing that name. George Cedrenus,117
Syncellus,118 and Malalas119 also list Zeuxippus among Sicyon's
rulers, though, according to them, he was preceded by twenty-six
kings.
Such a legendary name naturally stimulated the imagination of
114 Ed Bonn, i, p. 494, PG, 92, col. 649. Cf. C. D. Du Cange, Historia
.
Byzantina. Constantinopolis Christiana (Paris, 1680), pp. 88-91. On the bath

and its history see R. Janin, Constantinople, pp. 22, 215-217, 404-405.
m Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. Th. Preger (Teubner,
Leipzig, 1901), pp. 15 seq.
,
M Chronicon GCS, 24 (ed. R. Helm, 1913); Eusebius' works, 7, pt. 1,
,
p 62: 21 Zeuxippus, an. 31. Quidam ad huius memoriam conservandam balneas

.
Byzantiorum multo post tempore appellatas putant. Cf. also Chronicon, ibid.,
39, Eusebius' works, 7, pt. 2, p. 162.
117 Ed Bonn, p. 144.
.
1M Ed Bonn, p. 287.
.
"
» Ed Bonn, p. 69.
.
2l8
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
the people of Byzantium, and it is not surprising that Zeuxippus

was given a place in their folklore. Because the name was connected
.
with the history of Byzantium from pagan times, it was easy to

make of him a persecutor of Christians, and the creators of the
Andrew Legend could have had, therefore, little difficulty in finding
a suitable name for ? fictitious ruler of Byzantium in apostohc times,
and, at the same time, in endowing their Legend with a semblance
of verisimilitude.
The place called Argyropolis (Silver city) was also well known
to the Byzantines, though it was called so only from the fifth
century onward. It owes this name to the Patriarch Atticus (406-
425) who, according to his contemporary Church historian,
Socrates,180 seems to have made a habit of renaming places. He
gave this name to the suburb of Constantinople situated opposite
ChrysopoUs (Golden city), because he liked its beautiful site. The
public found this clever correlation pleasing; so it was called
Argyropolis from that time on.181
Can a satisfactory explanation be found for the origin of the
story that the Apostle Andrew worked and died in Achaea?
Lipsiusm advanced the theory that Andrew's Achaean mission
represented a substitution of Greek Achaea for the Caucasian tribe
of the Achaioi who lived on the Caucasian coast and who were the
nearest neighbors of Scythia proper. This explanation found many
adherents.128
1S0 Hist eccles., 7, 25; PG, 67, col. 796B: KcmBcbv oOv 6 'ArriKds t6v Korrotv-
,
TiKpu XpuaorrdXEOis t6ttov fu-reprrfi TvyxAvowra, irphreiv t<fr\, toOtov Apyvp6-

iroXiw AvoiuSiLeo&xi, kocI qSeis 6 X6yos, eOOOs t#|v hrwvupilav hcp&rwtv.
1,1 This evidence provides additional documentation for the dating of the
legend of Zeuxippus and of Andrew's stay in Argyropolis. It could hardly
have been invented in the fifth century, when it would have been easy to
disprove it, and perhaps not even at the beginning of the sixth century.
Some time had to elapse before the origin of the name was forgotten. But
even here the plagiarist was obviously careful to use names which would
give his story credibility. On the site of Argyropolis see R. Janin, op. cit.,
'
p. 427. Cf. also Nicephorus Church History {PG, 146, col. 1133).
144 Op cit., 1, p. 610.
.
148 Among others, B. Zimmermann in his article on Andrew in Diction-

'
naire d arch6ologie chrttienne et de liturgie, 1 (Paris, 1907), cols. 2031-
2034. I. E. Hennecke (op. cit. [ed. 1904], p. 544) called this suggestion
" "
ungeheuer (monstrous) in the face of "einerzweifellosdeutlichen Tradition"

(a doubtlessly clear tradition). In his Neutest. Apokr. (2nd ed., Tubingen,
"
1924, p. 251), however, he stated frankly: Ob fiir den Tod des Apostels in
Patras in Sonderheit eine Lokaltradition bestand oder sich eine solche nur
219
This tribe was in fact well known in the classical period, especially
in Greece. Strabo,124 for example, says that "the Achaeans in the
Pontus, as they are called, are a colony of Orchomenians who
"
wandered there with lalmenus after the capture of Troy. Plinym

also mentions the Achaeans, saying that they were divided into
numerous tribal groups. Arrianus mentions them too in his Peri-
flus,1** written about a.d. 130-131.
Actually, although these Achaeans were often believed to have
been Greeks from Phtiotic Achaea or from Orchomenus in Boeotia
who founded a colony there, they had, in reality, nothing in common
with the Greek Achaeans. Of interest, however, is the fact that this
identification of Greek Achaeans with those of the Caucasian coast
was an ancient one, recalled by Greek intellectuals even in the third
century. It is, therefore, not impossible that the idea of their affinity
gave to the author of the Acts of Andrew, who was familiar with
the tradition that the Apostle had preached in Scythia, a country
neighboring that of the Caucasian Achaeans, the thought that
Andrew must also have preached to the Greek Achaeans.
There must, however, have been another incentive for associating
Andrew so closely with Patras. It seems probable that in that city,
the cult, of a local Saint with the same or a similar name had
inspired a patriotic intellectual to identify him with the Apostle,
and to supply what was wanting-a description of his martyrdom.
Other apocrypha, especially the Acta Petri with which such a
writer must have been familiar, provided him with the necessary
pattern. Naturally, the Apostle had first to be conducted from his
original mission, attested by the oldest tradition, in barbaric
Scythia, through Hellenized Asia Minor and Thrace to Greece
proper. The author wrote of this in the style of Greek romances,
auf einen Martyrer gleichlautenden oder ahnlichen Namens erstreckte, was

dann fiir den Verfasser Anlass zu seiner Fabeldichtung geworden ware, ist
nicht auszumachen. [Whether there was a local tradition for the death of the
Saint in Patras, or whether such a tradition concerned only a martyr of the
same or similar name, which might have given the author cause for his fabri-
"
cation cannot be determined].
m Op cit., C 416, bk. 9, ch. 2, 42; ed. H. L. Jones, 4, ibid., p. 340,
.
144 Op cit., 6, sec. 30; ed. H. Rackham, 2, ibtd., p. 360.

.
12* Arrianus, Periplus Ponti Euxini, Geographi graeci minores, 2, ed.

C . Miiller (Paris, 1882), p. 393.
220
LEGENDARY ELEMENTS
displaying, at the same time, his vast geographical knowledge

so as to give to his fantasies the ring of authenticity. In the
history of Andrew's brother, St. Peter, he found a very appealing
' '
prototype for Andrew s heroic martyrdom. Thus Andrew s story

resembled that of his brother, even as to his death.
This instance of substituting for a local Saint a more famous
one is not unique; witness the well-known case of St. Clement,
third successor to St. Peter. In probably the fourth, or at the
latest the beginning of the fifth, century a legend of St. Clement
was published describing his miracles and sufferings when exiled by
Trajan ad marmora in the Crimea, where he found two thousand
Christian prisoners.187 The body of the martyr was said to have been
buried in the city of Cherson in a chapel near the sea. Although the
story is wholly legendary, it was firmly believed and, by a curious
coincidence, was made known in the West by the same St. Gregory
of Tours128 who had introduced the Andrew Legend there. When,
about 861, St. Constantine-Cyril, Apostle of the Slavs, with his
brother Methodius, stopped in Cherson on his way to the Khazars as
Emperor Michael Ill's envoy, he had the good fortune to find the
relics which were regarded as those of Pope Clement, and this gave
new impetus to the widespread cult of the Saint. He brought the
relics to Rome in 868, and Pope Hadrian II deposited them in the
Church of St. Clement. It is most probable that a similar explanation
must be accepted for the history of the relics of St. Andrew.
For the purposes of this investigation, it is irrelevant whether

'
or not the story of Andrew s journey through Asia Minor, Thrace,

and Macedonia to Greece proper is authentic. Two important points
'
emerge from the present study: one, that Andrew s activity in

Thrace and Byzantium had already been described in the original
Acts at the end of the third century, if not earlier; and two, that from
the fourth century onward it could have been regarded in Byzantium
and elsewhere in the Christian world as historical fact.
,*
7 See for details and bibliography F. Dvomik, Ligendes, pp. 190-197.
See the "Life" in F. X. Funk, Opera patrum apostolicorum, 2 (Tubingen, 1881).
lw Libri octo miraculorum (Liber in gloria martyrum), MGH, Script. Rer.
,
Merov., 1, 35, ed. W. Amdt, Br. Krusch, pp. 510 seq.

221
The story of the foundation by Andrew of the see of Byzantium

could very well, therefore, have originated at the end of the third
or in the fourth century. But, as far as can be judged from the
reconstruction of the original Acts, it did not originate at that time.
There is no mention of a prolonged stay by Andrew in Byzantium
in the Virtuies Andreae (utilized in Gregory's Miranda) or in any
other writing. Although all the necessary elements for its formation
existed at this early period, the story did not originate then
because no-one in Byzantium was yet aware of the importance
of an apostolic foundation to a see in ecclesiastical organization.
The significance to a see of such a foundation became fully
appreciated, as has already been shown, during the sixth and
seventh centuries; therefore the earliest permissable date for the
first known codification of the legend of Andrew's founding of
the Byzantine see can be set at the end of the seventh and the first
half of the eighth centuries. This, however does not mean that the
,
legend did not circulate by word of mouth, and perhaps also in

writing, for some time before that period. Every condition neces-
sary to its origin existed throughout Byzantium from the time of
Constantius at the latest.
All of this cautions us against excessive harshness toward the
Byzantines for their creation of this Legend. Once it was accepted
not only in the East, but also in the West-as we learn from the
Latin Virtutes Andreae used by Gregory of Tours in his Miracula-
that Andrew had visited Thrace and Byzantium, the Byzantines
could regard themselves as perfectly entitled to attribute the
foundation of their episcopal see to this Apostle. At the time of
the origin of the Legend no-one in Byzantium or in the West hesi-
tated to believe that Andrew had preached the Gospel in Scythia
and in Achaia, and Thrace and Byzantium seemed the neces-
sary finks between his activities in those two areas.
222
CHAPTER SIX
The Growth of the Andrew Legend
Ninth-century writings propagating the Andrew and Stachys Legend -

The Laudatio.the Passto Ariemii,and their connection with the Andrew
Legend - The Laudalio echoes some ideas of the Patriarch Photius -
Nicetas the Paphlagonian and Ignatius the Deacon on Andrew and
Stachys - Theophanes' critical attitude toward the Andrew Legend -
Another source of Byzantium's apostolic character: Constantinople heir
'
of Ephesus and of the Apostle John. Ignatius and Photius' testimony -

John's connection with Constantinople in Armenian and Nestorian
tradition - The Patriarch Photius and the Andrew Legend - The
Andrew tradition, one of the principal arguments in the opuscule against
Roman primacy, falsely attributed to Photius - The ninth-century
Typicon of Constantinople on Andrew, Stachys, and Metrophanes -
Spread of the Andrew and Stachys Legend in the tenth century - Its
acceptance by the Syrians and Georgians - The Andrew story in the
Russian Primary Chronicle - Pseudo-Symeon's and Cedrenus' catalogue
of Byzantine bishops.
The apostolic character of the see of Constantinople was, as we

have seen, commonly accepted as a fact in Byzantium from the end
of the seventh century onward. The belief that the episcopal see of
Byzantium was founded by the Apostle Andrew started to spread
at the end of the eighth century. It now remains to trace the growth
of this tradition and to determine its role in the development of
the Byzantine Church as affecting relations with other Churches,
especially that of Rome.
In this connection, it is particularly important to review the
spread of this legendary tradition in the ninth century.1 The com-
'
position of Pseudo-Dorotheus catalogue of the bishops of Byzantium

has been shown to date from the beginning of the ninth century. The
1 See supra p. 173 seq.
,
223
Andrew and Stachys Legend is also reflected in the list of apostles

and seventy disciples, which was falsely ascribed to Hippolytus of
Rome.2 In reality, this list was a ninth-century compilation based
on the catalogue of Pseudo-Dorotheus.3 Its existence was revealed
for the first time by George the Monk,4 who quoted from it when
describing the Life of St. John the Apostle in his chronicle written
about the year 866. A long series of similar fists originated in the
following period, based on the texts of Pseudo-Epiphanius, Pseudo-
Dorotheus, and Pseudo-Hipolytus.5 They are, however, of little
value for this investigation.
The story of the foundation of the see of Byzantium by Andrew
found a most effective propagandist in the author of the Chrono-
graphikon syntomon, a short chronological compilation, presenting
simply a fist of emperors, of Jewish and Persian kings, and of
bishops of the five patriarchates. In his enumeration of the patri-
archs of Constantinople, the author copied from Pseudo-Dorotheus
not only the Andrew and Stachys stories, but also the complete list
of bishops of Byzantium who were believed to have preceded
Metrophanes.
This compilation is regarded as a work of the Patriarch Nice-
phorus (806-815). Only a revised edition of the work dating from
850 is extant6 and, for that reason, some hesitate to ascribe it to the
Patriarch. The opuscule became a very popular handbook of general
history, which was often copied and which appeared in several
" "
revised editions, with additions, down to as late as 976.
About 870 this work came into the hands of a western scholar-
Anastasius, the Librarian {Bibliothecarius) of the Roman see. He
made use of it in his Historia triperiita,7 which was based on Theo-
'
phanes historical work, but he carefully omitted the fists of the

patriarchs.
8 PG, 10, cols. 952-956.

Th. Schermann, Propheten
"
*
und Apostellegenden nebst Jiingerkatalogen
des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte," Texte und UnUrsuchungen zur Ge-
schichte der altchrisilichen Literatur, 31 (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 153 seq., 292, 353.
*
Ed. de Boor, 2, pp. 447, 448.
6 Th Schermann, op. ct/., pp. 165 seq.
.
. Ed . Bonn,
Bonn, pp.
pp. 771
771 seq. Ed. de
seq. Ed. de F
Boor, pp. 112 seq. Cf. K. Krumbacher,
Geschichte der Byzantinschen Literatur (Munich, 1897), pp. 350 seq.
7 Theophanes, Chronographia, 2, ed. de Boor (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 31-552.
224
GROWTH OF THE ANDREW LEGEND
More interesting than these lists are two lives of the Apostle
Andrew which appeared in the ninth century, and some passages
on him found in other hagiographical works. The Life of St. Andrew,
composed by Epiphanius, monk of the monastery of Callistratos in
Constantinople, deserves particular attention.8 A basis for dating
its composition is to be found in two of its passages. In one of
them the author says that he had to leave his monastery in order
to avoid association with the iconoclasts,9 and that he visited all the
places where Andrew had preached, which indicates that he must
have read the original apocryphal Acts of the Apostle in order to
collect material for his work. In the other passage, when describing
Andrew's activity in Sinope, Epiphanius speaks10 of an episode
about which he had been told by the natives: During the regime of
Constantine Copronymus (741-775) some iconoclasts had tried in
vain to destroy a marble effigy of Andrew erected near the city.
It can be inferred from the context that Epiphanius visited Sinopfe
'
and the local relics of Andrew s activity some time after the unsuc-
cessful attempt at the destruction of the effigy. Because he says
himself that he left his monastery in order to avoid contact with
the iconoclasts, it is safe to date his departure from Callistratos in
815, when Leo V inaugurated the second phase of the iconoclastic
movement in Byzantium. He must then, have written his work
,
about the middle of the ninth century, when he had been able to
return to his monastery after the victory of the image-worshippers.
Epiphanius confesses that the main source for his writings was
the catalogue of apostles and disciples wrongly attributed to Epi-
'
phanius of Cyprus. However, in describing Andrew s missionary

activity, he improves on his source by substituting for the word
"
Ethiopians''--the general designation for peoples in the "hinterland"

of Colchis--the names of some of the nations comprising this general
title, i.e. the Iberians, the Soussians, the Phoustes and the Alans.11
8 PG 120, cols. 218-260. On the monastery see R. Janin, La g6ographie

,
'
ecclHiastique de I empire byzantin 3 (Paris, 1953), PP- 2&5 se<l' Epiphanius'

,
work was first published by A. Dressel Epiphanii monachi et presbyteri edita

,
et inedita (Paris, Leipzig 1843), PP- 45 se<l-

,
. PG, 120, col. 221C.

10 Ibid , col. 220B.
.
11 Ibid , col. 221B.

.
225
On Andrew's activity in Byzantium he reports:12 "And in this

way establishing the Churches, he arrived at Byzantium. Argyro-
polis was then lourishing. He appointed Stachys Bishop of this
f
city, and dedicated on the acropolis of Byzantium a sanctuary,
which exists today, to the Holy Mother of God. Then, leaving there,
he journeyed to Heracleia of Thrace, but departed after staying
there some days. Wandering through the cities of Macedonia,
teaching, exhorting, and healing, founding Churches, dedicating
altars, and anointing priests, he came as far as the Peloponnese and
Patras under the proconsulate of Aegeates."
It is interesting to note that Epiphanius neglects to mention
Zeuxippus, the legendary ruler of Byzantium, who is reputed, in the
Narratio and in Pseudo-Dorotheus to have persecuted the Christians.
This could be taken as an indication that here he followed Pseudo-
Epiphanius who also speaks only of Argyropohs. Epiphanius'
statement, however, about the founding by Andrew of a church on
the acropolis of Byzantium, seems to suggest the existence there of
a tradition attributing to Andrew the building of such a church
dedicated to Our Lady. Thus it is possible that, in trying to combine
the two traditions, Epiphanius had to eliminate Zeuxippus from
his account.
Epiphanius' writings were the principal source of another com-
position in honor of the Apostle-an anonymous panegyric published
by Bonnet 13 and generally called the Laudatio. In the manuscripts
,
it bears the following title: "Acts and Travels of the holy and
illustrious Apostle Andrew recorded in the Form of a Homily. "The
,
anonymous author recalls the travels of the Apostle in the same way
as does Epiphanius, and also omits the story of Zeuxippus, con-
tenting himself with the account of Stachys' ordination as Bishop
in Argyropolis, and of the erection of a church on Byzantium's
acropolis by Andrew.
It seems established that, contrary to Lipsius' opinion,14 the

Laudatio's only source was Epiphanius' Life of Andrew. Its author
12 Ibid col. 244C,D.
.
,
13 Supplementum codicis apocryphi, Acta Andreae (Paris, 1889), pp. 1-44:

Analecta Bollandiana, 13, pp. 309-352.
u Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, 1, pp.571 seq.,
,
226
did not know the original Acts of Andrew from which Epiphanius
derived much of his information.15 A perusal of both texts gives
the impression that the Laudatio is but another edition, abridged,
'
emended, and poUshed, of Epiphanius work. In spite of his boastful

introduction, Epiphanius produced rather a poor compilation which,
in both composition and style, leaves much to be desired. It could
be that the author of the Laudatio was a monk from the same
monastery of Callistratos, which could explain why he uses Epi-
'
phanius work so freely. It would have been in the monastery's

interest for Epiphanius' compilation to reappear in a more elegant
form.
Only the introduction to the Laudatio and its final chapter are
original and deserve our special attention. At the end of his pane-
'
gyric the author recalls the transfer of Andrew s rehcs from Patras
to the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. For this deed
he praises Constantius who had charged Artemius, one of his
officers, with the direction of the mission.16 Artemius is said to have
suffered martyrdom under Julian the Apostate.
In this particular detail the paneygrists' source is the Life of
Artemius, written by the monk John of Rhodes. It is known that
Artemius was an Arian and that he was executed by Julian because
,
of his intimate relationship with Constantius and his participation

in the murder of Julian's brother Gallus. The legend elevated
Artemius to the rank of a martyr consequent to his having been
put to death because of his anti-pagan zeal during his governorship
of Alexandria, and because of his bold opposition to Julian. In his
" "
praise of the martyr, John of Rhodes was inspired mainly by the
Arian Church historian Philostorgius.17
585. F. Diekamp, Hippolytos von Theben. Texte und Uniersuchungen (Miinster

i
.
W., 1898), pp. 143 seq., accepted Lipsius' idea, but admitted that the
author of the Laudatio also used Epiphanius' work.
18 J Flamion, Les actes apocryphes de I'Apotre Andre, pp. 205 seq.
.
"
Supplementum, pp. 42 seq., AnBoll., 13, chaps. 51-54, pp. 350 seq.
17 See J Bidez, "Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte," GCS, 21 (Leipzig,
.
19I3). PP- Iviii seq., 31 seq.; Passio S. Artemii PG, 96, cols. 1265 seq.
,
(chaps. 16, 17, 18). John also followed Philostorgius in attributing the con-
struction of the church of the Holy Apostles not to Constantine, but to his
son Constantius. A strong echo of this Constantius tradition is also to be
found in the Laudatio. Its author followed John of Rhodes in attributing
to Constantius not only the transfer of the relics but also the construction
,
5*
. 227
It would be of great help toward the exact dating of the Laudatio

if the date of composition of the Passio Artemti could be detennined
with more certainty. P. Batiffol,18 who first drew the attention of
specialists to the importance of this Passio for the reconstruction
'
of Philostorgius Church History, dated the composition of the

Passio from the ninth century. Krumbacher also counted John of
Rhodes among the hagiographers of that age.19
Batiffol examined the problem more thoroughly in his doctoral
thesis,20 and came to the conclusion that the Life was written
between 830 and 850. However, his principal argument-that it
must have been composed before the reign of Basil I {867-886)
because the Menologion of Basil derives its description of Artemius'
'
martyrdom from John s work-is inadequate. It has since been

shown that the Menologion, which is rather a Synaxanon,vfas com-
posed in the reign of Basil II (976-1025).21
J Bidez,22 who used John's work for his reconstruction of
.
Philostorgius' Church History, forbore examining the question,

and contented himself with the statement that the Passto existed in
the tenth century because Symeon Metaphrastes28 made much
' '
use of John s composition in his description of Artemius martyrdom.

Bidez discovered the existence of an older account of Artemius'
passion24 which was unknown to Batiffol, but used by John of
Rhodes, and which could have been written soon after the seventh
of the church of the Holy Apostles. It is interesting to see that this Con-
stantius tradition, abandoned by many Byzantine authors after Philo-
storgius, who attributed the construction of the church and the transfer
of the relics to Constantine, reappears here in a work of the ninth century.
On this problem cf. G. Downey, "The Builder of the Original Church of the
Holy Apostles at Constantinople," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 6 (1951), pp. 51-
80. Cf. supra, chap. 4, p. 139. "
18 "Fragmente der Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius, Romische
Quartalschrift, 3 (1889), pp. 252-289 (on John of Rhodes, pp. 252-257).
19 Op cit., pp. 199, 523.
.
10 Quaestiones Philosforgianae (Paris, 1891), pp. 35-39.

21 See for details S Der Nersessian, "Remarks on the Date of the Menologi-
.
"
um and the Psalter written for Basil II, Byzantion, 15 (1940-1941), pp. 104-
125.
22 Op cit., p. xliv.
.
23 PG, 115, cols. 1160-1212. It is noteworthy that in col. 1169B Meta-

phrastes resolutely attributes the construction of the church of the Holy
Apostles to Constantius. This is new evidence that the "Constantius tradition"
regarding this church had not disappeared in Byzantium.
24 Op cit,, pp. 166-176.
.
228
century.25 This dating seems particularly sound because the uncouth

language and style of the Passio point to a period when Byzantine
literary activity had reached a very low level, and this was
certainly the case in the seventh century when the Empire was
fighting for its very survival.
This older Passio Artemii depicts Artemius as having been put
to death in Antioch because of the courage with which he had
'
opposed Julian s treatment of two priests of that city, and this

suggests an explanation for the origin of the cult of Artemius in
Byzantium. Apparently, at least until the ninth century, the
Byzantines, conscious of Artemius' heretical inclinations, recognized
two persons of this name, both of whom died under Julian; one as a
martyr in Antioch, later regarded and venerated as a great worker
'
of miracles, the other executed on the Emperor s order, principally

for political expediency. The belief that there were two Artemii
appeared to be corroborated by the Arian historiographer, whose
report is preserved in the Chronicon Paschale.26
Although praising Artemius' zeal for the Church, Philostorgius
does not regard his execution as a martyrdom. The passage from the
Chronicon was copied, too, by the chronicler Theophanes27 who died
"
28 Dating from the same period is a Collection of Miracles" wrought by
Artemius in Constantinople, in the church of Oxeia, where he was buried. It
was published by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus in Varia sacra graeca (Zapiski
istor. filol. fakulteta imp. S. Peierburgsk. universiteta, 95 [St. Petersburg,
"
iQOQL PP- i-79)' Cf. H. Delehaye, Les recueils antiques de miracles des
"
saints, AnBoll, (1925), pp. 32-38. On Artemius' cult cf. P. Maas, "Arte-
"
mioskult in Konstantinopel, Byzantinisch-neugriechiscke Jahrbiicher, 1

(1920), pp. 377-380; K. Lehmann, "Ein Reliefbild des heiligen Artemios in
Konstantinopel," ibid., pp. 381-384; N. A. Bees, "Weiteres zum Kult des
hi. Artemios," ibid., pp. 384, 385. On his cult among the Armenians cf. Bidez,
op. cit. pp. xlvi seq., Ixiii seq. Cf. also J. Tolstoi Un poncif ar tologique dans
"
les miracles d'Asklepios et d'Artemios" in Byzantion, 3 (1926), pp. 53-63.

The "Collection of Miracles" contains much that is of considerable interest
'
with regard to Constantinople s topography and Byzantine folklore. Cf.

N H. Baynes, "Topographica Constantinopolitana," Journal of Hellenic
.
Studies, 31 (i9ii),pp. 266-268; R. Janin,"Etudesdetopographiebyzantine,"

Echos d'Orient, 36 (1937), pp. 303 seq.
2* Ed Bonn, p. 549; J. Bidez, op. cit., p. 234.
.
47 Ed Bonn, ad. ann. 5855, p. 79. De Boor, however, p. 51, gives: Lf Xov
.
iroXOv kcttA twv eIScMcov {veSel orro *v AAc ovSpEi , 45r|p£06T|. Because Theopha-
nes takes this information from the Chronicon Paschale, which states em-
phatically that the punishment of the Arian Artemius took place £v xfj
AAe awSpelwv, it would be advisable to place the comma after ivEBE orro,
as did the previous editor of Theophanes. This reading strengthens the
229
in 818. The Church historian Theodoret,88 although mentioning

Artemius' zeal against paganism, is also silent on his canonization.
All of this may have contributed to the origin of the distinction
between the two men of the same name who died on orders from
Julian. John of Rhodes, however, put a definite end to such
distinctions when he again promoted the Arian Artemius to the
rank of a great saint and worker of miracles. His new description of
Artemius' martyrdom gave fresh impulse to the expansion of the
Artemius cult.
It has been seen that Theophanes obtained his information on
Artemius from the Chronicon Paschale, whose author derived it
from Philostorgius. This would indicate that Theophanes did not
know John's Passio Artemii. The latter could have written his
work only after 818, probably about the year 843 when the victory
over iconoclasm had given a new impetus to hagiographical activity.
This supposition is substantiated by the fact that the Typicon of
the Church of Constantinople, which was in use in the ninth century
and is preserved in a tenth-century manuscript of Patmos, already
gives some details concerning the feast of St. Artemius on October
20th that are not found in the old Passio, but that can be read
in the work of John of Rhodes.89 A similar description was
supposition that the Byzantines distinguished this Artemius, executed in

Alexandria, from an imaginary Artemius who was executed in Antioch, as
the old Passio has it. On Artemius' execution see, W. Ensslin, "Kaiser
"
Julians Gesetzgebungswerk und Reichsverwaltung, Klio, 18 (1922-1923),
p 162. The author accepts the probability that, as set forth in the Chronicon
.
Paschale, the historical Artemius was executed in Alexandria.

**
Historia ecclesiastica, 3, 18; GCS, 19, ed. L. Parmentier, p. 197.
*.
A Dmitrijevskij.O tsaMtc liturgi£eskichrukopisej,i, Typika (Kiev, 1895),
.
'
pp. 14 seq.: xctl tou Aylou Kal tou Oauiiaroupyou iiAprvpos Aprsulou irrl 'lou-
Xiavou tou irapafWrrou, SoO? Kal aOyouordXjos' AA avSpelas yEyovcos KOtl irotrpi-
kios Biorrrpfyas tv 5ia96poi$ A icb xaaiv <irrr6 Kwvarctvrivou toO (lEy&Aou paotA&a;.
The old Passio does not call Artemius augustalis, and it ignores his promotion
by Constantine the Great. We learn this from John of Rhodes, who says that
Artemius was a member of the Senate under Constantine, and a favorite at
Constantine's court (PG, 96, col. 1256). N. Th. Krasnosel'cev ("Tipik cerkvi
sv. Sofii v Konstantinopole IX v., in Letopis istoriko-filolog. obldestva pri
"
imper. Novorossijskom universitete, Vizantijskoe otdelenie, 1 [Odessa, 1892])

has shown that this Typicon was composed in Constantinople during the
ninth century, and was in use in Hagia Sophia from the end of that century
on. I have used only D. Beljaev s review of Krasnosel cev s study, in 2umal
' ' '
Ministersta narodnago prosveiienija (St. Petersburg, October, 1892),

PP- 363-379.
230
introduced into the Synaxaria,30 and into the Menologion of

Basil II.81
Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Landatio, whose author
'
read John s work and made use of it, was written after 843. However ,
the manner in which the Laudatio's author paraphrases John's

description of the transfer of the relics of St. Andrew, Luke, and
Timothy to Constantinople, and some details contained in the
introduction, may help to date this composition even more accu-
rately.
When describing the transfer of the relics by Artemius, the author

"
of the Laudatio calls Constantinople the great city. New Rome,

Queen of cities," henceforth to be protected by the apostles whose
relics reposed in its midst.32-33 These words were apparently written
at a time when the Byzantines were fully aware of the importance
of their city in the Church and were emphasizing its importance,
and this sentiment seems to have prevailed in Constantinople during
the second half of the ninth century when they were defending the
rights of their Church against the papacy in the Photian and
Ignatian conflict.
In other respects the Laudatio points even more clearly to that
period, especially in its eulogy of St. Peter in the introduction,
and in its bringing together of Peter and Andrew, who are exalted
as the greatest of all apostles to whom the Lord had entrusted
the whole West and East, and who are united by brotherly love.
The words of praise addressed to Peter, whom Andrew had intro-
duced to Christ, are particularly impressive. After narrating how
Andrew was invited by the Lord to become his disciple, the author
'
stresses Andrew s haste to share this joy and honor with his brother
Peter:34 "He, the first-called initiate, or rather self-called servant,
leads to the Lord of all the disciple who was to fill the first throne
and [to become] the worthy holder of the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven. Immediately accepted as an intimate and genuine friend,
80 H Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, cols. 151
.
seq.
31 PG 117, col. 117.
.
31-33 M Bonnet, Acta Andreae, Supplementum, p. 42; AnBoll, 13, p.

. 350
{chap. 51).
**
Op. cit., ed. M. Bonnet, ibid., p. 6; AnBoll. 13, p. 314 (chap. 3).
231
he rejects the family name he had received at birth, and is renamed

with a name fitting the circumstances, being called Cephas, as Peter
is interpreted, the most steadfast and most excellent of Christ's
disciples, verily the rock of the truly unbroken faith, he who carries
on himself the newly-founded Church, and who preserves it uncon-
querable by the gates of Hell. Thus this chosen dyad and pair of
disciples become intimately attached to the Saviour by selection,
the brotherly pair called worthy to be the first fruits of the human
race and the supreme heads of the apostolic company. It was
necessary, indeed, for the almighty and all-powerful God the
Word, who for the salvation of the world, became Man, to take
such collaborators and assistants, the one adomed with appropri-
ate manliness in word and deed, the other revered for the firmness
expressed by his name once he became the unbroken foundation
"
of the Church.
No less impressive are some passages in the Laudatio in which
the author stresses the perfect unity and fraternal love between
the two brothers, giving precedence to Peter, but emphasizing at
the same time Andrew's prominent place among the twelve apostles.
When speaking of the countries allotted to each apostle for preaching,
he says:36 "The coryphaeus of all, Peter, obtained by lot, through
the decision of the divine love, the western lands of the setting sun,
that were without light to lighten them, and his companion, his
brother Andrew, the eastern parts to illuminate [them] with the
,
"
word of God-fearing preaching.

A little further on the panegyrist exalts the bonds of kinship
uniting the two Apostles who were brothers "not only by nature
,
and by physical birth but also by the choice of their vocation,

,
"
and by their fraternal thoughts. 36 They irst preached together in

f
Antioch and in Asia Minor, and when the writer describes their
separation37 he gives the impression that the whole world was
divided between them; Peter becoming Apostle of the whole West,
and Andrew of the whole East.
The ardent praise which the author addresses to St, Peter in
"
Ibid., p. 7, AnBoll, p. 315 {chap. 4).
*
. Ibid .
p. 8; AnBoll, 13, p. 316 (chap. 6).
,
»7 Ibid .
,p. 10; AnBoll, 13, pp. 318 seq. (chap. 9).
232
the introduction persuaded Flamion38 to date the composition of

the Laudaiio in the beginning or middle of the ninth century.
He saw there "un cho de ces retours de I'Orient si Rome, que la
resistance k Th r sie iconoclaste suscita et multiplia, avant la venue
de la brouille et de la separation."
If, however, these words are examined in the light of recent
findings on the Photian schism, they seem rather to date from the
years around 880, when Rome and Constantinople were reconciled
once more, and when the Patriarch Photius was anxious to promote
union and good understanding between East and West. This desire
is expressed by the panegyrist's insistence on the brotherly unanimity
of the two Apostles, one the founder of the Roman, and the other
the founder of the Byzantine see. In spite of the stress on the
prominent position of Andrew among the apostles, the superior
position of Peter, even in respect to Andrew, is clearly recognized.
All this falls in with the thinking that prevailed in Byzantium after
880.
Similar appreciations of Peter, the coryphaeus of the apostles,
are to be found in several writings of Photius.89 It should be re-
membered that the classical argument in favor of the papal primacy
(Matt. 16:18), which is alluded to in the Laudatio, was left almost
intact in the doctored Greek version of John VIII's letter to the
Emperor Basil I, read during the Council of 879-880.40 Moreover,
*
Op. cit., p. 85.
*.
For example Phoiii Epistolae, PG, 101, col. 1909; 102, cols. 661, 686,
764. Ad Amphilochium, PG, 101, cols. 308, 309, 324, 729, 933; Homiliae, ed.
Aristarchis, 1 (Constantinople, 1901), pp. 481,482; 2, p. 151; Contra Manichaeos,
1, PG, 102, col. 92; Bibliotheca, PG, 104, col. 328.
40 See F Dvomik, The Photian Schism, pp. 182 seq. It is hard to under-
.
"
stand why, in spite of this evidence, F. Dolger, in a reprint of his study Rom
in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner" in his Byzam und die europdische
Staalenwelt (Speyer a. R., 1953), p. 103 (the paper was first published in the
Zettschrift fiir Kirckengeschichte, 56 [1937]) continues to maintain that
"
Photios die den Primat Roms betrefienden Stellen in der Tat absichtlich
"
unterdriickt und das Konzil irregefiihrt hat. It is true that "the original
text is more explicit in its proclamation of the Roman primacy, but the
Greek text does sufficient justice to the Pope's leading idea" (F. Dvomik,
loc. cit. See especially the quotations from the Greek version translated
on pp. 183, 184 where there is a clear allusion to Matt. 16:18). This passage
impressed even M. Jugie who gave it particular emphasis in his study "Pho-
tius et la primaut de Saint Pierre et du pape," Bessarione, 23 (1919), p. 130.
Cf. also quotations of other Photius declarations favorable to the papal
primacy collected by Jugie (ibid., pp. 123-130); 24 (1920), pp. 46-55.
233
despite his deference toward Rome, the panegyrist's words echo

the same Byzantine self-consciousness and the same determination
to defend Byzantium's rights, vis-a-vis Rome, in the direction of
its affairs as is manifested in the Greek versions of papal letters
sent to the Council of 879-880, and in the discussions held during
the second and third session of that Council.41
It seems, moreover, that the monastery of Callistratos was one
of the strongholds of the Photianists. At least, when, in 865-866,
Photius was seeking a suitable man to administer the monastery
of Studios, after the promotion of Theodore Santabarenus to
Metropolitan of Euchaita, he chose his disciple Sabas, who was a
monk in the monastery of Callistratos.42 The monastery of Studios
figured prominently in the Photian controversy for its Abbot
Nicholas, together with two monks, had left the monastery in
'
protest against Photius election to the patriarchal see.43 Photius

needed a reliable man to govern such a place, and it is significant
that he chose a monk from Callistratos. If the author of the Landatio
was also a monk in that monastery, he would more naturally reflect
in his work the ideas of the Patriarch whose cause was warmly
supported there.
Epiphanius' Life of Andrew was also used by the protagonists of

the Ignatian party and by the relentless opponent of the Patriarch
Photius, Nicetas the Paphlagonian. In his panegyric on St. Andrew,
Nicetas, a firm believer in the Andrew and Stachys stories, has the
Apostle preach to the "Iberians, Sauromatai, Tauroi, and Scythians,
and to all regions and cities on the northern and southern coast of
the Pontus "44 Then he describes how Andrew founded a
church of Our Lady on the acropolis of Byzantium and how he
"
ordained the great Stachys" Bishop of the city 45 It should be
stressed that although Nicetas speaks with great respect of the first
41 Mansi 17, cols. 396 seq. (MGH, Epist. 7, pp. 166seq., 420 seq., 476 seq.).
,
See F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 182-186, 191 seq., 434.

42 Vita S Nicolai Studitae,
. PG, 105, col. 912.
43 C van de Vorst, "La Vie
. de St. Evariste, higoum ne k Constantinople,"
AnBoll., 41 (1923) pp. 306 seq.
,
44 PG, 105, cols. 64, 68.

46 Ibid .cols. 68, 69.
,
234
Apostle in his panegyric on Peter and Paul,46 a tendency, similar

to that of the Laudaiio, toward emphasizing the prominent position
of Andrew at the side of Peter can be detected in his panegyric on
Andrew. He boldly called Andrew "Peter after Peter."47
The biographer of the Patriarch St. Tarasius (784-806), Deacon
Ignatius, was also a firm believer in the apostolic character of the
see of Constantinople, and in its foundation by St. Andrew. His
literary activity, too should be dated from the beginning of the
,
second half of the ninth century. Here Ignatius clearly professes the
same doctrine as does Theodore of Studios48 concerning the authority
of the five patriarchs over the Church. This of course, indicates
,
that he was attributing to the see of Constantinople the same

apostohc character as to the other four patriarchal sees.
In this respect however, when speaking of the convocation of
,
the Seventh Oecumenical Council, which was the second of Nicaea,

Ignatius seems to distinguish between the patriarch of the" Imperial
City" and the other four apostolic sees 49 But through his linking of
the patriarch of Constantinople to the other four patriarchs,
Ignatius evidently wanted to illustrate the special status held by
Tarasius during that Council and to show that, for the Empress
,
Irene, Tarasius presided over the meetings and directed the debates.
This is confirmed by what he says at the end of his work when
he compares his hero to the Apostle Andrew:50 "He was so akin to
and-through the similarity of the conduct of his life-so united
with Andrew who was the first to be called 'Apostle,' that he
,
obtained possession of his pastoral see which after so many cen-

,
turies, was considerably augmented."

In his Life of the Patriarch Nicephorus Ignatius is less outspoken.
,
He does not mention Andrew but it can be deduced from some of

,
his expressions that he attributed an apostolic character to the see

of Constantinople similar to that which he had attributed to the
*
. Ibid cols. 37-53.
.
,
47 Ibid .
col. 646,0: Zu 51 moj, CTEpoKruicbrare 'Av5pkt, d i66Epov -rrpayua, t6
,
Tffc dXneiwfis AvSpictj CrrrdSetyna, 61% KaprepJas &66nas, 6 tt)? Cnrouoviis dwSpiAs,
f| nrrA Tf)v uirpocv Trirpa.
48 Ignatius Diaconus, Vita Tarasii, ed. I. A. Heikel, Acta Societatis
Scientiarum Fennicae, 17 (Helsinki, 1889), p. 398. Acta Sa«c<.,Feb. 25, p. 583.
«. Ed I. A. Heikel, pp. 404, 405;
. .S., pp. 583, 586, 587.
80 Ed I. A. Heikel, p. 417; A.S., p. 592.
.
235
other four patriarchates.81 It should be noted particularly that he

has Nicephorus use the authority of the apostohc sees in his dis-
cussion with the Emperor.62 The reverent eulogy paid to Peter is
also noteworthy.63
Nicephorus, himself, seems also to have beheved in the apostohc
character of his see. In his Apology for picture-worship64 there is a
very interesting passage on the Seventh Oecumenical Council.
This Council was the highest authority because it was convoked
according to the rules to be observed on such occasions. Old Rome
was eminently represented there, and without its representation no
doctrine could ever have been defined and approved, "because [it]
possessed the primacy of the priesthood and owed this distinction
to the two coryphaei of the apostles."
Then, in an interesting attempt to synthesize the principle of
apostolicity and that of adaptation to the division of the Empire ,
Nicephorus stresses the part which Byzantium played at the

Council: "the New Rome, the city which dominates in our parts,
and which is the first one, a distinction it owes to the imperial
"
majesty. He then mentions the apostohc sees-meaning Alexandria,

Antioch, and Jerusalem-but he seems to include his see also among
those of apostohc character in the following statement: "It is a
Church law from old times that, when any doubts or controversies
'
arise in God s Church, they are solved and defined by oecumenical
synods, with the consensus and approval of bishops in possession
"
apostolic authority of Nicephorus, of his "apostolic

"
H He speaks of the
and paternal sanctions. The synodal letter with the profession of faith
"
should have been sent according to an old custom, to all apostolic sees.
,
Vita Nicephori PG, 100, cols. 72B, 156C, 73A; ed. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880),
,
pp. 159, 29; 216, 3; 161, 2.

Ibid .
, col. 89; ed. de Boor, p. 171: "Rome, the most important of
apostolic sees... Alexandria, the venerable shrine of the Evangelist Mark...,
,
Antioch, also the most celebrated see of Peter, the coryphaeus of the apostles
...
, Jerusalem.the sublime dwelling of God's brother... ."Cf. also a similar
passage, ibid., col. i24A;ed. de Boor,p. 194, 20 seq.The idea of the pentarchy
is implied in Ignatius' criticism of the iconoclastic synod which is without
value because the representatives of the apostolic sees were not present
(ibid., col. 136B; ed. de Boor, p. 202, 16).
M Comparing Nicephorus to Peter, Paul, and other Apostles, PG, col.
152B; ed. de Boor pp. 212 seq.: TTh-pou tou twv (4ttoot6Xmv Kcd 1% iKKXr|(rias
,
irpopiXou t6 cyaAoipu kc! deppbv irepl t#iv -rriorjv 4iTt5€i5<iM«vos ...

M Apologeticus pro sacris imaginibus, PG, 100, col. 597A,B,C. Cf. also
ibid., cols. 576A 621D, a very eloquent eulogy of St. Peter.
,
236
"
of apostolic sees. This provides also a strong echo of the pentarchic

theory.
However, there must still have been some misgivings in Constan-

tinople in the ninth century about the Andrew and Stachys Legend,
especially among the more critical minds acquainted with older
historical writings. Among these was St. Theophanes (d. 818), whose
Chronicle, written about 810-811, followed strictly the tradition
established by Socrates, and opened the series of bishops of Con-
stantinople with Metrophanes.55
Theophanes' attitude is the more remarkable in that he speaks in
another passage of Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, and not only attri-
butes to him many Greek and Latin writings, but stresses among
these "a diligent treatise on the bishops of Byzantium and many
"
other places. Theophanes evidently had in mind the famous

Catalogue of Pseudo-Dorotheus,56 but in spite of this does not
mention any bishop of Byzantium before Metrophanes, whom he
calls the first Bishop of that city. This is particularly noteworthy
because he names all of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem from the time of Diocletian, although the last three
cities were not imperial residences. Theophanes failed to use the
list of Pseudo-Dorotheus therefore, not-as some think-because
,
Byzantium was elevated to the status of a residential city only

when Metrophanes became Bishop under Constantine, but rather
because he regarded a catalogue of Byzantine bishops that started
with Metrophanes as more authentic.
Theophanes' example is followed by the anonymous author of the
Chronographeion syntomon. This work, falsely attributed to Eusebius,
was composed in 854 and is based mainly on an unknown source
,
from the time of the Patriarch Nicephorus.57 It contains a list of

M Theophanes Chronographia, ad. ana. 5799; ed. Bonn, p. 19; ed. de Boor,
,
1, p. 16.
M Ed Bonn, ad.ann. 5816, p.35; ed. de Boor 24. Cf .Th.Schermann, "Prophet.
.
,
"
und Apost., op. cit., pp. 175 seq. Thus it seems that in 810-811 the catalogue
of Byzantine bishops already existed and was attributed to Dorotheus of
,
Tyre. Because Theophanes does not mention the catalogue of apostles and
disciples, it is probable that this work originated after 811 and was added
,
to the list of bishops and then also attributed to Dorotheus of Tyre. Cf. supra
pp. 178-180.
57 Cf Krumbacher, op. cit., p. 396.
.
237
bishops of Constantinople which, again, starts with the name of

Metrophanes.88 Once more we find here the influence of the tradition
established by the authority of Socrates, the original tradition,
which knew little or nothing of the religious situation in Byzantium
before Constantine the Great.
Apparently these misgivings led some serious-minded men to look

elsewhere for a strengthening of the claim of apostolicity by the
Byzantine patriarchal see, and they found the evidence they needed
in the fact that Constantinople, which had obtained supreme
jurisdiction over the former Roman diocese of Pontus, had become
the heir of Ephesus, a see which, having been founded by St. John
the Apostle, was of apostlic origin. Constantinople could, therefore,
'
claim St. John s apostolic authority. The Syriac Dodrina apostolo-

rwrn59 suggested that there may have existed another tradition
'
extending John s activity and jurisdiction to the other side of the

Bosporus over Macedonia and Achaea.
,
There is, at least, one piece of evidence which seems to justify

this interpretation. When the Patriarch Ignatius was judged by
the legates of the Roman see in the Synod of 861, he invoked the
apostolicity of his see in their presence. The interesting dialogue
from the extracts of the Synod, preserved in Deusdedit's canonical
collection, deserves quotation verbatim.60 The incident occurred
during the first session of the Synod: "Ignatius said to the legates:
'
Before you have started your interrogation you have already

,
M For a while this work was wrongly attributed to Eusebius. It was first
published by A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, i, pt. 2 (Rome, 1825),
pp. 1-39, republished by A. Schoene, Eusebii chronicorum libri duo, 1
(Berlin, 1875), appendix, pp. 63-102 (the passage on p. 79). Cf. also H. Gelzer,
Sextus Julius A fricanus und die byzantinischeChronographie (Leipzig 1880), ,
pp. 329 seq. The same tradition was followed by some authors of similar
lists of bishops of Constantinople. Cf. Th. Schermann op. cit., pp. 191 seq.
,
Such a catalogue (Vindobonensis historicus graecus 76 f. I36v) is mentioned

,
by M. F. Fischer (De patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum Catalogis et de

ckronologia primorum patriarcharum Commentarii philologici Jenenses, 3
,
[Leipzig, 1894], p. 270) and goes back to 956. Another which extends from
Metrophanes to Cyprian (1706) was republished by S. A. Morcelli ,
Kalendarium
Ecclestae Constantinopolitanae II (Rome, 1788), p. 232.
,
*
. See W Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents (London 1864), p. 34. The
.
,
evangelization of Thrace is attributed to Luke.

40 V Wolf von Glanvell, Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit
.
(Paderborn, 1905), p. 603.

238
'
prejudged me. The Legates said: Tn what way?' Ignatius said:

'
Because you, although you are [only] bishops, are sitting, and I am
'
standing although I am a Patriarch. The legates said: 'Thishappens

because you are committed to judgment and because we, although
'
we are [only] bishops, represent the apostolic see. Ignatius said:

T am also in possession of the throne of the Apostle John and of
Andrew who was the first to be called Apostle.'"
This passage has remained unnoticed until recently. Because the
Acts of the Synod give the lie in many ways to the tradition about
the dispute between Ignatius and Photius that has prevailed among
historians, no-one has dared to take the statements contained in the
Acts at their face value.61 But in even this detail the Acts satis-
factorily complete our knowledge of the thinking that prevailed in
Constantinople in Ignatius' time.
Ignatius' claim that the apostolic character of Constantinople's
episcopal see goes back to St. John is strangely enough, echoed in
,
a document ascribed to his adversary the Patriarch Photius. This

,
is the letter to Zachary, Catholicos of Armenia, wherein there

appears a very strange passage, concerning the foundation of the
four main patriarchal sees, in which the apostolicity of Constanti-
nople is said to derive from John the Evangelist.62
The whole passage is of great interest and it will be worth-while
,
to give here a translation of at least that part which is most relevant.

Following the explanation of how God chose the Greeks to cultivate
science and to construct a philosophical system both of which were,
helpful in the propagation of the Christian doctrine after its

rejection by the Jews, the author of the letter goes on:
"
When Our Lord had finished preaching the good tidings to the
fathers, and had ascended to His Father He entrusted the propheti-
,
cal tradition to the Holy Apostles enjoining them to spread it over

41 For evidence of their authenticity and reliability see F. Dvornik, op. cit.,
pp. 70 seq.
41 Ed A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus,"Fotija, archiepiskopa Konstantinopol'-
.
"
skago, o grobe Gospoda naSego lisusa Christa i drugija malyja ego tvorenija ,
in Pravoslavnyj Palestinskij Sbornik 31 (St. Petersburg, 1892), pp. 179-195;

,
Russian translation by N. Marr ibid., pp. 227-245. Mai's first edition is

,
reprinted in PG, 102 cols. 703-714 but the passage in question (Armenian
, ,
text ibid., pp. 185 seq.; Russian translation, ibid., pp. 233 seq.) is omitted in
,
Mai's edition. It is quoted here in the translation from the Armenian for ,
which I am indebted to my colleague Professor Sirarpie Der Nersessian.

239
the Greek countries and, through them, to all pagan countries as

it is written: 'The Mountain of Sion on the northern side, the city
'
of the Great King [Ps. 47:3, 48:2]. This, after Jerusalem was truty
realized in Constantinople, which is the second Jerusalem, built by
the second David, that is Saint Constantine. And there is fulfilled
'
what is said: God is in their midst, and they will not waver'
[Ps. 45:6, 46:5], because, after that, in the imperial city the same
Constantine was portrayed in stone with the sign of the Holy Cross.
And then the same Holy Immeasurable Divinity, which rests on
the four beasts as Ezekiel saw them, which created the world with
four seasons and brought out from Paradise the four rivers to water
the Universe, deigned to establish with the four evangehsts four
patriarchal sees, by which the Apostolic and Catholic Church is
governed, that they may truly and constantly propagate the
ineffable economy of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. And these are the
sees: Matthew in Antioch, Mark in Alexandria, Luke in Rome, and
John in Constantinople, which is the New Rome; but they call also
the bishop of Jerusalem a patriarch, because of the holy places.
And so these five patriarchates used from the beginning the
Greek language. Paul, after having chosen the country of the
Greeks, journeyed there and composed in their cities fourteen of his
epistles, addressed to them. Luke wrote the Gospel and the Acts of
the Apostles in Greek. He too. writes in his Acts of the Apostles
about Greece. Th great Peter wrote epistles to the country of
Pontus, whose inhabitants were Greeks. In the same way, James,
John, and Judas wrote to the Greeks, and in Antioch, where the
first Church was founded there lived Greeks, because it is said
'
When they came to Antioch, they talked to the Greeks,' [Acts,

11:20]. And in the same Acts what is said about the widows
[6:1] indicates clearly that there were Greeks in Jerusalem. The
same can be said about John who lived a long time here [in Greece],
observed the spread of the Gospel, and then organized everything
correctly; for this purpose too, he wrote the Gospel and other
works, as Saint Ephrem says that the New Testament was written
by him for the Greeks."63
83 The passage on the four patriarchates and four evangelists did not
escape the attention of Cardinal Mai who irately comments on the Stachys
240
The author of the letter says further that the apostles, inspired
by the Holy Ghost, abandoned Hebrew letters when God had
rejected Israel because of its refusal to accept Christ, and ordered
them to write in Greek. Even the Old Testament was translated
into Greek under Ptolemy Philadelphus. The successors to the
apostles, the Holy Fathers who continued their teaching, were
Greeks. Then the letter goes on:
"
The Lord gave the Greeks also the imperium, the priesthood
and the prophetical order, that is the choir of holy monks and
priests, as well as the five patriarchs and bishops ordained by them
for the entire world, through whom the Catholic Church is governed.
And, as the Israelites possessed the imperium until the advent of
Christ, so we believe that the imperium will not be taken from the
Greeks before the second advent of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who
Himself is priest, king, prophet, and God of all. Then He will present
to the Almighty Father those who have been rebom through
baptism. He will abolish all power and government, and then the
evil which is now in us having come to an end, we shall be in the
"
obedience of the Father.
There is no doubt that Photius corresponded with Zachary, the
Catholicos of Armenia and that he addressed a letter also to Ashod,
the ruler of that country.6* The authenticity of the letter to Zachary
as it is preserved, is, however, doubtful, although J. Laurent65 and
V Grumel86 regard it as genuine. Recently, G. Garitte67 has con-
.
'
story and on this passage of Photius letter (Patrum nova Bibliotheca 4 [Rome,
1847], p. 49): At recentior chronograpkus, quern nos edidimus, Ephraetnius
[cf. supra p. 238, footnote 58] cum neotericts aliis, facit initium sui catalogi
a Stachy, apostolicorum temporum homine, fraude notissima schismaticorum,
ut apostolicam dignitatem byzantinae sedi vindicent. Quid ipse Photius ? Nonne
in sua ad Armenios epistola insignem vel fraudem fecit, vel ab interpolatoribus
passus est, dum pro Petro Lucam romanae cathedrae fundatorem scripsit,
Antiochensis autem Matthaeum ? Passus inquam fortasse ab orientalibus inter-
polatoribus magis fraudem videtur Photius, quam dolo propria tarn absurde
egisse..,. Etenim,. .idem in alia epistola.. .romani pontificis apostolicum
primatum agnoscebat ac fatebatur.
**
J. Hergenrother, Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, 1, pp. 481-494.
'
L'Arminie entre Byzance et I I slam depuis la conquite arabe jusqu'en 886
(Paris, 1919), pp. 309-316.
M Les rigestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, 1, pt. 2 (Istanbul,
1936), no. 473, p. 85.
n "La Narratio de rebus Armeniae Edition critique et commentaire,"
.
Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 132, Subsidia, t. 4 (Louvain,

1952), pp. 370-175'
16 241
siderably weakened the thesis of its authenticity by showing that

the author of the first part of the text used an Armenian work on
the acceptance and subsequent rejection of the decision of the
Council of Chalcedon by the Armenians. This document contained
some errors, concerning the dates of the first councils, that are
repeated in this part of the letter. They are copied also in the
Nanatio de rebus Armeniae, a work composed about the year 700 by
an orthodox Armenian, who appears to have used the same source
as the author of this part of the letter. A Greek patriarch, least of
'
all one of Photius standing, could hardly have committed such
errors.67*
This, however does not mean that the passage under discussion
,
must also have been interpolated. Because of the Byzantine nat-

ionalist sentiments that it so obviously betrays, it could hardly
have been written by an Armenian, or copied, like the first part
of the letter, from an Armenian document.
In any case, it is important to stress that this is not isolated

evidence of the existence of such a tradition, at least in Armenia.
A similar account of the estabUshment of the four patriarchates
corresponding to the four evangelists can be found also in the
History of Armenia, by the Cathohcos John VI, who writes as
follows I68
.7a Three letters from the Patriarch Photius to the Armenians are pre-
served in Ms. 2756 of the National Library of Greece in Athens, and have
been made known recently by J, Darrouzfes. The first letter, folios i20v to
i69v, is a treatise against the Theopaschites. The other two folios i69v to
"
i73v and folios I73v to i76v, are addressed to the Armenians." Unfortunate-
ly none of the three documents seems to be similar to the letter addressed to
Zachary known only in its Armenian translation. This new discovery does
not as far as we can see, resolve the question of authenticity of the letter to
,
Zachary as we know it. It does confirm, however, that Photius had sent a
letter to Zachary, for such a missive is mentioned in the Ms. on folio 168.
This indicates, too that Photius corresponded with the Armenians more
,
frequently than he was, until now, thought to have done. The author wishes
to thank Father J. Darrouz s for making available to him a copy of excerpts
from the newly discovered text. It was impossible to obtain a photographic
copy of the full text from the Library. A description of the Ms. and its
contents, by Father Darrouzes, is to be found in the Revue des itudes byzan-
tines, 12 (1954), pp. 183-186 ("Notes d'epistolographie et d'histoire de
textes," pp. 176-188).
History by John Cathohcos (Jerusalem, 1867), pp. 61-62, chap. 12 (in
Armenian). I am indebted to my colleague Professor S. Der Nersessian for
242
"
Constantius, the son of the great Constantine, had transferred

from Ephesus to Constantinople the relics of John the Evangelist ,
and, emboldened by this, established a patriarch in Constantinople.

Later the people of Jerusalem, also emboldened by his act raised ,
their see to patriarchal rank, considering this legitimate since it was

there that the Logos of the Father was bom, was seen to walk
among men, was baptized by John, was crucified, buried, and rose
on the third day. And until that time there were only four patriarchs
in the world because of the four Evangelists, Matthew in Antioch,
,
Mark in Alexandria, Luke in Rome, and John in Ephesus but ,
"
after these acts there were six in all.
It seems, thus, that the Armenian writer regarded Ephesus also
as a patriarchate because the see of that city was founded by John
the Evangelist. The tradition that mentions the transfer of John's
relics to Constantinople is of course, incorrect, but the meaning of
,
the passage is clear: Constantinople was regarded as the successor

to Ephesus which had been founded by St. John. In the next passage
John VI added a seventh patriarchate-Armenia, elevated to that
position because that country possessed the relics of the Apostles
Bartholomew and Thaddaeus who, according to Armenian legendary
,
tradition, had evangelized it.

John VI was born between 830 and 835 and died in 925. The first
part of his History was written at the end of the ninth century before
he became Catholicos.69 The passage quoted above reflects, there-
fore, a tradition which must already have existed, at least in
Armenia in the ninth century. It is therefore almost contemporary
,
'
with the composition of Photius letter to Zachary, and it can be

surmised that Photius or his interpolator, used an account of the
,
patriarchs that was familiar to the Armenians. The declaration

of Ignatius during the Synod of 861 shows, however, that a similar
tradition was known also in Constantinople, at least a tradition
connecting that city with St. John.
the translation of this passage. The translation by M. J. Saint-Martin

(Histoire d'ArnUnie par le patriarche Jean VI [Paris, 1841], p. 39) is inexact
on this particular point. Cf. also A. Pichler, Geschichie der kirchlichen
Trennung, 2 (Munich, 1865), p. 435.
49 Cf F. Lajard's note on John VI in Saint-Martin's translation, op. cit,,
.
pp. viii-xii.
243
On the other hand, the analogy with the evangelists helps us to

understand why, in this account, the patriarchate of Rome is
linked not with Peter, but with Luke. It was easy to associate
Alexandria and Ephesus with Mark and John Matthew does not
fit in very well with Antioch, but it was possible to suggest that
he wrote his Gospel there before going to his missionary territory.
With regard to Rome, only Luke, secretary to St. Paul, could be
imagined as working there with Peter and Paul.
This tradition must have continued outside Byzantium, especially
in the East, in later periods. It is reflected in the apocryphal canons
of the Council of Nicaea, which were used by the Nestorian and
Monophysite Christians and are preserved in an Arabic version.
Here the principle of four patriarchs and four evangelists is strength-
ened by other similarities stressing the holiness of the member four
in the divine economy. The primacy of Peter in Rome is, however,
expressed very clearly, and the linking of the four patriarchates
with the evangelists is conceived more logically. The transfer of the
patriarchate of Ephesus to Constantinople is also duly recalled.70
It is reasonable to conclude from the above that some Byzantine
ecclesiastical circles derived the apostolicity of their see from St. John,
whose heirs the patriarchs of Constantinople thus became. The
basis of this claim lay in the transfer of jurisdiction over Asia Minor
from the bishops of Ephesus to those of Constantinople, which also
explains why the Andrew and Stachys Legend emerged so late, and
why Byzantine official circles were not too anxious to develop or
promote it.
70 Mansi 2 col. 992, canon 37: Et sint patriarchae in universo mundo

,
quatuor tantum, quemadmodum sunt scriptores evangelii quatuor et flumina

quatuor, et elementa mundi quatuor, et anguli quatuor, et venti quatuor, et
compositio hominis quatuor, quoniam hisce quatuor universus constituitur
orbis. Et sit princeps ac praepositus ipsis dominus sedis divi Petri Rotnae, sicut
praeceperunt apostoli. Post ilium vero dominus magnae Alexandriae, et est
sedes Marci. Tertius vero dominus Ephesi, et est sedes Johannis Theologi divina
eloquentis. Quartus tandem dominus Antiochiae, et est sedes Petri quoque. Et
dividantur omnes episcopi sub manibus horum quatuor patriarcharum. Col. 993,
canon 38: Transferatur patriarchatus Ephesi ad urbem regiam, ut honor sit
regno et sacerdotio simul. A similar tradition concerning the transfer of
Ephesus' apostolic prerogatives to Constantinople must have existed also in
Alexandria, as is attested by John Philoponus. See the quotation supra,
PP- 135. 136.
244
All of this contradicts the generally accepted opinion that the

Andrew Legend was, if not invented, at least propagated by the
Patriarch Photius.71 It has been clearly shown above that Photius
did not invent the Andrew Legend in order to endow his see with
an apostolic character. Like his predecessor, Ignatius, he also quite
probably attributed the apostolicity of his see to the fact that Con-
stantinople had become the heir to the see of Ephesus, founded
by the Apostle John. When it is considered that-as attested by
Ignatius-the Andrew and Stachys story had, at this time, found
credence too in the official circles of the patriarcheion, it would not
have been surprising had even Photius accepted it.
On the other hand, the learned Patriarch must have seen that
this new tradition was not well founded in historical sources. A
perusal of his writings will, strangely enough, fail to disclose any
evidence that he too had followed this new trend in Byzantine
ecclesiastical tradition.
Photius seems to have studied thoroughly the early history of
Constantinople and of his see, and this study must have evoked
some doubts in his mind about the reliability of the Andrew and
Stachys tradition. His Bibliotheca contains extracts from two
works dealing with the early history of Constantinople and mention-
ing Bishop Metrophanes and his successor Alexander. The first72
extract comes from the Church History written by Gelasius, Bishop
of Caesarea in Palestine, and recounts what the author said con-
cerning the Council of Nicaea. Metrophanes is reported to have
sent the priest Alexander as his representative to the Council. He
was unable to go himself because of his age for in 325 he was
,
more than one hundred years old.

The other extract is even more important. It is from a lost work
"
entitled Politeia of the Holy Fathers, Metrophanes, and Alexander,
"
containing also the Life of Constantine the Great Emperor. 73 It

reproduces a legendary tradition concerning Constantine who,
71 This opinion was voiced fairly recently by F. Dolger in his paper

"
Rom
in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner in Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte,
"
56 (I937). PP- 40-42, reprinted, with this passage unchanged, in 1953 in

Byzam und die europdiscke Staatenwelt pp. 112 seq.
,
n Bibliotheca cod. 88, PG, 103, cols. 289 seq.

,
73 Ibid cod. 256, PG. 104, cols. 105-120.

.
,
245
according to the anonymous author, had already been initiated into

the Christian faith by his father. It must have given a detailed
'
account of Metrophanes and Alexander's activities, although it

'
apparently made no reference to the legend about Metrophanes

predecessors.
From these two, as well as from other writings, Photius must have
made critical appraisals of the Andrew tradition of which he became
increasingly sceptical and condemnatory as he studied some of the
apocryphal literature that tried to enlarge on the meager details
known about the history of the twelve apostles. Among the apocry-
phal Acts of the Apostles which he read were the Acts or Travels of
Andrew, as he himself testifies.74 Of course no reference to Andrew's
activity in Byzantium was made in the aphocryphal Acts, although
they did mention his stay there.
Photius also read the encomium pronounced by the fifth-century
writer Hesychius of Jerusalem in honor of St. Thomas.75 In this
panegyric Hesychius greatly praised the Apostle Andrew, and
Photius reproduced this in his Bibliotheca. As has been clearly shown,
Hesychius-if, indeed, he was actually the author of the encomium-76
could not have known the Andrew and Stachys Legend, which
'
originated much later, and this could only have increased Photius
scepticism.
It is true that this solitary quotation in praise of Andrew, taken
from that part of Hesychius' writing which is found in Photius'
"
works, begins with words that evoke some doubt: Andrew, the
first-born of the company of the apostles, the first pillar of the
Church, Peter before Peter, the basis of the basis, the beginning of
the beginning, who called before being called, who brought before
being brought...." These seem daring statements, but even in
these words the panegyrist makes it clear that the real basis and be-
ginning was actually Peter. This is indicated again at the end of the
"
passage, quoted by Photius, in praise of Peter: You will be called

74 Ibid cod. 114, PG, 103, col. 389. Cf. supra p. 190. Photius also voices
.
,
his scepticism regarding the apocryphal Acts of Andrew when discussing the
work of the heretic Agapius, ibid., cod. 179 (PG, 103 col. 525).
,
78 Ibid cod. 269, PG, 104, cols. 197 seq. Apparently the encomium was
.
,
written in honor of St. Andrew not of Thomas as the manuscript says.

,
74 F Dolger {op. cit., Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengesch. p. 41. Europ. Staatenwelt,

.
p. 114, footnote 73) hesitates to attribute this encomium to Hesychius.
246
Cephas. You received remuneration before confession, before you

worked in the vineyard you obtained the denarius, before you
touched the altar your offering was accepted, before you have
"
preached you were crowned. This is, of course, a different theme,

and one cannot interpret this passage as proof that Photius wished
to replace Peter by Andrew.77
And now, what about the pamphlet entitled, "Against those who
"
say that Rome is the first See ?78 It is known that in two late
'
manuscripts this treatise follows Photius work Zuvocycoyaf, and that

the Andrew-Stachys Legend is quoted by the author of this treatise
among his arguments against the Roman primacy. This treatise is
attributed by many scholars to Photius.
From all that has been set forth above, however, it can be seen
how very unlikely, indeed impossible, it is that Photius could have
been the author of such a pamphlet, or that such a treatise could
have been composed in the ninth century. A simple survey of the
main arguments used by the compiler of the pamphlet will show
that it could have been written only at a much later period.
The principle of apostolic foundation is stretched in the pamphlet
to a point entirely incompatible with Byzantine thinking of the
ninth century. In this treatise Antioch takes precedence over Rome
because Peter was its Bishop eight years before he went to Rome.
Then comes Jerusalem because James, the Lord's "brother," was
,
its Bishop and the first of the apostles to suffer a martyr's death,
because Peter had worked there, and because Jerusalem was the
city in which the Lord had resided. Constantinople, however, is
77 F Dolger, op. cit., Europ. Staatenwelt, p. 114, quoted only the first part
.
"
of the passage: Wenn also Rom seinen Petrusins Feld fiihrte dann: Schach
dem Petrus. Ein noch aiterer Apostel als er, 6 irpb ntrpou FFIrpos hatte den
"
apostolischen Stuhl von Konstantinopel gegriindet. He attributes also to

Hergenrother {Photius, 1, p. 659), "weitere Argumente dafiir, daQ Photios die
Andreaslegende im Kampfe um diekirchliche Vorrangstellung Konstantinopels
"
verwendete. Hergenrother, however, gives no other arguments than the
spurious writing against the Roman primacy attributed to the Patriarch.
The rest are merely unfounded suppositions. It should be noted that Hesy-
chius even calls James the Lord's "brother," "head of the apostles" (Photius,
,
ibid., cod. 275, PG, 104, col. 241) and that the Ignatianist Nicetas (see
"
,
supra, p. 210) called Andrew Peter after Peter."

78 See the latest edition by M. Gordillo, Photius et primatus Romanus, in
Ortentalia Christiana Periodica, 6 (1940) pp. 5 seq. Latin interpretation in
,
M Jugie, Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium t, (Paris, 1926),

.
pp. 131 seq.
247
said, in the pamphlet, to have a better right to the primacy than

Rome because its see was founded by Andrew, the first man called
by Christ to become His apostle; also, it was founded before the
Roman see.
The "Petrine principle" that the three sees, founded by Peter-
Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome-were entitled to prominent rank
in Church organization, was used almost exclusively by Rome in
defence of its primacy. Actually, only a few timid attempts were
'
made by the Easterners to refute Rome s claims by pointing out

the apostolic character of Antioch and Alexandria and by emphasiz-
ing that the Christians had obtained their name in Antioch, but
these attempts were never made with the vehemence and out-
spokenness revealed in this pamphlet. The reticence of the Easterners
has been shown to have been due to the principle of adaptation to
the political division of the Empire. This principle was uppermost
in their minds, especially in the minds of the Byzantines. As long as
there was hope for, and a possibility of, maintaining the idea of one
Roman Empire, the Byzantines were ready to respect the prominent
position of Rome-the first capital of the Empire and the foundation
" "
on which its greatness had been built. In spite of the revolution

" "
against the lawful Roman Emperor, plotted by Pope Leo III

and Charlemagne, this hope was still alive in the ninth century. The
'
offer made in 867 by Michael III to Louis II to recognize the latter s

imperial title was the most recent evidence of the conviction in
Byzantium that the ideal unity of the Roman Empire still existed,
and could yet be expressed publicly by political agreement between
the Roman Emperor residing in Constantinople and the Co-Emperor
of the West.78a
This consideration makes it very unlikely that a pamphlet
degrading Rome to as low a position in Church organization as this
one did could have been written before the year 867, i.e. the period
of the dispute between Constantinople and Rome under Nicholas I.
Had Photius himself used such arguments in his polemic with the
Pope, one would certainly expect to find some traces of them in his
'
or the Pope s correspondence.

In this respect there is no indication that the Patriarch or his
jsa See F
. Dvomik, op. cit., p. 121.
248
followers adduced any kind of primacy for Constantinople from the

fact-so strongly stressed in the pamphlet-that Andrew had
founded the see of Constantinople before his brother Peter came to
Rome. It is, in fact, rather surprising that Photius nowhere claimed
an apostolic character for his see. If he had made any such claim
between 856 and 867, Pope Nicholas I might have been expected to
have reacted strongly, at least on the two occasions when he was
defending the primacy and apostolic character of his own see.
In his first defense, undertaken to protect the privileges of his
'
see and contained in his answer to Michael Ill s letter received by
Nicholas toward the end of the summer of 865, the Pope pointed
out79 that only Rome could boast of having seen, living and dying
within its walls, both St. Peter and St. Paul, the founders of its
glory. After Rome, Alexandria and Antioch could claim to have
been in closest relation with the two Apostles. Constantinople,
however, had to "plunder other Churches of their patron saints in
"
order to enrich itself with spoils taken by violence from others.
This is an echo of the old Petrine argument, but the relics of St.
Andrew are not singled out, an indication that Nicholas knew
nothing of the new Andrew tradition.
In his second defense, a letter to Boris of Bulgaria, the Pope,
denying the apostolic character to the see of Constantinople, was
even more outspoken, but again without mentioning Andrew:80
"
Only those should be regarded as true patriarchs who occupy apos-

tolic sees in [continuous] succession of pontiffs.... Such is the case
of the sees of Rome, of Alexandria, and of Antioch The bishops
of Constantinople and of Jerusalem although they are called
,
patriarchs, are not of such importance as those mentioned above.

Concerning the see of Constantinople, it has neither been founded
by any of the apostles.,. nor was it mentioned by the Council of
Nicaea. This bishop was called patriarch because Constantinople
was said to be the New Rome more by the favor of secular princes
,
than for any other reason."

Nicholas I refers to the Apostle Andrew only twice in his letters.
In both instances he manifests a deep respect for this Apostle. In
™ MGH, Epist. 6, p. 475.
90 Ibid , pp. 592 seq., especially
.
chap. 92, pp. 596 seq.
249
his letter of 866 to Boris81 the Pope directs that fasting on Friday be
"
omitted when the feast of Our Lady, or of the principal Apostles,
Peter and Paul, or of St. John the Baptist, or of the blessed John
the Evangelist, or of the brother of the heavenly keybearer, that
is, the Apostle Andrew" falls on that day.
Another mention of Andrew is found in Nicholas' letter to Adalvin,
Archbishop of Salzburg, written in 864.82 There also the Pope men-
tions Andrew in addition to the Apostles James and John: "Woe to
the bishops who have to choose for their imitation Peter, Andrew,
James, and John to whom the Lord said: 'Follow me and I shall
'
make you fishers of men, whose disciples they also are, but who
imitate rather Nimrod and Ishmael and Esau." This respect for
the Apostle Andrew, expressed on both occasions, seems to indicate
that the Pope knew nothing of the Andrew story concerning the
apostolicity of Constantinople, and that, at least until 866, this
tradition was not put forward by the Byzantines in official docu-
ments as a means of strengthening their position vis-a-vis Roman
claims.
It might be assumed that arguments stressing Constantinople's
apostolicity and primacy due to its having been founded by Andrew,
the first-called by the Lord, before Peter had established himself
in Rome, were circulated in Bulgaria in 866 by Greek missionaries,
competing unsuccessfully with Roman priests who had won the
favor of the Khagan Boris. Such an argument would have impressed
this primitive, but intelligent, convert whose allegience was coveted
by the two Christian centers.
The Roman priests reported to Nicholas on the activity of their
Byzantine rivals. On the basis of their reports the Pope decided to
alert the whole West to the defense of Rome and its primacy, and
his fears and misgivings over this Greek propaganda are clearly
reflected in his letter to Hincmar of Rheims.83 All of which shows
that the Greeks in Bulgaria were in fact emphasizing the pre-
eminence of Constantinople in the Church, but their principal
argument was that the primacy had passed from Rome to Con-
81 Ibid , p. 571 (chap. 5).

.
*2 Ibid
, p.
.
632.
83 See for details F Dvomik,
,
op. cit., pp. 123 seq.
250
stantinople because the latter had become the first city of the
Empire and the residence of the emperors.
Nicholas says, in this same letter, that he had studied not only
the official letters, but also "other writings"84 brought by his
legates from Bulgaria. It is, therefore, permissible to suppose that
the Greeks had defended their position in Bulgaria in writings
wich were then handed over to the papal legates by Boris, together
with a letter he had received from Constantinople. If this is so, it
'
must be concluded from Nicholas reaction, revealed in his letter to
Hincmar, that these writings contained nothing on the apostolicity
of the Constantinopolitan see or, in particular, on its foundation by
,
Andrew, Peter's brother. The old principle of accommodation to

the pohtical and administrative division of the Empire was still ,
in 866, used by the Greeks as their main argument in their struggle

for Bulgaria.
A passage from Ratramus, who, following the exhortation of
Nicholas, wrote a long reply to Greek calumnies against Rome ,
confirms this conclusion. The learned Abbot of Corbie attributes the

exaltation of the patriarchate of Constantinople not to the patri-
archs themselves, but to the emperors, whom he accuses of thereby
"
claiming for themselves the sublime position of the apostles...

assuming for themselves a principate which neither Christ nor ,
the apostles, nor the doctors of the Church, nor any custom had
"
given to them. 85 Here again no allusion to the Andrew Legend is

84 MGH Epist. 6, p. 603. In the same document Nicholas enumerates
,
further accusations against the Latin Church, which he had found in the
writings brought from Bulgaria-the offering of a lamb at the Easter Mass ,
the shaving off of beards by priests the ordaining of deacons as bishops-but

,
there was nothing to suggest that the Greeks had placed the Andrew Legend
in the forefront of their fight over Bulgaria.
8S Ratramnus Corbeiensis Contra Graecorum opposita, PL, 121, col.
,
335A,B (bk. 4, chap. 8). Ambiant sibi vindicare principatum, quern nec
Christus eis, nec apostoli nec Ecclesiarum magistri, nec ulla consuetude con-
,
tribuit... Quid enim isti Graecorum principes aliud altidudine cordis sui dicunt
,
qui Ecclesiae sibi principatum usurpant, et apostolorum sublimitatem ... sibi

vindicant, cupientes solium suae dignitatis super astra coeli componere, id est
omni sanctorum coetui praeferre, et patriarcharum venerationem usurpare;
quatenus omni Ecclesia sibi subjecta Christo similes efficiantur: cum nulla
majorum auctoritas hoc eis contribual, nec ecclesiastica jura concedant, verum
nec humanae leges ascribant ?Quae cuncta sibi vindicare velle potissimum com-
probant, quod patriarcham Constantinopolitanum praeponere Romano pontifici
gestiunt, et urbem Consiantinopolim Romae praeferre conantur, tanquam sui
juris existat leges ecclesiasticas immutare, et regnorum apicem disponere. This
251
found in Ratramus' polemics against the Greeks. Accordiag to him

it was not the patriarchs, but the emperors of Constantinople who
were claiming apostohc succession and power.
Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, also composed a treatise against Greek
accusations, and this likewise faithfully reflects what Nicholas had
learned from his legates about Greek attacks in Bulgaria against
Roman primacy and customs. His apology shows clearly that the
theory of the transfer of the primacy from Rome to Constantinople
was actually used by Greek missionaries in Bulgaria.86 Aeneas skill-
fully employs the Petrine principle,87 quotes the so-called Decretum
Gelasianutn and the Donatio Constantini** and, when pointing out
that the canons of the Council of Sardica decreed the see of Rome
to be the highest court of appeal from the decisions of bishops, he
stresses the fact that Ignatius had made use of this right of appeal.8*
There is nothing in Aeneas' treatise to suggest that the Byzantines
were appealing to the apostolic character of their see, and nothing
to indicate that the Andrew Legend had been used in the Greek
arguments against Rome.
Another opportunity for Photius to use the Andrew tradition for
this purpose was provided by the Council that met in 867 in Con-
'
stantinople to defend Byzantium s rights and to condemn the

behavior of Pope Nicholas. Pope Hadrian II read the Acts of this
Synod, which are not preserved, but his statements about this
passage is a very interesting criticism of the main principles of Byzantine

political philosophy, and illustrates how far the Latin West had drifted from
the political ideas which had been professed by St. Leo the Great and even
by St. Gregory the Great. F. Doiger (pp. cit., Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., 56
[1937]. P- 32> Europ. Staatenwelt, p. 103) uses this passage as the main
"
argument for his thesis dafi Photios in der Tat den Priraat der Gesamtkirche
"
auf Konstantinopel ubertragen wollte. This is a strange misinterpretation,

which he repeats even more emphatically in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 40
(1940), p. 524-
M Liber adversus Graecos PL, 121, praefatio, col. 689C: Conqueruntur
,
etiam de transmigratione principatus Romanae sedis, quam dicunt factam

Constantinopoli, unde et earn cum patriarcha suo caput dignitatis appellant.
91 Ibid chap. 1, col. 689D. When quoting the decision of the Council of
,
Constantinople (381), he did not omit the words giving to the bishop of
Constantinople second place after the bishop of Rome {ibid., chap. 192,
col. 750).
88 Ibid chap. 187, col. 748, chap. 209, col. 758.
.
,
.» Ibid chaps. 193, 194, cols. 750 seq., cf. also chap. 209, col. 759.
.
,
252
Council90 also show that the Andrew Legend was not employed by
the Byzantines against Rome's claims.
This eliminates the two main occasions on which Photius might
have been expected to use the Andrew Legend as a weapon against
Rome. It is scarcely imaginable that he would have dared to write
'
such an attack on Rome s primacy during his exile, for that would
hardly have been helpful toward winning the favor of Basil I who
'
was enjoying good relations with Rome, and after Photius recon-
ciliation with Rome such an attack would have been unthinkable.
It is thus illogical to designate Photius as the author of a treatise
that makes such conspicuous use of the Andrew tradition against
Rome.
There are, in this opuscule, many other statements and assertions
which are obviously at odds with the situation in Byzantium and
'
with Byzantine thinking in Photius time. They have been investig-

ated and analyzed by the last editor91 of the opuscule and, in spite
of recent criticism,92 his deductions remain unshaken. The ideas
expressed by the anonymous author of the treatise presuppose a
much more advanced period in the relationship between Con-
stantinople and Rome, which could have been the end of the
twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century, but certainly
not earlier.93
90 See Mansi 16, col. 123. For details see F. Dvomik, op. cil., pp. 129 seq.,
,
"
141 seq. Cf. also F. Dvornik, The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm,"
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 7 (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), pp. 93 seq., on Photius'
homily pronounced at the closing of the Council of 867.
91 M Gordillo, op. cit., pp. 29-39. The passionate manner in which the
.
anonymous polemist repudiates the canons of the synod of Sardica clashes

in particular with the conduct of Photius and his followers. Photius' most
prominent supporters-the Bishops Asbestas and Zachary-appealed to
Rome from the judgment of their Patriarch and this right of appeal was
virtually recognized by the Photian Synod of 861. See for details, F. Dvomik,
The Photian Schism, pp. 24-32, 70-89.
M F Dolger in BZ, 40 (194°). PP- 522-525.
.
M From the twelfth century onward-not before (cf. F. Dvomik, op. cit.,
pp. 383-406). Mainly because of his Mystagogia wherein the polemists found
their arguments against Filioge, Photius became the patron saint, so to speak,
and a master of anti-Latin polemists. This explains some similarities in ex-
'
pression between this treatise and Photius works, but in spite of some new
parallels found by Dolger, these similarities are few and inconclusive. The
popularity that Photius began to enjoy among anti-Latin polemists, explains,
too, why in some manuscripts this pamphlet follows the treatise Zuvocyoyat
which is attributed to Photius.
253
These considerations, although not actually conclusive evidence,

indicate clearly the attitude of Byzantine official circles toward
the new tradition regarding the origin of the see of Byzantium.
Further substantiation of the reserve with which official ecclesiastical
circles in Byzantium regarded the spread of this tradition is to be
found in the Typicon of Constantinople which was used in Hagia
Sophia during the ninth century, and is preserved in Manuscript
266 of Patmos.
The feast of St. Andrew was celebrated in the Byzantine Church
on November 30th. No conclusion indicating that this Apostle was
regarded as the founder of the see of Byzantium can be deduced
from the way in which the Typicon9* introduces his feast. Andrew's
brother Peter is however, duly called "coryphaeus of all apostles."
,
It is, furthermore, surprising to see that the memory of Stachys,

which the synaxaries of the tenth century and of later periods
celebrated on October 30th, is not mentioned in the Typicon. For
this day the Typicon mentions only the names of the following
saints: Zenobius, Zenobia, Marcianus, Claudius, Asterius, Neon,
Neonilla, Lysius, Coriacus, and Eutropia.95 All of these names are
marked in the synaxaries of the tenth century, which add to them
the names of Julianus, Kronion, Macarius, and Alexander. All of
the names are, however, preceded in these later synaxaries by the
'
commemoration of Christ s disciples, three of whom-Stachys,
Amplias, and Urbanus-are mentioned in particular.96 Stachys is,
of course, said to have been ordained Bishop of Byzantium by
Andrew, to have taught the Christians at Argyropohs for sixteen
years, and to have died there in peace.
**
Dmitrijevskij, Opisanie, 1, p. 27: "AeXriais toO dylou Kod ttocveu
'
uou Kod
irpcoroKX Tou AttootAAou AvSpfou, d5EA9oO TTirpou tou Kopu<pcrfou tcov drro-
ordXcov. Els -rfiv eTctoSov X£yonEv Tpo-rrdptow xoS y - Tfjs voiyrfis OaAdatTTis toOs
dvOpcoiro dpous Ix Cras iaay/ivewas dwBpl? teal avvtmi hripds tt) TOpaxti Twv
Kuiidrcov Kal toutous 4K|3d6ous el BwXikoO dvayayc&v, TTpoai'iyayES Tcp AeoTrdnj
twv 6Atow, aCrriv IkIteue, dirdoroAE, CTCoOfjvat Taj vyux S 1\\i&v. On the cele-
bration of the feast of St. Andrew in Byzantium see the recent study by
Ch. Konstantinidis, "La fete de I'apdtre saint Andr6 dans I'Eglise de Con-
stantinople a I poque byzantine et aux temps modernes," Melanges tit
'
I'honneur de Mgr. M. Andrieu, Revue des sciences religieuses, volume hors

s rie (Strassburg, 1956), pp. 243-261. According to the author the celebration
of the feast of St, Andrew did not, surprisingly enough, occupy a prominent
place in the Byzantine liturgy.
.s Ibid p, 18.
.
,
H Delehaye, Synaxarium, cols, 177 seq.
254
It is evident from this comparison of the Typicon with the synax-

aries, that the commemoration of Stachys was not introduced into
the Typicon of Constantinople until the tenth century.97 This is
especially significant inasmuch as the Typicon was almost certainly
revised during the second patriarchate of Photius,98 who seems also
to have been responsible for adding to it the commemoration of the
Seventh Oecumenical Council99 and the feast of St. Ignatius,100 his
predecessor.
The doubts voiced by H. Delehaye101 as to the origin and character
of the Typicon were dissipated by A. Baumstark,102 who showed
that this document represents a combination of a Synaxarion with
a Typicon of the Church of Constantinople, and that it achieved
its final form only toward the end of the ninth century most ,
probably during the second patriarchate of Photius.

One detail deserves special attention. It should be noted that, in
the same document,103 the commemoration of St. Metrophanes
(June 4th), who was Bishop of Byzantium under Constantine the
Great, is introduced and commented on much as it is in Pseudo-
.T It should also be noted that the Typicon (Dmitrijevskij, op. cit., p. 84)
commemorates on June 30th only the twelve apostles, although, from the
tenth century onward, the synaxanes add to the list of apostles that of the
seventy disciples including Stachys. See infra p. 258.
On the dating of the Typicon seeN. Th. Krasnosel'cev, "Tipik cerkvi sv.
Sofii v Konstantinopole IX v.," in Letopis istoriko-ftlolog., 1 (Odessa, 1892),
pp. 156-254, especially p. 165,
w This however, could have been introduced earlier into the liturgical
,
calendar. It was commemorated on October 1 ith (Dmitrijevskij, op. cit., p. 13).

There is no trace in this Typicon of the "Feast of Orthodoxy" which was
celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent. This feast, commemorating the
victory of orthodoxy over iconoclasm, seems not to have been introduced
'
until the tenth century. For details see Krasnosel cev, ibid., pp. 221 seq., and
the study by the same author ("K izu eniju 'Tipika Velikoj Cerkvi'")
published in the same collection, 3 (1896), pp. 329-344.
'
100 October 22, Dmitrijevskij, op. cit., p. 15: oOttJ fjiilp? tou dylou
lyvctriou, dtpxtETnoKdirou KcovoravTivoirndXECos. In the light of the new
evidence concerning the relations between Photius and Ignatius before the
latter's death, the canonization of Ignatius by Photius seems probable
(cf. Dvomik, op. cit., pp. 167-173), and is confirmed by the new version of
the Synodicon Vetus contained in Sinaticus Graecus 482 (1117), fol. 364v
"
where it is said that Photius put the name of the blessed Ignatius into the
diptychs among all the Saints" and announced it officially from the ambo.
101 Synaxarium, cols. 10 seq, 53 seq.
"
h>* ' Das Typikon der Patmos-Handschrift 266, in Jahrbuch fiir Liturgie-
wissenschaft, 6 (1926), pp. 98-111.
1M Dmitrijevskij op. cit., pp. 77 seq.
,
255
Dorotheas' catalogue,104 and in the synaxaries of later periods.105

Metrophanes is said to have been the son of Dometius, the brother
of the Emperor Probus, and Dometius is said to have become Bishop
of Byzantium after Titus, and to have been succeeded in the
episcopacy by his sons, Probus and Metrophanes.
This would indicate that Pseudo-Dorotheus' catalogue of By-
zantine bishops was known to the compiler of this Typicon. If this
is so, the fact that Stachys is not commemorated in a ninth-century
ConstantinopoUtan Synaxarion and Typicon is of even greater
significance.
It is, however, surprising not to find in the Typicon106 under
August 26, any description such as is found in later Sywa ana,107 of
the transfer, by Bishop Dometius, of Adrian's relics to Argyropolis. In
the Synaxaria Adrian is said to have been Dometius' brother, and
his relics are reported to have been deposited in the church of
Argyropolis near the relics of St. Stachys. This story of the Synaxaria
appears also in Pseudo-Dorotheus,108 but there is no reference to it
at all in the Typicon, which simply reports that the feast of Adrian,
who had suffered persecution under Licinius, was celebrated on that
day.
Quite possibly, therefore, the story of Metrophanes' origin cir-
culated independently in Constantinople, and was not invented by
Pseudo-Dorotheus, but merely included by him in his catalogue.
Metrophanes was well-known, and it is conceivable that legendary
accounts of his origin became popular. The story about him in the
Typicon could have been copied from the Life of Metrophanes which
was also used by Pseudo-Dorotheus.109
IM Ed Schermann, pp. 150 seq.
.
106 Delehaye, op. cit., cols. 727 seq.

lM Dmitrijevskij op. cit., p. 109.
,
107 Delehaye, op. cit., col. 926.

108 Ed Schermann, pp. 145 seq. Cf. Acta Sanctorum Augusti, 5, cols.
.
808-811 (dies 26).

1M Cf L. S. Le Nain de Tillemont {Mdmoires pour servir d I'histoire ec-
.
cUsiastique, 5 [Paris, 1702], p. 783) on Adrian whom he identifies with another

martyr of the same name (p. 508 seq). It seems that in the Life of Metro-
phanes used by the author of the Typicon there was no mention of Adrian,
Metrophanes' supposed uncle. See ibid., 7,pp. 656 seq.,Tillemont's remarks on
Metrophanes. Unfortunately, Photius' extracts from Gelasius' Church
History (Bibliotheca, cod. 88, PG. 103, cols. 289 seq.) give no indication as
to whether or not this legendary account of Metrophanes was known to
256
Thus it can be concluded that, although the thesis of Byzantium's

apostolic character was fairly generally accepted in the East in the
ninth century, and, although for many this apostolic character
derived from Andrew and Stachys, the Andrew tradition had not
been adopted universally in Byzantium at that time. Its general
acceptance seems not to have been positively achieved until the
tenth century.
Two facts illustrate this new tenth-century development. First ,
the re-edition of Andrew's Life and Martyrdom by Symeon Meta-

'
phrastes.110 Symeon s work is based on the composition of Epi-

'
phanius and on the Laudaiio, but the range of Andrew s apostlic

activity is considerably extended by the hagiographer. The Apostle
is said to have been allotted "all the land of Bithynia, the Pontus
Euxetnus, both sides of the Propontis, as far as the Gulf of Astacos
and the passage to the sea there. Added to this were far-famed
Chalcedon and Byzantium, and the nations inhabiting Thrace and
Macedonia, and extending from there as far as the Danube; also
Thessaly and Hellas, and the lands extending from there to Achaea."
Symeon describes Andrew's travels in three phases, interrupted
by his pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate Easter with the other
apostles. However, he shortens the legendary accounts of the
Apostle's activities in the cities he was supposed to have visited.
Andrew is said to have preached to the Lazi, the Alans, the
Abasgi, the Zechoi, and the Bosporians and then to have returned
,
to Sinope from Cherson. Then he went to Byzantium, where he

ordained Stachys and constructed the Church of Our Lady on the
'
city s acropolis. The stories of Argyropolis and Zeuxippus are

'
omitted, but the transfer of Andrew s relics to Constantinople is
recorded.
The second important factor in popularizing the Andrew Legend,
was its inclusion in the Synaxaria. The accounts of the Legend are
Gelasius of Cyzicus, a fifth-century writer. Neither can it be stated definitely

'
whether it was known to the anonymous writer of Metrophanes and Alex-

'
ander s Polileia, from which also Photius preserved a long extract (ibid.
codex 256, PG. 104, cols. 105-120).
110 Menaia (ed. Venice, 1843), pp. 235 seq. Reprinted in MtivcIov toO
,
NoEnfJpiou (Athens 1926), pp. 318-325: Cnr6imiua els t6v dyjov 'ATr6<rroXov
'
,
AvSpiav t6v npcoT6KAr|Tov.
17 257
based on the lists of apostles of Pseudo-Dorotheus, combined with

that of Pseudo-Hipolytus. In numerous copies additional information
is taken from Metaphrastes' descriptions of Andrew's preaching;
also from the story of Stachys.111
From the tenth century onward the Synaxaria add to the list of
the apostles commemorated on June 30th the list of the seventy
disciples, including, of course, Stachys, the twenty-second in the
list, and the story of his ordination by Andrew.112 The feast of
Stachys is also introduced, and Stachys' relics in Argyropolis are
'
mentioned in connection with the transfer of Adrian s relics, as
noted above.113.
It cannot be said whether the feast of Stachys was commemo-
rated in the eleventh-century Menologion, published by B. Laty-
§ev, for it is only fragmentarily preserved. The folios that contained
the feasts of October and November, and that would be of principal
interest for this study, are missing. For June 30th this Menologion11*
commemorates only the twelve apostles without mentioning the
seventy disciples. Although the list of the apostles is different from
that of the Synaxaria, published by Delehaye, the influence of
the recently fully-developed Andrew Legend can be detected in it
because here also the Apostle is made to reach Greece from Pontus
through Byzantium.
The Andrew Legend is firmly embedded, too, in the Menologion
of Basil II, an important document of the late tenth century. The
feast of Stachys is duly noted on October 30th, together with
the description of his ordination by Andrew. Andrew's commemo-
ration is also mentioned in terms similar to those used in the
Synaxaria, but Byzantium is not mentioned in this document,
111 Delehaye, op. cit., cols. 265 seq. See the comparison of the different
accounts in J. Flamion, Les actes apocryphes de I ApSire Andri (1911), pp.
'
238-241.
112 H Delehaye, op. cit.,col. 785 (Stachys). Col. 780, Andrew is said to have
.
preached in Bithynia, Pontus, and Armenia, and to have reached Greece

through Pontus and Byzantium.
"» P . 256.
114 B LatySev, Menologii Byzantini saeculi X quae supersuni, 2 (St. Peters-
.
burg, 1912), p. 123. Ibid., pp. 319-325 on the martyrdom of Adrian and
Natalia. The other Adrian, believed to have been the brother of Dometius,
Bishop of Byzantium mentioned in the Synaxaries, is omitted from this
Menologion. The Bishops, Titus, Dometius, and Probus are, however,
mentioned in the Life of Metrophanes (ibid., pp. 12 seq.)
258
although Thrace is named among the missionary lands of Andrew,

while Argyropolis and Stachys are again recorded in the account of
the transfer of Adrian's relics.115
The Stachys Legend is also reflected in the anonymous tenth-
'
century work on Constantinople s topography. In this Andrew is

reported to have taught at the place where Constantine the Great
later erected the church of St. George, and to have ordained St.
Stachys in the church of St. Irene at Galata.116
The anonymous list of the apostles and the disciples that circulated
from the end of the tenth century and was connected with the name
of Symeon the Logothete also reveals the influence of Pseudo-
Dorotheus. Although in enumerating the apostles and disciples the
author followed, rather, the Syriac tradition, Stachys is mentioned
with Andrew and Argyropolis,117 as was the case in Pseudo-
Dorotheus.
To the enumeration of these documents should be added also the
anonymous Church History believed to have been composed at the
beginning of the tenth century, and re-edited by Nicephorus
Callistus Xanthopulus at the beginning of the fourteenth. This work
'
contains Pseudo-Dorotheus list of bishops beginning with Stachys'
ordination in Argyropohs, although Nicephorus Calhstus contradicts
himself in this repect because, as already mentioned,118 he says in
another passage that Argyropohs did not obtain its name until the
fifth century.119
It would be wise however, to take great care in evaluating this
,
Church History. Recent research has shown that Nicephorus Calhs-

tus tended to use in his composition the works of older Greek
Church historians, and that his work is important for the recon-
struction of the texts of their writings because he often copied
115 Menologium Graecum, PG, 117, cols. 136 seq. 185, 605.
114 Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, 2, ed. Th. Preger (Teubner,
Leipzig, 1907), pp. 270 seq.
1,7 Ed .
Th. Schermann, Indices apostol., pp. 180 seq.
118 See supra p. 219. PG, 146, col. 28; 147, col. 1133; cf. 145, col. 860.
,
1,8 The list of Pseudo Dorotheus is reproduced also in an independent

-
catalogue of bishops of Constantinople from about 901 preserved in Codex

,
Bodleianus 715, fols 7-9. See C. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, 'O TTpdxEipos
N6|ao$ (Heidelberg, 1837), p. 325. For the further development of the cult
of Stachys see Acta Sanctorum Octobris 13, pp. 694 seq. {Dies 31, "De Ss.
,
Stachy, Ampliato, Urbano, et Narcisso).
. 7* 259
whole passages from them verbatim.130 If this is so, the existence

of an anonymous tenth-century Church History becomes very
doubtful, and it would have to be assumed that Nicephorus Callis-
tus had simply copied the list of the Byzantine bishops from the
catalogue of Pseudo-Dorotheus.
In the face of all this evidence it would appear that, from the
tenth century onward, the Byzantines had accepted Pseudo-
Dorotheus' tradition as the only true one. It is, therefore, the more
surprising to find in the historical work of Pseudo-Symeon,121
dating from the beginning of the second half of the tenth century,
another list of Byzantine bishops which is shorter and mentions
only three third-century bishops. Pseudo-Symeon designates
Philadelphus as the first Bishop of Byzantium during the reign of
Caracalla (211-217). Philadelphus is said to have been Bishop for
three years and to have been preceded in Byzantium by a simple
priest who administered the community for eight years. Another
Bishop, of the reign of the Emperor Gordian is said to have been
,
Eugenius, who occupied the see for twenty-five years. The third
Bishop-Rufinus-was appointed under Numerianus in 284, and
governed the Church of Byzantium for nine years.
Pseudo-Symeon was followed by Cedrenus,121 who wrote his
historical work at the end of the eleventh, or the beginning of the
twelth century. He, too, reports on only three bishops before
Metrophanes, mentioning Philadelphus and Eugenius by name.
This list is generally rejected as being not genuine123 because it
does not tally with the names quoted in that of Pseudo-Dorotheus.
But this very fact rather indicates that Pseudo-Symeon's list
may contain some grains of truth. The city of Byzantium is known
to have produced its first heretic at the end of the second century,
1J0 Giinter Gentz K. Aland, "Die Quellen der Kirchengeschichte des

,
Nicephorus und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Konstituierung des Textes der
alteren Kirchenhistoriker "
Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,

,
42 (1949), PP. 104-141.

121 See A. Banduri, Imperium orientale, 2 (Paris, 1711),p. 888. This part of
the Chronicle has, unfortunately, not yet been published.
M Historiarum compendium (ed. Bonn), pp. 449, 451, 477, PG, ill,
,
cols. 489, 493, 520.

123 Cf P. Cuypers in Acta Sanctorum, I, Augusti, col. 11.
.
260
namely Theodotus, who taught that Christ was a mere man into whom
the Holy Ghost had entered at the moment of his baptism in the
Jordan. Theodotus came to Rome about the year 190,124 which
permits the supposition that Byzantium already had a Christian
community about 180. Christianity probably penetrated there from
Heracleia,125 and it was this city which became the metropolis of
Byzantium and provided for its religious needs. In the light of this ,
Pseudo-Symeon's information does not appear as far-fetched as it

first seemed. When the many persecutions suffered by the Christians
in the third century are recalled, it is not remarkable that the series
of bishops should have been interrupted in many communities that ,
vacancies should have occurred, or that some names should simply

not have been recorded.126 It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that
Metrophanes may have had predecessors, and the names quoted by
Pseudo-Symeon seem more reliable than those in Pseudo-Dorotheus'
list.
The fact that Pseudo-Symeon and Cedrenus apparently knew
'
nothing of Metrophanes brother Probus, of his father Dometius,

'
and of Bishop Titus, all of whom were quoted in Metrophanes Life

as his predecessors in episcopacy, shows that the source of Pseudo-
Symeon said nothing regarding Metrophanes' ancestry. This confirms
the legendary character of the story concerning Metrophanes' origin.
It may be, however, that, as has already been suggested this story,
'
originated independently of Pseudo-Dorotheus compilation, and
was merely incorporated into it.127
In the tenth century the tradition, launched by Pseudo-Dorotheus,

reached the Syrians also, replacing their old tradition which attri-
buted the preaching of the Gospel in Byzantium to St. Luke. This
new idea in Syriac descriptions of apostolic activities can be traced
1S* Hippolytus, Philosophoumena, 7, chap. 35, PG, 16, col. 3342, GCS, 26,
ed. P. Wendland (1916), p. 222.
1M Cf A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in
.
den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1924), pp. 485, 791, on Christianity in
Heracleia and Byzantium.
,M S
.
Vailh6, "Origines de I'Eglise de Constantinople," Echos d'Orient, 10
(1902), pp. 293 seq.
iw See supra p. 256.
26l
in the tenth-century Universal History by Agapius of Menbidj."8

Agapius confuses, however, the transfer of Andrew's relics to Con-
stantinople with his death; he believes that Andrew died in Con-
stantinople.
Another Syrian writer, Michael the Syrian, who lived in the
twelfth century, also took the Andrew-Stachys story for granted,
for he copied a part of Pseudo-Dorotheus' list into his work.m The
Pseudo-Epiphanius tradition must have been familiar to him too,
since, in another passage, he has Andrew preach in Nicaea, in
Nicomedia, in Scythia, and in Achaea.130 His contemporary, Dio-
nysius Bargalibi, quoted by Michael 181 was influenced in his account
,
of Andrew by the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, for he reports

that the Saint preached in Beit-Kalbin (house of the dogs) and
along the seashore. He says that the inhabitants cut Andrew to
'
pieces. Epiphanius thesis was also accepted by Salomon of Basrah188

(d. ca. 1222) and by Bar-Hebraeus (d. 1286).138
Probably during the tenth century, the Georgians, too, became
acquainted with the Andrew Legend.134 They were naturally
"
lt» "Kitab al Unvan published and translated by A. Vasiliev [Patrologia
,
Orientalis, 7, p. 491); "A cette 6poque mourut I'apdtre Andr6, qui &ait
vSque de Byzance, aprfes deux ans d'6piscopat. Stychus [stc!] y fut 6v6que
"
pendant quinze ans. Aprfes lui Onesime pendant treize ans. Cf. also F. Haase,
Apostel und Evangelisten in den orientalischen Vberlieferungen (Miinster i. W,
1922), p. 252.
m Ed J. B. Chabot, 1 (Paris, 1899), bk. 6, chap. 4, p. 174. F. Haase,
.
op. cit., p. 293, quotes a similar story on Andrew and Stachys from the
Vatican Syriac Codex 1591 (fol. 452 a). Cf. also his quotation on Andrew
(p. 296) from Codex Vaticanus Arabicus 623, p. 71.
1,0 Ibid p. 146: "Andr precha k Nic e, a Nicom die, en Scythie et en
.
,
Achaie; le premier il si6gea a Constantinople et il y mourrut."

131 Ibid .
p. 148: "Andr6 prScha dans le pays de Beit-Kalbln et sur le
,
littoral; plus tard les KaAhh lui coupferent les membres en morceaux."
in The Book of the Bee ed. E. A. Wallis Budge (in Anecdota Oxoniensia,
,
Semitic Series, 1, pt. 2), chap 48, p. 104: "Andrew, his [Peter's] brother,
preached in Scythia and Nicomedia and Achaea. He built a church in By-
"
zantium and there he died and was buried.
inGregorii Barhebraei Chronicon ecclesiasticum, 1, ed, J. B. Abbeloos and
T J. Lany (Louvain, 1872), pp. 31 seq: Andreas praedicavit Nicaeae,
.
Nicomediae, in Scythia et Achaia, ac primus sedem fixit Constontinopoli ibidem

'
mortem obiit. The Syriac authors often misconstrued the fact that Andrew s
relics were in Constantinople considering it to be evidence of his having
,
died there.
134 See the documentation in A . Pogodin's study "Povest o choidenii
Byzantinoslavica, 7 (1937-1938), pp. 137-141.
"
apostola Andreja v Rusi,

262
interested in Andrew's travels to Sebastopolis and along the

Caucasian shore, described in Epiphanius' Life and in the Synaxaria.
The Georgians were soon aware of the importance of this account
for their Church, and based their claims for its autonomy on the
principle of apostolicity, pretending that their Church was founded
by St. Andrew.136
From Georgia, through the intermediary of the Russian principah-
ty of Tmutorakan on the Taman peninsula, or more probably
directly from Greece, the Andrew Legend was transmitted to Kiev,
and is reflected in the Russian Primary Chronicle.136 There it is
"
said that when Andrew was teaching in Sinope, and came to
Cherson, he observed that the mouth of the Dnieper was nearby.
Conceiving a desire to go to Rome, he proceeded, therefore, to the
mouth of the Dnieper and thence journeyed up the river, and by
chance halted upon the shore beneath the hills. He prophesied to his
disciples that on that spot a great city with many churches [Kiev]
would arise. He blessed the spot, erecting there a cross, then con-
tinued his journey to Novgorod, and, after a stay with the Varangi-
"
ans, reached Rome. Leaving Rome, he returned to Sinope. It is

evident that this new development of the Andrew Legend was built
on the basis of the Greek accounts of the monk Epiphanius, and on
those of the author of the Laudatio. In both works Cherson is men-
tioned together with Sinope, and it must have been this fact that
inspired the Russian chronicler to have Andrew come to the place
where Kiev was to stand, and to lead him through the whole of
The Greek Synaxarion was translated into Georgian in the eleventh century.
It is published in the Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestnostej i piemen
Kavkaza, 26 (Tiflis, 1899), p. 3. Cf. supra p. 210.
"*
On the Georgian Andrew Legends see I. DJavakov, "PropovMniieskaja
dSjatel'nost' ap. Andreja i sv. Niny. II. Apostol Andrej v Gruzii" mZurnal
ministerstva narodnago prosveSCenija, 333 (1901), pp. 101-113. Cf. the
discussion between a Georgian monk and the Patriarch Theodosius of Antioch
(twelfth century) on the foundation of the Georgian Church by Andrew in
P . Peeters, "Histoires monastiques g orgiennes," JlnBo//, 36-37 (1917-1918),
"
pp. 116, 117. More bibliographical data in P. Peeters, Les debuts du christi-
"
anism en Gtorgie, ibid., 50 {1932), pp. 6-58.
,s* Translation b
y S. H. Cross in Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology
and Literature, 12 (1930) p. 139, new edition by O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor
,
(Cambridge, Mass., 1953). PP- 53. 54-
263
Russia to Novgorod.187 From the tenth and eleventh centuries

onward, the Andrew and Stachys Legend was generally accepted
as genuine in Byzantium and throughout the Eastern Church.
137 A Pogodin, op. cit., thinks that the knowledge of this Legend reached
.
Kievan Russia from Georgia via the Russian principality of Tmutorakan.

The monk Nikon who is supposed to be the author of the definitive edition
of the Russian Primary Chronicle and was identified by Pogodin with the
Kievan Metropolitan Hilarion who came from Tmutorakan, is said to
,
have transmitted the legend to Kiev. This is possible but seems improbable.
,
The mention of Cherson and Sinope points more directly to Byzantium and
Cherson than to Georgia as the point of transmission. Kiev was in intimate
relationship with Cherson from at least the tenth century onward and there
,
must have existed in Cherson a local tradition concerning Andrew for his
,
name was connected with that city. It is not known tome whether Cherson
is mentioned in the Georgian version.
264
CHAPTER SEVEN
The Idea of Apostolicity and the Andrew Legend in the

Controversies between Constantinople and Rome.
The idea of apostolicity as the basis of the pentarchic order - The

pentarchic idea at the Ignatian Council of 869-870 - The definition of
the duties of emperors and patriarchs in the Epanagoge reflects a new
spirit created by the growth of apostolicity-Possibilities of a rapproche-
ment on this new basis - The argument of apostolicity in the contro-
versies of the tenth and eleventh centuries - The position of the see of
Constantinople in Church organization and the Western canonists of the
eleventh century - Eastern writers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries
- The Andrew Legend and the controversies during the thirteenth
century .- How the character of universal teachers attributed to the
apostles by Greek polemists diminished the value of the Andrew tradition
for the Greeks - The Andrew Legend in the fourteenth century in
Byzantium - The Councils of Lyons and Florence on the see of Con-
stantinople - Acceptance of the Andrew Legend by the Latin West.
Before concluding this investigation, it would be of interest to

trace the role played by the growth of the idea of apostolicity and
by the Andrew Legend in the relationship between the Eastern and
the Western Church. It is quite natural that these developments
could not have been viewed with great favor in Rome. They deprived
the popes of a strong argument in their contest with Constantinople
for the privileged position of Rome in the Church.
This whole problem should however, be studied from the Byz-
,
antine standpoint, and should be viewed especially in the light of

Byzantine ideas on the position of the emperor. The prominent
place enjoyed by the emperor as the representative of God in
the Christian commonwealth should first be borne in mind. On
this basis we will have to admit that the final acceptance of the
idea of apostolicity in Byzantium represented in reality a victory
265
of the principle for which the Eastern Church had always fought,
with varying degrees of success-the principle that decisions in mat-
ters of faith were a responsibility of the bishops as successors of the
apostles; not of the emperors, whose role was merely to promul-
gate these decisions, to secure their acceptance by the faithful,
and to defend them.
The acceptance of the principle of apostolicity in Church organi-
zation in Byzantium has been shown to have been connected
ultimately with the growth of the idea that the direction of Church
affairs, especially insofar as they concerned the definition and inter-
pretation of Church doctrine, should be reserved to the incumbents
of the principal sees who, at the same time, represented the bishops
of their respective dioceses. This privileged position, as has been
seen, was gradually assigned to five sees-Rome, Alexandria,
Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem-with Constantinople
taking precedence over the other three Oriental sees. Thus did the
idea of the pentarchy originate, and its main features can be found
in the Acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council. How quickly this
'
principle was adopted in the East may be gathered from Justinian s

legislation. On at least three occasions Justinian clearly alludes to
the five "archbishops and patriarchs" who are directed to make his
legislative measures known to the metropolitans of their dioceses,
and to supervise their observance, and if he is relatively temperate
in this respect in his famous sixth novel1 outlining the relationship
between the imperium and the sacerdotium, he is very forceful in
"
novel 1092 where he expressly mentions the five patriarchs of the

"
whole universe. Novel 109 is especially important, for in it the
Emperor seems to move toward the idea of apostolicity incorporated
in the five patriarchs. Three times in his novel he calls the Church.
"
which he assumes to be directed by the five patriarchs, catholic

"
and apostolic. The five "archbishops and patriarchs" are addressed

also in novel 123.3
Here are the foundations of the pentarchic idea, whose spread in
the East was intimately connected with the idea of apostolicity and
1 Novella 6 epilogus, Corpus Juris civilis, 3 (Novellae), ed. R. Schoell and
,
J Kroll (Berlin, 1928), p. 47.

.
a Nov log, praefalto, ibid., p. 518.

.
8 Nov 123, 3, ibid., p. 597.

.
266
ANDREW LEGEND IN EAST AND WEST
with the attribution of an apostolic character to the see of Con-

stantinople. Justinian had thus, unwittingly, created favorable
conditions for the growth of an idea which was destined ultimately
to help the Eastern Church in its struggle for emancipation from
imperial interference in matters of faith.
Further clear traces of the growth of the pentarchic idea are to be
found in the works of the seventh-century theologian Maximus the
Confessor. In his disputation with Pyrrhus,4 Maximus assumes that
the Church is governed by the patriarchs who are its highest
authority. In his letter to John Cubicularius5 the Saint attempts to
coordinate the authority of the patriarchs in the Church with that
of the emperor.
It has already been shown that the idea of apostolicity helped
the defenders of image-worship in their struggle against the last
direct interference of the emperors in matters of faith. During this
struggle the doctrine of the pentarchic (five-headed) authority
governing the Church was fully developed by the defenders of
image-worship, and was vigorously propagated by St. Theodore of
Studios, who saw in it one of the most telling arguments against
imperial intervention in Church teaching.
This new trend in Byzantine political and ecclesiastical thinking

came to full fruition in the ninth century. Then, too, the apostolic
character of the see of Constantinople was taken for granted by the
Byzantines and at least vaguely recognized by the eastern patriarchs,
although its basis does not seem to have been clearly defined in
official circles, despite the fact that the Andrew and Stachys
tradition was gradually gaining more ground among the faithful and
in ecclesiastical circles. This was the final stage in the evolution
that began in 381 when the Fathers of the Second Oecumenical
Council accorded to the see of Constantinople a rank second only to
that of Rome.
It was during the ninth century also that the new doctrine of the
pentarchic authority in the Church was fully developed on the
basis of the apostolic principle. This new conception is best mirrored
4 Disputatio cum Pyrrho, PG, 91, col. 352.
6 Letter 12 ibid., col. 464.
,
267
in the Acts of the Ignatian Council of 869-870, called the Eighth

Oecumenical Council. In the Acts of this Council we find the fullest
definition of the new doctrine of the pentarchy, as can be shown
by quotations of statements made by leading personalities.
The spokesman of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Elias, attributed
the institution of the patriarchs to the Holy Ghost, bringing them
into intimate connection with the apostles:6 "All of you, friends of
Christ and brethren, know that the Holy Ghost who spoke through
the prophets, has also spoken through the intermediary of the apos-
tles, and that all which in the past was done by our Fathers is not
only laid down as law, but also remains enacted by spiritual grace.
And therefore the Holy Spirit instituted as heads of the world the
patriarchs that, through them, the scandals which multiply in the
Church might be eradicated, and that peaceful conditions might
be restored and secured." Then Elias enumerated the five patriarchs.
The most prominent supporter of the Patriarch Ignatius, Metro-
phanes of Smyrna, proclaimed during the sixth session of the
Council7 that God "the sun of justice ... had instituted the five
patriarchs like five great luminaries to illuminate the whole
world, that they may preside over day and night and separate the
light from the darkness; namely those who perform acts of light,
that is of divine justice, from those who perform acts of darkness,
that is of injustice...."
During the same session the Emperor Basil addressed the followers
"
of Photius as follows:8 Certainly you know, as does the whole
world under the sun, that by the guidance of the one true God
the five patriarchs of the whole world are right You must,
therefore, accept their judgment." Basil's representative at the
Council, the Patrician Baanes, was even more outspoken when he
declared:9 "God has established His Church on five patriarchs and
He has defined in His Holy Gospels that they would never
fail altogether, because they are the heads of the Church."
Among the canons voted by the Council, canon twenty-one deals
. Mansi 16 cols. 35A, 317E.

,
'
Ibid., cols. 82C, 344E.
8 Ibid cols. 86E, 87A.
.
,
. Ibid col. 140E.

.
268
with the patriarchs.10 The Fathers not only enumerated in this

canon the five patriarchs, but launched a solemn anathema against
any secular power that might presume to dishonor or dethrone one
of the five supreme pastors of the Church. It should be stressed that
the patriarchs are enumerated here in the "Greek fashion," the
patriarch of Constantinople preceding the three other eastern
patriarchs.11
The new ecclesiatical order based on the pentarchic idea is con-
firmed in several other canons voted by the Ignatian Council. In
canon ten18 the Fathers forbade priests to refuse obedience to their
bishops, or bishops to their metropolitans or patriarchs, unless
such bishops and metropolitans were condemned by a synodal
decree. The wording of this canon shows clearly that the Council
had in mind the ecclesiastical hierarchy in which the patriarchs
occupied the highest positions.
Canon seventeen13 starts with a quotation from canon six of the
First Council of Nicaea. In a very adroit way, however, the see of
New Rome is mentioned immediately after that of Old Rome,
and before the sees of Antioch and Jerusalem-Alexandria is
quoted at the beginning of the canon-in the renewed confir-
mation of all instructions giving to the five patriarchs the right
to punish all metropolitans or bishops of their patriarchates and to
convoke them in a synod. In this canon the Fathers seem to regard
" "
all patriarchs as apostolic, enjoining all bishops against refusing

the invitation of their apostolicus on the pretext of being prevented
by civil power from attending a synod.
Canon twenty-six14 also favors the pentarchic order. In this the
10 Ibid col. 174.
.
11 At the end of this canon the following

inj action concerning Rome occurs:
Porro si sinodus universalis fuerit congregata, et facta fuerit etiam de sancta
Romanorum ecclesia quaevis ambiguiias et coniroversia, oportet venerabiliter,
et cum convenienti reverentia de proposita quaestione sciscitari, et solutionem
accipere, aut proficere, aut profectum facere, non tamen audacter sententiam
dicere contra summos senioris Romae pontifices. This seems to be addressed to
the synod of 867. The wording appears to indicate, however that the target
,
of the condemnation pronounced by the synod was not the see of Rome or
the papacy as such, but the person of Nicholas I. See also the shortened
Greek text, ibid., col. 405 (Canon 13).
14 Ibid .
,
col. 166.
ia Ibid
.
, cols. 170E, 171 A.
14 Ibid
.
, cols. 177, 178.
269
Fathers set forth the rules concerning the right of appeal to the
patriarch by clerics condemned by their bishops, and strictly
forbid any appeal to the judgment of metropolitans or bishops out-
'
side the clerics own provinces. The only proper judge was the
patriarch in whose diocese the clerics lived, and his decision was
final. Curiously enough there is in this canon no mention of an
appeal to the first patriarch of Old Rome, although the Synod of
861-condemned, of course, by that of 869-870-had clearly
acknowledged the see of Rome as the supreme judge over a
patriarch.
It is interesting to note that Pope Hadrian II, in his letter to
Emperor Basil I, manifested no disapproval of these canons. He
expressed, on the contrary, his joy over the fact that at the Council
"
the catholic and true faith was defined, and the tradition of the
Fathers and the rights which will profit the Church were established
"
and confirmed for all future time. The Pope's words cannot, of
course, be interpreted as a confirmation of the Council, but it is
reasonable to conclude from them that he was not altogether hostile
to the pentarchic idea with which the canons that he had praised
were permeated.
Ideas similar to those expressed in the Acts of the Ignatian
Council can also be found in the passage, quoted above, of Photius'
letter to Zachary of Armenia, which seems to be genuine. The
declaration that God established the four patriarchates, to which
the fifth was added, "by which the Apostolic and Catholic Church
is governed," is almost identical with the eloquent statements on
the five patriarchs made during the Council of 869-870.
The same spirit animates too the statements about the first Four
General Councils in the second part of the letter to Zachary.15 This,
however, does not appear to be genuine, although it reflects ideas
on councils similar to those expressed by Photius in his letter to the
Bulgarian Khagan Boris-Michael.16 The idea of the five patriarchs'
'
15 This part is reprinted in PG, 102, cols. 707-714 from A. Mai s Latin
translation. i* *. 1
18 PG, 102, cols. 631, seq. G. Garitte, "La Narraiio de rebus Armeniae.
Edition critique et comraentaire," CSCO., 132, pp. 107 seq., has shown con-
vincingly that in the dating of the Councils the author of the letter to Za-
chary copies the same mistakes found in the Narratio de rebus Armeniae.
270
supremacy in the Church is expressed even more forcibly in this

part of the letter to Zachary. Its author, in listing Alexander of
Constantinople17 among the patriarchs present at the Council of
Nicaea, endows Constantinople with patriarchal dignity before that
Council. Even if it be assumed that this part of the letter was,
like the first part, doctored by an Armenian interpolator, the
tendency manifested in stressing the leading role of the five patri-
archs in the Church is significant.18 The author added the catholicos
of Armenia as the sixth patriarch.
The extent of the increased prestige of the Church authorities in

Byzantium after the victory over Iconoclasm is best illustrated by
the definition of the patriarch's duties in the third title of the
Epanagoge. This document is one of two that had been drafted and
submitted as a new legislative handbook by two imperial committees
appointed by Basil I. It was not the Epanagoge, but the alternative
document, the Procheiron, that was finally chosen by the
Emperor.19 In spite of this, however, the Epanagoge was also
used, and exercised some influence.
Titles two and three of the Epanagoge20 define the functions of the
emperor and the patriarch in Byzantine life and are followed by
other titles determining the functions of other state officials, of
bishops, and of monks. The importance of this document in the
evolution of the relations between Church and State in Byzantium
is often exaggerated. In reality many of these definitions can be
traced to Justinian's novels. Chapter eight of the third title shows
clearly that the author of this title was inspired by the introduction
17 Alexander's presence at the Council of Nicaea is also noted in the letter

to Boris-Michael, but there he is called only the administrator of this see.
This is entirely credible, for Bishop Metrophanes was too old to be present.
It should be stressed, too, that in this part of the letter to Zachary the popes
are always listed first, as if they had assisted in person at each Council.
18 A clear echo of the pentarchic doctrine can also be detected in the Life
of St. John, Bishop of Gothia, written in the ninth century (/4 S Junius, dies 26,
7, chap, 4, p. 168).
"
19 See on this problem the well-documented study O pravni naravi
Epanagoge," published by C. Kriisnik in Slovenski pravnik, 49 (Ljubliana,
1935), PP- 335-349-
20 Ed C. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, in J. Zepos, P. Zepos, Jus Graecoro-
.
manum, 2 (Athens, 1931), p. 242.
271
to Justinian's sixth novel.81 However, a new tone can be discerned

in chapter three of the third title: "The patriarch alone is entitled
to interpret the rules of the old patriarchs, the prescriptions of the
Holy Fathers and the decisions of the holy synods." The duties of
the emperor are set out in the fourth chapter of the second title:
The emperor must defend and enforce, first, all that is written in
"
the Holy Writ, then, all dogmas approved by the holy councils, and
"
also the selected Roman laws. This demonstrates clearly the
tendency to limit imperial intervention in religious matters purely
to the defense and enforcement of the accepted definitions of faith:
only the Church-here incarnate in the patriarch-has the right to
interpret synodal definitions.
This right was of course basically recognized by the emperors,
but they often provoked or backed decisions made by heretical
bishops. The defeat of the last direct imperial intervention in
matters of faith during the iconoclastic controversy encouraged the
author of this part of the Epanagoge to make this bold interpre-
tation which, it was hoped, would put a definite end to such inter-
ference.
This part of the Epanagoge seems to have been inspired by the
Patriarch Photius, who had contributed considerably to the final
liquidation of Iconoclasm in Byzantium.22 It would be, however,
an exaggeration to see in this definition an attempt to emancipate
the Church from the tutelage of the State, or the beginning of a new
11 Nov 6, ed. Kriiger, 3, pp. 35 seq.: "God's greatest gifts to men stem
.
from His infinite goodness and watch over them ... the sacerdotium and the
imperium, of which the first serves divine, the second human, interests; both
derive from the same principle and perfect human life. Hence nothing claims
the emperor's care so much as the honor of the priests, since these continually
pray God for him. If the clergy is sound and fully trusts in God, and if the
emperor rules the Republic entrusted to him with justice and honor, mutual
harmony will arise, which can prove only useful to the human race...."
Chapter eight of the third title of the Epanagoge (op. cit., p. 242): "The State
is composed, like Man, of parts and members. The greatest and most important
members are the emperor and the patriarch. Therefore harmony in all things
and symphony between the imperium and the sacerdotium will bring the
"
subjects spiritual and material peace and prosperity. Similar emphasis on

harmony and cooperation between the sacerdotium and the imperium can be
detected also in nov. 42 (ibid., p. 263).
ai See F .
Dvomik, "The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm," Dumbarton
Oaks Papers, 7 (i953). PP- 67-97-
272
era in the relations between Church and State in Byzantium.2'

Nevertheless, it must be recognized that, although the Epanagoge
did not become an official law handbook for Byzantine courts, the
principles stressed in titles two and three did exercise a marked
influence. The Epanagoge was used as a source by later compilers of
law handbooks, and many of its titles were incorporated into later
Byzantine law books.
With regard to titles two and three, the Epitome legum, a law book
dating from the beginning of the tenth century, contains chapters
'
one and three of the Epanagoge s title two, listed as the twentieth
"
a Such is the opinionof G. Vemadsky as expressed in his studies Vizan-
tijskija uCenija o vlasti carja i patriarcha," in Shornik statej posve§(ennyck
pamjati N. P. Kondakova (Prague, 1926), pp. 143-154, and "Die kirchlich-
politische Lehre der Epanagoge und ihr Einnuss auf das russische Leben im
XVII. Jahrhundert," Byzantinisch-neugriechische JahrbUcher, 6 (1927),
pp. 119-142. H. F. Scbmid expressed a different opinion in bis review of
Vernadsky's first study (Zeitschrift fiir Savigny-Stiftung und Rechtsgeschichte ,
Kanon. Abt. 16 [1927], pp.530-535). Similar ideas to those of Vernadsky are

found in G. Ostrogorsky's study "OtnoSenie cerkvi i gosudarstva v Vizantii,"
Seminarium Kondakovianum, 4 {1931), pp. 121-134. These were rightly
criticized by F. Dolger (Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 31 [1931], pp. 449-450).
All the more surprising therefore is Dolger's statement in his "Europas
Gestaltung im Spiegel der frankisch-byzantinischen Auseinandersetzung des
"
9. Jahrhunderts (published in Der Vertrag von Verdun 843, ed. Th. Mayer
[Leipzig, 1943], pp. 228 seq., and reprinted in F. Dolger, Byzanz und die
"
eurapdische Staatenwelt [Speyer a. R., 1953], pp. 315 seq.): Das Lebensziel
des Photios war nicht nur.. .die Primatsanspriiche des romischen Papstes
zu brechen, sondern auch, das im Westen zum Durchbruch gekommene
Prinzip einer der weltlichen selbstandig gegeniiberstehenden geistlichen
Gewalt auch in Byzanz zur Geltung zu bringen, also ein ostlicher Papst zu
werden.... Ein Beweis fiir seine Absichten hinsichtlich der Emanzipation
des Patriarchats aus der geistlichen Oberleitung des byzantinischen Kaisers
findet sich in Prooimium zur Epanagoge.... Da sich zu dieser Beobachtung
noch andere Indizien fiir das ehrgeizige Streben des Patriarchen Photios ge-
sellen, diirfen wir annehmen, dafl er versuchte, ein Recht, das dem Wesen des
byzantinischen Kaisertum widersprach, in ein allgemeines Gesetzwerk so-
"
zusagen einzuschmuggeln. See also F. Dolger, "Rom in der Gedankenwelt
der Byzantiner" (Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 56 [1937], P- 32. reprinted
in his Byzanz und die europdische Staatenwelt, p. 103): "Er war es auch, der
in Byzanz selbst versuchte, eine der sichersten Saulen des byzantinischen
Staatsrechts, die Unterordnung der Kirche unter den Staat, zu stiirzen; die
Spuren davon finden wir in der unter seiner Leitung zusammengestellten
Epanagoge...." This is something of an overstatement. Photius tried to
define clearly a principle for which his Church was always fighting, namely
that the definition of faith and the interpretation of conciliar decrees belonged
to the Church, represented in the East by the patriarch of Constantinople-
in the ninth century the most prominent of tne four eastern patriarchs. In
this respect however Photius did not succed, because his formulation of
the rights of a patriarch-as Dolger rightly remarks-appeared strange to
the Emperor and to the Byzantines in general.
18 273
and twenty-first scholia to the first part of the handbook.81 Some

manuscripts of the Synopsis Basilicorum, an abridgment of the
Basilica, composed in alphabetical order during the second half of
the tenth century, added to the text some marginal notes from the
two titles of the Epanagoge.'15
In the Synopsis minor quotations from the two titles in question
are incorporated into the text of the collection. The first five
chapters defining the duties of the emperor, and chapters one to four
and eight of title three,26 on the patriarch, are to be found there. It
is characteristic that chapter five stressing the prerogative of the
patriarch to interpret the definitions of the councils is not repro-
duced by the anonymous author of the Synopsis minor. Matthew
Blastares, who composed his Syntagma about the middle of the
fourteenth century, also incorporated into his handbook of canon
law the first four chapters of the third title of the Epanagoge plus
chapter eight, later adding chapters nine and ten.27 Again we note
that he omitted chapter five.
Is the omission of chapter five from the Synopsis minor and the
Syntagma due simply to coincidence? Possibly; but it could also
be that the prerogative granted to the patriarch in chapter five had
encountered some opposition in Constantinople from bishops who
presumed to participate in the explanation of the conciliar defini-
tions. Such a supposition would conform to the thinking prevalent
in Constantinople, where it was always customary to grant only to
bishops assembled in council the right to interpret the true doctrine.
If this was so, it must be acknowledged that the author of this
'
chapter-probably Photius87 -did not achieve what he intended .
24 C E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, op. cit., 2, p. 291, ed. J. Zepos, P. Zepos,

.
4, p. 289.
48 Op cit., 5, pp. 130, 542 ; ed. J. Zepos, P. Zepos, 5, pp. 125, 462. The
.
Codex Lipsinus and the Codex Parisiensis 1351 add to part B, III, 2, chapters
one to seven of the second title of the Epanagoge, and to partTT, X, 1, chapters
one to six of the third title concerning the patriarch. Codex Labbaeus adds to
its part B, III, 2, chapters one to four of the second title of the Epanagoge.
Cf. C. Kr2i§nik, op. cit., p. 345.
24 Ed Zachariae von Lingenthal, op. cit., 2, pp. 41 seq., 206 seq; ed. J. Zepos,
.
P Zepos, 6, pp. 354 seq. (B, 21-25), p. 498 seq., (TT, 63-66).
.
27 Matthaeus Blastares Syntagma canonum, PG, 145, cols. 108, 109

,
(Title II, chap. 8).

*'
» J Scharf's comparison of the Epanagoge's wording and style with
.
those of Photius' writings ("Photius und die Epanagoge," BZ, 49 [1956],
274
The increased patriarchal pivileges granted in chapter five might

also have been one of the reasons why Basil did not choose the
Epanagoge as an official handbook of law, for he saw in its definition
a dangerous possibility of further reduction of imperial influence in
Church affairs, and, in making his choice, he may have had the
support of some ecclesiastical dignitaries who, too, were not
favorably disposed toward a further increase of patriarchal rights.
It is also interesting to find that there is no mention of the other
four patriarchs in the introductionto the Epanagoge. The Roman, as
well as the three eastern patriarchs, are ignored. This is far removed
from Justinian's attitude, and illustrates the fact that the Byzantines
were becoming accustomed to the restriction of their political and
religious interests to lands under the direct rule of the emperor.
This proposed new law handbook lacks the universal outlook, so
'
obvious in Justinian s legislative work. It was intended only for

Greek-speaking subjects of the Empire.
Here again it would be an exaggeration to see in this the nega-
tion of the new pentarchic theory or an attempt to promote the
patriarch of Constantinople to the head of the whole Church, at the
expense of the see of Rome. This document must be studied in
connection with other events that occurred in Byzantium during
the ninth century, and in the light of other documentary evidence
on the relations between Rome and Constantinople at that period.
In spite of the spread of the new pentarchic theory and of the

'
conception of Byzantium s apostolic character, one can quote

numerous statements by Photius and by other responsible ninth-
century Byzantine churchmen, stressing the supreme position of
Peter as Prince of the Apostles,28 and revealing their awareness of
the significance for the organization of the Church, of Christ's
,
words reported by Matthew {18:16).

'
pp. 385-400) makes Photius authorship of this document most probable.

The author's evaluation of title three of the Epanagoge (pp. 399, 400) is,
in general, justified.
28 Cf F. Dvomik, The Photian Schism, pp. 182 seq., and especially J. Jugie,
.
Theologia dogmatica christian, oriental., i ,pp. 119-128. Cf. also an interesting

passage in the Vita S. Euthymii iunioris (ed. L. Petit in Revue de VOrient
chretien, 8 [1903], p. 204) where Peter is called Tfjs KKArjcrias Apcoyi? Kod
eeiiiXiov and Andrew TTpcoTdKAiyros ... Tfjs irolpvTis i dpxwv*
275
The new evolution in Byzantine thinking that appeared after the

defeat of the iconoclasts, brought about with the help of Rome,
provided unexpected support to Roman claims in yet another
respect. Asbestas, Bishop of Syracuse, and his associates, when
condemned by the Patriarch Ignatius, appealed to the Patriarch of
Rome, thus recognizing de facto the canons of the Synod of Sardica
which acknowledged the supreme position of Rome and established
the right of appeal to the Pope as representing the ultimate authority
in the Church. The Synod of 861 marked another considerable step
forward. The Byzantine Church, in consenting to the judgment of
its Patriarch by the legates of the Pope, recognized Rome as the
supreme tribunal of the Church in disciplinary matters. Some
declarations made during that Synod, and still preserved in the
abridged Acts salvaged by Cardinal Deusdedit,29 amount, indeed,
to an official acceptance of the famous canon of the Synod of
Sardica.
When we view this evolution in the perspective of history, we
might assume it to have been a cause of rejoicing for the whole
Church, especially for Rome; also, a tacit acceptance of Constanti-
' " "
nople s apostolicity might seem to have been a worthwhile con-

cession on the part of Rome. But Pope Nicholas I could not see it in
this light, which is not surprising, for his own conception of the
Roman primacy was much more advanced, and it was hard for
him to content himself with the concessions offered by Byzantium,
although they provided a gratifying acceptance of the basic claims
of Roman primacy.
During the conflict between Nicholas and Photius over the
succession to Ignatius, the Roman and Byzantine conceptions of
primacy in the Church were tested. The passionate verdicts voiced
in Rome at the Synod of 863 and at Constantinople at the Synod of
867 augured ill for the future of the Church.
But the principle of unity in the Church, represented by the five
patriarchs, was so strongly implanted in the minds of Christians of
both West and East that the conflict ended in mutual agreement.
The fact that Photius himself offered his hand in reconcihation
shows that the prominent position of Rome in the Church was fully
m Cf . supra pp. 238, 239.
276
recognized in Byzantium at that period. The Synod of 879-880 gave

renewed support to Roman claims, but the Byzantine Church made
it clear that it accepted only the basic principles of the primacy,
and spiritedly defended its own administrative autonomy.
It appeared as if the pentarchic principle offered a basis for a
satisfactory modus vivendi between Rome and Constantinople. The
new principle must also have found followers in Rome, as can be
gathered from the preface of Anastasius the Librarian to his trans-
lation of the Acts of the Ignatian Council. He defines the Roman
"
conception of the pentarchy as follows:30 Because Christ has placed

in His Body, which is the Church, the same number of patriarchal
sees as there are senses in any mortal body, nothing will be lacking
in the general welfare of the Church if all those sees are of one
will, as nothing is lacking in the function of the body when all the
five senses remain whole and healthy. Because the Roman see is
naturally pre-eminent among them, it is compared, quite reason-
ably, to sight, which is the first among all the senses, is more
vigilant than [the others] and is in communion with all of them
to a greater degree than they are with each other."
Anastasius' words are the more significant for his being a faithful
follower of Nicholas I, and for his sharing in every respect Nicholas'
high conception of the primacy of the Roman see in the Church.
This explains why, in the same preface, Anastasius rebukes the
Byzantines for having tried to promote their see above the other
eastern sees at the Second and Fourth Oecumenical Councils.31 In
spite of this, the important position of Constantinople in the
pentarchy is, at least tacitly, acknowledged.
Anastasius' testimony does not apparently, stand alone. Other
,
examples may be quoted to show that some progress toward a final

understanding between the Churches on the basis of the pentarchic
patriarchal authority in the Church was made in Rome in the ninth
and tenth centuries. The conciliatory spirit which characterizes the
reign of John VIII seems reflected in the collection of Canon Law
called Anselmo dedicata which quotes canon three of the Second
,
Oecumenical Council and Justinian's novel 130, both granting to

80 Mansi, 16, col. 7.
31 Loc cit., cols. 12E,
. 13A.
277
the see of Constantinople second place in the patriarchal pentarchy.

The same novel is also quoted in the Collectio VaUicelliana composed
between 912 and 930, and in the Collection of Nine Books, also
dating from the tenth century.82 This is particularly remarkable
because these collections also quote the Damasian order of apostolic
sees according to the Petrine principle.88 All of this reveals the con -
fusion created in many western minds, on the one hand, by the

Pope's continuous emphasis of the Petrine principle and, on the
other, by the endeavor, apparent in western thinking, to adapt
itself to the existing situation.
During the tenth century there seems to have been hardly any
recourse to the argument of apostolicity, either by Rome or by
Constantinople. Nevertheless, the history of the tetragamy conflict
provoked by the fourth marriage of Leo VI shows that the right of
appeal to the Roman see in disciplinary matters continued to be
'
recognized in principle. Actually the Emperor s appeal to Rome,

when the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus refused to allow this marriage,
must be interpreted in this light, although it was ignored by the
Patriarch and his followers. The request of the Emperor Romanus I
Lecapenus for Roman confirmation of the election of his son Theo-
phylactus to patriarchal dignity was a feeble reflection of a principle
which had been more readily recognized by the Byzantines in the
ninth century.
The Andrew Legend appears then to have been either unknown
or disregarded in the West, though when Liutprand of Cremona
visited Constantinople in 968 as the ambassador of Otto II, he must
have learned something about it. However, he mentions Andrew
only once in his angry report on the embassy.84 Upon his return from
Constantinople he expressed his regret at not having been able to
M For details and bibliography see F Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 284 seq.,
.
289 seq.
**
The Collectio Anselmo dedicata quotes (bk, 10, chap. 108) Damasus'
declaration on the Petrine sees, and the VaUicelliana (chap. 378) the Decretum
Gelasianum. Cf. A. Michel, "Der Kampf um das politische oder petriniscbe
Prinzip der Kirchenfiihrung," Das Konzil von Chalkedon, 2, ed. by H. Grill-
meier, H. Bacht (Wurzburg, I953)» PP- 522-524-
**
Legatio, chap. 60, MGH, Ss. 3, p. 361; F. A. Wright, The Works of
Liutprand of Cremona (London, 1930), p. 272.
278
stop at Patras on his way back to Rome to venerate the scene of

the Apostle's martyrdom, as he had done on his outward journey.
The prestige and self-confidence of the Byzantine Church must
have grown considerably during the apparent decadence of the
Roman papacy, and when the Ottos had restored order in Roman
affairs, the relations between Rome and Constantinople took quite
a different turn. The Byzantines did not object in principle to the
role which the Roman aristocracy, often pro-Byzantine, played in
the elections of popes, but they strongly objected to the appointment
of the popes by German rulers who had usurped the title of Roman
emperors.35
It could have been expected that the Reformists, who had taken
the government of the Church into their own hands under Leo IX,
would return to the old Petrine principle, but the controversy
shifted to other points of disagreement and Byzantium now took the
offensive, attacking different Western usages in liturgy and discipline.
Cardinal Humbert, the most prominent Latin protagonist, was kept
very busy countering these attacks, but the questionable apostolic
character of the see of Constantinople and its rank in the Church
hierarchy were not overlooked by him.
It is, therefore, hardly surprising that a strong echo of the old
Petrine thesis should have arisen in the correspondence of Leo IX
with the East which was directed by Humbert. The Antiochene see,
,
having been founded by St. Peter, is hailed as the third in the

Church hierarchy in the papal answer36 to the inthronistica sent to
Rome by the Patriarch Peter of Antioch. The latter is exhorted by the
Cardinal to defend valiantly the rights confirmed to his see by the
Councils, against the actions of those who were anxious to rob
Antioch of its privileges-a clear allusion to the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople.
A reproach for similar affronts to Antioch is made by the Cardinal
in the letter that he drafted, in the name of the Pope, to Michael
*. See F .
Dvoraik, "Constantinople and Rome," to appear in Cambridge
Medieval History 4. Cf. V. Grumel, "Les pr&iminaires du schisme de
,
"
Michel C rulaire ou la question romaine avant 1054 Revue des eludes

,
byzantines, 10 (i953)» PP- 5-23-

84 PL 143,0015. 770&-D; Ed. A.Michel, Humbert undKerularios, 2 (Pader-
,
bom, 1924-1930), p. 460.
279
Cerularius.87 Because of his attempts to subjugate Alexandria and

Antioch, Michael is accused of disrupting the divine plan according
to which the Church was built upon three pillars, i.e. the three
Petrine patriarchates: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The papal
letter to Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus repeats the accusa-
tions made against the Patriarch of Constantinople.38 When writing
these missives Humbert forgets or overlooks the whole historical
background of this controversy, making it appear that Michael was
the first to try to supersede Alexandria and Antioch.
In the long letter to Michael Caerularius, which was not sent to
the Patriarch, but was published in Constantinople as a pamphlet,
Humbert states that, by the Donatio Constantini, Constantine the
Great had elevated Rome above the other four patriarchs, all of
whom are named; Constantinople being of course, listed last of
,
the five sees. The following passage59 in the same document is,
therefore, especially surprising: "Although the Church of Constanti-
nople is by no divine or human privilege more honorable or glorious
than other Churches, and [although] the Churches of Antioch and
of Alexandria are in possession of special rights of dignity owing to
the reverent respect [due] to the first of the apostles, nevertheless
the pious mother that is the Roman Church, anxious not to
,
see her beloved daughter deprived of all dowry of honor, took

care through the intermediary of some of our holy predecessors
that in some synods it should be decided that, provided the old
dignity of the principal and apostolic sees be fully respected, the
archbishop of Constantinople should be honored as the bishop of
the Imperial City, although Justinian, the pious Augustus, wished
to determine by human laws that the bishop of Constantinople be
seated after the pope of Rome. And indeed it [Constantinople] has
obtained this through no prerogative of merit but only because
,
the Church of Rome, for love of the venerable Constantine, who

had revered it and exalted it as highly [and as often] as he could
through human benevolence alone, desired to distinguish his city
by this privilege of honor."
»7 Epist 2, ad Michaelem Caerul., PL, 143, col. 774A,B.

.
» PL 143, col. 780B.

,
.» PL 143, chap. 28, col. 763.

,
280
This is a very curious statement, difficult to reconcile with histo-

ical facts. Yet it shows that, despite past events certain progress
,
r
had been made in the West toward acknowledging the prominent

position of Constantinople in the patriarchal pentarchy.40 The
statement is particularly interesting because Humbert usually
" "
avoided giving the bishop of Constantinople the title of patriarch,
contenting himself with the epithet regiae civiiatts episcopus, or
Constantinopolitanus archiepiscopus.*1
Dominicus of Grado also recalled the old Petrine tradition in his
letter to Peter of Antioch,42 and the same ideas are echoed in a
sermon43 of Peter Damian, who became Cardinal of Ostia in 1057.
Praising St. Mark, Peter attributes second place in the Church
hierarchy to Alexandria, not so much because its see was founded
by Mark, but because of Peter whose disciple Mark was. Antioch is
allotted third place, Constantinople fourth, and Jerusalem fifth.
Peter Damian also wrote two sermons in honor of the Apostle
Andrew. He regards Andrew as second in the apostolic choir, and
praises the zeal with which he communicated to his brother Peter
the good news that he had found the Messiah. Both had relinquished
"
all wordly goods, but now they hold the government of the whole
"
world. 44 After their call to Christ they did not show more famili-
,
arity to each other than to other apostles; they were not allotted
the same provinces for preaching and, what is more important ,
"
Andrew, who was first in faith was not offended when he was
,
allotted second place in dignity. He was not jealous of the fact that
Peter, who was second in believing under his leadership had ,
40 Humbert is most probably influenced here by the Italian collections of

Canon Law which, as mentioned supra p. 278 quoted Justinian's Novel con-
,
cerning the status of the see of Constantinople. Cf. A. Michel Schisma und
"
Kaiserhof im Jahre 1054. Michael Psellus," in L'Eglise et les Eglises ,
1054-1954,1 (Chevetogne, 1954)1 P- 391-

41 This had already been pointed out by A. Michel, Humbert und Kerul-
arios, 1, pp. 49, 58, 92. Cf. especially how Humbert in his bull of excommuni-
cation calls Cerularius: abusive dictum patriarcham abusivus patriarcha, PL,
,
143, cols. 1003A, 1004B.

"
PG, 120, col. 752A,B.
43 Petrus Damianus, Sermo XIV, PL, 144, col. 575B.
44 Sermo LVII, PL, 144, cols. 8236,6, 827B: et quos in terra positos ipsa
terrenarum rerum copia destituerat ,
nunc et totius orbis monarchiam tenent et in
ilia coelesti Hierusatem justiciariae potestatis soliis praesident.
28l
obtained the primacy over all apostles, although he [Andrew] had

"
preceded him in believing. 45

Damian's words do not disclose whether he knew anything about
the Constantinopolitan tradition concerning Andrew. In his second
'
sermon he speaks only in general terms of Andrew s passion,

assuming that his life and martyrdom are well known to everybody.4*
If he had read the work by Gregory of Tours, he must have found
Byzantium mentioned as one of the cities visited by Andrew.
Should his insistence on Andrew's submission to Peter be taken as
'
an indication that he knew about Constantinople s claims and that

he tried to answer them by emphasizing Andrew's subordination
to Peter ?
It is known that St. Peter Damian was one of the most gentle
and restrained of the Reformists, while Humbert and Gregory VII
were the most passionate of zealots. Damian had also shown more
restraint than Humbert concerning the rank of Constantinople in
the Church hierarchy, but Pope Gregory VII surpassed even the
vehemence of Cardinal Humbert. In his letter to the Venetians
appealing for help for the Patriarch of Grado,47 Gregory showed
particular disregard for Eastern tradition, by attributing the
patriarchal title to only four sees; these being, evidently, Rome,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Grado. The latter is praised as the
most important in the West after Rome. The Petrine principle as
echoed here, apparently included Grado. In only one instance did
Gregory mention Antioch as a Petrine foundation.48
In spite of the negative attitude on the part of Gregory VII, all

the Reformists who gatherered around him were not disrespectful
of the position occupied in the Church by the see of Constanti-
nople. One of the first canonists of the Gregorian reform, Anselm of
Lucca, included in his collection of Canon Law the Petrine thesis
« Ibid , col. 828B.

.
*.Sermo LVIII, ibid., col. 830A: Vocatio ejus, vita et passio cognita sunt
vobis, et nunc, quid superest ut a me amplius expectetis ?
47 Gregorius VII, Registrum, Epist. 2, 39; ed. E. Caspar, Das Register
Gregors VII, p. 175 (MGH, Epistolae selectae [Berlin, 1920]).
48 Ibid Epist. 9, 18 {from 1081), ed. E. Caspar, p. 599. A. Michel is right
.
,
in stating that Gregory VII was here following Gregory the Great ("Prinzip
der Kirchenfiihrung," op. cit., p. 521).
282
contained in the Decree of Damasus.49 In spite of this, however, he

also copied canon twenty-one of the Council of 869-870,80 which has
been shown to be permeated with the pentarchic idea, and which
"
enumerates the patriarchs in the Greek fashion." Cardinal Deus-

dedit copied only the Decree of Damasus,51 leaving out canon
twenty-one, but attributing to Constantinople fourth rank in the
Church hierarchy.52 Curiously enough, canon twenty-one was copied
from Anselm's collection by Gratian, whose Decretum, composed
about the year 1150, had superseded all other collections of Canon
Law, and had become the official Canon Law handbook of the
Middle Ages.
Gratian's attitude toward this problem is rather interesting. In
his twenty-second distinction53 he quoted the main documents con-
cerning Constantinople, which he found in other collections. In
chapter one he copied a passage from the letter of Pope Nicholas II
to the citizens of Milan, stressing the divine and Petrine origin of
the Roman primacy. In chapter two he transcribed from Anselm's
collection the passage, here falsely attributed to Anacletus,
emphasizing the Roman primacy and attributing second rank to
Alexandria and third to Antioch. Gratian accompanied this canon
"
with the following remark: Through this authority the Church of

Alexandria is regarded as having the second place after the first.
But later, at the Council of Constantinople, the Church of Con-
stantinople obtained the second place after the apostolic see.
The same Synod, therefore, arrived at the following decision [canon
three]: Constantinople gains second place after the apostolic see.
Because the city of Constantinople is the New Rome, its bishop
"
must possess the honor of primacy after the bishop of Rome.

The next two canons of the same distinction emphasize the
subordination of the see of Constantinople to the apostolic see.
**
Anselmus Lucensis, Collectio canonum, 1, canon 66, ed. F. Thaner (Inns-
bruck, 1906), p. 34. Here falsely attributed to Anacletus.
60 Ibid 2, canon 72, ed. F. Thaner, pp. 109, no.
.
,
51 Also attributed to Anacletus Ed. V. Wolf von Glanvell, Die Kanones-

.
sammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit (Paderbom, 1905), bk. 1, canon 61, p. 63.
54 Ibid p. 6 (Ptologus), ed. V. W. von Glanvell, bk. 1, canon 250, p. 144;
.
,
Deusdedit quotes here from the Liber Pontificalis, the confirmation of the
Roman primacy by Phocas to Boniface III: quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana
primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat.
M Decretum Magistri Gratiani ed. E. Friedberg, 1 (Leipzig, 1879), pp. 72-76.
,
283
Canon six, however, quotes the decision of the Quinisexta Synodus

(692), confirming to the see of Constantinople the privileges of the
Roman see and its precedence before Alexandria and Antioch.
Gratian comments on this canon as follows: "It must be understood
from this that the Church of Alexandria was made the third see
from the second, and that of Antioch the fourth from the third,
unless one wishes to assume that there are two second sees, thereby
attributing to both Constantinople and Alexandria positions of equal
dignity." Then Gratian quotes the part of the twenty-first canon of
the Ignatian Council (869-870) forbidding offenses against the
"
patriarchs, first the most holy pope of Old Rome, then the
patriarch of Constantinople, then of Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem."
Gratian's attitude is very significant and illustrates the confusion
on this point that prevailed in the minds of medieval canonists.
His benevolent attitude toward the position of Constantinople in
the Church probably influenced the further evolution of the attitude
of the Western Church toward the see of Constantinople.
Gratian's influence can be noted first of all in the Summa
Decretorum, published about 1157-1159 by the Magister Rufinus.5*
The patriarchal sees are enumerated "according to the old institu-
tions" in the Petrine tradition-Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.
But Rufinus continues: "Because, however, in the course of time
the imperial throne was transplanted from Rome to Constantinople,
the Church of Constantinople was assigned the second see, Alex-
"
andria the third, and Antioch the fourth. Jerusalem is omitted.
Yet Rufinus knew well that there were five patriarchal sees, and
he enumerated them all in his allocution to the Third Council of the
Lateran in ii79.5& His allocution, moreover, forcefully reflects the
'
pentarchic idea. When interpreting Isaiah s words on the five cities

in Egypt (Isa. 19:18), Rufinus says that, instead of the old five
"
cities, the Lord ordained that new cities, which are the Churches,
64 Summa Decretorum, Distinctio XXII, ed. H. Singer (Paderbom, 1902),

pp. 47-49.
55 D Germain
. Morin, "Le discours d'ouverture du Concile g n ral du
Latran (1179) et I'oeuvre Iitt6raire de Maitre Rufin, veque d'Assise," Atti
della Ponlificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, 3rd ser., Memorie, 2
(Rome, 1928), pp. 113-133. The passage quoted is on p. 117.
284
"
should be built by the apostolic architects. Of these five were
given preference as five royal cities which were granted major
privileges and could claim for themselves primacy of honor among
"
other Churches, such as the metropolitan see of Antioch, that of
Alexandria, also Byzantium, and even that of Jerusalem; much
more however, the one which should always be praised with most
exalted words, that is the most holy Church of Rome, which, be-
cause she is the head of all sees, because she is the mother of all
churches and also the teacher of all, has deserved most worthily to
"
obtain, herself alone, the primacy among all Churches.

It must be noted that in this oratorical passage Rufinus does not
follow the usual order in enumerating the ive patriarchal sees. In
f
another passage the orator calls Pope Alexander III summus

patriarchal-a title which he also gives to the Pope in his Swwma57-
"
and stresses that, while all other patriarchal sees had been con-
firmed by human authority," the Roman Church owes its supreme
position, not to synodal decrees or human ordinances-an echo of
the Gelasian Decree-but to the will of the Lord himself, who had
built His Church on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
It is certainly interesting to find such clear evidence of the
pentarchic theory in a twelfth-century Latin sermon, especially
since this sermon was addressed to the general assembly of the
Roman Church, and it is remarkable that Constantinople was still
counted among the five sees in spite of the break between Byzantium
and Rome. Perhaps the hopes, albeit vain, aroused in Rome by the
negotiations of Alexander III with Manuel I Comnenus in 1160/61
and 1161/62 had somewhat softened the Roman attitude toward
Constantinople.
In the East the pentarchic idea was still very much alive in the
eleventh century. This is particularly apparent in the letter of
Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, to Dominicus of Aquileia who also had
laid claim to the patriarchal dignity. Peter refuses to yield to his
correspondent, arguing that there are only five patriarchs in the
Church, as there are only five senses in the human body-a favorite
"
Ibid., p. 118.
67 See the evidence quoted by D. G. Morin, ibid., p. 126.
285
simile of the pentaxchic theory.58 In his enumeration of the patri-

archal sees, Peter places Constantinople second after Rome, although
Dominicus, in the spirit of the Petrine tradition, had allotted third
place to Antioch, after Rome and Alexandria.59 Peter however gives
to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria the title of papas, and to
the titularies of Constantinople and Jerusalem that of archbishop,
stressing that the title of patriarch had always been a special
distinction of the bishop of Antioch. But elsewhere he gives the
title of patriarch to the bishops of all the five sees.
The question of the apostolic character of the Byzantine see was
not even touched on in the first polemical writings of Nicetas Pector-
'
atus, nor in Humbert s reply.60 Anselm of Havelberg, who, in 1135
held a discussion in Constantinople with Nicetas of Nicomedia,
used the old Petrine argument for the prominence in the Church
of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch,61 while his opponent invoked
"
on his side the imperial" argument for the prominence of Con-
stantinople.62 Anselm pointed out, however, that Leo I did not
accept the Chalcedonian decision concerning the status of Con-
stantinople in the Church.63 The question of apostolicity did not
arise at all in the discussion, and the Apostle Andrew was mentioned
only en passant, with the Apostles John and James.64
The apostohc character of Constantinople was stressed in the
letter written by Basil of Achrida to Pope Hadrian IV (1154-1159),65
but the Pope's reactions to this claim are not known. In any case
the main subjects of discussion here, too, were the differences in
liturgical practice and the Filioque.
It is surprising that Theophanes Cerameus, a twelfth-century
M PG, 120, col. 757C, 760A.
M Ibid , col. 752.
.
40 PG, 120, cols. 1011 seq., 1021 seq.

41 Anselmus Havelbergensis, Dialogus, PL, 188, bk. 3, col. 1214.
.» Ibid , col. 1218.
.
88 Ibid , col. 1221.

.
M Ibid , col. 1222B: Nam et Dominus Jesus won Andreae, non loannis,
. non
Jacobi, nee alicujus alterius, sed solius Petri naviculam ascendit.
88 PG 119, col. 932. On the other hand, it is striking to note that the
,
Patriarch Symeon of Jerusalem had been given the title of "apostolicus" in

the letter sent by the high clergy from Jerusalem to the Pope in 1098; a
letter drafted undoubtedly by the legate Adhemar himself. See H. Hagen-
mayer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088-1100. Eine QuellensammTung
zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (Innsbruck, 1901), p. 148 (letter 9).
286
author who wrote a homily in honor of St. Andrew, did not mention
the Apostle's activity in Byzantium, especially inasmuch as he was
'
apparently well acquainted with the story of Andrew s travels,

having mentioned in his homily both Sinope and Achaea.66 He
'
probably used as his source Andrew s biographies of the ninth cen-

tury, or the writings of Metaphrastes. On the other hand, in the work
of Nilus Doxopatres, of the same period, there are references of greater
interest. In his description of patriarchal thrones, addressed in 1143
to Roger, King of Sicily, he uses the "imperial" argument for the
prominent status of Constantinople.67 Rome, he points out, lost its
primacy when it fell to barbarians, and its pre-eminent position then
"
passed to Constantinople: As the Roman patriarch had the privilege

of judging appeals from other patriarchs and examining accusa-
tions, so also may the Constantinopolitan, who received the privi-
leges of Rome, pass sentence over the three patriarchs mentioned
"
above.
Here Nilus means the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem, and it is thus that he explains canon twenty-eight of the
Council of Chalcedon. It should be noted that he limits the use of
the privileges of the see of Constantinople to the East, giving the
impression that he did not dare extend Constantinople's primacy
over Rome. This feeling of caution is apparent also in another passage
of the same work68 where Nilus affirms that both patriarchs-the
Roman and the Constantinopolitan-' 'are justly called oecumenical.''
The see of Constantinople is said by Nilus to have been founded
by Andrew, the first-called, who instituted there its first bishop,
when the city was still called Byzantium.69 Nilus is also, of course ,
a firm believer in the pentarchy which according to him was in-

stituted by the Holy Ghost.™ He employs here the well-known
"
parallel of the five senses in the human body, but declares that it
is impossible to say today which senses the various patriarchates
"
represent. Thus he avoids the comparison, used by the Latins, that
PG, 132, cols. 904D, 905A. Cf. eloquent passages on Peter's pre-eminence
in Cerameus' homilies [ibid., cols. 465, 705, 964 seq., 1028).
87 PG, 132, col. 1100.
48 Ibid .
,
col. noiC.
M Ibid .
, col. 1105B.
70 Ibid .
, col. 1097c.
287
the Roman patriarchate should be compared with the sense of

vision, the most important of the five senses. The same comparison
is also used by Nicetas Seides, who, however, attributes the function
of vision to the patriarchate of Jerusalem, because it was the city
chosen to see the Lord.71
The Petrine argument is turned against Rome also by the Patri-
arch Michael III of Anchialus (1170-1177) in his dialogue with the
Emperor Manuel Gomnenus on the union with the Latins. There he
'
repeats Nilus theory of the transfer of the primacy from Rome to

Constantinople. He says the primacy's origin cannot be derived from
Christ or from Peter, but only from imperial, and therefore human,
decrees; the bishop of Rome is not pre-eminent because of Peter or
Paul, as the Latins contend, for Peter was the teacher more of the
whole world than merely of Rome; on the other hand, such an
argument would attribute the primacy to Antioch rather than to
Rome; furthermore, the honor would go to the bishop of Jerusalem,
because Christ had lived there.72 Michael's argument concerning
Peter as universal teacher was to be developed by later Greek
polemists.
The Greek thesis that the primacy of Rome in the Church was
not of divine but of human, origin was considerably strengthened
,
by the Donatio Constantini which the Latins, beginning with the

time of Humbert, used constantly in their polemics, and which
at least from the twelfth century on, was regarded as genuine by the
Greeks also.73 Michael probably had this pseudo-document in mind
when he affirmed the Roman primacy to have been established
by imperial decrees, and his contemporary, Andronicus Camaterus,
may also have had this in mind when he conceded to the Latins
their right to a kind of primacy on the strength of some imperial
'
71 See quotation from Seidas unpublished work in M. Jugie, Theologia
dogmatica, 4, p. 455.
7! Dialogus patriarchae et imperatoris, ed. Cb. Loparev in Vizantijskij
Vremennik, 14 (igo?)- PP- 344-357-
"
It is possible that the Greeks knew much earlier a slightly different
version of the pseudo-document. This version seems to have been used in the
discussion between the Greeks and Liutprand of Cremona [Legatio, chap. 51,
MGH Ss., 3, p. 202). See, on this problem, the remarks made by F. Dolger
"
("Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner, Byzanz und die europ. Staaten-
tvelt, pp. 108-110) which, so far, are the most informative we have on the use
of the Donatio by the Greeks.
288
documents and old tradition, Andronicus in his "Holy Armory,"

published between the years 1170 and 1176, describes a discussion
which the Emperor Manuel Comnenus is said to have had with
Roman cardinals. As has already been pointed out by Hergenrother
in his short r sum of this unpublished work,74 the Emperor's argu-
ments were those used by the Patriarch Michael III Anchialus
against the Roman primacy: Since Peter was the teacher of the
whole Church, it is an affront to him to hmit his activities to
Rome alone as do the Latins. The Petrine tradition, too, is directed
against Rome by the Emperor, who points out that prior to his
"
stay there Peter had taught in Antioch, and, in addition, the im-
"
perial argument is mentioned as further justification of Constan-

tinople's position in the Church. ,
The Greek canonists of the twelfth century-Aristenus, Zonaras,
and Balsamon-also beheved in the authenticity of the Donatio
Constantini. Aristenus interpreted the third canon of the Council of
Constantinople and canon twenty-eight of Chalcedon as though they
had already brought about the transfer of the primacy from Rome
to Constantinople.75 The other two canonists accorded greater
respect to historical facts, granting to the patriarchate of Con-
stantinople first rank after Rome,76 but attributing the origin of
this primacy to conciliar and imperial decrees, and claiming that
the above-mentioned canons confirmed to Constantinople the same
privileges enjoyed by Rome. Of course, on becoming a heretic, the
Pope had lost all the privileges of his primacy.77
These facts lead to the conclusion that during the first phase of
the controversy between Rome and Constantinople, the idea of
apostolicity and the Andrew Legend played almost insignificant
roles. A new phase started however with the conquest of Con-
stantinople by the Latins in 1204. A considerable change is
noted first of all in the attitude of the Patriarch Camaterus. In his
74 Hergenrother, Photius, 3, p. 813. An examination of the Codex Mona-
censis 229 (thirteenth century) by the present author showed that the Andrew
argument was not used by the Emperor.
75 Theodorus Balsamon Zonaras, Aristenus, In Canones SS. Apostolorum,
,
Cottciliorum.. .commentaria, PG, 137, col. 325D.

74 Ibid cols. 321C, 325, 485-489.
.
,
77 Ibid cols. 321-324, 485-492, 1433-1444.

.
,
«9
289
letter to Innocent III, Camaterus78 continued to profess the doctrine

of the pentarchy, but denied to Rome any superiority over the
others, insisting on their equality in everything. He seems also to
have had in mind the apostolic foundation of Constantinople when
he said: "many other Churches can contend with Rome over its
primacy; those that were founded by different apostles and those
that were evangelized by Peter There are five great Churches
adorned with the patriarchal dignity; the Roman Church is the
first among its sisters, equal in honor."
The Andrew argument was used for the first time with all its
implications in an anti-Latin polemic by Nicholas Mesarites. In a
disputation that took place August 30, 1206, in the presence of the
Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, Thomas Morosini,79 Mesarites
first turned the old Roman Petrine tradition against Rome, pro-
claiming that Antioch had the better right to primacy because
Peter had taught there eight years before he went to Rome. He
spoke of Jerusalem too as deserving priority even over Rome,
because Christ taught and died within its walls. Then he continues:
"
If Rome claims primacy because of Peter, then Byzantium pos-

'
sesses primacy because of Andrew, the first called and [Peter s] older
brother by birth; [also] because it was built five hundred years
before Rome." Furthermore, resuming the practice which had been
in use in the East in earlier periods, Mesarites denies that Peter was
Bishop of Rome. He came to Rome, says Mesarites, in his capacity
of universal teacher, but the first Bishop of Rome was Linus, who
was elected by the whole apostolic choir. Finally, to weaken further
the Roman apostolic argument, Mesarites asserts that the Roman
primacy had its origin in the imperial decree of Valerian dealing
with the case of Paul of Samosata.
A similar argument against the Roman primacy is used also by
Mesarites' brother John, who argued before Cardinal Benedict on
September 29th of the same year,80 claiming that the apostles
58 See the Codex Parisinus Graecus 1302 (thirteenth century, on paper,

,
not very legible, fols. 270v-273v). Cf. M. Jugie, op. cit., 4, pp. 341, 386.
"
' Published b
y A. Heisenberg. Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des latei-
"
nischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, in Siizungsberichte der Bayrischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 2 (1923), pp. 22-24.
89 Ibid 1, pp. 54 seq.
.
,
290
performed oecumenical missions and were not bishops of particular

cities, and that the seventy disciples were, on the other hand,
assigned to different sees by the apostles. It is interesting to find
here the legendary tradition of the seventy disciples inspired by
the lists of apostles and disciples.
Of course such arguments did not allow the brothers to exploit
the Andrew tradition to the full for the profit of Constantinople. In
fact, John admitted that the pope could act as supreme judge in the
event of an appeal from a patriarch condemned by a synod of his
patriarchate.81 The pope, of course, could enjoy this prerogative
only if he were of orthodox faith; the prerogative, however, was
based not on a divine institution, but only on Canon Law. A similar
'
opinion was voiced by John s brother, Nicholas, in a disputation that

took place in 1214.82
The pentarchic thesis is invoked also by the Patriarch Germanus
II (about 1222-1240) in one of his letters to the Cypriotes. He
recognizes only one primacy, that of Christ, and declares that the
Romans, in trying to transfer this primacy from Christ to their
Pope, thus placing the Pope's throne above the clouds and equating
him with the Highest One,83 were disrupting the pentarchy.
Germanus II seems also to have pubhshed some anti-Latin
writings. In the Latin treatise against the Greeks composed by the
Dominicans in Constantinople (1252),84 and wrongly attributed to
the deacon Pantaleemon, he is said, in one of his writings, to have
"
called St. Paul Coryphaeus of the Apostles." Although another
Greek bishop had characterized such a designation of Paul as
insupportable the Latin polemists tried to make capital of it for
,
their own thesis, stating that the pope is rightly the successor of
both Apostles. "He succeeded to Peter in the power of the keys to ,
Paul in the judgment of disputes, for as Peter obtained from the

Lord the authority to bind and to absolve so Paul obtained the
,
"
85
plenitude of wisdom.
Of particular interest in this polemical treatise is its revelation of
91 Ibid
. 1, p. 57.
,
82 Ibid 3, pp. 34 seq.
.
,
83 Epistula II ad Cyprios, PG, 140, cols. 616C-617A.

84 See F Dvomik, The Photian Schism, p. 347.
.
.6 Traciatus contra Graecos PG, 140, col. 528B.

,
, 9* 29I
the Latin view of Constantinople's claims to apostolicity, even after

the city's conquest by the crusaders. The polemists again take full
advantage of the Petrine tradition: Antioch obtained its privileges
because Peter had stayed there; Alexandria because he sent Mark to
that city as his vicar. Even Caesarea of Palestine is mentioned among
the patiarchates, because "Peter convoked a council there."84 In
addition to all this, Jerusalem, too, became the see of a patriarch
because the First Oecumenical Council conferred this honor upon
it, but here the polemists seem to telescope historical develop-
ments, arguing that this decision was made by the Council because
the Centurion Cornelius was ordained bishop of that city by Peter and
thus became the representative of the Apostle of the Apostles.87
As for Constantinople, proprie sedem non habet. According to the
polemists it was promoted to patriarchal rank by the Second
Council and by the Fourth on the authority of the emperors but ,
Pope Leo protested against the promotion. Leo's letters are quoted ,
after which the polemist emphasizes in accordance with his

,
declaration, that the Church was divided into four parts: Rome ,
Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch.88

The polemists turn against a thesis which they say is defended by
some Latins, namely, that certain sees are termed patriarchal because
the apostles had once occupied them. This is interesting because it
suggests that some Latins attributed an apostolic character to Con-
stantinople. If this interpretation is correct it might be deduced
,
that some Latins placed credence even in the Andrew Legend.89

But the authors of the treatise object to such an interpretation ,
explaining that only those sees could be patriarchal wherein Peter

had resided either in person or through his representatives. However,
not all patriarchal sees can claim that the apostles had resided in
them: "no apostle has resided in Constantinople or Alexandria,
but only Peter's desciple St. Mark. But Barnabas, who was elected
Apostle of the Gentiles with the Blessed Paul, resided in Milan,
,
M Ibid ,
. col. 528D.
87 Ibid ,
. cols. 528D, 529A.
88 Ibid ,
. cols. 529B-D, 530A-C.
88 Ibid ,
.
col. 530D: Hie se sic habentibus, multum videtur oppositio quorum-
dam Laiinorum infirmari, quod dicunt, quod patriarchiae dictae sunt quia in
,
his locis apostoli praesederunt.
292
and some other Apostles and especially their disciples resided in

"
other regions. 90 If the above thesis had been valid there would have
been more than ive patriarchal sees. After quoting some other papal
f
'
and patriarchal documents confirming the pope s primacy, the

polemists add, verbatim, their last trump card-the full text of the
Donatio Constantini, insisting particularly on the service of a
strator rendered, according to this forgery, by Constantine the
Great to Sylvester I.91
The Apostle Andrew was introduced in an unusual way, by an
anonymous Greek, into the polemics against the Latins.92 The
polemist first denies to Rome primacy in teaching, since, Antioch,
where Peter had taught first, had the better claim; he then argues
that, although Rome based its primacy on Peter's throne, other
cities could make similar claims. Ephesus was founded by the
Apostle John, whom Christ had loved most; nevertheless its bishop
was subject to Constantinople. He cites also the case of Alexandria,
and grants th t even Patras, because St. Andrew had met his
martyrdom there, could consider itself patriarchal.
Mesarites' argument, based on the Andrew tradition, opposing
the primacy of Rome was again fully exploited "against those who
"
say that Rome is the first see by the anonymous author of the
pamphlet so often falsely attributed to the Patriarch Photius. It
has, however, been shown that Photius could not have written such
a treatise,93 and that its author must have published his writing
sometime during the first decades of the thirteenth century, avaihng
himself of the arguments publicized by Mesarites.94 The pamphlet is
replete with the hatred and exasperation that must have dominated
the minds of the Greeks after the Latin conquest of Constantinople.
It is important to note that chapter five of this opuscule echoes
strongly the argument used by Mesarites and his brother against
Roman primacy, that is, that the apostles were universal teachers
and were not confined to special areas as local bishops. It states:
»0 Ibid .
, cols. 530D, 531A.
91 Ibid .
, cols. 531B-538A. '
92 Published by the Metropolitan Arsenius, Tri stat i neizvestnago
gre£eskago pisatelja na£ala XIII v(ka (Moscow, 1892).
.8 See supra pp. 245-253.
,
.* M. Gordillo, "Photius et primatusiRomanus," Orientalia Christiana

Periodica, 6 (1940), pp. 23 seq. See supra p. 253 and infra p. 294.
293
"
If you come forward to me with the saying 'thou art Peter and on
this rock I will build my Church' etc., you may know that this was
not meant of the Roman Church, not in any respect. It is Jewish and
very wrong to circumscribe Grace and its divine character within
certain limits and localities, and to deny that it bestows its benefits
"
equally throughout the universe These words "were manifestly

'
used of the rock of the confession proclaiming Christ s divinity and,

through it, of the universal Church, extended and well-established
through the doctrine of the apostles as far as the confines of the
"
world. 95 This argument, here only alluded to, was generally used
by the polemists of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Especial interest attaches to the consideration of the primacy by
the monk Barlaam, before he joined the Union. He does not dispute
Peter's primacy over the apostles, but denies that Peter had
transferred this primacy to his successor in Rome. All apostles were
ordained priests by Christ, obtaining from Him different charismata,
and were instituted by Him as universal bishops. It could be argued
that Peter had appointed a successor and heir to his primacy if the
other apostles had left heirs and successors to their apostolates and
charismata. There is, however, no successor in the apostolic institution.
The bishops were ordained for different areas not by Christ, but by
the apostles. They are all equal and none can claim jurisdiction over
the whole world.96 "If the Bishop of Rome alone had been ordained
by the Apostle Peter, it might be supposed that he had left it [the
primacy] to him. However, he ordained bishops in many other
cities also. How, therefore, could this be considered evidence that
he made the bishop of Rome master of the others and equal to
himself?"97
Moreover, the argument continues, Peter ordained his successor
in Rome, but popes cannot ordain their own successors; they are,
.* It is plausible to see in this tendency another indication that the

opuscule could not have been written in the ninth century, for at that time
such arguments against the primacy were not used. They were first used, as
as far as is known, by the Patriarch Michael III of Anchialus in the twelfth
century. All of the chroniclers of the ninth century had accepted the Roman
tradition that placed Peter at the head of the line of Roman bishops.
**
FFEpl Tfjs tou Trdrra dpxfls. Codex Parisinus Graecus 1218 (fifteenth cen-
tury), fol. 522. Cf. M. Jugie, op. cit., 4, p. 331.
»7 Ibid fol. 523B; M. Jugie, loc. ext., p. 392.
.
,
294
therefore, not equal to the coryphaeus. If the primacy of the Roman

bishop were deduced from the fact that Peter had died in Rome,
this distinction could be claimed by bishops of all cities in which
the other apostles had died. Jerusalem's claim would be the most
secure, for Christ died there. Barlaam concludes that the Roman
bishop was the equal of other bishops, and that he owed his privileged
place in the Church not to succession from Peter, but to the Emperors
Constantine-a clear allusion to the Donatio-and Justinian and
to the synods.98
Barlaam repeats the same arguments in his address to a Latin,99
which despite many similarities, differs from the unpublished
,
treatise. At the end of this address he recapitulates his arguments

in nine short paragraphs, stressing the fact that the popes had never
presided at a synod; that, on the contrary, the synods had determined
the degree of honor and the rights enjoyed by the bishops of Rome.100
Nilus Cabasilas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, adopted all of
Barlaam's arguments against the Roman primacy, stressing that
Peter was "a teacher of the whole world," while the pope was only
the bishop of Rome and successor of one of the bishops ordained in
many areas by Peter.101 Matthew Angelus Panaretus102 and Macarius
Ancyranus103 followed their predecessors in their campaigns against
the Latins, opposing the Roman primacy with similar arguments.
This of course does not mean that the Greeks of this period did
not believe in the authenticity of the Andrew and Stachys Legend.
As has already been pointed out, the Church historian Nicephorus
Callistus Xanthopulus copied in his work-probably from Pseudo-
Dorotheus' catalogue-the story of Andrew's missionary activity
M Ibid .
, fol. 524C.
» Barlaam, Contra Latinos,
*
PG, 151, cols. 1255-1280.
100 Ibid cols. 1276-1278.
.
,
101 De primatu papae PG, 149, cols. 700-705. Cf. the refutation of Nilus'
,
arguments by Matthew Caryphylus, ibid., 736 seq.

104 Panaretus composed among his numerous polemic treatises, three that
,
refuted Roman claims to primacy. See the description of the manuscripts

in which they are preserved and the resum of Panaretus' arguments in
P Risso, "Matteo Angelo Panaretos e cinque suoi opuscoli," Roma e I'Oriente,
.
8 (1914), pp. 175, 176. Cf. also Panaretus' treatise against the azymes
published by P. Risso [ibid., 6 [1916]), p. 158.
1M Kara Aarlwcov ed. Dositheus, Ton©? dy<inrris, pp. 5. seq. He appears to
,
have been the first Greek who did not believe in the authenticity of the
Donatio Constantini (ibid., pp. 8-10).
295
in Thrace, Macedonia, and Byzantium, and of Stachys' ordination

by him as Bishop of that city. After enumerating the bishops who
had occupied the five major sees under Licinius and Constantine the
Great, Nicephorus introduced the story as follows: "upon coming
to this point it seems to me advisable to review the names of the
bishops of Byzantium from the time of the apostles and thus to
,
"
add a kind of divine title to the historical account. 104 These words
'
show clearly Nicephorus pride in the apostolic origin of the By-

zantine see. Another author of the same period, the chronographer
Ephrem, added to his verse chronicle, written about the year 1313 ,
a catalogue of Constantinopolitan bishops beginning with Andrew

and Stachys and repeating the catalogue of Pseudo-Dorotheus.105
It would be of little value to examine in detail the arguments of
other Greek and Latin polemists before and after the Council of
Florence, for it has already been clearly shown that the new trend
in Greek polemical Uterature, adopted in the twelfth century and
fully developed in the two subsequent centuries, had greatly
diminished the usefulness of both Byzantine apostolic origins and
the Andrew Legend in Greek opposition to Roman primacy. Once
the Greek polemists adopted the old thesis that the apostles had
been appointed by Christ as universal teachers rather than as
bishops of particular cities, thereby admitting it impossible for them
to have transmitted to others their universal mission, it was
pointless to argue that the see of Constantinople was of apostolic
origin, and that the Apostle Andrew had consecrated its first bishop,
Stachys.
It is no wonder, then, that the Greeks began again to emphasize
the imperial argument. The Latins unwittingly helped them con-
siderably in this change of attitude. Not satisfied with the arguments
taken from the Scriptures and the Petrine tradition-although
these were their strongest points, and most embarrassing to their
opponents-the Latins sought further to strengthen the position of
Rome in the Church by an "imperial" argument, and often turned
to the Donatio Constantini in their polemics. The Greeks fully
accepted this false document at its face value for it conformed to
,
104 Hisforia ecclesiastica, PG, 146, col. 28C.

m Verses 9656 seq.; ed. Bonn, pp. 383 seq.; PG. 143, cols. 349C seq.
296
their own ideas of the emperor's role in Church affairs,106 and they
used it as resourcefully as they could in countering the claims of
Rome and furthering those of Constantinople.
There might have been yet another explanation of the change
in Greek polemical tactics. After the conquest of Constantinople by
the Latins, and the occupation of its see by a Latin prelate, there
was no reason for Rome to deny to that see the second place in
ecclesiastical hierarchy claimed by the Byzantines for so many
centuries. So it happened that the Fourth Council of the Lateran,
convoked by Innocent III in 1215, made the following definition in
its fifth canon, approved by the Pope: "In renewing the old privi-
leges of the patriarchal sees, we sanction, with the approbation of
the holy Synod, that, after the Church of Rome, which by the
disposition of the Lord has the principate of natural power over
all others as mother and teacher of all Christian faithful the see ,
of Constantinople has the first rank, that of Alexandria the second,

that of Antioch the third, and that of Jerusalem the fourth pro- ,
"
vided each of them keeps its own honor. 107

It is true that this recognition was given for the benefit of a Latin
patriarch, and that the subordination of all other patriarchs to Rome
was duly stressed in the last part of the canon; nevertheless the long
controversy over the rank of Constantinople was finally settled,
and the Greeks must have learned of it. The Pope acted on his
own authority in this instance, but the introductory words of the
" "
canon- renewing the old privileges of the patriarchal sees -could
have been interpreted, at least by the Greeks, as referring to

previous conciliar decisions concerning the rank of patriarchs.
The same concession was restated this time for the benefit of the
,
Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, at the Council of Florence
This was well perceived by W. Ohnesorge in his study, Die Konstanti-

"
nische Schenkung Leo III und die Anfange der kurialen rom. Kaiseridee,"
,
Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung Germanisiische Abteilung, 68 (1951), p. 103.

"
,
die Methode, die ganz im altromisch-byzantinischen Staatsdenken

. ..
wurzelt: Neuordnung der kirchlicben Gewalt-einschlieOlich der Vergebung

der Patriarchate-durch den Kaiser. Die Gmndtendenz des Consiitutum
Constantini ist also griechisch."
107 Mansi 22, cols. 990 seq., Gratian's words, in his Decretum, on the rank
,
of the see of Constantinople certainly helped the Fathers to make this

decision.
297
(1439),106 and another unexpected concession was made later. The

fact that the Andrew Legend was so little exploited by the Greeks
as an argument against the Roman primacy may have also contri-
buted to the eventual acceptance by Rome of the Andrew and
Stachys Legend. Unfortunately this occurred only at a very late
period, when the acknowlegment of the apostolic character of the
see of Constantinople was of little use for the rapprochement of the
separated Churches, and it was brought about, strangely enough, by
the very man who was most responsible for the misinterpretation of
the Photian schism, and who thus placed another obstacle in the way
'
of the Churches reunion-Cardinal Baronius. He inserted into his
edition of the Roman Martyrologium of 1586, under the date October
31st, the foUowing notice: Constantinopoli sancti Stachis episcopi,
qui a heato Andrea Apostolo primus ejusdem civitatis episcopus
ordinatus est.im
Completing the reversal of Roman opinion about Stachys, Ba-
ronius also accepted as a historical figure the legendary martyr
Dorotheus, believed to have been the author of the list of By-
zantine bishops that began with Stachys and ended with Metro-
'
phanes. The Cardinal s Martyrologium states, under the date of

June 5th: Tyri passio S. Dorothei preshyteri, qui sub Diocletiano
multa passus est; et usque ad Juliani tempora superstes, sub eo
annum agens septimum supra centesimum, venerandam senectam
martyrio honestavit. This is an unexpected end to a hotly disputed
controversy. Even more puzzling, however, is the fact that the names
of both Dorotheus and Stachys are still in the Roman Martyrologium,
and the life stories of the two men are piously read and believed
by many.
In reflecting on this change of attitude on the part of the West
108 Mansi 31 A, cols. 1031E, 1034: Renovantes insuper ordinem traditum in
,
canonibus caeterorum venerabilium patriarcharum, ut patriarcha Constantino-

politanus secundus sit post Romanutn Pontificem, tertius vero Alexandrinus,
quartus autem Antiochenus et quintus Hierosolymitanus, salvis videlicet
privilegiis omnibus, et juribus eorum.
109 C Baronius, Martyrologium Romanum (2nd ed., Antwerp, 1589),
.
p. 481. Cf. N. Nilles, Kalendarium manuale utriusque ecclesiae, 1 (Innsbruck,

'
1896), p. 311. Acta Sanctorum Octobris, 13, p. 687. Baronius Martyrologium

is quoted by A. Du Saussay {Andreas Prater Simonis Petri seu de gloria S.
Andreae apostoli, libri XII [Paris, 1656], pp. 155 seq.) as the main argument
for the historicity of the Stachys Legend.
298
toward Byzantine claims regarding the apostolic character of the

see of Constantinople, it is a great temptation to conclude these
considerations with the remark: Difficile est saturam non scribere.
There is, however, nothing satirical in the history of this dispute.
From beginning to end this argument over two principles of
ecclesiastical organization-that of apostolicity and that of adapta-
tion to the political organization of the Empire-was conducted
earnestly and passionately. The lack of understanding of the first
and the over-emphasizing of the second on the part of the Byz-
antines induced the Romans to deny to Constantinople that second
rank in Church organization which it rightfully claimed. Similarly,
Rome was prevented from recognizing early enough the change in
Byzantium that favored the apostolic principle in Church organiza-
tion. Thus it was that this dispute contributed so considerably
toward intensifying the misunderstanding between West and East;
a misunderstanding that, together with other factors, led to the
schism so fateful for the history of Christianity.
299
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AnBoll Analecta Bollandiana,Society des Bollandistes, Brassels, 1882-.

4S Acta Sanctorum, Soci te des Bollandistes, Brussels, 1863-.
Bonn Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, called the Bonn Corpus
1828-1897.
BZ Byzantische Zeitschrift, Leipzig, 1892-.
CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, Catholic Univer-
sity of America and University catholique, Louvain, 1952-.
CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia
litterarum caesarea, Vindobonensis, 1866-.
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahr-
hunderte, K. Preussische Akademie der Wiss., Leipzig, 1897-.
Mansi Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. G. D.
Mansi, 31 vols., Florence, Venice, 1759-1798.
MGH Monumenta Germaniae historic a. Auct. ant., Auctores anii-
quissimi; Epist., Epistolae; Ss., Scriptores; Script, rer. Merov.,
Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum.
OCP Orientalia Christiana periodica, Pontificium Institutum Orien-
talium Studiorum, Rome, 1935-.
PG Patrologiae cursus completus, ed. J. P. Migne: Patrologia Graeca,
161 vols., Paris, 1844-1866.
PL Patrologiae cursus completus, ed. J. P. Migne; Patrologia
Latina, 221 vols., Paris, 1844-1864.
Teubner Bibliotheca Teuhneriana, Leipzig.
300
LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS QUOTED
Acta S. Andreae et Matihiae. Codex Parisinus, suppiementum graecum

824. fols. iov, 9, 8. 7. 2, 5, 4, 3, iv (tenth century).
Codex Parisinus graecus 1539, fob. 285-305v (eleventh century).
Andronicus Camaterus, <l6p<it6TrAoSi<|Kr| (Holy Armory), Co iWowa-
censis graecus 222 (thirteenth century).
Barlaam. De primatu papae. Codex Parisinus graecus 1218, fols. 52 -525
(fifteenth century).
Catalogus Apostolorum et Discipulorum Domini. Codex Vaticanus graecus
2001, fols. 78-8ov (twelfth century).
Catalogus Apostolorum et Discipulorum Domini. Codex Vaticanus graecus
1506, fols. 302 305 (thirteenth century).
Joannes Camaterus. Litierae ad Innocentium III. Codex Parisinus
graecus 1302, fob. 270 275 (thirteenth century).
Photii Episiolae. Codex graecus. No. 2756 in the National Library of
Greece in Athens, fob. I20v-i76v (end of thirteenth, or beginning of
fourteenth century).
Synodicon Vetus. Sinaiticus 482 (= 1117) fob. 357 365.
,
Vita S. Andreae Aposioli. Codex Parisinus graecus 1313, fob. 110-172'

(fifteenth century).
301
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES:
Acta Andreae cum Laudatione contexta, see M. Bonnet, Supplementum.

Acta apostolorum apocrypha, sive historia certaminis apostolici adscripta
Abdiae, Babyloniae episcopo. Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti, 2,
ed. J. A. Fabricius (Hamburg, 1719), pp. 456-515.
Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 3 vols., ed. R. A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet
(Leipzig, 1891-1903).
Acta Concilii Chalcedonensis, Mansi, 6, cols. 539-874.
Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani primi, Mansi, 3, cols. 521-600.
Acta Concilii Ephesini, Mansi, 4, cols. 567-1482; 5, cols. 1-420. Also ed,
E Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum oecumenicorum, t. 1, vol. 1, pts. 1-6.
.
Concilium universale Ephesinum, acta graeca, collectio Vaticana

(Berlin, Leipzig, 1927-29).
Acta Concilii Ignatiani (569-70), Mansi, 16, cols. 1-550.
Acta Concilii oecumenici sexti, Mansi, 11, cols. 922-1122.
Acta Concilii Photiani {879-80), Mansi, 17, cols. 371-529.
Acta Pauli nach dem Papyrus der Hamburger Staats- und Universitats-
bibliothek,ed. C. Schmidt, W. Schubart (Hamburg-Gliickstadt, 1936).
Acta Synodi Sardicensis {347), Mansi, 3, cols. 1-82.
Aeneas episc. Parisiensis, Liber adversusGraecos, PL, 121, cols. 681-762.
Agapius of Menbidj. "Kitab al Unvan," trans, by A. A. Vasiliev,
Patrologia Orientalis, 5, pp. 557- 692; 7, pp. 459-591; n.PP- I-I44-
Agnellus. Codex pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatensis, ed. A. Testi Raspo-
mini, L. A. Muratori, Rerum italicarum scriptores, 2, pt. 3 (new ed.,
Bologna, 1924).
Alberry, C. R. C. A Manichaean Psalm-book, Manichaean Manuscripts
in the Chester Beatty Collection 2 (Stuttgart, 1938), p. 142.
,
Ambrosius, S. Epistolae, PL, 16, cols. 890-1371.

Anonymus Graecus de Sancto Petro et Paulo, AS (29 J unit), 3rd ed. 7,
PP- 374-386.
Anselmus Havelbergensis. Dialogus, PL, 188, cols. 1139-1248.
Anselmus Lucensis. Collectio canonum, ed. F. Thaner (Innsbruck, 1906).
Apocrypha anecdota, ed. M. R. James in Texts and Studies (ed. J. A.
Robinson), 2, no. 3; 5, no. 1 (Cambridge 1893, 1897).
,
303
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Apocryphal New Testament, trans, by M. R. James (Oxford 1924). ,
Aristotle. Politics, ed. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library (1932).

Arnobius. Adversus nationes libri septem, CSEL, 4, ed. A. Reifferscheid
(1875)-
Arrianus. Periplus Ponti Euxini, Geographi graeci minores 2, ed.
C Miiller (Paris, 1882) pp. 370-423.
.
Arsenius, Metropolitan. Tri stat'i neizvestnago greieskago pisatdja

nadala XIII v&ka (Moscow 1892). ,
Artemius, S. Passio, PG, 96 cols. 1251-1320.

,
Athanasius, S. Historia arianorum, PG, 25, cols. 691-796.

Augustinus Hipponensis, S. Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri
XXXIII, CSEL, 25, ed. J. Zycha (1891), pp. 249-797.
Contra Felicem libri II ibid. pp. 800-852.
,
De Unitate Ecclesiae (Ad Catholicos Epistula contra Donaiistas]

PL, 43, cols. 391-446; CSEL 52, ed. M. Petschenig (1909}. pp. 231-
,
322.
Enarrationes in Psalmos PL, 36, cols. 67-1028.
,
Epistolae PG, 33,38; CSEL, 34,57, ed. A. Goldbacher (1908-11).

,
Gesta collationis Carthagine habitae inter Catholicos et Donatistas ,
Mansi, 4, cols. 1-286.

- Sermones PL, 38.
,
Barlaam. Contra Latinos, PG, 151, cols, 1256-1280.

Barsamya, Martyrdom of. See infra, Doctrine of Apostle Addaeus.
Basilius, ep. Seleuciensis. Encomium in Sanctum Andream, PG, 28,
cob. 1101-13 (printed with works of Athanasius).
Basilius Magnus, S. Epistolae, PG, 32, cols. 219-1112; also ed. and
trans, by R. J. Deferrari Loeb Classical Library, 4 vols. (1926-34).
,
Blastares, Matthaeus. Syntagma canonum, PG, 144, cols. 959-1400;

145, cols. 9-212.
Bonnet, M. Supplementum codicis apocryphi (Paris, 1895). Acta Andreae
cum laudatione contexta, pp. 1-44; Narratio {Martyrium S. Apostoli
Andreae), pp. 45-64; Passio S. Andreae apostoli, pp. 65-70. All first
pubhshed in AnBoU, 13 (1894), pp. 309-378.
Cedrenus, Georgius. Historiarum compendium (Bonn, 1839).

Chronicon Paschale (Bonn, 1832).
Chronographeion syntomon, ed. A. Schoene, Eusebii chronicorum libri
11, 1 (Berlin, 1875), appendix 4, pp. 63-102.
Chronographus anni 334, MGH, Auct. ant. 9, ed. T. Momrnsen, pp. 15-148.
304
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clemens, Papa Roman us, S. Epistola adCorinthios, ed. J. B. Lightfoot,

The Apostolic Fathers, 2 (London, 1890), Engl, trans, by F. X.
Glimm, The Apostolic Fathers (New York, 1947).
Codex Theodosianus, ed. P. Krueger, Th. Mommsen (Berlin, 1905).
Engl, trans, by C. Pharr (Princeton, 1952).
Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, ed. O. Giinther (1895-98).
Collectio canonum XIV titulorum, ed. V. N. BeneSevic, KanoniSeskij
sbornik XIV titulov so vtoroj detverti VII veka do 887 g. (St. Peters-
burg, 1903).
Collectio Thessalonicensis, Mansi, 8, cols. 739 seq. (see also E. Schwartz,
in Secondary Authorities); ed. C. von Silva-Tarouca in Textus et
Documenta, series theologica, 23 (Rome, 1937).
Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De administrando imperio (Bonn,
1840); ed. G. Moravcsik, trans, by R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest,
1949)-
Contendings of the Apostles (Ethiopic Text), ed. and trans, by E. A. Wallis
Budge, 2 vols. (London, 1901).
Corpus luris Civilis, ed. P. Kriiger, Th. Mommsen, R. Schoell, G. Kroll,
3 vols.; Codex Justinianus, 2, Novellae, 3 (Berlin, 1928-29).
Cyprianus Carthagiensis. De Catholicae ecclesiae unitate, CSEL, 3,
ed. G. Hartel (1871), pp. 209-33.
Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, S. Catecheses, PC, 33, cols. 331-1128.
Damasus, Papa, S. Epistolae, PL, 13, cols. 347-76.

Carmina ibid., cols. 376-414.
,
Deusdedit, Cardinalis. Collectio canonum, ed. V. Wolf von Glanvell,

Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit (Paderbom, 1905).
Didascalia et Constitutiones apostolorum, 1, ed. F. X. Funk (Paderbom,
I905)-
Doctrina apostolorum syriaca. See W. Cureton, in Secondary Authorities.
"'
The Doctrine of the Apostle Addaeus; Martyrdom of Barsamya," ed.

W Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents (London, 1864), pp. 6-23,
.
63-72.
Enodius UzAtENsiS. De fide contra Manichaeos, CSEL, 25, ed. J. Zycha

(1891), pp. 951-75-
Epanagoge, ed. K. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, reprinted in J. Zepos,
P Zepos, 7«s Graeco-romanum, 2 (Athens, 1931).
.
Epiphanii monachi et presbyteri edita et inedita, ed. A. Dressel (Paris,

Leipzig, 1843).
10 305
BIBLIOGRAPHY
EPIPHANIUS. Vita S. Andreae, PG, 120.

Epiphanius Cypriensis. Panarion haereticorum (Adversus Haereses),
PG. 41, GCS, 25. ed. K. Holl (1915).
Epistolae Romanorum fontificum, ed. P. Coustant (Paris, 1721).
Epistolae Romanorum fontificum genuinae, ed. A. Thiel (Brunsberg,
1868).
Epitome Legum, ed. C. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, reprinted in J. Zepos,
P Zepos, Jus Graeco-romanum, 4 (Athens, 1931), pp. 263-585.
.
Eucherius Lugdunensis. Jnstructiones, PL, 50, cok. 773-822; CSEL.

31, ed. C. Wotke (1894), pp. 65-161.
Eusebius Ep. Caesariensis. Chronica, PG, 19, cok. 95-598. Armenian
version; German trans, in GCS, 20, ed. J. Karst (1911).
Demonsiratio Evangelica PG, 22, cok. 9-794; GCS, 23, ed.
,
I. A. Heikel (1913).
Hieronymi Chronicon GCS, 24, 34, ed. R. Helm (1913, 1926).
,
Historia ecclesiastica
PG, 20, cok. 45-906; GCS, 9, ed. E. Schwartz
,
(1903-9).
Eusebii Chronicorum libri duo, i, ed. A. Mai, Scriptorum veUrum
nova collectio, 1, pt. 2 (Rome, 1825), pp. 1-39, and republished by
A Schoene, 1 (Berlin, 1875), appendix, pp. 63-102.
.
Evagrius. The Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez, L. Parmentier

(London, 1898).
Felix, Papa. Epistolae, PL, 58, cok. 895-978; ako in Collectio AveUana,
and Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae, ed. Thiel (q.v.).
Filastrius. Diversarum hereseon liber, PL, 12, cok. 1111-1302; CSEL,
38, ed. F. Marx (1898).
Flavius Lucius Dexter Barcinonensis. Chronicon omnimodae
historiae, PL, 31, cols. 49-572.
Gaudentius Bresciensis. Sermones, PL, 20. cols. 843-1002.

Gelasius, Papa. Epistolae et Decreia, PL, 59, cok. 13-140; also in
Collectio Avellana and Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae,
ed. Thiel (q.v.).
Georgius Cyprius. Descriptio orbis romani, ed. H. Gelzer (Leipzig,.
1890).
Germanus II, Patriarcha. Epistolae ad Cyprios, PG, 140, cok. 601-622.
Gratianus, Magister. Decretum, ed. E. Friedberg, Corpus luris Canonici,
1 (Leipzig, 1879).
Gregorius Magnus, S. Homiliae in Evangdia, PL, 76, cok. 1077-1312.
306
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Georgius Monachus. Chronicon, PG, no; ed. E. G. von Muralt

(Georgius Hamartolus, Chronicon) (St. Petersburg, 1859);
C
de Boor (Leipzig, 1904).
.
Gregorius Nazianzenus, S. Oratioms XXVII-XLV, PG, 36, cols.

11-664.
Poemata dogmatica PG, 37, cols. 397-522.
,
Poemata historica PG, 37, cols. 969-1600.

,
Gregorius vii. Papa. Registrum, ed. E. Caspar, Das Register Gregors

VII, MGH, Epistolae Selectae, 2 (Berlin, 1920).
Gregorius Turonensis Episcopus. Liber de miraculis beati Andreae
Apostoli, MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. 1, ed. M. Bonnet, pp. 821-46.
Liber in gloria martyrum ibid., ed. W. Amdt, Br. Krusch,
,
pp. 484-561.
Herodotus. Histories, ed. and trans, by A. D. Godley, Loeb Classical

Library (1930-38).
Hieroclis synecdemus et notitiae episcopatuum, ed. G. Parthey (Berlin,
1866).
Hieron ymus, S. Chronicon, GCS, 24, 34, ed. R. Helm (1913-26) (inEuse-
bius, vol. 7, 1 and 2).
Contra Vigilantium liber PL, 23, cols. 353-68.
,
De viris illustribus PL, 23, cols. 631-760.

,
Epistolae CSEL, 54, ed. I. Hildberg (1910); ed. J. Lebourt in

,
Collection Guillaume Bude, 2 vols. (Paris, 1949-55).

Liber ad Pammachium contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum, PL,
23, cols. 37I-4i4-
Hippolvtus Roman us, S. Philosophoumena, GCS, 26, ed. P. Wendland
(1916).
Histoire monastiques georgiennes," AnBoll, 36-37 (1917-18), ed.
"
P Peeters.
.
Hormisdas, Papa. Epistolae et Decreta, PL, 63, cols. 367-534; also in

Collectio Avellana and Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae,
ed. Thiel (q.v.).
}ivMBERTVS,CARDiHALis. Adversus Graecorum calumnias, PL, 143, cols.
929-74.
Ignatius Diaconus. Vita Nicephori, PG, 100, cols. 41-160; ed. C. de

Boor (Leipzig, 1880).
Vita Tarasii ,
ed. I. A. Heikel, Acta Societatis Scientiarum
Fennicae (Helsinki, 1889).
307
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Innocentius, Papa, S, Epistolae, Manses, cols. 1028-1128; PL, 20,

cols. 463-636.
Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae, ed. G. B. de Rossi, 2 vols. (Rome,
1861-88), N. S., ed. A. Silvagni, 2 vols. (Rome 1922-35).
Irenaeus, S. Contra Haereses, PG, 7, cols. 433-1224.
Joannes Chrysostomus, S. De Precatione, PG, 50, cols. 775-86.

Homiliae PG, 48, 50, 51, 58, 60, 61.
,
Joannes Damascenus, S. De Imaginibus orationes ires, PG, 94, cob.

1227-1420.
Joannes Diaconus. S. Gregorii Magni vita, PL, 75, cols. 63-242.
Joannes Scholastic us. Syntagma L Titulorum ceteraque eiusdem opera
iuridica, ed. V. Benesevic, Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Phil-hist. Kl. (1937), no. 23.
John VI, Catholicus. History of Armenia (Jerusalem, 1867). (In
Armenian).
Justinus, Martyrus, S. Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, PG, 6, cols.
473-800.
Kalendarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. S. A. Morelli, 2 vols.

(Rome, 1788).
"
Kitab al Unvan," ed. and trans, by A. A. Vasiliev in Patrologia

Orientalis, 7.
Langlois, V. Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de I'Armenie,

2 vols. (Paris, 1867).
Laudatio, ed. M. Bonnet, Acta Andreae cum Laudatione contexta et
Martyrium Andreae graece, Passio Andreae latine, in AnBoU,
13 (1894), pp. 309 seq., Supplementum codicis apocryphi (Paris,
1895). PP- i-44-
Leo Magnus, S. jEy»»s<o/ac, Mansi, 25, cols, 1211-1430; 6, cols. 1-430;
PL, 54, cols. 581-1218.
Sermones PL. 54, cols. 137-468.
,
Leo IX, Papa, S. Epistolae, PL, 143, cols. 591-794.

Life of St. Peter the Iberian, ed. N. Marr in Palestinskij Sbornik, 47
(1896).
Liutprand Cremonensis. Legatio, MGH, Ss3, pp. 273-363; Sy in usum
scholarum, ed. J. Becker (1915); Eng. trans, by F. A. Wright, The
Works of Liutprand of Cremona (London, 1930).
308
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mai, A., Cardinal. Patrum nova bibliotkeca, 4 (Rome, 1847).

Scriptorum veterum nova coUectio I, pt, 2 (Rome, 1825), pp. 1-39.
,
Malalas, Joannes. Chronographia (Bonn, 1831).

Martyrdom of St. Andrew in Scythia, in The Contendings of the Apostles,
2 Ethiopian text, ed. and trans, by E. A. Wallis Budge (London,
,
1901), pp. 215 seq.

Martyrium Andreae prius, secundum, in R. A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, Acta
Apostolorum Apocrypha, 2, pt. 1 (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 46-64.
Martyrium Hieronymianum, ed. G. B. de Rossi, L. Duchesne, 4S,
Nov., 2, pt. 1 (Brussels, 1894), pp. 1-156.
Martyrium Matthaei, see Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ed. J. A. Fabricius.
Maximus Confessor, S. Disputatio cum Pyrrho, PG, 91, cols. 287-354.
Epistolae ibid., cols. 363-650.
,
Menaia. See infra, Symeon Metaphrastes.

Menologii anonymi Byzantini saeculi X quae supersunt, ed. V. V. Latysev,
2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1911-12).
Menologium Graecum Basilii II, PG, 117, cols. 19-614.
Mesarites, Nicholas. Opera, ed. A. Heisenberg, "Neue Quellen zur
Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion,"
Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhiU
hist. Kl., 1922, 3 vols. (Munich, 1923),
Michael Syrus. Chronicon, ed. J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1899-1924).
Michael III, Anchialus, Patriarcha. Dialogus, ed. Ch. Loparev, "Ob
"
uniatstve Imperatora Manuila, Vizaniijskij Vremmenik, 14 (1907),

pp. 344-57; also ed. K. I. Dyobouniotes, Epeteris Hetaireias Byzan-
tinon Spoudon, 15 (1939) pp. 38-51-
,
Mvritieloc AyioAoyiKd, ed. Th. Joannou (Venice, 1884).
Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, ed. and commentary by G. Garitte, CSCO,

132, subsidia 4 (Louvain 1952).
,
Narratio sive Martyrium S. Apostoli Andreae ed. M. Bonnet, AnBoU,

,
13 (1894), pp. 309-72; ed. idem Supplementum codicis apocryphi

,
(Paris, 1895), pp. 45-64.

Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus. Historia ecclesiastica, PG, 145,
cols. 549 seq.; 146; 147, cols. 9-448.
Nicephorus, Patriarcha S. Apologeticus pro Sacris Imaginibus, PG,
,
100. cols. 533-834-

Nicolaus I, Papa, S. Epistolae, MGH, Epist. 6.
NoveUae et aureae bullae imperatorum post fustinianum, ed. J. Zepos,
P Zepos, Jus Graeco-romanum, 1 (Athens, 1931).
.
309
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Opera Pairum Apostolicorum, ed. F. X. Funk (Tubingen, 1881).

Optatus Milevitanus, S. Libri scptem, CSEL, 26 ed. C. Ziwsa (1893).
Origenes. Commentarii in Matthaeum, GCS, 38, ed. E. Klostennann
(1933)-
Panaretus. See P. Risso, in Secondary Authorities.

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. Varia sacra graeca {Zapiski istor. filol.
fakulteta imp. S. Peterburgsk. universiteta, 95 [St. Petersburg, 1909]).
Passio S. Andreae Apostoli, see M. Bonnet, Supplementum.
Paulinus Nolanus, S. Carmina, CSEL, 30, ed. W. von Hartel (1894).
Epistolae CSEL, 29, ed. W. von Hartel (1894).
,
Paulus, Archipresbyter. Vita S. Petri Iberi, ed. N. Marr, Pravoslavnyj

Palestinskij Sbornik, 47 (1896), pp. 1-125.
Petrus Chrysologus Ravenatensis. Sermones, PL, 52, cols. 183-680.
Petrus Damianus, S. Sermones, PL, 144, cols. 505-924.
Philostorgius. Historia ecclesiastica, GCS, 21 (ed. J. Bidez, 1913).
Photius, Patriarcha S. Ad Amphilochium, PG, 101.
,
Bibliotheca PG, 103, cols. 41 seq.; 104, cols. 1-356.

,
Contra Manichaeos PG, 102, cols. 15-264.

,
Homiliae ed. S. Aristarchis, 2 vols. (Constantinople, 1900).

, *
ed A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, "Fotija archiepiskopa Kon-
.
'
stantinopol skago, o grobe Gospoda nasego lisusa Christa i drugija

"
malyja ego tvorenija, Pravoslavnyj Palestinskij Sbornik, 31 (1892),

pp. 1-298.
Plinius Secundus, C. Historia Naturalis, Loeb Classical Library,9 vols.,
ed. and trans, by H. Rackham, W. H. S. Jones (1938-51).
Priscillianus. Liber ad Damasum, CSEL, 18, ed. G. Schepps (1889),
PP- 34-43-
'
O rTp6xeip05 Ndpos, ed. C. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal (Heidelberg,
1837).
Proclus, Constantinopolitanus Archiep. Epistolae, PG, 65, cols.
851-86.
Sermones ibid., cols. 679-850.
,
Procopius. De aedificiis Justiniani (Bonn), pp. 170 seq. ;ed. J. Haury

(Teubner, 1913), pp. 24 seq.
Prophetarum Vitae Fabulosae, Indices apostolorum discipulorumque
Domini, Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicatae, ed.
Th. Schermann, Teubner ser. (Leipzig, 1907).
Pseudo-Augustinus. De vera et falsa poenitentia, PL, 40, cob.
1113-30.
310
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pseudo-Chrysostomus. Homilia in duodecim Apostolos, PG, 59, cols.

495-98.
Pseudo-Clementines. "Die Pseudo-Klementinen," GCS, 42, ed. B. Rehm
(1953).
Pseudo-Dorotheus. See Prophetarum Vitae fabulosae, ed. Th. Scher-
mann, pp. 131-160.
Pseudo-Epiphanius. See ibid., pp. 1-25,107-131.
Pseudo-Hippolytus. See ibid., pp. 163-170.
Pseudo-Mellitus. De Passione Joannis Evangelistae, ed. J. A. Fabricius,
Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, 3 (Hamburg, 1719), pp. 604-24.
Pseudo-Pantaleo (Pantaleemon) Diaconus. Contra Graecos, PG, 140,
cols. 487-574-
Ptolemaeus, Claudius. Geographiae Codex Urbinatus Graecus 82, ed.
P Franchi de' Cavalieri (Leipzig, 1932).
.
Ratramnus Corbeiensis. Contra Graecorum opposita, PL, 121, cols.

225-346.
Rufinus Aquileiensis. Pseudo-Clemeniis Recognitiones. PG, 1, cols.
1187-1474.
Rufinus, Magister. Summa Decretorum, ed. H. Singer (Paderborn,
1902).
Russian Primary Chronicle, trans, by S. H. Cross, Harvard Studies and
Notes in Philology and Literature, 12 (1930); new ed. O. P. Sher-
bowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge, Mass., 1953).
Salvianus. De gubernatione Dei, PL, 53, cols. 25-158; CSEL 8, ed.

F Pauly (1883); also in MGH, Auct. ant., 1, ed. K. Halm, pp. 1-108.
,
Schoene, A. Eusebii Chronicorum libri duo, 1 (Berlin, 1875).

Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. Th. Preger, 2 vols.
(Teubner, Leipzig, 1901-7).
Simplicius, Papa. Epistolae, PL, 58, cols. 35-62; also in CoUectio Avellana
CSEL, 35, and Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae, ed. Thiel
(q.v.).
Siricius, Papa, S. Epistolae, Mansi, 3, cols. 655-75; PL, 13, cols.
1131-1202.
Socrates. Historia ecclesiastica, PG, 67, cols. 28-842.
Sozomenus. Historia ecclesiastica, PG, 67, cols. 843-1630.
Strabo. Return geographicarum libri XVII, Loeb Classical Library,
8 vols., ed. with an English trans, by H. L. Jones (1917-32).
3"
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Symeon Metaphrastes. Commemoratio S. Andreae, inMenataNovembris

(Venice, 1843), pp. 235-45; reprinted in MtivocIovtoO NoEp|3p{ou
(Athens, 1926), pp. 318-25.
Martyrium sancii et magni martyris Artemii PG, 115, cols.
.
1160-1202.
Symmachus, Papa. Epistolae et Decreta, PL, 62, cols. 49-80; also in
Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae, ed. Thiel (q.v.).
Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Acta Sanctorum, Propylaea,
November, ed. H. Delehaye (Brussels, 1902).
Syncellus, Georgius. Chronographia (Bonn, 1829).
Synopsis Basilicorum, ed. C. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, reprinted in
J. Zepos, P. Zepos, Jus Graeco-romanum, 5 (Athens, 1931).
Synopsis Minor, ed. C. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, reprinted in J. Zepos,
P Zepos, Jus Graeco-romanum, 6 (Athens, 1931), pp. 319-547.
.
Syntagma Canonum XIV Titulorum, PG, 104, cols. 441-970.
Tertullianus, Quintus Septimus Florens. Adversus Judaeos, CSEL,

70, ed. E. Kroymann (1942), pp. 251-331.
Adversus Marcionem PL, 2, cols. 267-556; CSEL, 47, ed.
,
E Kroymann (1906), pp. 290-650.

.
De Pudicitia CSEL, 20, ed. A. Reifferscheid, G. Wissowa (1890).

,
Liber der praescriptione haereticorum CSEL, 70, ed. E. Kroymann

,
(1942), pp. 13-92.

Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. F. Gehler, 3 vols. (Leipzig,
1851-4).
Theodoretus Cyrensis. Historta ecclesiastica, PG, 82, cols. 881-1280;
GCS, 19, ed. L. Parmentier (1911).
Epistolae PG, 83, cols. 1173-1494.
,
Interpretatio in Psalmos PG, 80, cols. 857-1998.

,
Theodorus Balsamon, Zonaras, Aristenus. In Canones SS. Aposto-

lorum Conciliorum... commentaria, PG, 137-8.
Theodorus Lector. Excerpta ex Historta ecclesiastica, PG, 86, cols.
165-216.
Theodorus Studita, S. Epistolae, PG, 99, cols. 903-1670.
Theodosius. De Situ Terrae Sanctae, in Itinera Hierosolymitana, CSEL,
39 (ed. P. Geyer, 1898), pp. 137-50.
Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn 1838). ,
Theophanes S. Chronographia (Bonn, 1839-41); ed. C. De Boor

,
(Leipzig, 1883-85).
Thiel, A. Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae (Brunsbergae, 1868).
312
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Turner, C. H. (ed.), Ecclesiae occidentalis MonumerUa Juris Anti-

quissima, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1899-1929).
Victor Vitensis. De persecutione vandalica, PL, 58, cols. 179-260;

CSEL, 7, ed. C. Schenkl, pp. 1-107.
Victricius, S. Liher de laude sanctorum, PL, 20, col. 448C.
Typica:
Baumstark, A. "Das Typikon der Patmos-Handschrift 266," Jahrbuch

fur Liturgiewissenschaft, 6 (1926), pp. 98-111.
Dmitrijevskij, A. Opisanie liturgiieskich rukopisej, Typika, 1
(Kiev, 1895).
Krasnosel'cev, N. Th. "Tipik cerkvi sv. Sofii v Konstantinopole
IX v.," Letopis istor. filolog. obUestva, 1 (1892), pp. 156-254;
reviewed by D. Beljaev in Zurnal minist. narodnago prosveStenija,
283 (1892), pp. 363-79-
"
Kizuceniju 'Tipika Velikoj Cerkvi'," ibid., 3 (1896), pp. 329-44.

Venantius Fortunatus. De Virginitate {Miscellanea, lib. VIII, chap. 6),
PL. 88, cols. 266-76; MGH, Auct. ant., 4, pt. 1, pp. 181-91.
Vita S. Euthytnii iunioris, ed. L. Petit in Revue ed VOrient Chretien,
8 (1903). PP. 155-205, 503-27.
Vita S. Evaristi, ed. C. van de Vorst, AnBoll, 41 (1923), pp. 288-325.
Vita S. Joannis, Episcopi Gothiae, AS, June, 7, pp. 167-72.
Vita S. Nicolai Studitae, PG, 105, cols. 863-926.
Zachariah of Mvtilene. Syrian Chronicle, Engl, trans, by F. J. Hamil-
ton, E. W. Brooks (London, 1899).
SECONDARY AUTHORITIES:
Achelis, H. "Der alteste deutsche Kalender," Zeitschrift fiir neutesta-

mentliche Wissenschaft, 1 (1900), pp. 308-335.
Aland, K. "Petrus in Rom," Historische Zeitschrift, 183 (1957), pp.
49I-5i6.
Anastos, M. V. 'EKKAriaia Kod TToXmia els Tfiv irpcbtiiv elKovo|iax«<fiv
mpioSov, in Festschrift honoring Hamilcar Alivizatos (Athens,
[1958?]).
"
The Transfer of Illyricum to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch
"
of Constantinople in 632, Silloge Bizantina in honore di S. G. Mercati,

Studi bizantini e neoellenici, 9 (1957).
313
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banduri, A. Imferium orientale 2 (Paris. 1711). .
Baronius, Cardinal Caesar. Annates Ecclesiastici ed. A. Pagi (Lucca, ,
I738-59); ed. and cont, by A. Theiner (Bar-le-Duc 1867). ,
Matryrologium Romanum 2nd ed. (Antwerp, 1589). ,
Batiffol P. Cathedra Petri, dtudes d'hisioire ancienne de VEglise (Paris,

,
1938).
"
De quelques homilies de S. Jean Chrysostome et de la version

"
gothique des 6critures, Revue biblique, 8 (1899), pp. 566-72.

'
L Eglise naissante et le Catholicisme (Paris 1909). ,
"
Fragmente der Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius," Romische

Quartalschrift 3 (1889), pp. 252-89.
,
" "
Les presents de S. Cyrille k la cour de Constantinople Etudes de ,
liturgie et d'archiologie chrdtiennes (Paris, 1919), pp. 154-79. (Also in

Bulletin d'ancienne literature et d'archiologie chritiennes 1 [1911], ,
pp. 247-64).
Quaestiones Philostorgianae (Paris, 1891).
Le siege apostolique 359-451 (Paris, 1924).
,
Baur, J. Ch. Der heilige Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit, 2 vok.
(Munich, 1930).
Baynes, N. H. "Alexandria and Constantinople. A Study in Ecclesi-
"
astical Diplomacy, Journal oj Egyptian Archaeology, 12 (1926),

pp. 145-56; reprinted in Byzantine Studies attd Other Essays (London,
1955). PP- 97-II5-
" "
Topographica Constantinopolitana Journal of Hellenic Studies,
,
31 (1911), pp. 266-68.

Bees, N. A. "Weiteres zum Kult des hi. Artemios," Byzantinisch-neu-
griechische Jahrbiicher, 1 (1920), pp. 384-85.
Beran, J. "Hat Gregor der Grossedem Embohsmus der romischen
Liturgie den Namen des hi. Andreas beigefiigt?" Ephemerides
Liturgicae 55 (N.S. 15, 1941), pp. 83 seq.
,
Blatt F. Die lateinischen Bearbeitungen der Acta Andreae et Matthiae

,
apud anthropophagos (Giessen 1930). ,
Blumenthal, M. Formen und Motive in der apokryphen Apostelgeschichte,

Texte und Untersuchungen 59 (Leipzig, 1933).
,
Bonnet M. "Bemerkungen iiber die altesten Schriften von der Hiramel-

,
"
fahrt Mariae Zeitschrift filr wissenschaftliche Theologie, 23 (1880),
,
pp. 239, seq.

"
La Passion de I'Apdtre Andr6, en quelle langue a-t-elle te

crite?" BZ 3 (1894), pp. 458-469.
,
314
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Br£hier, L. Grigoire le Grand, les dials barbares et la conquete arabe

(590-757), Histoire de I'Eglise, 5, ed. A. Fliche, V. Martin (Paris,
1947)-
Bruyne, Dom de. "Les plus anciens prologues latins des Evangiles,"
Revue binedictine, 40 (1928), pp. 193-214.
Buonaiuti, E. // Cristianesimo nell' Africa (Ban, 1928).
Cabrol, F., Leclercq, H. "Afrique," in Dictionnaire d'archeologie

chritienne et de liturgie, i (Paris, 1904), cols. 63 seq.
Campenhausen, H. von. Ambrosius von Milan als Kirchenpolitiker
(Berlin, Leipzig, 1929).
"
Lehrreihen und Bischofsreihenmi2. Jahrhundert," InMemoriam
Ernst Lohmeyer (Stuttgart, 1951), pp. 240-49.
Caspar, E. Die dlleste romische Bischofsliste. Kritische Studien zum Form-
problem des eusebianischen Kanons sowie zur Geschichte der Bischofs-
listen und ihrer Entstehung aus apostolischen Sukzessionsreihen
(Konigsberg, 1926).
Geschichte des Papsttums 2 vols. (Tubingen, 1930-33).
,
"
Primatus Petri," Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung, 47, Kanonisti-

sche Abteilung, 16 (1927), pp. 253-331.
Cavallera, F. 5am/ fdrdme, sa vie et son oeuvre, 2 vols. (Louvain, Paris,
1922).
'
Le schisme d Antioche (Paris, 1905).
Charanis, P. Church and State in the Later Roman Empire. The Religious
Policy of Anastasius the First (Madison, Wise, 1939).
Clavier, H. "La primaut de Pierre d'aprte les pseudo-Clementines,"
Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuse, 3 (1956), pp. 298-307.
Corssen, F.Monarchianische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien; ein Beitrag
zur Geschichte des Kanons, Texte und Untersuchungen, 15 (Leipzig,
1896).
Cullmann, O.Saint Pierre, diciple, apdtre, martyr; histoire et thdologie
(Neufch tel, Paris, 1952).
Cumont, F. "Hypsistos," Supplement d la Revue de I'instruction publique
en Belgique (Brussels, 1897).
Cureton, W. Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establish-
ment of Christianity in Edessa and the Neighbouring Countries
(London, 1864).
DARROUzfes, J. "Notes d' pistolographie et d'histoire de textes," Revue

des dtudes byzantines, 12 (1954), pp. 176-88.
315
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Delehaye, H. Les origines du culte des martyrs (2nd. ed., Bnissek, 1933).
"
Les recueils antiques de miracles des saints," AnBoli, 43 (1925),

PP- 5-85. 305-25.
"
Loca Sanctorum," ibid., 48 (1930), pp. 5-64.

Demougeot, E. "A propos des partages de I'lllyricum en 386-395,
Actes du VIe congres international d'etudes byzantines, 1 (Paris, 1950)
pp. 87-92.
'
De I uniti a la division de Vempire romain (395-410). Essai sur le
gouvernement imperial (Paris, 1951).
Der Nersessian, S. "Remarks on the Date of the Menologium and the
Psalter written for Basil II," Byzantion, 15 (1940-1), pp. 104-25.
Devos, P. "Actes de Thomas et actes de Paul," AnBoli, 69 (1951),
pp. 119-30.
Diekamp, F. Hippolytus von Theben, Texte und Untersuchungen (Miinster
i W., 1898).
.
Dolger, F. "Europas Gestaltung im Spiegel der frankisch-byzantinischen

Auseinandersetzung des 9. Jahrhunderts," in Der Vertrag von Verdun
843, ed. Th. Meyer (Leipzig, 1943), pp. 203-73; reprinted in F. Dolger,
Byzanz und die europdische Staatenwelt (Speyer a. R., 1953), pp. 282-
369-
Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Reiches 1 (Munich,
,
Berlin, 1924).
'
Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner," Zeitschrifi fiir

Kirchengeschichte 56 (1937), pp. 1-42; reprinted in Byzanz und die
europdische Staatenwelt (Speyer a. R., 1953), pp. 70-115.
Downey, G. "The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostles at
Constantinople," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 6 (1951), pp. 51-80.
A Study of the Comites Orientis and the Consulares Syriae
(Princeton, 1939).
Dubowy, E. "Klemens von Rom fiber die Reise Pauli nach Spanien,"
Biblische Studien, 19 (1914).
Du Cange, C. D. Historia Byzantina. Constantinopolis Christiana (Paris,
1680).
Duchesne, L. "Les anciens recueils de Mgendes apostoliques," Compte-
rendu du troisieme congres scientifique international des catholiques,
1894 (Brussels, 1895) section 5, Sciences historiques, pp. 67-79.
,
"
LTllyricum ecclesiastique," BZ, 1 (892). pp. 531-50.

'
L Eglise au VI* siecle (Paris, 1925).
Pastes ipiscopaux de Vancienne Gaule 1 (2nd. ed., Paris,
,
1907).
316
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Duchesne, L. Histoire ancienne de I'Eglise, 4 vols. (3rded., Paris, 1923).

Liber Pontificalis 1 (Paris, 1886).
,
Martyriutn Hieronymianum AS, November 2, part 1 (Brussels,

,
1894), pp. Ixxv seq.

Origines du culte Chretien (5th. ed., Paris, 1909).
Dudden, F. H. Gregory the Great, His Place in History and Thought,
2 vols. (London, 1905.)
The Life and Times of St Ambrose (Oxford, 1935).
.
Du Saussay, A. Andreas Prater Simonis Petri seu de gloria S. Andreae

apostoli, libri XII (Paris, 1656).
Dvornik, F. "Emperors, Popes and General Councils," Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 6 (1951), pp. 1-23.
Les Idgendes de Constantine et de Mdthode vues de Byzance
(Prague, 1933).
"
The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm," Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 7 (1953), pp. 67-97.
The Photian Schism History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948).
,
"
Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasius I," BZ, 44 (1951),

pp. 111-16.
Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX* Steele (Paris, 1926).
Dzavakov, I. "Propovfidniceskaja dfijaternost* ap. Andreja i sv. Niny.
II. Apostol Andrej v Gruzii," Zurnal ministerstva narodnago
Prosveilenija, 333 (St. Petersburg, 1901), pp. 77-113.
Ehrhardt, A. A. T. The Apostolic Succession (London, 1953).

"
The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment," Ostkirchliche Studien,

2 (1953). PP- 121-38.
Eitel, A. "Die spanische Kirche in vorgermanischer ZtiX,"Abhandlungen
aus dem Gebiete der mittleren und neueren Geschichte und ihrer Hilfs-
wissenschaften. Eine Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag Prof. H. Finke
(Miinster i. W., 1925), pp. 1-22.
Ensslin, W. "Kaiser Julians Gesetzgebungswerkund Reichsverwaltung,"
Klio, 18 (1922-3), pp. 104-99.
Theodorich der Grosse (Munich 1947). ,
Faivre, J. "Alexandrie," Dictionnaire d'histoire et de giographie eccUsias-

tique, 1 (1914), cols. 305 seq.
Fa ye, E. de. Origene, sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pensit, 3 vols. (2nd. ed.,
Paris, 1923-8).
Ferron, J., Lapeyre, G. "Carthage," Dictionnaire d'histoire et de g6o~
graphic ecclisiastique, 11 (Paris, 1939), cols. 1178 seq.
317
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fischer, M. F. De patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum catalogis et de

chronologia primorum patriarcharum (Leipzig, 1894).
Flamion, J. Les actes apocryphes de I'Apdtre Andri (Louvain Paris,,
Brussels, 1911). See the review by H. Coppieters in Revue d'histoire

eccUsiastique, 13 (1912), pp. 325-32; by E. Hennecke in Theologische
Literaturzeitung, 38 (1913), cols. 73-4; by M. R. James in Journal
of Theological Studies, 13 (1912), pp. 435-7.
"
Les actes apocryphes de Pierre" in Revue d'histoire eccUsiastique

,
9 (190S). pp. 233-54, 465-90: 10 (1909). pp. 1-29, 245-77; 11

(1910), pp. 5-28, 233-56, 447-70,675-92; 12 (1911), pp. 209-30.
Franko, I. "Beitrage aus dem Kirchenslavischen zu den Apokryphen
"
aus dem N.T. Zu den Gnostischen rTepio5oi TTCrpou, Zeitschri/t

fiir neutestatnentliche Wissenschaft, 3 (1902), pp. 315-35; 7 (1906),
pp. 151-71, 224-35; 17 (1916), pp. 207-10.
Fuhrmann, H. "Studien zur Geschichte mittelalterlicher Patriarchate,"
Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung, 70, Kanonistische Abteilung, 39
toSS). PP- 112-76.
Gag , J. "Nouveaux aspects de I'Afrique chr tienne," Annates de

VEcole des Hautes Etudes de Gand, 1 (1937), pp. 181-230.
Gams, P. B. Die Kirchengeschichte Spaniens, 2 (Regensburg, 1864-76).
Garcia Villada, Z. Historia ecclesidstica de Espaiia (Madrid, 1929).
Garitte, G. "La Narratio de rebus Armeniae. Edition critique et com-
"
mentaire, CSCO, 132, Subsidia, t. 4 (Louvain, 1952).
Gelzer, H. Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie
(Leipzig, 1880-98).
Gentz, G., Aland, K. "Die Quellen der Kirchengeschichte des Nice-
phorus und ihre Bedeutung fur die Konstituierung des Textes der
"
alteren Kirchenhistoriker, Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissen-
schaft, 42 (1949), pp. 104-41.
Gerland, E. Die Genesis der Notitiae episcopatuum, in Corpus notitiarum
episcopatuum Ecclesiae Orientalis Graecae, 1 (Kadikoy, 1931).
Gerola, G. "II ripristino della capella di S. Andrea nel palazzo vescovile
di Ravenna," Felix Ravenna, N.S., 41 (1932), pp. 71 seq.
Glanvell, V. Wolf von. Die Kanonessamtnlung des Kardinals Deusdedit
(Paderborn, 1905).
Goguel, M. "Le livre d'Oscar Cullmann sur saint Pierre," Revue
d'histoire
et de philosophic religieuse, 35 (1955), pp. 196-209.
Gordillo, M. "Photius et Primatus Romanus," OCP, 6 (1940), pp.
6-39 -
318
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grimm, J. Andreas und Elene (Cassel, 1841).

Grisar, H. "Der gelasianische Messkanon," Zeitschrifl filr katholiscke
Theologie, 10 (1886), pp. 1-35.
Grumel, V. "L'annexion de I'lUyricum oriental, de la Sicile et de la
Calabre au patriarcat de Constantinople," Recherches des sciences
religieuses (Melanges Lebreton), 40 (1952), pp. 191-200.
"
L'lllyricum de la mort de Valentinien I«r (375) k la mort de
Stilicon (408)," Revue des dtudes byzantines, 9 (1951), pp. 5-46.
"
Les pr&iminaires du schisme de Michel Cerulaire ou la question

"
romaine avant 1054, Revue des dtudes byzantines, 10 (1953), pp. 5-23.
Les rSgestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople 1 (Istanbul,
,
1936).
Grutzmacher, G. Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alien
Kirchengeschichie, 3 vols. (Leipzig, Berlin, 1901-08).
Guidi, I. "Gli Atti Apocrifi degli Apostoli nei testi copti, arabi ed
"
etiopici, Giornale della Society Asiatica Italiana, 2 (1888).
Gutschmid, A. von. "Die Konigsnamen in den apokryphen Apostelge-
"
schichten, Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie, Neue Folge, 19
(1864), pp. 161-83, 380-401; reprinted in Kleine Schri/ten, ed.
F Riihl, 2 (Leipzig, 1890), pp. 332-94.
.
Haacke, W. "Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacia-

''
nischen Schisma, Analecta Gregoriana, 20 (Rome, 1939).
Haase, F. Apostel und Evangelisten in den orientalischen Vbereliferungen
(Minister i. W., 1922).
"
Patriarch Dioskur I. nach monophysitischen Quellen," Kirchen-

geschichtliche Abhandlungen, ed. Max Sdralek, 6 (1908), pp. 141-233.
Hagenmayer, H. Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088-1100. Eine
Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (Innsbruck,
1901).
Haller, J. Das Papsttum, Idee und Wirklichkeit, 1 (Urach and Stuttgart,
1950).
Harapin, T. Primatus pontificis Rotnani in Concilio Chalcedonensi et
Ecclesiae dissidentes (Quaracchi 1923).
,
Harnack, A. von. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur 2 vols. (Leipzig,

,
1893-1904).
Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen
des 3. Jahrhunderts, Texte und Untersuchungen 37 (Leipzig, 1911).
,
Harnack, A. von. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in.

den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig 1924),
,
319
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Heard, R. G. "The Old Gospel Prologues," Journal of Theological

Studies, N.S. 6 (1955), pp. 1-16.
Hefele, C. J., Leclercq, H. Histoire des Conciles, 11 vols, in 21
(Paris, 1907-52).
Heiler, F. Altkirchliche Autonomie und pdpstlicher Zentralismus (Munich,
1941).
Hennecke, I. E. Handbuch zu den neutestamentlichen Apokryphen
(Tubingen, 1904 and 1914).
Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (2nd ed., Tubingen, 1924).
.
"
Zur christlichen Apokiyphenliteratur," Zeitschrift fitr Kirchen-
geschichte, 45 (1926), pp. 309-15-
Hergenrother, J. Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, 3 vols.
(Regensburg, 1867-69).
Herman, E. "Chalkedon und die Ausgestaltung des Konstantinopolita-
"
nischen Primats, in A. Grillmeir, H. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chal-
kedon, 2 (Wurzburg, 1953), pp. 459-9°-
Heussi, K. Die romische Petrustradition in kritischer Sicht (Tubingen,
1955).
Holl, K. Gesammdle Aufsdtze zur Kirchengeschichte, 3 vols. (Tubingen,
1927-28).
Honig, R. Beitrdge zur Entwicklung des Kirchenrechts (Gottingen, 1954,
Gottinger Rechtswissenschaftliche Studien, Heft 12).
Honigman, E. "Le 'Corpus notitiarum episcopatuum'," Byzantion, 11
(1936), pp. 340-62.
"
Juvenal of Jerusalem," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5 (1950),
pp. 209-78.
Hoslinger, R. Die alte afrikanische Kirche (Vienna, 1935).
Janin, R. Constantinople byzantine (Paris, 1950).

"
Etudes de topographic byzantine," Echos d'Orient, 36 (1937),

pp. 288-308.
La geographic ecclesiastique de I'empire byzantin, pt. 1, 3 (Paris,
1953).
Jugie, M. "Photius et la primaute de Saint Pierre et du pape," Bes-
sarione, 23 (1919), pp. 120-30; 24 (1920), pp. 16-76.
"
S Jean Chrysostome et la primaute de S. Pierre," Echos d'Orient,
.
11 (1908), pp. 5-15, 193-202.

Le schisme byzantin (Paris, 1941).
Jugie, M. Theologiadogmatica christianorum orientalium, 1 (Paris, 1926).
Jungmann, J. A. Missarum SoUemnia (Vienna, 1948).
320
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kauffmann, F. Aus der Schule des Wulfila. Auxenii Dorostorensis

epistula de fide, vita et obitu Wulfilae, im Zusammenhang mit der
Dissertatio Maximi contra Atnbrosium (Strassburg, 1899).
Kekelidze, K. Die Bekehrung Georgiens zum Christentum (Leipzig,
1928).
Kellner, K. A. H. Heortologie, oder geschichtliche Entmcklung des
Kirchenjahres und der Heiligenfeste von den altesten Zeiten bis zur
Gegenwart (2nd. ed., Freiburg i. Br., 1906).
Kidd, B. J. A History of the Church to A.D. 461, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1922),
Koch, H. "Cathedra Petri, neue Untersuchungen uber die Anfange der
Primatslehre," Hefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutesiatnentliche Wissen-
schaft, 2 (Giessen, 1930).
"
Gelasius im kirchenpolitischen Dienste seiner Vorganger der
Papste Simplicius und Felix III," Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen
Akademie, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 6 (Munich, 1935).
Konstantinidis, Ch. "La fete de I'apdtre saint Andr6 dans I'Eglise de
Constantinople 4 I' poque byzantine et aux temps modemes,"
Milanges en I'honneur de Mgr. M. Andrieu, Revue des sciences
religieuses, volume hors s&ie (Strassburg, 1956), pp. 243-61.
Kornemann, E. "Dioecesis," in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie, 5
(Stuttgart, 1905), cols. 727-34.
Kraft, B. "Andreas," in Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche, 1, ed.
M Buchberger (Freiburg i. Br., 1930), col. 411.
.
Krasnosel'cev, N. Th. "K izuceniju Tipika Velikoj Cerkvi'," Letopis

istoriko-filolog. obStestva pri imper. Novorossijskom universitete,
Vizantijskoe otdelenie 3 (Odessa, 1896) pp. 329-44.
,
"
Tipik cerkvi sv. Sofii v Konstantinopole IX v.," ibid., r (1892),
pp. 156-254.
Krumbacher, K. Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (Munich, 1897),
pp. 350 seq.
Kr4i§nik, C. "O pravni naravi Epanagoge," Slovenski Pravnik, 49
(Ljubljana, 1935), pp. 335-49-
Kuhn, G. Das muraiorische Fragment uber die Biicher des Neuen Testa~
ments (Zurich, 1892).
Lagrange, M. J. Evangile selon saint Luc (7th. ed., Paris, 1948).

Langen, J. Geschichte der romischen Kirche, x, bis zum Pontifikate Leos I
(Bonn, 1881).
Lanzoni, F. Le diocesi d'Italia dalle origini al principio del secolo VII
{an. 604) (Faenza, 1927).
11 321
BIBLIOGRAPHY
La Pi an a, G. "The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century,"

Harvard Theological Review, 18 (1925), pp. 201-77.
Laurent, J. L'Arminie entre Byzance et VIslam depuis la conquete arahe
'
jusqu en 886 (Paris, 1919).

Leclerco, H. L'Afrique chretienne (Paris, 1904).
'
L Esfagne chritienne (Paris, 1906).
"
Gallicane (Eglise)," Dictionaire d'archeologie chretienne et de

liiurgie, 6 (Paris, 1929), cols. 395-403.
Lefebvre, G. "Egypte chretienne, k propos de S. Luc," Annates du
service des antiquitis, 10 (1909).
Lehmann, K. "Ein Reliefbild des heiligen Artemios in Konstantinopel,"
Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbiicher, 1 (1920), pp. 381-84.
Lewis, A. S. "The Mythological Acts of the Apostles," Horae Semilicae,
4 (London, 1904), pp. 1-30.
Liechtenhan, R. "Die pseudoepigraphische Litteratur der Gnostiker,"
Zeitschrift fUr die neutestament. Wissenschaft, 3 (1902), pp. 222-237,
286-99.
Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus (Gottingen 1901).
,
Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers, part 1; St. Clement of Rome

(London, 1890).
LiNCK,H.Z«r Obersetzung und Erlduterung der Kanones IV, VI, und VII
des Konzils von Nicaea (Giessen, 1908).
Lipsius, R. A. Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden,
2 vols, in 3 (Brunswick, 1883-97).
Loomis, L. R. See infra, J. T. Shotwell.
Loparev, C. "Ob Uniatstve imperatora Manuila Komnena," Vi:-
antijskij Vremennik, 14 (1907), pp. 334-57.
Lubeck, K. Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchic des Orients bis
zum Ausgange des vierten fahrhunderts (Munster i. W., 1901).
Maas, P. "Artemioskult in Konstantinopel," Byzantinisch-neugriechische

fahrbucher, 1 (1920), pp. 377-80.
Maassen, F. B. C. Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen
Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Ausgange des Mittelalters (Graz, 1870).
Der Primal des Bischofs von Rom und die alten Patriarchalkirchen
(Bonn, 1853).
Magnin, E. L'Eglise visigothique au VII* siecle (Paris, 1912).
Mai, Cardinal, A. Patrum nova bibliotheca, 4 (Rome, 1847).
Marquardt, K. J. Vadministration romaine, pt. 2: L'organisation de
Vempire romain, in Manuel des antiquiUs romaines, ed. T. Mommsen,
322
BIBLIOGRAPHY
K J. Marquaxdt (French trans., Paris, 1892, in German, 2nd ed.,

.
Leipzig, 1881).
Martin, T. O. "The twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon, a Background
Note," in A. Grillmaier, H. Bacht, DasKonzilvon Chalcedon, 2 (Wiirz-
burg, 1953), pp. 433-58.
Marx, B, "Der homiletische Nachlass des Basileios von Seleukia,"
OCP, 7 (1941), pp. 329-69-
Mesnage, P. J. Le Christianistne en Afrique, origines, dheloppements,
extension (Paris, 1914).
Metzger, G. Die Afrikanische Kirche, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1934).
Metzner, E. Die Verfassung der Kirche in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten
unter besonderer Berilcksichtigung der Schriften Harnacks (Danzig,
1920).
Michel, A. Humbert und Kerularios 2 vols. (Paderbom, 1924-30).
,
"
Der Kampf um das politische oder petrinische Prinzip der

Kirchenfiihrung," in A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht, Das Konzil von
Chalcedon, 2 (Wiirzburg, 1953), pp. 491-562.
'
Schisma und Kaiserhof im Jahre 1054. Michael Psellus," in
L'Eglise et Us iglises,1054-1954, 1 (Chevetogne,i954), pp. 351-440.
Miller, E. "Fragments in dits de Theodore le Lecteur et de Jean
"
d'Eg e, Revue archiohgique, N.S. 26 (1873), pp. 273-88, 396-403.
Molland, E. "Le d veloppement de I'id e de succession apostolique,"
Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuse, 34 (1954), pp. 1-29.
Mommsen, Th. E. "Aktenstiicke zur Kirchengeschichte aus dem Cod. Cap.
Novar. 30," Neues Archiv, 11 (1886), pp. 362-364.
Romische Geschichie 5 vols. (Berlin, 1894).
,
"
Verzeichnis der romischen Provinzen aufgesetzt um 297," /Ife-

handlungen der k. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist.
Klasse (Berlin, 1863).
Monceaux, P. Histoire litteraire de I'Afrique chrdtienne depuis les origines
jusqu'A 1'invasion arabe, 1 (Paris, 1901).
Morin, D. Germain. "Le discours d'ouverture du Concile g n ral du
Latran (1179) et I'oeuvre litt raire de Maitre Rufin eveque ,
"
d'Assise, Atti delta Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia
ser. 3, Memorie 2 (Rome 1928), pp. 113-33.
,
Muller, K. "Beitrage zur Geschichte der Verfassung der alten Kirche,"

Abhandlungen der Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist.
Klasse (Berlin, 1922).
"
Kanon 2 und 6 von Konstantinopel, 381 und 382," in Festgabe

fur A. Jiilicher (Tubingen 1927), pp. 190-202.
,
323
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Muller, K. Kirchengeschichte, i (3rd. ed., Tubingen, 1914).
Nilles, N. Kalendarium Manuale utriusque ecclesiae (Innsbruck, 1896).
Ohnesorge, W. "Die Konstantinische Schenkung, Leo III und die

Anfange der kurialen romischen Kaiseridee," Zeitschrift der Savigny
Stiftung, Germanistische Abteilung, 68 (1951).
Orbeli, M. "Gorod Bliznecov Aiooxoup(as i plemja Voznic/Hvidxoi,"
turned ministerstva narodnago prosveSZenija, N.S. 33 (May, 1911),
pp.195-215.
Ostrogorsky, G. "Otnosenie cerkvi i gosudarstva v Vizantii," Sentina-
riutn Kondakovianum, 4 (1931), pp. 121-34; see review by F. Dolger
in BZ, 31 (1931), pp. 449-50.
Palanque, J. R. "La prefecture duPrdtoire de I'lllyricum au IVe sidcle,"

Byzantion, 21 (1951), pp. 5-14.
Panaretus, Matthaeus Angelus. See infra, P. Risso.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. TTepl tivos avyypcflpfis 'ApKaBfou
>ApxieTnaK6,irou KOrrpou, Vizaniijskij Vremennik, 1 (1894), pp.
601-12.
Pargoire, J. L'Eglise byzantine de 527 A 847 (2nd ed., Paris, 1923).
"
Les homdlies de S. Jean Chrysostome en Juillet 399," Eckos

d'Orient, 3 (1899-1900), pp. 151-62.
Paschini, P. "Note sulT origine della chiesa di Concordia," in Memorie
Storiette Forogiuliesi, 7 (1911), pp. 9-24.
Peeters, P. "Les ddbuts du christianisme en Gdorgie d'aprds les sources
hagiographiques," AnBoll, 50 (1932), pp. 1-66.
"
Histoires monastiques georgiennes," ibid., 36-37 (1917-1918).

Peterson, E. "Einige Bemerkungen zum Hamburger Papyrusfragment
der Acta Pauli," Vigiliae Christianae, 3 (1949), pp. 142-62.
Peterson, P. M. Andrew, Brother of Simon Peter, His History and
His Legends (Leiden, 1958 Supplements to iVoiww Testamentum, 1).
,
Petrovskij, S. V. "Apokrificeskija skazanija ob apostol'skoj propovedi

"
po cemomorskomu pobereiiju, Zapiski imp. Odesskago obitesiva

istorii i drevnosti, 21 (1898), pp. 1-84.
Pichler, A.Geschichteder kirchlichen Trennung,2vo\s. (Munich, 1864-65).
Pick, B. The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew, and Thomas
(Chicago, 1909).
Piontek, F. Die katholische Kirche und die hdretischen Apostelgeschichten
bis zum Ausgang des 6. Jahrhunderts. Dissertation, (Breslau, 1908);
324
BIBLIOGRAPHY
'
also in Sdralek s KirchengeschichUiche Abhandlungen, 6 (Breslau,
1907).
Pogodin, A. "Povest o choidenii apostola Andreja v Rusi," Byzant-
inoslavica, 7 (1937-8), PP- I37-41-
Quispel, G. "An Unknown Fragment of the Acts of Andrew (Pap. Copt.

Utrecht N. 1)," Vigiliae Christianae, 10 (1956), pp. 129-48.
Reinach, S. "Les ap6tres chez les anthropophages," Revue d'histoire et de

Hiieraiure religieuse, 9 (1904), pp. 305-20,
Richard, J. "Aquitee," Dictionnaire d'histoire et de giographie ecclisiasti-
que, 3 (Paris, 1924), cols. 113, 114.
Risso, P. "Matteo Angelo Panaretus e cinque suoi opusculi," Roma e
I'Oriente, 8 (1914).
Roder, R. "Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte
Literatur der Antike," Wurzburger Studien zur Altertutnswissenschaft,
3 (Stuttgart, 1932).
Roethe, G. "Zur Geschichte der romischen Synoden im 3. und 4. Jahr-
hundert," Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, 11
(Stuttgart, 1932).
Saint-Martin, J. Histoire d'ArnUnie par le pairiarche Jean VI (Paris,

1841).
Saltet, L. "Un texte nouveau - la Dissertatio Maximi contra Ambros-
ium," Bulletin de UtUraiure ecclisiastique puhlii par I'lnstitut
catholique de Toulouse, 3" s rie, 2 (1900), pp. 118-29.
Savio, F. Gli antichi vescovi d'ltalia dalle origini al 1300 descritti per
regioni. 1. La Lombardia (Florence, 1913).
Scharf, J. "Photius und die Epanagoge," BZ, 49 (1956), pp. 385-400.
Schermann, Th. Propheten und Apostellegenden nebst Jiingerkatalogen
des Dorotheos und verwandter Texte (Leipzig, 1907), Texte und Unter-
suchungen, 21.
Schmidt, C. Acta Pauli nach dem Papyrus der Hamburger Staats- und
Universitdtsbibliothek (Hamburg-Gliickstadt, 1936).
"
Apokryphe koptische Apostelgeschichten und Legenden," in

Hamack's Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, 1 (Leipzig, 1893),
pp. 919-22.
Die alt en Petrusakten im Zusammenhang mit der apokryphen
apostellitteratur (Leipzig, 1903).
325
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Schmidt, C. Studien zu den Pseudo-Clementinen (Leipzig, 1929).

Schnitzler, Th. "Im Kampfe um Chalkedon," Analecta Gregoriana, 16.
sec., B, no. 7 (Rome, 1938), pp. 5-16.
Schurer, E. Geschtchte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,
3 vols. (4th ed., Leipzig, 1909).
"
Die Juden im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften

der a£p6nevoi fodv uvfiarov," Sitzungsberichte der koniglichen
PreussischenAkademie derWissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse (Berlin,
1897), pp. 200-25. Additional notes in Theologische Literaturzeiiung.
22 (1897), cols. 236-8, 505-7.
Schuster, A. I. Liber sacramentorum, 6 (Milan, 1941).
Schwartz, E. "Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum der Synode
"
von Chalkedon, Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 24
(1925), pp. 38-88.
"
Publizistische Sammlungen zum Acacianischen Schisma,"

Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-
hist. Abteilung. N. F. 10 (Munich, 1934), pp. 161-262.
"
Der sechste nicaenische Kanon auf der Synode von Chalkedon,"

Sitzungsberichte der Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist.
Klasse (Berhn, 1930).
"
Die sogenannte Sammlung der Kirche von Thessalonich," Fest-

schrift fiir R. Reitzenstein (Leipzig, Berhn, 1931), pp. 137-59.
'
Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts," Zeitschrift

fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 34 (1935), pp. 129-213.
Schwartze, A. "Nordafrikanische Kirche," in Herzog-Hauck, Realenzy-
khpadie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 14 (1904).
Seston, W. Diocletien et la tetrarchie (Paris, 1946).
Shotwell, J. T. and Loomis, L. R. The See of Peter (New York, 1927).
Silva-Tarouca, C. v. Textus et Documenta, series theologica, 23 (Rome,
1937)-
Simson, O. G. von. Sacred Fortress, Byzantine Art and Statecraft in
Ravenna (Chicago, 1948).
Soden, H. von. Die Schriften des Neuen Testamentes in ihrer dltesten
erreichbaren Textgestalt, 1 (Gottingen, 1913).
Sohm, R. Kirchenrecht (Munich, Leipzig, 1923).
Stein, A. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter
romischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart, 1915).
Stein, E. Geschichte des spdtromischen Reiches, 1 (Vienna, 1928).
' '
Histoire du bas-empire de la disparition de I empire de I Occident d

la mort de fustinien {476-565), 2 (Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, 1949).
326
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Stein, E. "Untersuchungen zur spatromischen Verwaltungsgeschichte,"

Rheinisches Museum, N.F. 74 (1925), pp. 347-94.
Streeter, H. H. The Primitive Church (London, 1929).
Tillemont, L. S. Le Nain de. Mimoires four servir d I'histoire eccUsiasti-

que des six premiers siecles, 1, 5, 7, 15 (Paris, 1701-11).
Tolstoi, J. "Un poncif ar tologique dans les miracles d'Asklepios et
'
d Artemios," Byzantion, 3 (1926), pp. 53-63.
Turner, C. H. Studies in Early Church History (Oxford, 1912).
Ullmann, W. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages

(London, 1955).
Vailh , S. "Constantinople," Dictionnaire de thtologie catholique, 3, cols.

1322 seq.
"
Formation du patriarcat de Jerusalem," Echos d'Orient, 13

(1910), pp. 325-36.
"
Origines de I'Eglise de Constantinople," Echos d'Orient, 10 (1907),

pp. 287-95.
Vasiliev, A. A. fustin the First, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, I (Cambridge,
Mass., 1950).
Vasil'evskij, V.G. "Choidenie apostola Andreja vstrane Mirmidonjan,"
Zurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveS6enija i8g, pt. 2 (1877),
pp. 41-82, 157-85-
Vaucourt, R. "Patriarches," in Dictionnaire de thiologie catholique, n.
Vernadsky, G. Ancient Russia (vol. 1 ot A History of Russia, ed.
Vemadsky, M. Karpovich) (New Haven, 1943).
"
Vizantiskija ucenija o vlasti carja i patriarcha," Sbornik statej

posve&ennych pamjati N. P. Kondakova (Prague, 1926), pp. 143-54.
See review by H. F. Schmid in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur
Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonische Abteilung, 47 (1927), pp. 530-5.
"
Die kirchlich-politische Lehre der Epanagoge und ihr Einfluss

"
auf das russische Leben im XVII Jahrhundert, Byzantinisch-

neugriechische fahrbucher, 6 (1927), pp. 119-42.
Vouaux, L. Les actes de Paul et ses lettres apocryphes (Paris, 1913).
Les actes de Pierre et ses lettres apocryphes (Paris 1922).
,
Wille, A. Bischof fulian von Kios des Nunzius Leos des Grossen in
Konstantinopel, Dissertation (Wiirzburg, 1909).
Wright, F. A. The Works of Liutprand of Cremona (London, 1930),
p. 272.
327
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Zahn, Th. Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3rd. ed., Leipzig, 1924).
Das Evangelium des Lukas (Leipzig 1913).
,
Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons 6 ,
(Leipzig, 1900).
Zeiller, J. Les origines chrdtiennes dans la province romatne de Dalmatic
(Paris, 1906).
'
Les origines chrdtiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de I empire

romain (Paris, 1918).
Ziegler, A. K. Church and State in Visigothic Spain (Washington, 1930).
Zimmermann, B. "S. Andr6," Dictionnaire d' archdologie chrdtienne et de
liturgie, 1 (Paris, 1907), cob. 2031-4.
328
INDEX
Aaron, 146 Agatho, St., pope, 163

Abasgi, 257 Agde, city in France, 160
Abdias Collection, 174, 185 Agnellus, Church historian of Raven-
Abdias, legendary Bishop of Baby- na, 151, 152
lon, 184 Alans, 208, 225, 257
Abraham, patriarch, 146 Alcison, Bishop of Nicopolis, 127
Acacian schism, 88, 109, 121, 124, Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, 13 14,
,
153, 154. 156 87

Acacius, Bishop of Ariaratheia, 78 Alexander, Bishop of Constanti-
Acacius, Patriarch of Constanti- nople, 245, 246, 257, 271
nople, 106-16, 122, 126, 129, 133 Alexander, Christ's desciple, 205
Acci (Quadix), 33 Alexander I, St., pope, 40
Achaea, 5, 6, 27, 148, 150, 159, 172, Alexander III, pope, 285
174, 179, 182-85, 193, 195, 198, Alexander the Great, 60
206, 208, 211, 212, 214-20, 238 Alexandria, 7-13, 16-18, 20, 22, 23,
Achaioi, tribe on shore of Sea of 42, 47-49, 52, 53, 56, 60-70, 79,
Pontus, 201, 219 80, 83, 87, 88, 92 97-99, 103, 104,
,
Acholius, Bishop of Thessalonica, 27, 107-09, 111, 112, 116, 122, 134,
57 135, 148, 164, 165, 168-71, 215,
Acts, of Andrew, 48, 181-92, 196, 230, 236, 237, 240, 243, 244, 248,
202, 203, 214, 217, 220, 221, 227, 249, 266, 269, 280-87, 292, 293,
246; of Andrew and Matthias, 174, 297
193, 194, 202-07, 2i4. 217, 262; Alypius, priest, 67
of James, 188; of John, 18, 88, Amaseia, city in Asia Minor, 185,
189-92, 203, 204; of Matthew, 188, 200, 206
183; of Paul, 186-92, 196, 203; Ambrose, St., Bishop of Milan, 24,
of Peter, 181, 186-92, 196, 203; 53-58, 150, 151
of Peter and Andrew, 183, 193, Amianus, Bishop of Sirmium, 46
194. 199, 203, 205, 206, 214; of Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium,
Thomas, 186-89, 191, 196, 203 20, 189
Adalvin, Archbishop of Salzburg,250 Amplias, Christ's disciple, 254
Addaeus, Doctrine of, 11 Anacletus, St., pope, 40, 283
Adhemar, papal legate, 286 Anastasia, Pompey's wife, 133
Adrian, St., 256, 258, 259 Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica,
Aegaetes (Aegeus), see Egeates 26
Aetius, archdeacon, 89 Anastasius I, emperor, 114, 115, 119,
Africa, 30-35, 153, 189, 204 124-29, 133,135
Aelia Capitolina, 22 Anastasius II, emperor 167
,
Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, 252 Anastasius, librarian, 224, 277

Agapetus, St., pope, 157 Anastasius I, St., pope, 26, 28
Agatho, chartophylac, 167 Anastasius II, pope, 135
329
INDEX
Anastos, M. V., 167, 172 Apsarus, 174, 175, 208

Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, Apulia-Calabria, province of Italy, 25
51, 78, 80, 84, 88-90, 94- 8. 101. Aquileia, 25, 46, 47, 54, 150, 151
104-07,113 Arabia, 12, 81
Andrew, Bishop of Praevalis, 134 Arcadia, daughter of the Emperor
Andrew, Metropolitan of Thessaloni- Arcadius, 147
. ca,124 Arcadius, Archbishop of Cyprus, 161
Andrew, St., apostle, 3, 48, 138-67, Arcadius, bishop papal legate, 65
,
171-86, 194-99, 205-27, 231-36, Arcadius, emperor, 142, 147, 154

240, 245-51, 257, 258, 262-64, Argyropolis, 157, 172, 175, 204, 218,
278, 281, 282, 286-92, 296, 298; 219, 226,256-59
stay in Byzantium, 172, 197 seq., Arians, 34, 48, 49, 52, 55, 61, 62, 67,
211 seq.; relics and churches in 151, 156,216
Italy, 149-53; relics and churches Aristenus, Greek canonist, 289
in Rome, 153, 158, 263, 264 Aristotle, Greek philosopher, 201
Andrew tradition in Syria, 261-63; Aries, 36-38, 46, 71, 127
in Georgia, 209-11, 262, 263; in Armenia, 12, 239, 241-43, 258, 270,
Russia, 263 264; in Scythia, see
, 271
Scythia Arnobius, 199
Andronicus, St., 47 Arrianus, 220
Andronicus, Camaterus, 288-90 Artemius, St., 227-31
Anemius, bishop, 57 Asbestas, Bishop of Syracuse, 253
Anicetus, St., pope, 40 Ashod, King of Armenia, 241
Annianus, St., Bishop of Alexandria, Asia, 34, 159, 174, 198; diocese of, 5,
42 17, 18, 20, 83, 200, 215
Anselm of Havelberg, 286 Asia Minor, n, 12, 47, 48, 183, 196,
Anselm of Lucca, canonist, 282, 283 198-200, 206, 208, 211, 215, 221,
Anselmo dedicata, collection of canon 232, 244
law, 277 Astacos, Gulf of, 257
Anthropophagites (maneaters) city Athanasius, St., Bishop of Alexan-
of the, 183, 200-07 dria, 49, 50, 61, 63, 67, 148, 193
Antioch, 5, 8-23, 42, 44, 47, 48, 52, Athanasius, priest of Alexandria, 79
54-57, 59,62-64,68, 69, 74, 75, 80, Athens, 48, 242
8i, 87, 88, 92, 96-99, 103, 108, Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople,
in, 112, 116, 122, 127, 128, 134, 17, 142, 204, 219
136, 143, 147, 148, 163, 165, 168- Augustine, St., Bishop of Carthage,
71, 210, 229, 232, 236, 237, 240, 35, 44, 46, 189
243, 244, 248, 249, 266, 269, 279, Augustus, emperor, 32, 209
280-89, 292, 293, 297 Avitus Bishop of Vienne, 127
,
Antioch in Pisidia, 20 Azov, Sea of, 198

Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica,
26-28 Baanes, patrician, 268
Apollinarius, 54 Babylon, 184
Apostolic Constitutions, 177 Baktroi, tribe of, 209
Apostolicity, idea of, 4, 15, 24, 39, Balsamon, Greek canonist, 289
46-49, 57, 59, 63, 67-71, 73, 74, Bar-Hebraeus, Syrian writer, 262
93. io9, 138, 149, 15°, I54, 160, Barlaam, monk, 294, 295
166, 168, 170, 171, 265-67, 286, Barnabas, St., Christ's disciple (a-
289, 299 postle), 186, 292
330
INDEX
Baronius, C, cardinal, 157, 159, 298 Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage, 16

Barsamya, martyrdom of, 11 Caesarea in Africa, 31
Bartholomew, St., apostle, 243 Caesarea of Cappadocia, 17,20,21,65
Basil, Abbot of Greek monastery in Caesarea of Palestine, 22, 23
Rome, 170 Caesarius, Bishop of Aries, 127
Basil I, emperor, 228, 233, 253, 268, Calendia, Bishop of Antioch, 108,109
270, 271,275 Callistratos, monastery of, 225, 227,
Basil II, emperor, 228, 258 [217 234
Basil, Metropolitan of Seleucia, 148, Callixtus, St., pope, 41
Basil, priest, papal legate, 76 Camaterus, patriarch, 289
Basil, St., Church father, 48, 58 Campania, province of Italy, 25
Basil of Achrida, 286 Cappadocia, 5, 21, 65, 93, 199
Basil the Armenian, author of a list Caracal la, emperor, 260
of sees, 173 Carthage, 17, 3°, 31. 34. 35. 43. 4
Basileia, see also Imperium, 61, 74, Caspar, E., 32, 41, 91, 134, 137
139, 140,155, 167 Caspian Sea, 209
Basilica, Byzantine book of law, 274 Cecropius, Bishop of Sebastopolis, 78
Basiliscus, anti-emperor, 106 Cedrenus, George, chronicler, 218,
Bassianus, Bishop of Lodi, 151 260
Batiffol, P., 228 Celer, nobleman, 134
Baumstark, A., 255 Celestine, St., pope, 32, 62-66
Beirut, 69 Cephas, Christ's disciple, 165, 176
Beluchistan, 174 Ceponius, bishop, 188
Beran, J., 159 Chalcedon, 257
Bethlehem, 22 Charlemagne, 248
Bidez, J., 228 Cherson, 198, 221, 257, 263, 264
Bithynia, 5, 183, 199, 200, 213-15, Christ, 22,40,41,44,57,115,121-24,
257, 258 126 138, 141, 143, 145, 147, 153,
,
Black Sea, 198, 200, 204, 211 156, 163, 171, 172, 176, 177, 180,
Blumenthal, M., 194 183, 205, 213, 231, 232, 240, 241,
Boeotia, 213, 214 251, 268, 275, 277, 281, 288, 290,
Boniface, priest, papal legate, 79, 89 291. 293-96
Boniface I, St. pope, 7, 17, 29, 37,
, Christ's disciples, list of, 157, 158,
38, 46, 87, 88, 98 160, 165, 175-77. l80. 208, 224,
Boniface III, pope, 283 254.255.258,259, 291
Bonnet, M., 226 Chronicon Paschale, 142, 164-66,
Bordeaux, 149 176-78, 218, 229, 230
Boris-Michael, Khagan of Bulgaria, Chronographeion syntomon, 237
249, 250, 270, 271 Chronographikon syntomon, 224
Bosporan Kingdom 198, 200 , Chrysopolis, suburb of Constanti-
Bosporus city of, 201; strait of, 238
, nople, 204, 219
Bosporians 257 ,
Cilicia, 5, 11, 12
Braga, 34 Cirta, 31
Brescia, city in Italy, 150, 180, 187, Clement of Alexandria, 22, 165, 166,
194, 208, 216 176, 177
Britton, bishop, 57 Clement, St., pope, 35, 36, 40, 43, 58,
Bruyne Dom de, 213
,
221
Bulgaria, 249-52 Clermont Ferrand, city in France,

Byzacena 30 160
,
331
INDEX
Cletus, St., pope, 43 Councils (see also synods) oecume- ,
Coele, Syria, 12 nical: of Nicea (325) 6-29, 37, 38,

,
Colchis, 174, 210, 225 49, 84-90, 93, 97, 99, 101-04, 108,
Collectio Vallicelliana, canon law,278 113, 136, 244, 245 269, 271; of
,
Collection of Nine Books, canon law, Constantinople (381) it, 18-22,

,
278 26, 50-56 62, 83, 87-90, 96, 131,

,
Comana, city of Asia Minor, 154 136, 252, 267, 277 283, 289; of
,
Concordia, city in Lombardy, 150, Ephesus (431), 60, 62-68, 72; of

151 Chalcedon (451), 8, 21, 51, 69-71,
Constantine, deacon, 164 75, 78-85, 88, 91-93, 96, 100-05,
ConstantineI,the Great, emperor, 24, 108-11, 113, 118, 120, 122, 125 ,
36, 139, 140, 149, 154, 155, 157 127, 128, 131, 134-36, 150, 277 ,
227, 228, 230, 238, 243, 245, 255, 286, 287, 289; Third of Constan-
259, 293, 295, 296 tinople (680-681), 21,162-64, 266;
Constantine IV, emperor, 163 in Trullo (692), 102, 284; Second
Constantine V (Copronymus), em- of Nicaea (787). 170 171, 235,255;
,
peror, 225 Ignatian (869-870), 163, 268-71,

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, 277, 284; Photian (879-880), 233,
emperor, 167 234; Third of Lateran (1179), 284 ,
Constantine IX Monomachus, em- 285; Fourth of Lateran (1215), ,
peror, 280 297; of Florence (1439) 296-98 ,
Constantine I, pope, 167 Crescentius, St. Peter's disciple, 34

Constantine-Cyril, St., Apostle of the Crete, 27
Slavs, 209, 221 Crimea, 198, 206, 208-10, 216, 221
Constantinople (Byzantium), passim; Cumont, F., 198, 199
apostolic origin of, 139, 158, 160- Cyprian. St., Bishop of Carthage,
62, 164, 166, 167, 169, 170, 235, 30-32, 35, 43, 44-
236, 238, 244, 245, 249-52, 267, Cyprus, 22, 43, 291
269, 275, 276, 279, 286, 290, 292, Cyriacus, Patriarch of Constanti-
296, 298; churches of: Hagia nople, 161
Sophia, 62,106,107,154,167, 230, Cyril, St., Bishop of Alexandria,
254 Holy Apostles, 3, 67, 137-41,
, 62-67, 78
144-46, 154-56,159,162, 227, 228, Cyril, St., Bishop of Jerusalem, 56,
Holy Mother of God on the Acro- 146
polis, 226, 234, 257, Oxeia, 229,
St. George, 259; lists of bishops Dacia, 25-27
of, 237, 238, 260, 261; Menologion Damasus, St., pope, 26-28, 34, 45,
of, 178; New Rome, 3, 60, 80-82, 48, 52, 55-58, 86, 216, 278, 283
152, 166, 167, 170, 231, 236, 240, Daniel Bishop of Cadena, 78
,
249, 269, 283; primacy of, 248-50, Daniel, prophet, 146

287-89 Danube, river, 257
Constantius, emperor, 61, 139, 140, Dardania, 27, 109, 111-14, 117*
154, 227, 228, 243 122
Corinth, 5, 6, 48, 212, 215 Darius Persian king,

, 174
Cornelius, centurion, 292 Darrouz s, J., 242
Corpus of the apocryphal Acts of the Decius, emperor, 31
apostles, 186-91, 196 DecretumGelasianum, 56,88, 252,285
Corsica, 25 Decretum Gratiani, collection of ca-
Corssen, P., 213 non law, 283
332
INDEX
Delehaye, H., 255, 258 Epanagoge, 271-75

Der Nersessian, S., 239, 242 Ephesus, 5,6,17, 20,21,47,107,136,
Deusdedit, cardinal, 238, 283 215, 243-45, 293
Diocletian, Roman emperor, 9, 12, Ephrem, chronographer, 296
24, 30, 31, 156, 201, 237, 298 Ephrem, St., 240
Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus, 20 Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus (see
Diogenes, Bishop of Cyzicus, 88 also Pseudo-Epiphanius), 22, 43,
Dionysius Bar9alibi, Syrian writer, 173, I75-78, 187, 225
262 Epiphanius, monk, 175, 179, 180,
Dionysius Exiguus, canonist, 121 194, 207, 210, 225-27, 257, 263
Dioscorus, papal legate, 130 Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constan-
Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, tinople, 130, 132, 133, 158
68-70, 72, 76-79, 90, 91, 94. 99, Epirus, 27, 172, 216
101, 118, 136, 148 Epitome legum, Byzantine book of
Dioscurias, Greek colony of, 210 law, 274
Dnieper, river, 263 Erythrean Sea, 174
Dobrud2a, 201 Esquiline, church of St. Andrew on
Dolger, F., 233, 245, 247, 252, 253, the, 153
273,288 Ethiopia (Ethiopians), 174, 175, 193,
Dometius, Bishop of Byzantium, 204, 209, 225
256, 258, 261 Eucherius, Bishop of Lyon, 216
Dominicans in Constantinople, 291 Eudoxia, empress, 73, 154
Dominicus, Archbishop of Grado Euodius, Bishop of Antioch, 15, 42
(Aquileia), 281, 285 Euphemia, empress, 134
Domitian, Bishop of Melitene, 162 Euphemius, Bishop of Constanti-
Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, 69, 75 tinople, 110
Donatio Constantini, 252, 280, 288, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, 73,
289,293-97 89, 90
Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre (see also Eusebius, Church historian, 15, 22,
Pseudo-Dorotheus), 156-58, 164, 42, 48, 156, 165, 176, 177, 179
178,179,237, 298 180, 186-88, 197, 211, 212, 217,
Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Thessa- 218
lonica, 124, 127, 134 Eusebius of Vercelli, 45
Dorotheus, priest of Antioch, 156 Euthymius, St., 275
Dorylaeum, 73 Eutyches, heretic, 78
Duchesne, L., 31 Eutychius, St., Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, 161, 162
Edessa, 11, 69 Evaristus, St., pope, 40
Egeates (Aegeates, Aegeus), Procon- Evodius, Bishop of Uzala, 189
sul of Achaea, 174, 212
Egypt (Egyptians), 7-11, 18-20, 30, Faustus, magister, 114
48, 51, 52, 60-63, 70. 99, 104, 134, Felix, Bishop of Acci, 33
135, 146, 174, 176, 187, 193, 202- Felix I, St., pope, 65
04, 214 Felix II (III), St., pope, 109-11, 116,
Eleusios, George, hagiographer, 161 118, 121, 129
Eleutherus, St., pope, 41 Filioque, 286
Elias, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 268 Finns, 201
Emilia, province of Italy, 24 Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappa-
Encratite tendency, 191, 192 docia, 65
333
INDEX
Flaminia, province of Italy, 24 Gregory, St., Bishop of Tours, 160,

Flaminia-Picenum, province of Italy, 182-89,192-95,199, 201, 202, 205,
25 206 217,222, 282
,
Flamion, J., 173, 179, 189, 192, 193, Gregory of Nazianzus, St., 27, 52,
195, 202-04, 214, 215, 233 54, 62, 146,216
Flavian, Bishop of Antioch, 54, 56,59 Gregory VII, St., pope, 282
Flavian, St., Bishop of Constanti- Gregory the Great, St., pope, 15, 35,
nople, 68-73, 77, 79, 80, 88, 118, 158-60, 250
148.I55, 156 Grumel, V., 172, 241
Flavianus, Bishop of Philippi, 65 Gutschmid, A. von, 209
Flavita (Phrabitas), Bishop of Con-
stantinople, 110 Hadrametum, 31
Fondi, city in Italy, 149, 151 Hadrian I, pope, 171
Francion, Metropolitan of Philip- Hadrian II, pope, 221, 252, 270
popolis, 78 Hadrian IV, pope, 286
Haller, J., 30, 137
Galata, 259 Harnack, A. von, 41, 192, 197-99
Galatia, 5, 199 Heard, R. G., 213
Galla Placidia, empress, 73-75,81,85 Hegesippus, 41
Gallaecia, province of Spain, 32 Helladius, Bishop of Caesarea, 20
Gallus, brother of the Emperor Hellas, 172, 177,179, 216, 217
Julian, 227 Hellespont 185,
Garitte, G., 241 Heniochi, tribe on shores of Sea of

Gaudentius of Brescia, 150, 216 Pontus, 201
Gaul (Gallia), 36-38, 43, 46, 58, 153 Hennecke, E., 194, 219
Gelasius, St., pope, 56, 88, 109-22, Henoticon, 108, 125, 135
126, 134, 136, 153 Heracleia, 17, 20, 21, 50, 112, 113,
Gelasius of Cyzicus, 256, 257 226, 261
George I, Patriarch of Constanti- Heraclius, emperor, 161, 162, 164
nople, 163 Hergenrother, J., 289
George Syncellus, chronicler, 218 Hermagoras of Aquileia, 47
George the Monk, chronicler, 190,224 Herodotus, historian, 174, 202
Georgia (Georgians), 209-11, 262-64 Hesychius of Jerusalem, 204, 246
Gerland, E., 21 Hesychius of Miletus, 218
Germanus 11, patriarch, 291 Hilarion, Metropolitan of Kiev, 264
Gnostics, 187, 191, 192, 195, 196 Hilarius, Bishop of Aries, 37, 71
Gordian, emperor, 260 Hilarius, Bishop of Narbonne, 37
Gordillo, M., 253 Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona, 34
Gorsinians, 174, 175, 209, 211 Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, 250,
Gothia, 215, 216 251
Goths, 151, 216 Hippolytus St., 41, 58
,
Grado, 281, 282 Holy Ghost, 86-88, 261, 268, 287

Gratian, canonist, 283, 284, 297 Honig, R., 29
Gratian, emperor, 25, 45 Honorius, emperor, 29
Greece (Greeks), 47, 48, 146, 148, Hormisda, pope, 124-33, 137, 154
149, 188, 194, 195, 198, 204-06, Humbert, cardinal, 279-82, 288
208, 213-15, 220 221, 239-42, Huns, 47
250-52, 258, 288, 296, 297 Hydacius, bishop, 188
Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, 20 Hyginus, St.. pope, 40
334
INDEX
Hypotyposis, work of Clement of John, St., apostle, 22, 136, 144, 146,
Alexandria, 165,176,177 150, 158, 181, 186-88, 196, 197,
Hyssus, Bay of, 174 200,211,215,216,238-40,243-45,
250, 286, 293
laxartes, river, 209 John, Bishop of Antioch, 63, 64, 66,
Ibas, bishop, 69 147
Iberia (Iberians), 209, 210, 225, 234 John, St., Bishop of Gothia, 271
Iconium, 20 John, Bishop of Jerusalem, 14, 22,
Iconoclasm (iconoclasts), 167, 171, 23, 49
173, 180, 225, 230, 255, 271, 272, John, Bishop of Nicopolis, 126, 127
276 John, brother of Nicholas Mesarites,
Ignatius, St., Bishop of Antioch, 5, 290,291
15, 45, 147 John VI, Catholicos of Armenia, 242,
Ignatius, Patriarch of Constanti- 243
nople, 231,238,239,243,245,252, John II, Patriarch of Constanti-
255 , 268, 270, 276 nople, 129-31,136, 137
Ignatius the Deacon, hagiographer, John IV, St., Patriarch of Constan-
235 tinople, 161
Illyricura, 25-30, 46-48, 51, 87, 96, John VI, Patriarch of Constanti-
100, 116 122, 123, 125, 126, 172,
, nople, 167
211 John I, St., pope, 157
Imperial cult, 5, 8 John VIII, pope, 233, 277
Imperiutn (see also Basileia), 71, 241, John Chrysostom, St., bishop, 59,
266, 272 60, 62, 93, 118, 140-46, 154-56
India (Indians), 159, 209, 211, 215 John Cubicularius, 267
Innocent I, St., pope, 8, 13, 14, 17, John of Damascus, St., 168
26, 28, 34, 46, 87, 98, 188 John of Rhodes, 227-30
Innocent III, pope, 290 John of Thessalonica, 190
Irenaeus, St., Bishop of Lyon, 36, John Philoponus, 135, 136, 244
40, 41 John Scholasticos, Bishop of Con-
Irene, St., empress, 235 stantinople, 16, 161
Isauria, 12 John the Baptist, St., 150, 243, 250
Ischyrion, deacon of Alexandria, 79 John the Deacon, biographer of St.
Italy, 5, 10, 23-25, 30, 39, 54, 58, 72, Gregory the Great, 159
74, 84, 86, 153 Joseph, St., Old Testament patri-
arch, 146, 203
James, M.R., 194 Judaea, 142 158
,
James, St., apostle, 22, 36, 42, 48, Judas, 43

144, 215, 240, 247, 250, 286 Jude, St., 35, 240
Jeremiah, prophet, 146 Jugie, M., 60, 92, 233
Jerome, St., 14, 22, 23, 42, 44, 45, 49, Julian, Bishop of Kios, 100-02
142,214,217 Julian, emperor, 156,178,227-30,298
Jerusalem, 11, 21-23, 42, 47-49, 56, Juliana Anicia, 133
57, 63, 64, 66, 68, 80, 81, 92, 96, Julius, papal legate, 68
147, 163, 168-71, 211, 215, 236, Julius, I, St., pope, 55, 65
237, 240, 247, 249, 257, 266, 268, Justin I, emperor, 129, 130
269, 281, 285-88, 290, 292 Justinian I, emperor, 29, 91, 92,
Jews (Israel), 4, 8, 9, 198, 199, 207, 129-31, 137, 151, 152, 266, 267,
213, 239, 241 271, 272, 275, 277, 280, 281, 295
335
INDEX
Justiniana Prima, 29 Lucentius, bishop, papal legate, 76,

Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, 65, 96
66, 8if103 Luke, St., evangelist, 138-40, 142,
149-51, 212-16, 231, 240, 243, 261
Kbazars, 209 Lyon, 36, 41
Kiev, 263, 264
Macarius Ancyranus, 295
Lagrange, M. J., 213 Macarius Magnes, 201
Langen, J., 28 Macedonia (Macedonians), 5, 6, 25-
Laodicea, 20 27, 48, 123, 172, 179, 183, 185,
Latrocinium, see Synod of Ephesus 211, 215, 216, 218, 221, 226, 238,
(449) 296
LatySev, B., 258 Macedonius I, Bishop of Constanti-
Laudatio, Life of St. Andrew, 195, nople, 156
207, 226, 227, 231, 232-35, 257, Macedonius II, Bishop of Constanti-
263 nople, 127
Laurent, J., 241 Mai, cardinal, 239
Lazi, Caucasian tribe, 257 Malaias, chronicler, 189, 190, 218
Leo I, Byzantine emperor, 104, 109, Manichaeans, 187, 189, 191, 196
113 Manuel I Comnenus, emperor, 285,
Leo III, emperor, 172 288,289
Leo V, emperor, 167, 180, 225 Marcian, emperor, 72, 76, 77, 84, 94,
Leo VI, emperor, 278 98, 101, 104, 113
Leo I, the Great, St., pope, 26, 37, Marcianopolis, 20
51, 68, 70-74, 76-80, 85-95, Marcion, heretic, 43, 201, 213
97-104, 106,108-11,113,120,121, Mark, St., evangelist, 35, 47, 49, 62,
134, 136, 188, 252,286,292 67-69, 97. 99, 107, 109, m, 135,
Leo II, St., pope, 163 136, 148, 163, 215, 236, 240, 243,
Leo III, St., pope, 248 281, 292
Leo the Sacellarius, 169 Marmarius, Bishop of Marcianopolis,
Leonides, philosopher, 188 20
Lesbius, proconsul, 212 Martyrium Matthaei, 174, 205

Leucius, author of the Acts of John, Matthias, St., apostle, 43, 176, 183,
188-90, 196 184,186, 201, 202, 204, 205
Libellus Hormisdae, 125, 126, 129, Matthew, St., apostle, evangelist,
130,134 143. 174, 205, 240, 243
Liberius, St., pope, 45, 50 Matthew Angelus Panaretus, 295
Libya, 8, 10, 30 Matthew Blastares, 274
Licinius, emperor, 156, 256, 296 Matthew Caryphylus, 295
Liguria, 24 Mauretania Caesariensis, 30, 31
Linus, St., pope, 40, 42, 43, 290 Mauretania Sitifensis, 30, 31
Lipsius, R. A., 173, i9i-93» 195. 219, Mauretania Tingitana, 30, 31
226 Maurikios, emperor, 161
Liutprand of Cremona, 278, 288 Maurus, Bishop of Ravenna, 152
Lodi, city in Lombardy, 151 Maximian, Bishop of Ravenna, 151,
Lombardy, 150, 151 152
Louis II, emperor, 248 Maximian, emperor, 24
Liibeck, K., 10, 12 [25 Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, 80,
Lucania-Bruttium, province of Italy, 98, 99, 103
336
INDEX
Maximus the Confessor, St., 267 Andreae), 171-75, 179, 180, 206,
Maximus the Cynic, 27, 52-54 207, 218, 226
Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, 52, 54 Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople,
Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, 6, 7 20, 54, 55
Melitene, 20, 162 Neoplatonism, 192-94
Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, 66 Neopythagorism, 192, 193
Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople, Nero, Roman emperor, 211
158 Nestorianism, 69
Menologion, published by B. Laty- Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople,
Sev, 258 62-64, 126
Menologion of Basil II, 228, 231 Neuvy-le-Roi, city in France, 160
Mesarites, see Nicholas Mesarites Nexocharides, philosopher, 188
Methodius, St., Apostle of the Slavs, Nicaea, 175, 185, 200, 215, 262
221 Nicephorus I, emperor, 200
Metrophanes, St., Bishop of Con- Nicephorus II, emperor, 167
stantinople, 156-58,164, 165, 224, Nicephorus, St., Patriarch of Con-
237, 238, 245, 246, 255-57, 260, stantinople, 173, 224, 235-37
261, 271 Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus,
Metrophanes, Bishop of Smyrna, 268 203, 205, 219, 259, 260, 295, 296
Michael II, emperor, 173 Nicetas of Nicomedia, 286
Michael III, emperor, 190, 221, 248, Nicetas Pectoratus, monk, 286
249 Nicetas Seides, 288
Michael III of Anchialus, patriarch, Nicetas the Paphlagonian, 234
288, 289, 294 Nicetas the Philosopher, 210
Michael Caerularius, Patriarch of Nicholas I, St., pope, 248-51,276,277
Constantinople, 279, 280 Nicholas II, pope, 283
Michael the Syrian, historian, 135, Nicholas Mesarites, 290, 291, 293
262 Nicholas Mysticus, patriarch, 278
Misenus, papal legate, 121 Nicomedia, city in Asia Minor, 185,
Milan, 24, 25, 36, 56, 58, 65, 86, 112, 200, 215, 262
150, 151, 283, 292 Nicopolis, 126, 127
Mithridates, King of Pontus, 200 Nikon, Russian monk, 264
Moesia, 27 Nile, river, 204
Monophysitism, 106-08,134,135,244 Nilus, Cabasilas, 295
Montfaucon, B. de, 142 Nilus Doxopatres, 287, 288
Mordwa, Finnish tribe, 201 Nina, St., 211
Mosaic precepts, 5, 74 Nola, city in Italy, 149, 151
Moses of Chorene, 210 Nomocanon of Fourteen Titles, 16
Miiller, K., 10, 12, 13, 92 Novgorod, 263, 264
Muratori's Fragment (canon), 35, Numerianus, emperor, 260
200, 213 Numedia, 30, 31, 35
Myrmekion, city of, 202, 205 Nyssa, 20
Myrmidon (Mirmidonia, Myrna), city
of the anthropophagites, 184, 201, Octavian, Roman emperor, 8
202, 205, 206 Ohnesorge, W,, 297
Ombria, province of Italy, 25
Narbonensis Prima, Secunda, 36, 37 Optatus Milevitanus, 44
Narcissus, St., 259 Optimus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisi-
Narratio {Martyrium S. Apostoli dia, 20
32 337
INDEX
Orient, diocese of, g-14, 17, 18, 20, Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, 279, 285
23. 5i. 55 Peter II, Bishop of Alexandria, 52,
Origen, 197-99, 211, 212, 214 53, 61
Otreius, Bishop of Melitene, 20 Peter II, Bishop of Ravenna, 151
Otto II, emperor, 278 Peter, Simon, St., apostle, 3, 4, 15,
Oxus, river, 209 22, 24, 34-37, 39-46, 56, 58-60,
62, 66, 68-76, 81, 85, 93, 97-99,
Pacianus, Bishop of Barcelona, 191 103, 109, m, 115, 117, 121-24,
Palestine, 11, 22, 23,81,101,103,197 126, 128, 130-32, 135, 136, 138,
Palladius of Ratiaria, 45 140, 141, 143-45, 147-49, 152-54.
Pammachius, 22 158, 159, 163, 165, 170, 174, 177,
Pannonia, 25 181-83, 186, 187, 199, 200, 205,
Pantaleemon, deacon, 291 211, 221, 23I-33, 235, 236, 244,
Panticapaeum, city of Cherson, 198, 246-51, 254, 275, 279, 28l, 287,
202 288,290, 292, 294,295
Paphlagonia, 200, 206, 211 Peter Damian, St., 281, 282
Paricanii, tribe on coast of Erythrean Peter Fuller, Bishop of Antioch, 109,
Sea, 174 110,115
Parthians (Parthia), 199, 200 Peter Mongus, Bishop of Alexandria,
Paschasinus, bishop, papal legate, 108, 109, 116
76-78, 84, 88, 91, 136 Peter the Iberian, St., 210
Patras, 48, 150, 167, 174, 177, 185, Peterson, P.M., 195, 203, 204
208, 211, 212, 214, 219, 220, 226, Petrine principle (tradition), 98, 99,
227, 279, 293 III, 116, 134, 248, 249, 252,
Patroclus, Bishop of Aries, 37 278-82, 286, 288-91, 296
Paul, St., apostle, 5,35,36,40-42,48 Petrus Chrysologus, Bishop of Ra-
74, 75, 97, i23, "4, 128, 138, venna, 151,204
140-45, 149, 158, 159, 172, 175, Phasis, river, 174, 175, 208
177, 181, 186, 187, 211, 212, 214, Philadelphus, Bishop of Byzantium,
235,240,244,249, 250, 288, 291 260
Paul, archpriest, hagiographer, 210 Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia, 180,
Paul, St., Bishop of Constantinople, 187, 188, 194, 208
155.156 Philip, St., apostle, 146
Paul, Bishop of Ephesus, 107 Philip, priest, papal legate, 65, 66
Paul of Samosata, 11, 290 Philippi, Greek city, 48, 185
Paulinas, Bishop of Antioch, 52-54, Philostorgius, Church historian, 227-
56 29
Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, 149 Phocas, emperor, 161, 283
Pelagius, pope, 159 Phoenicia, 81
Peloponnese, 226 Photius, Patriarch of Constanti-
Pentarchy, 163, 168, 235-37, 266, nople, 136, 157,190,191, 196, 231,
267, 275-77, 281, 283, 285, 287, 233, 234, 239, 241-48, 252, 253.
290, 291 255-57, 268, 270, 272-76, 293, 298
Perinthus, city on Thracian coast, Phoullae, city in Crimea, 208
185 Phoustes, 225
Persia, 12 Phrygia, 199, 215
Peter, Bishop of Apamia, 128 Pick, B., 194
Peter, Bishop of Oxyrhynchus, 53 Pisidia, 20
Peter, Metropolitan of Gangrae, 78 Pius I, St., pope, 40
338
INDEX
Placid ia, see Galla Placidia Rekkared, king, 34

Pliny the Younger, 204, 220 Renus, Bishop of lonopolis, 78
Pompey, a relative of the Emperor Rhaetia, 25
Anastasius, 133 Rhossos in Cilicia, 11
Pontus, 5, 199, 200, 220; diocese of, Roger, King of Sicily, 287
17,18,20, 83,93,96,188,194.206, Roman Empire, 4-6,8,11,17,19, 20,
208, 215, 217, 238; Sea of, 157, 22, 25, 29, 30, 32, 36, 39, 47. 48.
172, 174, 201, 205, 208, 234, 257, 50, 51. 53. 56. 67, 74, 75, 81-85.
258 87, 91, 103, 121, 145, 236, 248,
Portugal, 32 251, 275, 299
Praevalitana, 27 Roman Senate, 32, 212
Prisca, oldest collection of Roman Rome, passim; appeal to Rome, 31,
canon law, 17 32. 72. 73. "8, 252, 253, 276, 278;
Priscillianists, 187 Old Rome, 60, 81, 162, 163, 166,
Probus, Bishop of Canusa, 109, 113 169-71, 236, 269, 270; Eternal
Probus, emperor, 256 City, 71, 74; Imperial City, 59, 80,
Procheiron, 271 82, 83, 140,145,149
Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Roman see, passim; apostolic see,
147,154 45. 46. 50, 57-59, 65-67, 70-79,
Procopius, priest of Constantinople, 93-95. 99-1", 113, 115, "7. "8,
157 121, 122, 126, 129, 132-35. l37,
Projectus, bishop, papal legate, 65 154, 162, 167, 168, 170, 171, 239,
Prologues to the Gospels, 213, 214 283; oecumenical see, 163, 166,
Propontis, 257 287; primacy of Roman see, 70,
Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria, 99, 75. 81, 84, 92-94. io3, 107, io9,
104 117, 119, 123, 125, 128, 135, l60.
Pseudo-Athanasius, see Basil of Se- 233. 248, 250, 252, 253, 277, 282,
leucia 285, 288-91, 293-98
Pseudo-Chrysostom, 216 Romulus, 149
Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 43 Rouen, 150
Pseudo-Dorotheus, 156, 164-66, 173, Rufinus, Bishop of Byzantium, 260
179, 180, 223, 224, 226, 237, 255, Rufinus, translator of Eusebius'
256, 258-62, 295, 296 History, 43, 186, 197
Pseudo-Epiphanius, 175, 176 178,, Rufinus Magister, Bishop of Assise,
179, 208, 209, 211, 224, 226, 262 284,285
Pseudo-Hipolytus, 224, 258 Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, 27-29
Pseudo-Marcellus, 190 Rufus, Christ's disciple, 205
Pseudo-Mellitus, 188 Russia, 198, 263, 264
Pseudo-Symeon, chronicler 260, 261
,
Ptolemy, geographer, 204 Sabas, monk of Callistratos, 234

Ptolemy Philadelphus, 241 Sabazius, cult of, 199
Pulcheria, empress, 71-74, 81,90, 96, Sacerdotium, 155, 266, 272
100, 154, 155 Sacramentarium Leonianum, 152
Pyrrhus, heretic, 267 Sakai, tribe of, 209
Salofaciol, Bishop of Alexandria, 107
Quispel, G., 195 Salomon of Basrah, Syrian writer,
262
Ratramus, Abbot of Corbie, 251, 252 Salona, 47
Ravenna, 25, 87, 112, 151, 152, 217 Samnium, province of Italy, 25
32* 339
INDEX
Samosata, n Sosthenes, Christ's disciple, 176

Samuel, prophet, 142 Soter, St., pope, 41
Sardinia, 25, 182 Soussians, Caucasian tribe, 225
Sarmatians, 198 Sozomen, Church historian, 49, 55,
Sauromatai, 234 155,156
Scharf, J., 274 Spain (Spanish Church), 30-36,43,46
Schermann, Th., 173 Stachys, Christ's disciple, 157, 164,
Schurer, E., 198, 199 165, 171, 172, 175, 177-80, 223,
Schwartz, E. 16, 17, 26, 90, 91
, 224,226,234,237,244-46,254-59,
Scythia (Little Scythia) province 262, 264, 296, 298
bordering Illyricum, 125, 201 Stephen, Bishop of Antioch, 108
Scythia (Scythians), 174, 175, 198- Strabo, geographer, 201, 202, 220
202, 205-09, 211, 216, 217, 219, Studios, monastery of, 234
220, 234, 262 Sugdaea, city in the Crimea, 208
Sebastopolis, 174, 208-10, 263 Sugdaeans, 209
Seleucus, Metropolitan of Amasia, 78 Sylvester I, St., pope, 293
Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, 11 Symeon, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 286
Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Symeon Metaphrastes, hagiogra-
161, 162 pher, 211, 228, 257, 258, 287
Sesostris, Egyptian king, 174 Symeon of the Marvelous Mountain,
Setif, 31 St., 161
Severus, emperor, 218 Symeon the Logothete, 259
Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, 127, Symeon the Stylite, St., 127
128 Symmachus, St., pope, 122,123,126,
Sevilla, 34 128, 134, 136, 153
Sicily, 25, 287 Synaxaries, 217, 254-58, 263
Sicyon, 218 Synods: of Ancyra (314), 12; of An-
Simon the Cananean, Christ's dis- tioch (341), 7; of Aquileia (381),
ciple, 35, 210 45, 46, 53» 54! of Carthage (418),
Simplicius, St., pope, 106-09, m, 16,31,32; of Constantinople (382),
153 57; of Constantinople (861), 238,
Sinope, city in Asia Minor, 175, 179, 239, 243, 253, 270, 276; of Con-
185, 188, 200, 206, 207, 210, 211, stantinople (867), 252, 253, 276;
225,257, 263, 264 of Elvira, 32; of Ephesus (449),
Siricius, notary, 65 (Latrocinium, or "Robber" Sy-
Siricius, St., pope, 26, 27, 34, 45 nod), 67, 68, 70, 72-75, 83, 89, 91,
Sirmium, 46, 47, 112 155; iconoclastic, 171, 236; of
Sixtus I, St., pope, 40 Mileve, 46; of Neocaesarea, 12;
Skyles, Scythian king, 202 of the Oak (403), 62, 83; Roman
Slavs, 167 (382), 56, 57, 88; Roman (495),
Socrates, Church historian, 45, 93, 121; Roman (863), 276; of Sardica
139, 155. I56» l64. 165, 204, 219, (343), 45, "4, 252, 276; of Turin,
237.238 36
Soden, H. von, 214 Synopsis Basilicorum, Byzantine
Sofala in Africa, 204 book of law, 274
Sogdinians (Sogdianoi), 174, 208, 209 Synopsis minor, Byzantine book of
Sohm, R., 10, 12 law, 274
Sophronius, layman of Alexandria, Syntagma, Byzantine book of canon
79 law, 274
340
INDEX
Syntagma of Fourteen Titles, 82, 102 Thessalonica, 5, 6, 26-28, 48, 51, 52,
Syria (Syrians), 5, 9, 11-14, 55, 127, 122, 185, 189, 190, 195, 215, 295
176, 177, 180, 210, 261, 262 Thomas, St., apostle, 146, 150, 151,
159, 186, 189, 197, 211, 215, 246
Taman peninsula, 263 Thomas, Bishop of Theodosiopolis S
Tarasius, St., Patriarch of Constan- Thomas, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 168
tinople, 170, 171, 235 Thomas I, Patriarch of Constanti-
Tarraconensis, province of Spain, 32 nople, 161
Tarragona, 34 Thomas Morosini, Latin Patriarch of
Tarsus, 20 Constantinople, 290
Tauroi, 234 Thrace, diocese of, 17, 19-21, 83, 93,
Terennius, Bishop of Scythia, 20 126, 151, 157, 174, 175, 185, 188,
Tertullian, 35, 41-43, 59, 199. 201, 197, 201, 208, 211, 214-17, 220,
204 221, 226, 238, 259, 296
Thaddaeus, St., apostle, 243 Thrasamond, Vandal King, 183
Thalassius, Archimandrite of Con- Tillemont, L.N. de, 90, 93, 256
stantinople, 110 Timotheus of Constantinople, 180
Thalassius, Exarch of Pontus, 96 Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria, 20,
Thebaid, 6, 10 53. 62. "5
Theodore, Bishop of Claudiopolis, 80 Timothy, Bishop of Constantinople,
Theodore, deacon, 164 127
Theodore, deacon of Alexandria, 79 Timothy, St., St. Paul's disciple,
Theodore, St. (d. 613), 161 138-40, 142-45, 151, 231
Theodore of Studios, St., 168-71, Timothy Aelurus, Bishop of Alexan-
235,267 dria, 104, 107, 134
Theodore, Santabarenus, 234 Titus, Bishop of Byzantium, 258, 261
Theodore the Lector, 127, 142 Tmutorakan, 263, 264
Theodoret, Bishop of Kyrros (Cyrus) Toledo, 34
in Syria, 74, 203, 216 Toscana, province of Italy, 24
Theodoret, Church historian, 55, 75, Toulouse, 188
148,189, 230 Trajan, emperor, 221
Theodorich, King of the Goths, 151 Treves, 36, 112
Theodorius, Bishop of Lignidum, 134 Tripolis, 31
Theodosius, author of De Situ Ter- Tripolitana, 30, 31
ra* Sanctae, 206 Trophimus, St., Bishop of Aries, 37,
Theodosius I, emperor, 20, 25, 51, 46
54. 55, 62, 82, 94, 155 Turin, 36
Theodosius II, emperor, 29, 30, 69, Typicon of Constantinople, 230,
71-74,81, 154 254-5<>
Theodotus, Byzantine heretic, 261 Tyre, 69, 156. 298
Theophanes, St., chronicler, 157,
162, 179, 224, 229,230,237 Urbanus, Christ's disciple, 254, 259
Theophanes, Patriarch of Antioch,
163 Valeria, province of Italy, 25
Theophanes "Cerameus," 203, 286, Valeria Byzacena, 30, 31
287 Valerian, bishop, 57
Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, Valerian, emperor, 290
22, 49, 62 Valentinian III, emperor, 71, 73, 85
Thessalia (Thessaly), 27, 29, 172, 179 Vandals, 35
341
INDEX
Varangians, 263 Xystus (Sixtus) III, St., pope, 46

Varianus (Virinus), proconsul, 195
Venantius, Fortunatus, 217 Zachary, Bishop of Agnani, 253
Venetia, province of Italy, 24 Zachary, Catholicos of Armenia, 239,
Via Labicana, church of St. Andrew 241. 243. 270. 27i
on the, 153 Zanzibar, 204
Vicar of Christ, 121 Zechoi, 257
Victor, Bishop of Vita, 153 Zeno, emperor, 106-08, 110
Victor, pope, 23, 41 Zeugitana Proconsularis, 30
Victricius, St., Bishop of Rouen, 150 Zeuxippus, legendary tyrant of By-
Vienne, 36-38, 127 zantium, 172, 218, 219, 226, 257
Visigoths, 34 Zonaras, Greek canonist, 289
Vitalian the Goth, 125, 126 Zosimus I, pope, 37, 46, 47
Vitalis, Bishop of Ravenna, 217 Zygi, tribe on shore of Sea of Pontus,
201
Xerxes, Persian king, 174
342

Dvornik Byz Apostolicity PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dvornik Byz Apostolicity PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dvornik Byz Apostolicity PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of this study?

What is the purpose of this study?

What topics does this study discuss?

What topics does this study discuss?

DUMBARTON OAKS STUDIES

AND THE LEGEND OF THE

AND THE LEGEND OF THE

Professor of Byzantine History, Dumbarton Oaks,

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS

All Rights reserved by the

Printed in Germany at J.J. Auoostin, Gluckstadt

The tradition concerning the missionary activity of the Apostle

to the over-all development of Church organization in the Later

was adopted by Western Christianity at a relatively early period.

I should like to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues at

I The Guiding Principle in the Evolution of 3

II The Idea of Apostolicity in the West and in

canon - Reasons for Leo s negative attitude - Leo s

III Growth of the Idea of Apostolicity during the

IV The Birth of the Andrew Tradition Concerning

century - The see of Constantinople called apostolic

V The Legendary Elements in the Andrew Tra-

ninth centuries - Date of the composition of the apocryphal

of the Achaean tradition" - Conclusion.

VI The Growth of the Andrew Legend 223

VII The Idea of Apostolicity and the Andrew

List of Abbreviations 300

List of Manuscripts Quoted 301

AND THE LEGEND OF THE APOSTLE ANDREW

The Guiding Principle in the Evolution

The practice of the Apostles - The Council of Nicaea sanctions the

The claims of the Roman bishops to primacy in the Church were

regarded by them for centuries as a truth inferior only to a dog-

accentuated the antagonism between Old and New Rome.

In spite of its importance for the history of the relations between

Orients bis zum Ausgange des vierten Jahrhunderts, Kirchengeschichtliche

communities of Galatia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

(Achaea), Thessalonica (Macedonia). As a passage in the second

were meant to be sent by the bishop of each capital to other cities

assemblies held, and to leave to the local bishop the initiative of

This administrative framework was formally sanctioned by the

metropolitan. The administrative unit was becoming also an

Tfj hTapxl<? K0(6laTaaftei. Ei bk 6uax£P S T toioOto, i\ 61A KorrrrrdyouCTCtv dvd-

cols. 1313, 1316.

incognita synodi constitutio Nicaenae, quae ita praecipil, ut eadetn proprie

province there should be only one metropolitan, and that no metro-

The Nicene Fathers went even further, and provided, con-

for the explanation of this letter. Cf. infra p. 13.

10 Mansi, 2, cols. 669 seq.: Ti dpxorta H(ti KporelTW, t4 iv Alytornp Kcd

seq. A. Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter

Egyptian provinces were also governed from this center by the

14 See E Komemann, "Dioecesis

trative sense and not in the modem ecclesiastical sense.

in the Egyptian provinces at the beginning of the fourth century

17 K Liibeck, op. cit., pp. 116-134.

the Consulares Syriae (Princeton 1939), p. 9.

It is, therefore, almost certain that in 381, when the Council of

Diocletian's division of the Empire was, however, especially

80 See Th E. Mommsen "Verzeichnis der romischen Provinzen aufgesetzt